Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

[Raphael]

Hello everybody

Sorry for joining this discussion late.

I think we should rather decide where the tagging discussion should
take place and then announce proposals at that place.

Currently, there are many places where tagging discussion take place:
mainly on this mailing list and on the new forum ('OpenStreetMap
Community'), but also on Wiki discussion pages, on Discord, IRC,
Telegram and perhaps also in other places. This makes it difficult to
keep track of the discussions and is inefficient, because the same
topic is often discussed in several places.

Since the new forum is still fairly new, perhaps we should wait a few
more months to see which discussion channel becomes the most popular
and then completely switch to that place.

Best regards

Raphael


On Sun, 18 Dec 2022 at 14:37, Cartographer10 via Tagging
 wrote:
>
> Based on the feedback I have received I made some changes to the proposal:
>
> 1) I added a small change in the proposal template to add notes as reminder 
> that user adds the links of discussion on the forum and ML to the proposal.
>
> 2) I removed the words “new forum” and replaced it with community forum since 
> the forum has been in use for some time already.
>
> 3) I added that it is always the proposal author’s responsibility to make 
> sure announcements get cross posted if needed. The author needs to check the 
> forum or the ML archive to see if the announcement has been cross posted.
>
> 4) On the forum, there is a sub community for tagging discussion. Proposal 
> announcements can be made there. People can follow the tag “wiki-proposal” to 
> subscribe to new topics if they don’t want to follow the entire sub 
> community. If the traffic increases, a special sub community for proposals 
> can be requested (if enough moderators can be found).
>
>
> I hope that with this I addressed everybody their concerns regarding this 
> change.
>
>
> Proposal link: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Announce_proposals_on_the_community_forum
>
> Vincent
>
>
>
>
> 13 nov. 2022 16:01 van tagging_at_openstreetmap_org_seblajk...@simplelogin.co:
>
> I didn't receive any feedback on my updated proposal. If you have any, please 
> share it here. I hope that the current proposal will for everybody.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Vincent
>
>
>
> 6 nov. 2022 09:03 van tagging_at_openstreetmap_org_seblajk...@simplelogin.co:
>
> I have updated the proposal a few days back which I would like to receive 
> feedback on.
>
> I removed the transition period and required both the forum and the ML to be 
> notified of a new proposal or vote. One exception I propose is that the 
> proposal should be allowed to be made on behalf of the proposal author on 
> either the ML or the forum.
>
> I hope that this change will satisfy both sides
>
> Vincent
>
>
> 29 okt. 2022 09:34 van tagging_at_openstreetmap_org_seblajk...@simplelogin.co:
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> Based on the feedback, I updated the proposal to start using the new forum 
> for proposal announcements.
>
> Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Start_moving_proposal_announcements_to_the_new_forum
>
> Kind regards,
> Vincent
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Raphael]

Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais wrote:
>
> When a sidewalk is mapped separately, foot=use_sidepath should be used on the 
> road itself (like Cyton mentioned). [...] But when I am editing inQuebec 
> province, I use sidewalk:both/left/right=separate also to specify on which 
> side(s) there is a separate sidewalk mapped.

It seems to me that `foot=use_sidepath` contradicts the 'Don't map
local legislation if not bound to specific objects' principle [^1].
Therefore i think `sidewalk=separate` (or
`sidewalk:[left|right|both]=separate`) should be preferred. This
latter tag is much clearer, can be preciser and has the advantage that
mappers don't need to know the local legislation (i.e. whether the
pavement has to be used or not - although i normally don't see any
reason not to use an existing pavement).

[^1]: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don't_map_local_legislation_if_not_bound_to_specific_objects

Best regards

Raphael


On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 01:19, Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais via Tagging
 wrote:
>
> When a sidewalk is mapped separately, foot=use_sidepath should be used on the 
> road itself (like Cyton mentioned).
>
> This tag combination is used by more and more routing engines (see osrm 
> profiles) to force routing on the sidewalk instead of the road. Using foot=no 
> would have the exact same effect, but the problem is that the road itself 
> then looses the information that a sidewalk has been mapped alongside with 
> footway=sidewalk, which could be a problem for any person wanting to analyze 
> pedestrian access. But when I am editing inQuebec province, I use 
> sidewalk:both/left/right=separate also to specify on which side(s) there is a 
> separate sidewalk mapped.
>
> So to summarize:
>
> - if the sidewalks are present but not mapped separately: use 
> sidewalk:both/left/right=yes/no
> - if the sidewalks are mapped separately (usually highway=footway and 
> footway=sidewalk, use foot=use_sidepath on the main road with 
> sidewalk:both/left/right=separate or no
> - add foot=no on a road only if there is a specific sign saying so and it is 
> not a motorway or motorway_link (which are foot=no by default, and thus not 
> needed)
> - for highway=trunk and trunk_link, I usually add the specification for 
> foot=yes/no according to signs, because this is the only road type which can 
> be ambiguous by default.
>
> > On Dec 18, 2022, at 4:28 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> >
> > Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
> >   tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >   tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >   tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >   1. Re: Re:  Foot / sidewalk access tagging (cyton_...@web.de)
> >   2. Re: Foot / sidewalk access tagging (Ivo Reano)
> >   3. Re: Foot / sidewalk access tagging (Brian M. Sperlongano)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2022 22:03:00 +0100
> > From: cyton_...@web.de
> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> >   
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Re:  Foot / sidewalk access tagging
> > Message-ID:
> >   
> > 
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: 
> > 
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2022 22:19:52 +0100
> > From: Ivo Reano 
> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> >   
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging
> > Message-ID:
> >   
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > I don't know in your area if all pedestrians who use the streets just
> > because they don't have a car are punished.
> > In Italy, only motorways and some major traffic routes are formally
> > "forbidden" to pedestrian transit.
> > If I found a foot=yes on a street, simply to indicate that one should not
> > walk in the middle of the street, I would delete that tag (and send a
> > message to the user asking what he meant).
> > It seems obvious to me that if I walk on a road I keep to the left (excuse
> > non-Anglo-Saxons, but this is the preferred direction for pedestrians on
> > driveways in the rest of the world).
> > While if I'm on a road with no traffic (not flat) I mostly walk on the
> > downhill side.
> > In short: if there isn't a sidewalk, and the street isn't reserved for
> > vehicles (but where do you live?) foot=no it seems absurd to me, or rather
> > wrong.
> >
> > Ivo, Jrachi
> >
> > Il giorno dom 18 dic 2

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

[Marc_marc]

Le 22.12.22 à 18:10, Raphael a écrit :

I think we should rather decide where the tagging discussion should
take place and then announce proposals at that place.


the power of discourse, when it 'll be in a "full working state" is that 
is that it allows a unified communication between the users of the mail 
interface (knowing that it is itself connected to others) and those of 
the web interface.

This confrontation is therefore totally counter-productive.



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

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22 Dec 2022, at 20:56, Raphael  wrote:
> 
> (i.e. whether the
> pavement has to be used or not - although i normally don't see any
> reason not to use an existing pavement)


and when there are specific reasons why the sidewalk cannot be used, the 
legislation (in some countries at least) let’s the pedestrian use the street. 
One situation is a pedestrian carrying bulky loads which would disturb other 
pedestrians, in this case you have to walk on the road, similar case can be 
made for someone pushing a bike where the sidewalk is not very wide, also these 
pedestrians must use the road.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging