Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=motorway_junction Tagging Extension
On Sun, 22 May 2011 02:38:48 -0400, James Mast wrote: > I've created a proposal for an extension of the sub-tags (ref=* and > exit_to=*) of highway=motorway_junction. > This is to help people on tagging highway ramps that split farther down after > they leave the main highway. It will also help deal with other motorways > splitting off of the main motorway when both are tagged as motorways (instead > of motorway and motorway_link). Why not reusing http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign ? If the intent of your proposal is to aid routers, that kind of relation does exactly that. I admit it's not widespread, but I've used it a couple of times and seems useful (now that I think of it, we should expand traffic_sign=* to include more than "city_limit"). Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Club
On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 15:13:42 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > [..] > > What about using "association", and have subtags for the > organisational form and targets (e.g. voluntary, paid membership, > whatever). Just my opinion, but "association" is longer to type and more error-prone. I can already imagine the whole spanish-speaking world mistyping it and ending up using "associacion" :) (source of the above statement: I found some highway=residencial ways in Italy :D) -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (sceptic_tank)"
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 22:04:48 +0300, Reinier Battenberg wrote: > Hi, > > Sean Blaschke and myself also created a page for sceptic_tank. You dont want > to fall into one, so mapping them seems like a good idea. > > Also, some of them can be emptied, which calls for mapping too. > > page is here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aminety%3Dsceptic_tank Page renamed to Tag:amenity=* However, I don't like how you're polluting the main namespace of the wiki. You should make your proposals under Proposed_features/ instead, and then create a page once some consensus is reached. David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Health and other stories
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:02:23 +0100, sabas88 wrote: > Hi list, > I want to suggest a topic of discussion not often considered: planning a > more rational tagging system to be applied onto the existing data and for > the future. Stefano, you know I fully support you. We started a similar thread on talk-it, and every time I tried to rationalize the tagging system a bit, I've always had people complain about "changing the status quo". I now started working, so I don't really have the time, nor the energies, to sustain long flames on mailing lists :) -- but be assured you have my +1000 (because "+1" is just not enough here). > For instance the discussion could start with a simple case: healthcare. > Now the health facilities are tagged in amenity (when I go to the dentist > I'm not happy as I would be in a bar!) [..] Poor you. You'd be happier if I were your dentist ;) Have a nice evening, David (a just-graduated-dentist) ;) -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Converting relation type "relatedStreet" to "assiciatedStreet"
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote: > Hi there, Hello, > the relation type page: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation > > lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet. > > Are there any objection to convert and cleanup the relatedStreets into > associatedStreet relations? > > Often there could be merge several relatedStreet relations together to > one associatedStreet relations, as relatedStreets sometime only > connected single houses to a street. I'm one of those pushing for type=street, and I'd be glad if we could merge all somethingStreet to it :) (which is less error-prone, less chars to type, easier to remember) (we should also include type=collection + collection=street and type=route + route=street -- rationale for the latter is that named routes should be route=road) > Here is my current statistic of street-like relations: > http://www.h-renrew.de/h/osm/osmchecks/02_Relationstypen/planet_street.html Oh, nice. There you can already see that "street" is already at second place just behind associatedStreet. In Italy it's already superior to it :) (1010 vs. 625 [0]) [0]: http://taginfo.hanskalabs.net/keys/type#values Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Converting relation type "relatedStreet" to "assiciatedStreet"
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:56:39 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 11:07 +0100 schrieb David Paleino: > > On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote: > > > the relation type page: > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation > > > > > > lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet. > > > > > > Are there any objection to convert and cleanup the relatedStreets into > > > associatedStreet relations? > > > > > > Often there could be merge several relatedStreet relations together to > > > one associatedStreet relations, as relatedStreets sometime only > > > connected single houses to a street. > > > > I'm one of those pushing for type=street, and I'd be glad if we could merge > > all somethingStreet to it :) (which is less error-prone, less chars to > > type, easier to remember) > > Well, one relation type would be perfect. But for now I think we should > try to reduce the different types one by one. Then I propose merging relatedStreet directly to street :P > > (we should also include type=collection + collection=street and type=route + > > route=street -- rationale for the latter is that named routes should be > > route=road) > > AFAIK type=route + route=road is different to the street relations. > road routes: primary, secondary road routes with the same ref. > street: houses and highway elements with the same name/address. That's exactly what I'm saying, see below. From your originally linked page, I can see there are some route=street around. I was saying that these should be merged too. My reference to route=road was that, if a route=street has a ref=, this should really be a route=road. So there shouldn't be *any* route=street around. Regarding route=road, here is one more thought. In some cases, people (I, for one, in my beginnings) use route=road to link different pieces of a ref-less street: this is wrong. But surely this can't be done automatically :) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Converting relation type "relatedStreet" to "assiciatedStreet"
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:07:12 +0100, David Paleino wrote: > (we should also include type=collection + collection=street and type=route + > route=street -- rationale for the latter is that named routes should be > route=road) Oh, and I see also type=address... meh :) Seems like we'll need some time to do all this properly :) -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Reasons for associatedStreet?
Hello list, while wondering about street-related things with other folks on #osm...@oftc, we came to the question: why is Relation:associatedStreet needed at all? (Karlsruhe schema) I've always used it to associate housenumbers to the given street (I found a relation more error-proof than addr:street), but then we thought then no new type of relation is needed for this ([0] and [1], for example). [0]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Street [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways In fact, we already have a relation for grouping a street together (various segments + "links"). That's Relation:route, with route=road. What about a "house" role to include housenumbers there? I already did a couple of those (don't know whether Mapnik renders them, but who cares -- and they're really 2-3 cases), but I'm seeking for some kind of discussion (maybe a consensus?) before making a more formal proposal. Ideas? Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Reasons for associatedStreet?
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:42:12 +0200, Simone Saviolo wrote: > 2010/9/1 David Paleino : > > In fact, we already have a relation for grouping a street together (various > > segments + "links"). That's Relation:route, with route=road. What about a > > "house" role to include housenumbers there? > > I'm not sure if you're suggesting we use the proposed relation Street > (that already has a "house" role) or the approved relation Route. I'm proposing the use of the already well-established Route. Ciao, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Using route=road to group the segments of a street (was: Re: Reasons for associatedStreet?)
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:09:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:00 AM, David Paleino > wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:42:12 +0200, Simone Saviolo wrote: > > > >> 2010/9/1 David Paleino : > >> > In fact, we already have a relation for grouping a street together > >> > (various segments + "links"). That's Relation:route, with route=road. > >> > What about a "house" role to include housenumbers there? > >> > >> I'm not sure if you're suggesting we use the proposed relation Street > >> (that already has a "house" role) or the approved relation Route. > > > > I'm proposing the use of the already well-established Route. > > Why is a route relation needed to group the segments of a street? Would you mind forking a new thread next time? :-) However, I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logical unit, a "route", even if the way is split (because of oneways, different classifications, different tags, whatever). David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using route=road to group the segments of a street (was: Re: Reasons for associatedStreet?)
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:19:49 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > However, I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logical unit, a > "route", even if the way is split (because of oneways, different > classifications, different tags, whatever). See, for example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/143031 That's a street with different classifications, a oneway-segment, and a dual-carriageway one. -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using route=road to group the segments of a street (was: Re: Reasons for associatedStreet?)
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:26:26 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:19 AM, David Paleino > wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 05:09:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > >> Why is a route relation needed to group the segments of a street? > > > > I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logical unit, a > > "route", even if the way is split (because of oneways, different > > classifications, different tags, whatever). > > But why does this "logical unit" need to be grouped in a relation? I > don't see any benefit to it. The benefit is intrinsic in data organization. -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Reasons for associatedStreet?
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:31:22 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > Hello list, > while wondering about street-related things with other folks on #osm...@oftc, > we came to the question: why is Relation:associatedStreet needed at all? > (Karlsruhe schema) > > I've always used it to associate housenumbers to the given street (I found a > relation more error-proof than addr:street), but then we thought then no new > type of relation is needed for this ([0] and [1], for example). > > [0]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Street > [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways > > In fact, we already have a relation for grouping a street together (various > segments + "links"). That's Relation:route, with route=road. What about a > "house" role to include housenumbers there? > > [..] Ok, after some more discussion on #osm...@oftc , we kind-of-agreed that route=road isn't suitable for all cases, and there are places in the world where it's not suitable at all (because not all streets with the same name are proper "routes"). So we settled that Relation:street, as proposed in [0], would be more suitable, both for grouping segments together (yes Simone and Nathan, just for the sake of it, because I think it's convenient to keep them logically together with a relation), _AND_ for grouping a way with its housenumbers. This would obviously deprecate Relation:associatedStreet in favour of Relation:street. David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] name:English, name:Español and lei sure:pitch & pitch:? or sport:?
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 06:32:30 -0600, Eric Jarvies wrote: > Is this how to tag them?; > name:English Name > name:es:Español > > Or do I need to do this: > name:English Name > name:es > es:Español name=Name in English name:es=Nombre en Español David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] name:English, name:Español and lei sure:pitch & pitch:? or sport:?
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 08:41:22 -0600, Eric Jarvies wrote: > On Sep 21, 2010, at 8:28 AM, David Paleino wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 06:32:30 -0600, Eric Jarvies wrote: > > > >> Is this how to tag them?; > >> name:English Name > >> name:es:Español > >> > >> Or do I need to do this: > >> name:English Name > >> name:es > >> es:Español > > > > name=Name in English > > name:es=Nombre en Español > > Thanks David... was not certain about the colon in the tag name... so it's ok > to use "name:es" as a key name? Yes. -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] name:English, name:Español and lei sure:pitch & pitch:? or sport:?
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:51:33 +0100, char...@cferrero.net wrote: > David Paleino (da...@debian.org) wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 06:32:30 -0600, Eric Jarvies wrote: > > > >> Is this how to tag them?; > >> name:English Name > >> name:es:Español > >> > >> Or do I need to do this: > >> name:English Name > >> name:es > >> es:Español > > > > name=Name in English > > name:es=Nombre en Español > > > Is that right? I'd assumed the name tag was used for the "common > local name" as per the wiki. So name can be the name in the local > language. I've been using name:en for the English name where that > differs from the local language name. Yup, sorry, I was assuming that "local" == "English" in my reply. Indeed, "name=" is for the local one. :) -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] amenity=ice_cream: approved?
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 21:26:27 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features%2FIce_cream&action=historysubmit&diff=532984&oldid=531944 > This doesn't seem quite right. 27-18 + 1 abstain, seems an "approved" to me. Controversial, yes, but approved. -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Re-organizing food "things"? (was: Re: amenity=ice_cream: approved?)
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:14:19 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:48 AM, David Paleino > wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 21:26:27 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > > > >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features%2FIce_cream&action=historysubmit&diff=532984&oldid=531944 > >> This doesn't seem quite right. > > > > 27-18 + 1 abstain, seems an "approved" to me. Controversial, yes, but > > approved. > > A vote that starts out with almost all approves and ends up with > almost all opposes is not controversial but fishy. The line between > most approves and most opposes is when it was posted to this list; in > other words most approve votes were made before it was announced. > Almost every one of those approves is by someone living in Italy, > which suggests discussion on the Italian mailing list or other > discussion among a small group in an echo chamber. Once it was > belatedly announced here, most new voters opposed it. It's very > possible that the outcome would have been different had it been > announced here promptly (or, to be fair, it may have been the same, > with the Italian bloc voting the same way). How would you call then shop=ice_cream, sneaked in the wiki without any discussion or voting or anything else? > And now we have a tag that replaces all ice cream places, thus > providing less information than the former amenity=cafe/fast_food/etc. > cuisine=ice_cream. How is this a good thing? You can tag whatever way you like. If you think that amenity=cafe/fast_food/... + cuisine= is better, just use it. AIUI "Map features" are just "suggestions". Also, I believe the icecream tagging should be improved. There are places selling icecreams, but not mainly them, so I'd suggest using "ice_cream=yes" (also to avoid multivalue). Say, amenity=cafe, ice_cream=yes (a cafe also selling wrapped icecreams is different from an icecream parlour, selling self-made icecream). On a related note: me and some other people on #osm-it were thinking about re-organizing the "food" tagging (take "food" as an example in the following). Something like: amenity=food + food=cafe|fast_food|restaurant|... This way, we would avoid the amenity "overcrowding", and have a more structured tagging scheme. However, we couldn't find a proper value for amenity= (in place of the above "food") to make a draft proposal. Maybe "catering", but none of us liked it either. Ideas? (sorry for hijacking the thread, but I feel it's a good place/time to talk about it) -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Re-organizing food "things"?
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 05:11:08 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:49 AM, David Paleino > wrote: > > On a related note: me and some other people on #osm-it were thinking about > > re-organizing the "food" tagging (take "food" as an example in the > > following). Something like: amenity=food + > > food=cafe|fast_food|restaurant|... This way, we would avoid the amenity > > "overcrowding", and have a more structured tagging scheme. > > How about retail=food (or drop the food: retail=restaurant/etc.)? Why > use amenity at all? I believe retail=cafe|restaurant|... would become too polluted. We risk creating another amenity= or highway=. From en.wiki: Retail consists of the sale of goods or merchandise from a fixed location, such as a department store, boutique or kiosk, or by mail, in small or individual lots for direct consumption by the purchaser. I'd say +1 to retail=food and food=cafe|restaurant|... though. Still, I believe "food" is not enough wide; we also have places where they primarily sell drinks (bar and biergarten come to mind). Unless we don't want to move them under this new hierarchy, that is. > An area of food places will be landuse=retail, and a consistent hierarchy > will be easier to tag. I agree with this. -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Re-organizing food "things"?
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 06:15:50 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 6:05 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > > In German I would use "Gastronomie" as main tag for those, but I'm not > > sure if "gastronomy" would be the exact translation in English for > > this. My dictionary suggests "catering" as an alternative. > > Catering is a specific type of business where a company delivers > prepared food to a meeting. I was going to reply to Martin, but this is *exactly* the reason why, while discussing it on IRC, we didn't like it. -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Re-organizing food "things"? (was: Re: amenity=ice_cream: approved?)
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:19:58 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/9/27 Elena of Valhalla > : > > of course, we still have the problem with the tag name, since > > "food+drink" doesn't look quite right > > if is probably not "good English", but I think it's quite appealing: > it is easily understandable by (almost) everyone, and it is very clear > what's the intention/what fits into it. I don't know of any key with a "+" in it; I believe it could be error-prone. -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] [OT] Re: Re-organizing food "things"?
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:08:56 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > [..] > a restaurant produces the food (prepares it from raw or semi-worked > material). Then it's clearly craft=restaurant! :-D "[..] A place producing or processing customized goods. [..] craft=* for small production on demand and by order." ;) -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Roundabout Priority
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 23:36:18 +0200, Colin Smale wrote: > I am making a simple proposal of "roundabout=priority_to_right" to > indicate a specific non-standard priority arrangement on some > roundabouts occurring in some parts of mainland Europe. Shouldn't this be better done with a proper right_of_way/give_way relation? I remember something like that proposed time ago, but can't find it right now. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] add leisure=swimming_pool to the core-features
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:55:36 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > [..] (Btw.: it used to be a wiki, but unfortunately there was a > technical hurdle introduced so I am no more able to add tags to these > lists). Can someone add this please? > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leisure Can't you edit this page? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:leisure It seems strange to me. -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks vs Footways
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:15:48 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > There's an abandoned tag for sidewalks along the side of the road that > apparently has some use in the UK: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Footway > > http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Great_britain/En/tags.html > > And there's a nearly identical tag proposal called Sidewalk: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sidewalk ...and I tried to make a unified proposal some time ago (which I have been following for the few sidewalks I mapped). It has been written down with the help of some osm-it(aly) folks. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hanska/Sidewalk Comments? :) David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks vs Footways
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:17:14 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > Based on this thread, there seems to be general consensus that the > term "sidewalk" is less linguistically ambiguous than footway. I'd like to point out that not all footways are sidewalks. Sidewalks/pavements/whatever_you_call_them are a particular case of a footway. We shouldn't deprecate footway, but instead expand (i.e. add details) to it. Once again, I'd like to point out my attempt to make a coherent proposal (see my other message in list) -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks vs Footways
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:53:39 -0400, Josh Doe wrote: > David, > I like this proposal, it should work well for the areas I've been > mapping. However I have been using the proposed sloped_curb=yes [1], > though I haven't been happy with it. There's also the proposed > kerb=lowered [2], which seems equivalent. I'd say either kerb or ramp > should win out, but I think kerb is more versatile. I must confess I don't have a particular opinion on ramp/kerb/sloped_curb. "ramp" IIRC it's already an "official" tag. However, I guess these are tiny details, and we should instead focus on the main "sidewalk" tagging :) You can see a couple of sidewalks tagged this way (load the areas in your favourite editor, since we'd need some more zoom): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=37.649984&mlon=12.597751&zoom=18&layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=37.58996&mlon=12.787694&zoom=18&layers=M http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=37.584398&mlon=12.843977&zoom=18&layers=M These are mainly proofs-of-concept, since my area needs other things before getting to sidewalk-mapping :) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks vs Footways
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:40:21 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:30 PM, David Paleino > wrote: > > ...and I tried to make a unified proposal some time ago (which I have been > > following for the few sidewalks I mapped). It has been written down with the > > help of some osm-it(aly) folks. > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hanska/Sidewalk > > > > Comments? :) > > I think that in the area of sidewaks, it mainly mirrors the discussion > here, so it sounds like we have largely reached consensus. It's great > that we've all come to similar conclusions on our own- it means we can > move forward. > > David, it's great you've thought so much on these issues. The link you > sent has proposals for several features, and normal OSM procedure is > to vote on only one at a time, so let's focus the discussion on > sidewalks, and then when that's done, we can go through the others. ACK, even if I don't understand what the "several features" are. Please disregard the second section titled "Tagging the main way" :) > I think that way we're less likely to get bogged down and make > iterative, incremental progress quickly, which is ultimately what we > both want, I think. ACK. Do you think it's a good time to make an official proposal starting from my page? -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:17:10 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > As per the discussion last week about Sidewalks, I'm re-opening the > sidewalk proposal as per: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk > > We've already had some preliminary discussion on this tag and there's > been very minimal disagreement, which is a good sign for its adoption. NAK. What I understood was that the first tagging example of my page was that [1] was generally accepted. [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hanska/Sidewalk#Mapping_as_a_separate_way The page you linked is instead what I defined as "deprecated" on my page. Did I miss something? David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:29:28 +0100, David Paleino wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:17:10 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > > > As per the discussion last week about Sidewalks, I'm re-opening the > > sidewalk proposal as per: > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk > > > > We've already had some preliminary discussion on this tag and there's > > been very minimal disagreement, which is a good sign for its adoption. > > NAK. > What I understood was that the first tagging example of my page was that [1] > was generally accepted. Erm.. ok, I hope it was understandable :) s/the first tagging example of my page was that// -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:39:52 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > David, you expressed some interest in this last week, and Josh > suggested that since you were so interested, you make the proposal, And I will... > but I didn't see anything, ...just not enough time right now (university exams -- see later). > and I have a specific project I want to use > these tags, so I've gone ahead > and done so. Since "my" proposal was the one most agreed on, why can't you just start using the tags/way-of-mapping in my page? :) > If you have specific issues with the proposal, please bring them up > for discussion. The issue is: your proposal is the opposite of what was agreed upon last week. I'll be able to get some free time on Wednesday/Thursday: can you wait up to then? I'll make a definitive proposal :) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:24:55 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Josh Doe > wrote: > > Serge, > > I think we're really talking about two proposals here, both of which > > have merit. The linked proposal has been around for a while, and > > involves tagging the road to indicate the presence of a sidewalk walk > > on one or both sides of the road. David refers to this proposal as > > "deprecated" [1]. > > He can claim that, but it's not depricated; the proposal is 3 years > old and wasn't ever voted on. "deprecated" for *ME*. Just because I separately thought at that proposal before, without looking at the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hanska/Sidewalk_old > > What David proposed, and what I'm interested in, is mapping the > > sidewalk as a separate way from the road. This rough proposal is on > > his page here [2]. > > That's entirely separate. > > I have views about that, but they're not relevant in this discussion. I believe they could be relevant. > [..] > David should follow the tagging RFC process and make a proposal. I > don't want to overload one simple tag with something else. To tag a sidewalk: highway=footway footway=sidewalk That's it. You can add more tags to define crossings and sidewalk properties (think of wheelchair=yes, or width=, or [..]). I don't see this as bloated as you describe. > > We should certainly link both together though, so users can determine > > what level of detail is appropriate. > > I disagree. As mentioned in the Sidewalk tag, we already have > highway=footway, which is what David's proposal would largely change, Change? My proposal would not change footway's meaning, since, to define a sidewalk, you need to add "footway=sidewalk". > rather than an additional tag on roads. In other words, this is a tag > about roads, not footways. No. Sidewalks *ARE* *NOT* roads. Don't take it bad, but I wish you were more cooperative. I have real life issues right now, and promised to make a "proper proposal" on Wednesday/Thursday. You can't wait two days? Well, I'm going to vote against your proposal. Note, however, that this is a bit rude of you; you want to introduce a badly designed tagging scheme and waste everyone's resources/time here. David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:21:02 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:47 PM, David Paleino > wrote: > > > Since "my" proposal was the one most agreed on, why can't you just start > > using the tags/way-of-mapping in my page? :) > > David, > > I suggested re-opening the sidewalk proposal because I have a specific > need for this data and would like to use official, rather than > unofficial tags. And, I asked you to kindly wait a couple of days more. That's it. And remember: there's no such thing as "official"/"unofficial" tags in OSM. > What specifically is your concern? You've used the word "my proposal" > several times. If your concern it's credit, I'll happily put your name > on the proposal. If it's not credit, then use the outlined tagging RFC > process. I don't really care about credit. "My" proposal is to distinguish it from "your" proposal. I could have said "mapping sidewalks as a separate way" vs. "tagging the main road". But you see that's long :) > >> If you have specific issues with the proposal, please bring them up > >> for discussion. > > > > The issue is: your proposal is the opposite of what was agreed upon last > > week. I'll be able to get some free time on Wednesday/Thursday: can you > > wait up to then? I'll make a definitive proposal :) > > You're free to make recommendations to change it, and you're free to > vote against it, but the process is now in place. That's *VERY* rude. We are a community, your answer sounds like "sorry, but the bureaucracy machine started, and I can't do anything". That's not true, and it seems like you're the only one pushing for the proposal to be started *TODAY*. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:47:39 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/3/21 David Paleino : > > To tag a sidewalk: > > highway=footway > > footway=sidewalk > > > >> I disagree. As mentioned in the Sidewalk tag, we already have > >> highway=footway, which is what David's proposal would largely change, > > > > Change? My proposal would not change footway's meaning, since, to define a > > sidewalk, you need to add "footway=sidewalk". > > I agree with Serge: you would change the meaning of highway=footway > (because to interpret it right after your amendment, you would have to > look at the footway-key as well). Why? Sidewalks are just a particular case of highway=footway. A router that doesn't know about footway=*, can treat the sidewalk just fine, because it is a footway, after all. David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:04:38 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > [..] and I feel David wants something else entirely and > is suffering from a bit of NIH syndrome, [..] While I thought at the proposal entirely (almost, credits also go to #osm-it folks) on my own, I seem to have reached the same conclusion as other mappers. TagInfo lists 6000+ footway=sidewalk (I only mapped a couple of them just as a proof of concept, so it must be someone else). I might have re-invented the proposal, but it ended up being consistent with what other people thought in other places/times/countries/... . David http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/footway#values -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:17:10 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > [..] Given I have better things to do tonight, such as studying for my exam on Wednesday, I won't send any more mails to this thread. So please forgive me: I don't even know if I'll have time to read the mails. I'll surely read them before making my proposal though. Enjoy your flames :) David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2011/3/21 David Paleino : > > >> I agree with Serge: you would change the meaning of highway=footway > >> (because to interpret it right after your amendment, you would have to > >> look at the footway-key as well). > > > > Why? > > Sidewalks are just a particular case of highway=footway. A router that > > doesn't know about footway=*, can treat the sidewalk just fine, because it > > is a footway, after all. > > No. Serge's way does tell the router that the sidewalk is just a part > of the road, and that you can cross the road anytime. Your proposal > doesn't tell the router this, and it would have to check for the next > crossing and route you there and back if your target was just on the > other side of the road. Then, if you really want, we can just add one tag to the road, say (weird key name, but just to understand each other): is_crossable_everywhere=yes. > To not be misunderstood: I prefer explicit sidewalks (=separate ways) > as I wrote above. But you should not map them as if they were > independent ways. They aren't: have you checked my proposal? They're part of the same relation (street, or associatedStreet). A router would only check for a highway=crossing node on the way itself if an option "only cross road at permitted places" is marked. No? -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
Hello everybody, as promised, I came back with an "official" proposal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way I tried to summarize what my ideas are, and why I don't believe that tagging the main road is any good. To summarize here: to tag a sidewalk: * highway=footway * footway=sidewalk It's that simple. The basic idea is that sidewalks *are* footways. From the highway=footway page: "for designated footpaths, i.e. mainly/exclusively for pedestrians". And sidewalks perfectly fit IMVHO :) The proposal also lists cases for crossings and other features, but that's the basic tagging. Enjoy, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:53:12 -0400, Josh Doe wrote: > [..] Like I've said on the talk page, I believe this and the other sidewalk > proposal can coexist, although I prefer your proposed scheme. I think that too; however, I believe the other proposal could be useful for "temporary tagging", much like highway=road. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:59:12 +0100, David Paleino wrote: > On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:53:12 -0400, Josh Doe wrote: > > > [..] Like I've said on the talk page, I believe this and the other sidewalk > > proposal can coexist, although I prefer your proposed scheme. > > I think that too; however, I believe the other proposal could be useful for > "temporary tagging", much like highway=road. ..and added a paragraph explaining they're not conflicting. -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:10:36 +, Craig Wallace wrote:
> On 24/03/2011 20:15, David Paleino wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> > as promised, I came back with an "official" proposal.
> >
> >
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way
> >
> > I tried to summarize what my ideas are, and why I don't believe that tagging
> > the main road is any good.
> >
> > To summarize here: to tag a sidewalk:
> >
> > * highway=footway
> > * footway=sidewalk
> >
> > It's that simple.
> > The basic idea is that sidewalks *are* footways. From the highway=footway
> > page: "for designated footpaths, i.e. mainly/exclusively for pedestrians".
> > And sidewalks perfectly fit IMVHO :)
>
> How do you define "sidewalk"?
How do you define it in "real life"?
> Is it just pedestrian paths immediately adjacent to a road, with nothing
> except a kerb in between?
> What if its further away, with grass/barriers/trees etc in between, is
> it still a sidewalk?
Let's try to make a worldwide-acceptable definition.
I'd say, it's a sidewalk if you refer to it by referring to its main road. You
don't say: "go to the shop on the sidewalk of Main Rd.", you say "go to the
shop on Main Rd.". That's a sidewalk for me.
Otherwise, if you say "go to the shop in the middle of the park, take the
path, and turn at the second intersection, [..]", or if it has its own name
("go to the Foo Footway") -- it's a footway.
I'm sorry I can't come with a more precise definition; but I didn't think at
it at all before now, since I believed that "sidewalk"/"pavement" can easily be
recognized using common sense.
Kindly,
David
--
. ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
No need to CC me, thanks. On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:00:34 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:15 PM, David Paleino > wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > as promised, I came back with an "official" proposal. > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way > > "In particular, for blind people, it's important to have precise > information when walking: to understand on which side of the street > they are, for example. This is not possible when just adding tags to > the main way -- a separate way ought to be mapped." > > My general frustration with your RFC is that it reads more as a stance > than a proposal. I think that this issue of the blind, for example, is > a bit of a false dichotomy, because the issue of sidewalk direction is > handled in both methods" > > One can take exactly the opposite stance, which is that in order to > help the blind, we should make it as easy as possible to map things > that they care about. Therefore a sidewalk=yes tag would be the > fastest way to get the maximum data into the map. That's not the "maximum data", you know? Ok, since you say for bling people it's the same. Suppose you're blind, and walking on a sidewalk. How would your GPS unit understand on which side of the street you are? How would directions about crossings be given? You know, when I wanted to map sidewalks, I came with a proposal similar to yours. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hanska/Sidewalk_old The "blind-argument" was the one that made me re-think the whole scheme. > This is especially important when talking about rendering and routing, > which I think are the main use cases of this tag. Routing, not rendering. We don't care about rendering, do you? > Your proposal only casually mentions relations, but they're extremely > important without the main road data (see later in this mail where I go into > detail about this). ..and I will reply later. > But even so, I don't really care what method is used, but I think the > proposal should be more factual and less ideological, even (and > including) removing emphasized words such as "However" and removing > emoticons. Come on. We're a community, we should try to gain consensus, rather than imposing law. Some emphasis and some emoticon makes the text more "human". But, it's a wiki, feel free to edit where you believe it's inappropriate. > > I tried to summarize what my ideas are, and why I don't believe that tagging > > the main road is any good. > > > > To summarize here: to tag a sidewalk: > > > > * highway=footway > > * footway=sidewalk > > Later in this thread, David, you asked for a clarification of the term > "real world" by another mapper. Erm, not. I asked for a real-world definition of "sidewalk". > Humor of that question not withstanding, I believe the other mapper was > reacting to the fact that we already have a great deal of difficulty getting > casual mappers to work with our system. We've mitigated some of these issues > with helpers like preset menus. And there are plugins drawing parallel ways, you know? > With sidewalks as a separate way, you are now stuck with two unoptimal > situations: > > a) The sidewalks have no road-associated data > > The sidewalks not having street data is, IMHO, a significant problem. > It means that while it might be possible to get highly accurate > routing directions in the sense of "turn right in 30 meters", you will > lack information such as "Walk up Main Street". > > This is bad for everyone. This is solvable with: 1) add name=... to the sidewalk, but it's redundant, even if simpler; 2) use a relation. It's your choice, really. Even streets split in different pieces are not always grouped together, depending on the ability/will of the mapper. > b) There is a relation > > Relations are a powerful tool, but they're hard to work with. This is really a myth IMHO. They're hard to work with in Potlatch, maybe, but I see it as a bug of the editor. In JOSM, for example, they're correctly handled, and are rather easy to work with IMVHO. > They're hard for renderers to work with (say those who render), they're hard > to make work correctly in the editors (say the editor authors) and > they're hard to work with, and even harder to teach others how to use. > I know, I've done it. I've also taught others to work with relations, and I don't see all this difficulty. Do you have links pointing to the difficulty claimed by developers of renderers and editors? > In this specific
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:42:37 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 3/25/2011 4:37 AM, David Paleino wrote: > > Routing, not rendering. We don't care about rendering, do you? > > We certainly care about rendering. What we perhaps shouldn't care about > is how a specific renderer handles tags. > > I personally don't care much about routing. I'm an old-fashioned guy who > prefers to look at the map and determine where to turn based on it. I probably conveyed the wrong message. We care about rendering, but it shouldn't be a showstopper for, nor an argument against, any tagging scheme. (and I don't understand why it was used "against" my proposal: they would be rendered as normal footways, which makes perfectly sense IMHO). Sorry for not being clearer, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:21:51 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > You're proposing a new relation type, I'm not. I'm proposing to use associatedStreet, which is well-established. My preference for "street" is another story. *Entirely*. > a set of associated tags, etc. in support of the sidewalk data. Associated tags? > I'd like to suggest you should sit down and work out some mapnik rules > for this, There's no need to; Mapnik already renders highway=footway. > and work out a way for PL2 users to enter the relation and associations > you've created. Come on, it's like any other relation. If potlatch can't support *ANY* kind of relation editing, it's not my fault. It's a bug. I don't use Potlatch, so I can't tell how advanced his support for relations is. > At the very least, this could help the downstream tool folks > understand your proposals, but I think it'd also help you refine your > proposal by helping you step back and see how tools would need to > interact with it. There's no need in changing tools. > The only thing I out and out disagree with entirely is your suggestion > to tag sidewalks with a name. Eh?! I didn't suggest it. I suggested using a relation. Please stop this FUD. *NOW*. > I'm concerned this will confuse folks. And by folks, I mean mappers, > routers, renderers and editors.. That's why I think this scheme needs > more work, because, when you map sidewalks as separate ways, you have > to use a relation, and how exactly that's to work isn't fully figured > out. Add the sidewalk with role "sidewalk" to an associatedStreet/street relation, be it already existent or new-to-create. Serge, I fear you're just going to go against me in any case. I'm *glad* we're in different timezones, and we're probably not going to map together in any place in this world. I'm sorry, I won't reply to you anymore; please read my previous mails, I think I clarified everything. Sadly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote: > David Paleino wrote: > > Come on, it's like any other relation. If potlatch can't support *ANY* > > kind of relation editing, it's not my fault. It's a bug. I don't use > > Potlatch, so I can't tell how advanced his support for relations is. > > Not good enough. > > It is incumbent on you, as someone proposing to tell others how to map, that > you make sure they _can_ easily map in this way. [..] Relations have existed long before I started thinking at tihs proposal. > [..] > > But, nonetheless, actions have consequences. Pulling schemes out of thin air > and pretending they have no connection with the real-world editors, > renderers, routers and indexers that people use is one of the reasons why > the wiki tag process is so utterly discredited. The scheme hasn't been pulled out of thin air. It's using well-established things, just put together to make some sense of them. The only "new thing" is footway=sidewalk. If this new tag is so revolutionary, please forgive me, and please forget all I've said. > We _all_ have a responsibility to make OSM editing accessible to newcomers. > Some of us are already working flat-out to do so. If you want to "extend" > the data model, therefore adding more for newcomers to learn, _you_ need to > do your bit to make sure that this won't make OSM more complicated. Why, oh why, this seems so out-of-context to me? I think I already gave a solution: if you want to do it simple, use sidewalk=*. If you want to add more details, follow my proposal. It's the same thing has streets. Newcomers don't know the difference between primary, motorway, tertiary, unclassified, [..]. They could start mapping using "road". But no, we want them to add details. "highway=road" is accepted, but kind-of-discouraged. Am I wrong? > That might mean talking to the developers of the biggest editors and > renderers, that might mean writing some comprehensible beginner-friendly > docs, or whatever. But you can't just expect those of us who are already > donating vast amounts of time to necessarily indulge you in your tagging > whims. Given all the negative replies I've had, I'm running out of energy now, to pursue this proposal. I'm donating vast amounts of time to OSM as well. I develop things, and I can't let you, or everybody else here, think I'm just a newcomer trying to push his pet thing. I explained the proposal as simple as I could, and I've always had the same non-sensical (to me) replies. Maybe we live in different OSM-worlds, I can't tell. There must be a communication problem somewhere. Sadly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 05:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote: > David Paleino wrote: > > Why, oh why, this seems so out-of-context to me? > > I think I already gave a solution: if you want to do it simple, use > > sidewalk=*. > > If you want to add more details, follow my proposal. > > I'm not remotely interested in the merits or otherwise of your proposal. I > don't have the time to watch every single thing that goes through this list > and assess whether I need to patch Potlatch 2 to have an inviting UI to > support it. > > What I am saying is: you can't just say, as you did, "it's not up to me to > consider how this will be implemented in Potlatch" (or, indeed, any other > editor). It is _absolutely_ up to you. You're the one who wants the proposal > to be adopted. No, it's up to YOU, as a developer, to support basic OSM things. "Relations" are an OSM primitive, and to be considered the official editor, since you're being hosted on osm.org, you MUST implement them. That's IMHO, obviously. My proposal doesn't use anything special to be implemented in editors. After this, I'm going to shut up. I don't see any constructive criticism going on here, and I feel like I'm just wasting time. -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 05:38:18 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote: > [..] > Anyone can map anything in Potlatch, or JOSM, or Merkaartor, or their own > favourite editor, by creating the primitives manually, and adding tags, > using the standard UI. Of course they can. > > Yet this isn't always a sufficiently user-friendly way of creating them. > Sometimes, a special-purpose editor can make it more understandable for > newcomers, and quicker for experienced users. For example, both JOSM and > Potlatch have dedicated turn-restriction editors, which are much more > user-friendly than manually creating the relations and entering the members > in the appropriate roles. Now it's clearer -- but a new question arises. Did the turn-restriction editors appear before -- or at the same time -- the tag was drafted/approved/voted on? I don't think so. I used turn restrictions long before JOSM had a friendly editor. I think you're putting it backwards. *I*, as a developer (not only OSM-related, I'm generally speaking) would do something that works first, *after* I would make it fancy. I still don't understand why to accept a new tag, there should be a fancy UI in $editors. > [..] > If you've thought about it, that's great. If you have suggestions for how it > might be implemented, that's great. But saying "I don't use Potlatch, so I > can't tell how advanced his support for relations is" reads, to me, as > "screw you, Potlatch guys, I expect you to do all the hard work in making it > easy for users". That wasn't my intention, sorry (I myself seldomly use P2 for quick editing, or when I'm not at home). > We simply don't have infinite resources to do this with every single > suggestion. Making OSM easy to edit is not the sole responsibility of three > people on the potlatch-dev mailing list, it's _everyone_'s responsibility. I agree, but not being part of the $editor development process, I can make my part when suggesting a new tag. And, for example, reusing a relation -- for which a nice UI might already exist -- is a first step. And that's not NIH syndrome -- which I've been accused to have by "someone" -- it's all the opposite. David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:07:12 +, SomeoneElse wrote:
> What I don't yet understand is the workflow associated with the
> "Sidewalk_as_separate_way" proposal. Through the window I can see a
> road which has a (currently unmapped) footpath/sidewalk along both sides
> for part of its length and one side after that. Perhaps someone could
> explain (under the "Sidewalk_as_separate_way" proposal) I would map
> that? How do I indicate where the footpath/sidewalk is actually
> immediately adjacent to the road and where it isn't? What other ways or
> relations (in addition to the road) do I need to create?
I would map them as three ways (warning, ASCII art below):
* |
* |
| * |
| * |
|--x--|
| * |
| * |
The "|" are the two sidewalks, the "*" is the main road.
Way marked with *:
highway=residential (or whatever)
Ways marked with |:
highway=footway
footway=sidewalk
In the example above I've also put a crossing, the "--x--" line. This would be
tagged as:
highway=footway
footway=crossing
crossing=* (depending whether it has traffic lights, is/isn't marked, [..])
For compatibility reasons with the current approach, I'd also tag the "x" node
as:
highway=crossing
The relation is optional, but if you wanted to, you can put the road marked with
"*" into an associatedStreet/street relation (with no role/"street" role), and
the sidewalks ("|") with role "sidewalk".
Kindly,
David
--
. ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:06:06 +0100, Jo wrote: > We also need to add cycleways to associatedStreet relations then and bus > stops and their platforms and parking lanes. Why? -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:06:06 +0100, Jo wrote: > We also need to add cycleways to associatedStreet relations then and bus > stops and their platforms and parking lanes. Ok, I understand it might make sense. A role "cycleway" for cycleways? But that's out of scope for this proposal. For bus stops/platforms, there are other proposal. Search the wiki for "stop area", or kinda (can't remember the exact proposal name, sorry). David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
Hello Ed,
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 22:26:22 -0400, Ed Hillsman wrote:
> The discussion of the sidewalk issue seems to have stopped. I added
> some comments in the discussion section of the wiki last week, but
> there have been no further comments there or here in nearly a week.
I saw your comments on the talk page, but I took them as generally appreciation
-- i.e. there was no question? :)
(yes, the relation is optional)
> I think each of the proposals (sidewalks as separate ways, and
> sidewalks as attributes of streets) has merit in different
> circumstances, and the choice of which to use should be optional. Like
> Josh Doe, I've been mapping sidewalks as separate ways, but that is
> because I've done most of my mapping in the suburban areas where I
> work and live. I've tried it a bit in downtown Tampa, and down there I
> think it makes more sense to tag them as attributes of roads.
Could you clarify why in one case you chose the "separate way", and in the
other case you chose "tagging the main road"? This could be enlightening for
those thinking that the two proposals are in contrast :)
(I myself believe they can cohexist -- I just believe that mapping separate
ways gives the chance of mapping more details, that's all)
> Except for a few block faces and intersections, where the city hasn't
> made curb/kerb cuts for wheelchairs yet. This means that some intersections
> have some sidewalks where wheelchairs can cross in some directions,
> but not in all. And for these I would code the sidewalks as separate
> ways.
This is one of such examples, thanks. However, it seems a bit odd to have
"mixed styles" in one place/city/... :) -- but maybe it's just a matter of
taste ;)
> With regard to routing, sidewalks on college campuses, in parks, and
> in cemeteries may be interior to a large area bounded by streets, and
> as a result some may not have an associated street to use for a name.A
> few sidewalks on a few campuses may have names of their own ("Slant
> Walk" on the Miami University (Ohio) campus, is one example), but most
> don't. So routing will need to come up with some other way to refer to
> them.
I guess the named ones would have a name= attached; for the others, I can
imagine a router saying "turn left at the next footway, 200m" -- just like they
do with unnamed roads (be them unnamed, or the name hasn't been tagged yet).
> This is an unresolved issue, but it's one for the routing, not
> for OSM to deal with (if there is no name, there is no name to tag).
Right.
> [..]
> Where a street parallels a street, but at a distance, I share the
> concerns about using relations to associate sidewalks with their
> streets. Would it work to add a tag "associated_street" and then
> simply list the name of the street? For example, highway=footway,
> associated_street="East Fowler Avenue". A value of "none" could be
> coded if the sidewalk does not parallel a street.
Well, the relation is optional, but there usually is one already.
associatedStreet/street, in fact, is used for housenumbers -- so creating one
for sidewalks wouldn't be "wasted time" -- it's just preceding the housenumbers
mapping :)
But yes, being the relation optional, we can just use plain tags (even though
I'm fond of relations, and believe plain tags can become broken).
> I hope there will be more discussion of these two proposals.
I can't sincerely say why they stopped. Probably temperature became too hot to
continue :) -- I must say I calmed down a bit on my side, I just hope we don't
start again fighting each other ;)
Kindly,
David
--
. ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:49:18 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 4/3/2011 9:38 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: > > * Ed Hillsman > > [2011-04-02 22:26 -0400]: > >> Would it work to add a tag "associated_street" and then simply list the > >> name of the street? For example, highway=footway, > >> associated_street="East Fowler Avenue". > > > > This might not be a bad idea. It makes the association without using a > > relation (about which there have been concerns raised regarding the > > complexity of handling, both for mappers and data consumers). > > One question is how 'overlaps' would be handled. For example, > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/56026919 is part of the sidewalk > for both Magnolia and Anderson. With relations, it's easy... :) -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Proposed feature - Sidewalks as separate ways - Voting
Hello people, since there have been no discussion in the last days, I believe the ideas are clear enough about the proposal. If you have questions, please post them to the proposal's talk page, I'll reply promptly (or will try to :)). In any case, the voting is open: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way As per the wiki guidelines, the voting period is 14 days. Starting today, ending Apr, 26. Have a nice day, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] steel worker and smaller concrete structures on site
On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:48:35 -0400, Josh Doe wrote: > I feel so confused... of course you aren't talking about mapping people ?? Why not? :) Realtime worldwide people tracking using OSM. (and now you all know what's the purpose of the subcutaneous chips implanted by aliens) Yay! -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - Sidewalks as separate ways - Voting
Hello everybody, On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:10:34 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > [..] > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way > > As per the wiki guidelines, the voting period is 14 days. Starting today, > ending Apr, 26. The voting period has ended, and the feature has been approved with 20 yes, 9 no and 1 abstention. I've created Tag:footway=crossing and Tag:footway=sidewalk pages, and mangled the proposal page accordingly. ASAP I'll start adding specific examples; at the moment, there's only one "generic" example valid both for crossings and sidewalks, and only in the English version. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion! Have a nice day, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
