Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

[Warin]

On 9/9/23 17:31, Volker Schmidt wrote:
Be careful: oneway=* is a legal access tag, only valid for vehicles, 
not for pedestrians.



Some pedestrian barriers are 'oneway' .. for example turnstiles at train 
stations where the turnstile only allows travel if a card/ticket is 
produced. I know of another in a very large public park .. gates are 
locked around sunset but you can get out using the turnstile, yes it 
does have imposing walls



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

[Tagging] Postal verses locational addresses

[Warin]

HI,

I am coming across cases of OSM entered addresses on buildings that are 
some kilometers from the nominated address location. These appear to be 
'gated communities', 'retirement villages' and possibly other things 
that use some official address and thus keep deliveries from going to 
the actual location but going through the office.


I can probably lump all of a group together in some kind of relation 
(e.g. landuse) that would reduce the warnings down from many to one. But 
I wonder if these postal addresses would be better entered in some other 
way. One issue is a routers to some address having more than one result 
- all with the same address..


Ideas?



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

Re: [Tagging] Postal verses locational addresses

[Jez Nicholson]

There's https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:delivery_point but I wasn't
convinced by the description

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023, 10:15 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> HI,
>
> I am coming across cases of OSM entered addresses on buildings that are
> some kilometers from the nominated address location. These appear to be
> 'gated communities', 'retirement villages' and possibly other things
> that use some official address and thus keep deliveries from going to
> the actual location but going through the office.
>
> I can probably lump all of a group together in some kind of relation
> (e.g. landuse) that would reduce the warnings down from many to one. But
> I wonder if these postal addresses would be better entered in some other
> way. One issue is a routers to some address having more than one result
> - all with the same address..
>
> Ideas?
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Postal verses locational addresses

[Snusmumriken via Tagging]

On Sun, 2023-09-10 at 19:09 +1000, Warin wrote:
> HI,
> 
> I am coming across cases of OSM entered addresses on buildings that
> are 
> some kilometers from the nominated address location. These appear to
> be 
> 'gated communities', 'retirement villages' and possibly other things 
> that use some official address and thus keep deliveries from going to
> the actual location but going through the office.
> 
> I can probably lump all of a group together in some kind of relation 
> (e.g. landuse) that would reduce the warnings down from many to one.
> But 
> I wonder if these postal addresses would be better entered in some
> other 
> way. One issue is a routers to some address having more than one
> result 
> - all with the same address..
> 
> Ideas?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Provides_feature
Could fit the bill


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

Volker Schmidt:

Be careful: oneway=* is a legal access tag, only valid for vehicles, not for 
pedestrians.



We do have a lot of highway=footway,oneway=yes
at museums, train stations, airports, zoos, etc.
Which is useful for routers.

The wiki does mention vehicles. It may not always be a very legal restriction. And in 
many cases it could be considered false oneway footways. E.g., a museum might have a 
signed direction thorough the exhibition, but usually you can still wander back and 
forth a bit (not at the crown jewels).


Still, if think it makes sense.

E.g.,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/368800221

Although, using an OSM router here is already cheating.

oneway:foot and foot:backward is already documented in the wiki and could be used on 
mtb paths.


I see that we have 4 oneway=recommended


On Sat, 9 Sep 2023, 07:05 Andrew Harvey, > wrote:


I have previously proposed the tag path=mtb
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Tag:path%3Dmtb
 as a way to 
say
it's a purpose built mountain biking track (which if it has features like 
jumps,
skinnies, berms etc would make it such). Unfortunately the proposal could 
not
gain a consistent consensus about the best way to tag purpose built mountain
biking tracks/trails and didn't develop further, so while it won't impact
rendering, you can still use this proposed tag.

On Sat, 9 Sept 2023 at 03:09, Bryce Nesbitt mailto:bry...@obviously.com>> wrote:


I recently went on a hike, guided only by OSMAnd.  We ended up planning 
a route
that took us uphill on what turned out to be a long series of one
way downhill mountain bike flow tracks.

I have no problem with the flow track: just had it been clearly 
delineated we
would have planned a different route more suited to hiking.
But I was left without clear tagging ideas.




One of the trails was
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593945914#map=19/37.99250/-122.50667

highway 
  path

horse   no
name Bunny
oneway:bicycle
 
  yes

surface 
  dirt


With a clear direction, as it has jumps that can only be completed in a
single direction, and is all but impossible to cycle the "wrong way" on.




Is this trail tagged the best that can be?

Is there a way to better hint to rendering that this should look 
different
from a "standard" hiking trail, perhaps tagged:
highway 
  path

nameHiking Trail
surface dirt
bicycle 

permissive




I see that even /OpenCyclemap /does not draw directional arrows on the
"Bunny" trail or other oneway:bicycle=yes routes.

___
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


--
Niels Elgaard Larsen


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 01:25, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:

> Volker Schmidt:
> > Be careful: oneway=* is a legal access tag, only valid for vehicles, not
> for pedestrians.
>
>
> We do have a lot of highway=footway,oneway=yes
>

Also know of suspended Tree Walk walkways e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-28.23281/153.13822 which are
signposted as oneway, & tagged the same

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Sep 10, 2023, 23:37 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

>
> On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 01:25, Niels Elgaard Larsen <> elga...@agol.dk> > 
> wrote:
>
>> Volker Schmidt:
>>  > Be careful: oneway=* is a legal access tag, only valid for vehicles, not 
>> for pedestrians.
>>  
>>  
>>  We do have a lot of highway=footway,oneway=yes
>>
>
> Also know of suspended Tree Walk walkways e.g. > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-28.23281/153.13822>  which are 
> signposted as oneway, & tagged the same
>
And there are oneway hiking trails where it is a legal restriction.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

[Volker Schmidt]

The problem is that we frequently have cycleways or food-cycle-ways that
are legally oneway for cyclists, but not for pedestrians. They are tagged
"oneway=yes". I agree we need a oneway tag for pedestrians, but it cannot
be a simple oneway=yes because that is already in use with a different
meaning, i.e. "oneway for vehicles".

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023, 08:03 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> Sep 10, 2023, 23:37 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 01:25, Niels Elgaard Larsen 
> wrote:
>
> Volker Schmidt:
> > Be careful: oneway=* is a legal access tag, only valid for vehicles, not
> for pedestrians.
>
>
> We do have a lot of highway=footway,oneway=yes
>
>
> Also know of suspended Tree Walk walkways e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-28.23281/153.13822 which are
> signposted as oneway, & tagged the same
>
> And there are oneway hiking trails where it is a legal restriction.
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 16:22, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> The problem is that we frequently have cycleways or food-cycle-ways that
> are legally oneway for cyclists, but not for pedestrians. They are tagged
> "oneway=yes". I agree we need a oneway tag for pedestrians, but it cannot
> be a simple oneway=yes because that is already in use with a different
> meaning, i.e. "oneway for vehicles".
>

foot:oneway=yes / oneway:foot=yes?

Thanks

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