[Tagging] ladders
Hello all, in my endeavour to improve the mapping and tagging along waterways, I noticed that there is no approved or documented tag for ladders along shorelines. There is ladder=yes (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ladder), but it seems to be meant for hiking paths and is only rendered on lines. I mapped a few ladder=yes along river shores on OSMAnd, only to discover that I need to add the quay wall to have them rendered which is a lot of extra effort, and cannot be done casually using OSMAnd. After talking to someone who canoes, they tell me that many of the ones I had mapped along the retaining wall in the town where I live are actually for emergencies, when people fall into the river. They're not meant to be used by swimmers, i.e. they're not actually accessible from the shore with a gate in the fence. Then I'm thinking, should it be emergency=ladder? But what if one isn't sure if they are for boating people or only for emergency situations? So I'm now mapping them as man_made=ladder (and add ladder=yes, so they get rendered), as other people have done in harbour or river situations before me, but only very infrequently. 30 are mapped as ladder for scuba diving (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/scuba_diving%3Aentry%3Aladder#overview), but the average person might not know, if there is no signage. I think a simpler way would be to just use man_made=ladder and add the sport or the emergency tag to the best of ones knowledge. Anne ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ladders
Think about emergency doors, emergency steps and emergency paths leading to them all along motorways. Sounds a bit exhaustive to create a new emergency value for each one. An access restriction sounds more reasonable. On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 2:33 PM Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > > Hello all, > > in my endeavour to improve the mapping and tagging along waterways, I noticed > that there is no approved or documented tag for ladders along shorelines. > There is ladder=yes (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ladder), but it > seems to be meant for hiking paths and is only rendered on lines. I mapped a > few ladder=yes along river shores on OSMAnd, only to discover that I need to > add the quay wall to have them rendered which is a lot of extra effort, and > cannot be done casually using OSMAnd. > > After talking to someone who canoes, they tell me that many of the ones I had > mapped along the retaining wall in the town where I live are actually for > emergencies, when people fall into the river. They're not meant to be used by > swimmers, i.e. they're not actually accessible from the shore with a gate in > the fence. Then I'm thinking, should it be emergency=ladder? But what if one > isn't sure if they are for boating people or only for emergency situations? > So I'm now mapping them as man_made=ladder (and add ladder=yes, so they get > rendered), as other people have done in harbour or river situations before > me, but only very infrequently. > > 30 are mapped as ladder for scuba diving > (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/scuba_diving%3Aentry%3Aladder#overview), > but the average person might not know, if there is no signage. I think a > simpler way would be to just use man_made=ladder and add the sport or the > emergency tag to the best of ones knowledge. > > 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] Re: ladders
So ladder=emergency?There are a couple emergency=ladders mapped in Germany for rescuing people who've broken into an icy lake. With plural though.Anne--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 06/08/2023, 13:40 bkil wrote: Think about emergency doors, emergency steps and emergency paths leading to them all along motorways. Sounds a bit exhaustive to create a new emergency value for each one. An access restriction sounds more reasonable. On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 2:33 PM Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > > Hello all, > > in my endeavour to improve the mapping and tagging along waterways, I noticed that there is no approved or documented tag for ladders along shorelines. There is ladder=yes (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:ladder), but it seems to be meant for hiking paths and is only rendered on lines. I mapped a few ladder=yes along river shores on OSMAnd, only to discover that I need to add the quay wall to have them rendered which is a lot of extra effort, and cannot be done casually using OSMAnd. > > After talking to someone who canoes, they tell me that many of the ones I had mapped along the retaining wall in the town where I live are actually for emergencies, when people fall into the river. They're not meant to be used by swimmers, i.e. they're not actually accessible from the shore with a gate in the fence. Then I'm thinking, should it be emergency=ladder? But what if one isn't sure if they are for boating people or only for emergency situations? So I'm now mapping them as man_made=ladder (and add ladder=yes, so they get rendered), as other people have done in harbour or river situations before me, but only very infrequently. > > 30 are mapped as ladder for scuba diving (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/scuba_diving%3Aentry%3Aladder#overview), but the average person might not know, if there is no signage. I think a simpler way would be to just use man_made=ladder and add the sport or the emergency tag to the best of ones knowledge. > > 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
[Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception
Hello, I have developed a proposal to indicate the availability of cell phone service at nodes and areas, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception. There is currently no such usage of a tag or any related tags known. Please add any valuable discussion on the wiki discussion page or the community forum page https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proporal-cell-phone-reception/102131.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception
This isn't really appropriate data for OSM, sorry. On Sun, Aug 6, 2023, 3:21 PM NickKatchur via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hello, > > > I have developed a proposal to indicate the availability of cell phone > service at nodes and areas, > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception. > > There is currently no such usage of a tag or any related tags known. > Please add any valuable discussion on the wiki discussion page or the > community forum page > https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proporal-cell-phone-reception/102131 > . > > ___ > 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] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception
Care to give any reasoning? --- Original Message --- On Sunday, August 6th, 2023 at 4:24 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano - zelonewolf(a)gmail.com wrote: > This isn't really appropriate data for OSM, sorry. > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023, 3:21 PM NickKatchur via Tagging > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I have developed a proposal to indicate the availability of cell phone >> service at nodes and areas, >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception. >> >> There is currently no such usage of a tag or any related tags known. Please >> add any valuable discussion on the wiki discussion page or the community >> forum page >> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proporal-cell-phone-reception/102131. >> >> ___ >> 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] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception
I thinks it's definitely valuable to map areas where there is no coverage at all as it's a safety issue On Sun, 6 Aug 2023, 21:30 Brian M. Sperlongano, wrote: > This isn't really appropriate data for OSM, sorry. > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023, 3:21 PM NickKatchur via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> >> I have developed a proposal to indicate the availability of cell phone >> service at nodes and areas, >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception. >> >> There is currently no such usage of a tag or any related tags known. >> Please add any valuable discussion on the wiki discussion page or the >> community forum page >> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proporal-cell-phone-reception/102131 >> . >> >> ___ >> 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] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception
On Aug 6, 2023, at 1:35 PM, NickKatchur via Tagging wrote: > Care to give any reasoning? The carriers (at least in North America; Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile...) already publish these data. They are blocky, shitty, maybe slightly hazy or helpful, but OSM doesn't chase what "they" say (already). Look elsewhere (not OSM) for these. Whether a campground has WiFi? Yeah, boolean yes or no "at the campground" works for me (and I think we've been doing it like that for a decade or more?) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception
Just commented on the Forum, but I'll repeat it here. There are too many things to take into account that may affect your coverage - different networks, different phones on the same network, how crowded any spot is at the time = how much demand, whether there may be a good spot up that hill etc Sorry, no, not an OSM thing as just too many unknown (& unknowable) variables. Thanks Graeme On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 at 06:40, NickKatchur via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Care to give any reasoning? > > --- Original Message --- > On Sunday, August 6th, 2023 at 4:24 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano - > zelonewolf(a)gmail.com > wrote: > > This isn't really appropriate data for OSM, sorry. > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023, 3:21 PM NickKatchur via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> >> I have developed a proposal to indicate the availability of cell phone >> service at nodes and areas, >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Cell_reception. >> >> There is currently no such usage of a tag or any related tags known. >> Please add any valuable discussion on the wiki discussion page or the >> community forum page >> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proporal-cell-phone-reception/102131 >> . >> >> ___ >> 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] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception
On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 4:22 PM Timothy Noname wrote: > I thinks it's definitely valuable to map areas where there is no coverage > at all as it's a safety issue > While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't to mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map generally useful geographically verifiable things. -- Evan Carroll - m...@evancarroll.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception
On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 6:39 PM Evan Carroll wrote: > > > While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't to > mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map > generally useful geographically verifiable things. > I don't understand how cell coverage isn't verifiable - visit the site (e.g. campground) in question, pull out your phone, note how many bars, try to make a call, send a text, use some data (perhaps run a speed test). Yes, it is only good for your carrier, but the carrier should be recorded. Yes, there could be network congestion, or a tower could be out, but we map roads, and they can be congested, or closed due to accidents, flooding, landslides, construction, etc. In some way, this is getting back to our roots, actually getting out and surveying, rather than just relying on satellite/aerial imagery. Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception
The reception you get depends on your phone: Android and iPhone use different algorithms to determine bars from signal strength. Phones vary on which bands they support, antennas, RF processing, etc., depending on manufacturer and age. So cell phones are not very good for detecting how good a signal is in the general case. There are test devices specifically designed for determining mobile signal strength, direction of strongest signal, etc. for each possible band. People installing cellphone booster systems use these and while not super expensive they are not something I would expect a OSM mapper to buy. > On Sunday, Aug 06, 2023 at 5:59 PM, Mike Thompson (mailto:miketh...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 6:39 PM Evan Carroll (mailto:m...@evancarroll.com)> wrote: > > > > > > While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't to > > mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map > > generally useful geographically verifiable things. > I don't understand how cell coverage isn't verifiable - visit the site (e.g. > campground) in question, pull out your phone, note how many bars, try to make > a call, send a text, use some data (perhaps run a speed test). Yes, it is > only good for your carrier, but the carrier should be recorded. Yes, there > could be network congestion, or a tower could be out, but we map roads, and > they can be congested, or closed due to accidents, flooding, landslides, > construction, etc. In some way, this is getting back to our roots, actually > getting out and surveying, rather than just relying on satellite/aerial > imagery. > > Mike > > > ___ > 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] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception
There's already services offered by companies like Opensignal to do this automatically through apps. And they record actual signal strength data that one cannot access by simply pulling their phones out. Also, signal strength as a value that vary continuously over space is like elevation or climate data, there are no good way to record them inside OSM over an area. 在 2023年8月7日週一 08:58，Mike Thompson 寫道： > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 6:39 PM Evan Carroll wrote: > >> >> >> While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't >> to mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map >> generally useful geographically verifiable things. >> > I don't understand how cell coverage isn't verifiable - visit the site > (e.g. campground) in question, pull out your phone, note how many bars, try > to make a call, send a text, use some data (perhaps run a speed test). Yes, > it is only good for your carrier, but the carrier should be recorded. Yes, > there could be network congestion, or a tower could be out, but we map > roads, and they can be congested, or closed due to accidents, flooding, > landslides, construction, etc. In some way, this is getting back to our > roots, actually getting out and surveying, rather than just relying on > satellite/aerial imagery. > > Mike > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
