Re: [Tagging] Tagging average speed [Was: Re: Residential roads]
On 10/03/2010 04:17 PM, Anthony wrote: > You'd also need information about how the average speed was measured, > when it was measured, how accurate it can be expected to be. When > different people come up with different measurements using different > methods, you have to have a method to choose one, or a way to include > all of them. That would be the perfect way, but very complicated. Many things in OSM are subjective. Having a tag which enables us to indicate "this road normally can be driven at around 60 kph instead of the legal limit" would be much, much better than nothing. Right now when I make a routable map for a Garmin GPS I can set the road_class and road_speed only by looking at the Highway=* tag. This can lead to strange speed estimates. I think a simple "typical speed" tag would be very nice. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging average speed [Was: Re: Residential roads]
On 10/03/2010 05:04 PM, Anthony wrote: > Maybe it's just because of where I live, but I don't see how it would be. Well, where I live (Germany) we have a legal limit of 100 kph on roads outside of cities, motorways excluded. This legally applies even to small roads if there is no sign indicating a lower limit. On many roads you can achieve this speed, too. But on the other hand we have lots of narrow, twisty country roads where a normal driver does not go faster than 60 kph. In the Alps it is even more drastic. For estimating the time someone will probably need to drive along a road this information would be very helpful. Even if we introduce this tag, nobody is forced to ever use it. If you prefer to use the legal limit for your routing calculation that's just fine. I would not change any of the existing tags, which are all important as well. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Overtaking Restrictions
On 10/06/2010 06:05 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > This came into the limelight in NL following a discussion about > single-carriageway (main) roads with a double white line (i.e. "do not > cross", effectively "no overtaking") and whether they should be modelled > as a dual carriageway as you are supposed to drive *as if* there is a > wall down the middle of the road. This tag was suggested as an > alternative approach. This is a bad idea, IMHO. Legally in Germany you may not cross the line but you MAY overtake if you do this without crossing the line, e.g. a motorbike overtaking a slower one. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On 10/07/2010 10:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > That's why it's landuse=forest, not landcover=forest. A > landuse=residential area isn't all houses (it includes yards, That's why it is not landuse=house. A landuse=residential contains all things that belong to a typical residential area, like buildings, gardens etc. The buildings themselves are often tagged seperately. > driveways, garages, streets, sidewalks) and a landuse=forest area > isn't all trees. But this is the way it is used. I've never seen a "landuse=forest" that's not mainly trees. If a national forest as a legal entity contains areas without trees I would not tag these areas as landuse=forest but as grassland, farmland and so on. Even big imports like Corine Land Cover France use it this way: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Corine_Land_Cover/Tagging_scheme I know that legally a field may belong to a national forest, but it shouldn't be tagged as a forest because it isn't one. Every topographic or street map I know would show a border of a national forest as a sort of border line, but the areas where trees grow as forest. So the national park should be tagged as boundary=national_park or similiar. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On 08.10.2010 00:05, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > still it isn't at all a forest. landuse forest is a documented tag for > forests and forests means an area with trees. > all the other areas you will find in a national forest have well defined > tags natural/landuse=wood,glacier,heat,meadow,shrub > just because google,yahoo,garmin draws national forests in green we > shouldn't make the same stupid mistake in osm I totally agree. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On 08.10.2010 07:17, Stephen Hope wrote: > On 8 October 2010 03:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> What is the current feeling for a new key "landcover"? Could resolve >> many issues, as often landuse is a mixture of actual "use" and >> "coverage". > > > As long as it is made clear that not all landuse= tags are actually > landuse (or would we move them?) I would not change existing tags which have been used for years on thousands of objects. If we need additional tags that's fine. But I think we can solve most of the problem without new tags by using a combination of "landuse" and "surface". ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new Key proposal: landcover
On 07.10.2010 23:22, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: >> of border line, but the areas where trees grow as forest. So the >> national park should be tagged as boundary=national_park or similiar. > It's not a national park, but a national forest. I'm fine with boundary=national_forest as well. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
On 10/20/2010 06:34 PM, Peter Budny wrote: > I suppose we could just tag all place markers with a > city_dominance_score= tag... or we could just add a step in the > rendering pipeline to calculate it automatically from various datasets > and some rules. I think we should have something in the OSM data. If a special renderer wants to include additonal input that's ok, but if someone wants to create a map e.g. with mkgmap he can use only OSM input. This dominance thing is a good idea. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 06:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > It's now almost 3 years that I'm mapping and when I entered small > informal (not planned or built) footpaths I was using cryptic tag > combinations like highway=footway, informal=yes, width=0.3 (or > highway=path), surface=ground. While that is not impossible, it is > still somehow strange. Why shouldn't we simply add another highway > class on the lowest end? Would simplify all of our lives (at least for > all those who sometimes leave the car when mapping) and add some > clarity. > > Looking at a dictionary I found "trail" (for german "Trampelpfad"), > and helas: there is already a tag-page: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrail > > It isn't very clear though and from the picture I'd say that is highway=path. I think path is clear enough. A path is - according to the wiki - too narrow for a car to drive on. If you add a surface tag I don't see any need for another tag. If you want to emphasize how difficult it is to walk there we have the sac_scale tags. I'd use highway=footway only on ways which have the blue sign with the white pedestrians on it, because on any other way it is not forbidden to e.g. ride on it with a bicycle. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 06:31 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/10/22 John Smith : >> Isn't this what highway=path or highway=track is for? > > > No, in the case of path this is a common misconception, and in the > case of track: where did you get this idea from? This is not a misconception. The wiki says for paths "If a path is wide enough for four-wheel-vehicles, and it is not legally signposted or otherwise only allowed for pedestrians, cyclists or horseriders, it is often better tagged as a highway=track. " ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 06:42 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags > for a 3 m wide and paved "path" and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and > unmaintained "path". If it is 3 m wide it is a track. If it's paved it's grade1, if it's worse its a lower grade. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 06:43 PM, SURLY_ru wrote: > Intentionally built way, too narrow for 4-wheel vehicles, is > "highway=footway". The wiki and the actual usage say nothing about wether it was intentionally built. Footway on the other hand is for designated pedestrian ways, i.e. in many countries a blue sign with pedestrians on it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 09:49 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > No. Width is not a sufficient criterion to determine whether it’s a > track. There is a rails-to-trails conversions around here that don’t > have anything physically preventing cars from driving down it A track is not defined by being physically impossible to drive on with a car. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 09:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > That’s not what the wiki says. It says “If a path is wide enough for > four-wheel-vehicles […] it is often better tagged as a highway=track.” > > That doesn’t mean that that is the only criterion. Then what do you think is the difference between "path" and "track grade5"? I think only the width. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/23/2010 02:04 PM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: > No, not that restrictive. When path was introduced, the equivalence > was given inother direction: there are globally lots of ways tagged > as footways and cycleways that have no signposts at all, some of The wiki says: "highway cycleway For designated cycleways" and "highway footway For designated footpaths" (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Highway), which is exactly what I was saying. The example photos there support this. For highway=path it says "non-specific or shared-use path", and the photo shows a forest path or trail which is smaller than a track, not very well kept, natural surface. > Changing the definition of highway=footway etc. has never even been > proposed - it's unnecessary wordplay to claim retrospectively that > the word "designated" in highway=footway definition was originally > used for the same as the value "designated" for access tags. The word "designated" says that there is a sign, doesn't it? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/23/2010 06:02 PM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: > Ralf Kleineisel wrote: >> The wiki says: >> The example photos there support this. > > And the other pages say otherwise. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway both say "designated", too. > way footway/cycleway were used before path. If a way is legal (or > even "possible", think narrow urban stuff) only for pedestrians, > setting up or omitting any signs (not forbidding pedestrians, > naturally) doesn't make it anything else than a footway. Yes, for narrow, paved urban ways I'd say so, too. > Likewise ways > with a "no motor vehicles" sign are often cycleways - only pedestrians > and cyclists are allowed and do use them, even if a different sign > would imply otherwise a bit different traffic rules on those ways. I think using cycleway and footway (mainly, there will always be exceptions) for ways with signs (either the "pedestrian only", "cyclists only" or the "no motor vehicles") and path mainly for ways which are unpaved and smaller than tracks reflects the everyday usage of the terms best. This way the usage is intuitive for new users. And we don't need a new tag for trails. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/23/2010 11:01 PM, Pieren wrote: > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Ralf Kleineisel <mailto:r...@kleineisel.de>> wrote: > > Then what do you think is the difference between "path" and "track > grade5"? I think only the width. > Not 'only'. If you see that the way is or has been used by 4 wheels > vehicules, then tag 'track', otherwise 'path'. Yes, sure, but for this it has to be wide enough, right? > Imagine a path inside a > forest (or in the mountain or whatever) is 4 meters wider for a short > distance (but very narrow before and after), don't change from 'path' to > 'track' just because it is 4 meters wide. > Think that 'track' can be used > to establish routes for 4wd's. I agree. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=informal_path WAS: Re: "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/25/2010 10:29 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: > the street you have to jump down the curb (some 15 cm curb). This is > really not a path, IMHO It is definitely a path, IMHO. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=informal_path WAS: Re: "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/25/2010 10:29 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: > For example, what would you tag this? > > http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Vercelli,+Piedmont,+Italy&ll=45.314604,8.414012&spn=0.001633,0.004128&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=45.314594,8.413845&panoid=VAMbvxwaZiigA_JUOfHBkw&cbp=12,348.5,,0,31.53 Path, definitely. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FW :Re: RFC: new key Landcover
On 11/16/2010 06:59 PM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: > If you wanted to describe both the soil and what is growing on the > soil, would you use both a surface tag and also a landcover tag? For > example, if you had a sand dune stabilized by beach grass, would you > use surface=sand and landcover=beach_grass? You could use surface=sand and surface=beach_grass or surface=grass. No need for a new tag, IMHO. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FW :Re: RFC: new key Landcover
On 11/18/2010 04:32 AM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: > So, you would be using multiple surface tags on the same area? No, I'd tag the whole beach as landuse=beach, the sandy areas as surface=sand and the grass parts as surface=grass. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] FW :Re: RFC: new key Landcover
On 11/18/2010 09:01 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/11/18 Ralf Kleineisel : >> On 11/18/2010 04:32 AM, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: >> >>> So, you would be using multiple surface tags on the same area? >> >> No, I'd tag the whole beach as landuse=beach, the sandy areas as >> surface=sand and the grass parts as surface=grass. > > > really? You are tagging single grass blades? Did I say anything about single grass blades? On a beach you can have square kilometers of different surfaces, sand, pebbles, grass which are well big enough to tag. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Ultimate list of approved keys
On 01/02/2011 05:42 PM, Robert Elsenaar wrote: > This was a expected answer. I frequently try to discover the reason OSM > mappers accepting this anarchistic rule of NOT having tagging rules at all. > What are the advantages for this? I prefer this over being told what I may map and what not. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Ultimate list of approved keys
On 01/02/2011 07:52 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > On 02/01/2011 19:24, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: >> I prefer this over being told what I may map and what not. > Does that not depend on whether you are working for yourself, or as a > part of a cooperative project? Do you not care whether others can use > what you store? Sure I do. And I try my best to use accepted tags, too, because that's the only way for things to show up on the map. And because these tags do make sense most of the time. But I do not want someone telling me "this is not relevant enough" and having the right to delete my edits. > If you are simply working for yourself, please use your > own database. If you are happy to share with millions of others, please > acknowledge that there must be a certain level of governance to stop OSM > resembling a landfill site. A cooperative governance, yes. Discussing things, but being permissive. Not a dictatorship of a few admins. I would hate to see OSM go the same way as wikipedia did where a bunch of self-declared supermen tell evryone what to write and what not. > Currently there is little governance within OSM. This situation cannot > persist much longer or the whole project will implode. This is your opinion. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Ultimate list of approved keys
On 01/02/2011 08:45 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: > You seem to believe that people make up their own ontologies in > isolation. But that's observably not true. Mappers /voluntarily/ use > established tags, as long as they know them and don't fundamentally > disagree with them. For obvious reasons: They want their data to be > useful, and this requires applications to understand said data. > > Application developers act in a similar way. They, too, will voluntarily > try to stick to established conventions, for equally obvious reasons: > They want to use the data produced by the mappers, so they need to speak > the same "language". > > This process means that once popular applications actually use some set > of tags, usage will - with few exceptions - gradually become less > varied. And this effect will only become more pronounced with the > current popularization of editor presets. Very true. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Ultimate list of approved keys
On 02.01.2011 22:40, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Ralf Kleineisel wrote: >> I do not want someone telling me "this is not relevant enough" and >> having the right to delete my edits. > > Then make edits which are relevant enough By which and whose standards? Yours? Mine? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Thoughts on how to replace or modify an exist/established tag (Was: Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate)
On 01/06/2011 06:00 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: > What beside of this - I fear, stupid - "certification" is the benefit > for a hiking map in supporting e.g. maxspeed of motorways as part of the > OSM core being the decision basis to get the certification? > > To make a better example: Garmin AiO for Europe is getting too large for > many devices currently - so the core definition you propose would > require to include buildings in the map, no matter of their size and the > drawbacks of excluding most old devices by including the building layer? I think it's even impossible to support all OSM tags on a specific map. When rendering a map or converting the data into a special format (e.g. Garmin devices) you always have lot of constraints. For example Garmins don't support an unlimited number of way types. So you have to map OSM tags to device tags, which is not always a lossless process. In addition it's often not even desirable to show everything - many maps have a special purpose and should only show the things relevant for that purpose. I think that map renderers and map makers already do their best to support as many useful (for their map!) tags as possible and most mappers do their best to map according to the wiki definition because they want their work to appear on the maps. Remember, the goal of OSM is a FREE map, not one with a lot of rules and restrictions. There are enough restricted maps out there. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Thoughts on how to replace or modify an exist/established tag (Was: Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate)
On 01/06/2011 10:03 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote: > I suggested that some users with proven credentials be put in charge of > their own matter: for example, that one or more doctors in Civil > Engineering took care of the Civil Engineering course. I was told that > that's not how a wiki works and that a "wiki"versity should be open to > anybody's edits - I left the project because then the Wikipedia effect > is always latent: anyone could put any garbage in it and it may go > unnoticed. There is another wikipedia effect, very prominent in the German wikipedia: over-regulation, deleting useful edits because some admin thinks it's not relevant enough, no matter how well he knows that field of knowledge. In the real OSM world I haven't seen much garbage. There are always newbies who don't know the established tags, and there are a few controversial tags or how to handle a complex multipolygon, but overall my observation is that the map is already very good. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Thoughts on how to replace or modify an exist/established tag (Was: Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate)
On 01/06/2011 11:47 PM, Simone Saviolo wrote: > It's not an advantage "on the application side" in itself; it's more of > an advantage for the user. Say I'm a cyclist and I want a map: I'll > prefer one with CycleMap 4.3 over one with CycleMap 1.2 over one with no > CycleMap. If you plan to have half a dozen cycle map definitions as well as road, water, hiking, street, and what not, then we will have as many definitions as maps. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
