Re: [Tagging] uphill vs. incline=up - direction of travel
Hello, Le 18.12.22 à 20:19, Patrick Strasser-Mikhail a écrit : It was pointed out[3] that 'incline' is a tag and intended to indicate a *direction* and amount of inclination of *the road in relation to the mapping direction*, not the direction of the *vehicle driving* on the road. that's not my reading/usage : yes incline=* is about the direction of the way. but it also not about the amount of inclination of the road, it's about the maximum inclination of this segment : you can have a route that goes up and then down to return to exactly the same altitude. Depending on whether the maximum incline is up or down, it will be incline=up or down and not incline=0/no. Having never seen a road that requires chains to be put when there is no ice nor snow, I wonder if the use of "@ (ice; snow)" even makes sense, i find it useless. To solve your problem, I think it is better to cut the highway=* into sections that go only up or down not both. (despite I find this sign absurd: a ice is just as slippery downhill as it is uphill and I have never yet seen someone put their chains at the top). You can then simplify with snow_chains=required snow_chains:4wd:forward=no PS: it seems that osm is using 4WD, not AWD, see the badly named 4wd_only=* Regards, Marc ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gender
Thanks for the review! I replaced unisex=yes with unisex=only and unisex=separate, except for hairdressers, where unisex=yes is not a problem. Regards, Illia. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 2:15 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > foot=use_sidepath was invented to mark "yes, on carriageway you cannot > walk, but you can walk on separately mapped sidewalk" > This makes sense to me, but the wiki[1] is somewhat confusing about the difference between foot=use_sidepath and foot=no: "This tag, like bicycle=use_sidepath, applies only to roads with a classification that allows pedestrian use. In some countries it is illegal for pedestrians to use a road if a parallel compulsory sidepath exists. On OSM, this can be indicated by tagging the main road as foot=use_sidepath if the sidepath is mapped separately. This tag should only be applied in countries that have compulsory footways. Where the main road is explicitly forbidden, typically by a traffic sign on the main road, whether a sidepath exists or not, foot=no should be used." [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:foot=use_sidepath ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging
For routing, foot=use_sidepath and foot=no have almost the same implications. foot=use_sidepath can be treated as foot=no (complete prohibition) or sometimes as foot=discouraged (with a very high penalty instead of a complete prohibition). But foot=no is used in a variety of situations (and was used for separate sidewalks before a more specific tag was adopted - so you'll find a mix of old and new mapping styles), while foot=use_sidepath is specific and can be used for data validation (e.g. looking for missing separate side paths/sidewalks). foot=* represents the access permission, [1] sidewalk=* only describes the attached sidewalks (if any), and there are regional differences on when to separate the sidewalk from the main road. [2] [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access_restrictions#Worldwide [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks#Regional_conventions > I came to understand that this tagging was used by a mapper to indicate that > "pedestrians are not allowed on the roadway, however, they are allowed on the > sidewalk" At least the two main routing engines on the main site don't make this assumption, so I believe it was never what most mappers had in mind. This intelligence requires either using relations to represent all parts of a street (adopted in some places, but not most, due in part to little app support), or naming sidewalks the same as the main road (proposed, but not widely adopted due to problems resulting from duplicate street names in rendering and geocoding, and street name maintenance - remembering to rename all parts when the name changes or is corrected). On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 14:40, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 2:15 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: >> >> foot=use_sidepath was invented to mark "yes, on carriageway you cannot walk, >> but you can walk on separately mapped sidewalk" > > > This makes sense to me, but the wiki[1] is somewhat confusing about the > difference between foot=use_sidepath and foot=no: > > "This tag, like bicycle=use_sidepath, applies only to roads with a > classification that allows pedestrian use. In some countries it is illegal > for pedestrians to use a road if a parallel compulsory sidepath exists. On > OSM, this can be indicated by tagging the main road as foot=use_sidepath if > the sidepath is mapped separately. This tag should only be applied in > countries that have compulsory footways. Where the main road is explicitly > forbidden, typically by a traffic sign on the main road, whether a sidepath > exists or not, foot=no should be used." > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:foot=use_sidepath > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging
Am So., 18. Dez. 2022 um 21:32 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano : > > I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would like to > understand how folks in various places would interpret this: > > highway= > foot=no > sidewalk=separate > > In my software's logic, I've made the assumption that foot=* applies to "the > whole of the road" including the roadway, shoulders, verge, sidewalks, and so > forth and thus excluded any roads that include that tag, regardless of other > tagging. I came to understand that this tagging was used by a mapper to > indicate that "pedestrians are not allowed on the roadway, however, they are > allowed on the sidewalk" > > 1) Would folks regard that as accurate data modeling? 2) I.e. should I > change my software to treat streets tagged in this way as > pedestrian-accessible, 3) or would folks regard this combination as a tagging > error? This made me open gmail :) There are three questions: I marked them up in the quote above. My take on 3) It is a tagging error, if foot=use_sidepath was meant. 2) If foot=use_sidepath was meant, you still should not change your software, because 1) the tagging might be correct and not in error, in case there was a sign on the road, that explicitly prohibited pedestrians from the carriageway, like the wiki says. I can conceive of a case, where even without a sign changing the software would be wrong: A motorway tunnel. They have sidewalks, to escape in case of accidents. And guess what, foot=no applies to the sidewalk! Asa ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging
On 19.12.2022 21:21, Asa Hundert wrote I can conceive of a case, where even without a sign changing the software would be wrong: A motorway tunnel. They have sidewalks, to escape in case of accidents. And guess what, foot=no applies to the sidewalk! How can they be sidewalks if they are not meant for general walking? Also (at least here) those areas have angled kerbs to allow vehicles to easily drive on them. They are just extra space meant for emergencies. I also wouldn't tag the pedestrian escape tunnels as footways. Jens ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
