[Tagging] Culverts and Fords
The real easy way to understand culverts and fords for OpenStreetMap is about the layers they are on and this dictates the nodes they use. For a ford the stream/river is at the same level as the road (effectively layer=0) and therefore they are able to share a node. Because a culvert (layer=-1) is not on the same level as the road but passes underneath so it cannot share a node with the road and therefore the culvert is attributed to the river/stream with a node either side of the road. With a bridge the road (layer 1) is not on the same level with the stream/river so again cannot share a node and therefore the bridge is attributed to the road with a node at each end of the bridge. Hope this will be of help in understanding the problem. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] roundtrip
Thoughts on the subject For a route to be a round trip on public transport it would be required that only one ticket purchase would be necessary to take you full circle, and this would include a tourist bus that allows you to get off and back on again along the route until you get back to the original start point. A river cruise would fall into this same category even though it will go up one side of the river and back down the other to the original start jetty and requires a single round trip ticket. If there is a disembark point along the route and a new ticket is required to return then this is not a round trip and could use the roundtrip=no tag as a warning for users planning their trip This means that a bus that has a route that takes it to a destination and then you need to buy a return ticket to get back along the same or similar route to the original start point cannot be a roundtrip. Falling into this train of thought would it apply to a tourist train that takes you along a dedicated route to a destination, allows you to get off and look around then get on the same train and head back to the original destination, all included in the single ticket purchase. Being careful here because they may have a separate cheaper ticket if you are only going to the destination, in which case would the tourist trip be a return ticket (or a roundtrip ticket?) So a roundtrip would not necessarily indicate a circular route but could also be used to indicate that there is a single roundtrip ticket such as a park-and-ride bus or river cruise that returns you to your original destination in one journey. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Peter Elderson Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 10:38 AM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] roundtrip Thanks for the example. Looks to me the bus will have to drive through the tunnel for its next round. This route just needs to be completed! Now it's a oneway route. The route_master only contains one relation in one direction. 2018-05-25 11:10 GMT+02:00 Johnparis : Interesting. Similarly, a route that is not closed can be a roundtrip. The start and end points might be several meters apart, even on different roads, yet serve the same destination. There are a few (very few) examples I have found in the Paris area. Here's one. It's not marked roundtrip=yes but probably should be: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8140184 I agree that this tag seems to be of very limited usefulness, though I confess to having used it on occasion. On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: On 25/05/18 15:48, Peter Elderson wrote: What is the use of the key:roundtrip? Explanations just say roundtrip=yes/no (optional) Use roundtrip=no to indicate that a route goes from A to B. Use roundtrip=yes to indicate that the start and finish of the route are at the same location (circular route). It seems rather pointless to tag an obvious a-b route with roundtrip=no, or an abvious roundtrip with roundtrip=yes. Why would you tag an a-b route as roundtrip=yes, or a closed route as roundtrip=no? A route that is 'closed' can be a non round trip. For example the bus only does one circuit then goes on to another route elsewhere. This can be done to provide services to both that route and to other parts of the community with other routes. There may not be enough demand for a continuous circuit to be viable. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Vr gr Peter Elderson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landcover=asphalt ; landuse=highway
This is a part of landuse that is missing on Openstreetmap. There is a term used for this in road planning. It is called a “road reserve” which includes all parts of the road components. The surfaced carriageways, central reservations, hard and soft shoulders, sidewalks (pavements), buffer zones, verges, embankments, sound barriers. Any work that needs to be carried out within the area of the reserve requires permission from the government or local authority that is responsible for that section of the road reserve. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Mateusz Konieczny Sent: 14 July 2018 12:02 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] landcover=asphalt ; landuse=highway Yes, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dhighway 13. Lipiec 2018 15:43 od bhou...@gmail.com: I would think `landuse=highway` would work kind of like `landuse=railway`, used to map a right of way corridor, not the actual asphalt surface. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] works_as_highway=primary
Hi Pavel, First let me say that I am totally against the idea of “silly tags” such as works_as_highway=primary. This just indicates a lack of understanding of the real situation. I have looked at your problem and understand what you are seeing. I will give you examples in the Czech Republic as that appears to be the area of concern. My case example is the D1 from Praha all the way to the border with Poland. http://www.rsd.cz/rsd/rsd.nsf/0/80345976071FCBACC12575CF004E133E/$file/RSD2009cz.pdf (Page 23) You will see that the D1 is incomplete from before Prerov to Ostrava. The cross-border European road network (E462) has chosen the D1 onto R46 onto R35 then back onto D1 as their choice of Primary Route. http://www.rsd.cz/rsd/rsd.nsf/0/80345976071FCBACC12575CF004E133E/$file/RSD2009en.pdf (Page 7) which shows that a Primary route does not necessarily mean it follows the route numbering of a country. You can also see from here that the Primary route bypasses Brno to the south and does not actually go through Brno and many countries countries have adopted this routing to avoid congestion and thus delays along their primary routes so Primary routes do not always take you into your destination city, town, village or hamlet. Where a Primary route is “incomplete” it does not mean that the road just drops off into a deep hole. The lesser roads are the Primary route and were the Primary route before the new planned routes came into existence ... irrespective of the alpha-numeric numbers allocated to them now just because they are not motorways or dual carriageways. So you are dealing with a multi-layered numbering system with EU on top of National on top of Local. The OSM classification irons out all those inconsistencies into a single understandable continuity and should show a continuous primary route along a route that changes from an international to a National to a Local or dual carriageway to two way hard top to a two way unsurfaced and in some countries down to a single lane unsurfaced road. It would be impossible to render all roads according to their National numbering, type of road and state of surface but we can tag them accordingly. From: Pavel Zbytovský Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 10:02 AM To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Tagging] works_as_highway=primary Hi, we have a following issue at mapy.cz (zooms cca <13 are OSM data). We try to render primary road overview in Czech republic, so the drivers could easily see where its possible to drive. But sometimes the primary road ends and continues as a secondary road - it could be in cites, or possibly temporary detour. (see links below) Is there any recommended solution already availible? Otherwise we have two solutions to discuss. 1) technically the small secondary roads part works as primary road network. So we would suggest a tag similar to works_as_highway=primary. Do you think its ok? Any suggestions? 2) less preferable solution would be to add render specific tag. Something like low_zoom_as_higway=primary. Thanks for reply, Pavel Zbytovský [1] http://www.mapy.cz/s/hf6Y http://www.osm.org/way/27074773 [2] http://www.mapy.cz/s/k35L http://www.osm.org/way/49798938 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line
Please remember that this is OpenStreetMap and most mappers are not experts on the features they are mapping. It is my personal appeal to all to allow a tagging system that allows general mappers to put a specific feature on the map using overall basic tags and then the experts can come in and “add” additional tags to break it into it’s specific grouping or usage and even take it to the nth degree of ridiculous if they so wish. Let us take the Electricity Grid as that example, if the general mapper can identify a power line on the aerial imagery then they map it as a power=line. They may even have the ability to identify the position of most pylons (if the imagery shows a good shadow to identify between pole and pylon) through open country, it becomes a lot more difficult and blurred in Towns and Cities. For those who have a bit more local knowledge of the grid they may then add the major detail such as National Grid which carries the highest voltage, this breaks down to a lower voltage at a sub station to enter the regional grid and then repeats this step to a lower voltage again for the local or distributer grid. Hopefully you will bear in mind the mapper and the process of getting detail on the map before you start deciding that the mappers should all be using the detailed knowledge tags that you are proposing. If the tags get too detailed for general mappers then you are going to stop them from adding basic detail to the map. I for one will stop adding power lines altogether if I do not know if it is high or low voltage, national or local grid. I WILL CONTINUE TO MAP THEM IF I AM ABLE TO JUST TAG IT AS A POWER LINE and be able to leave it up to someone with more knowledge to identify it further. Please remember the majority of mappers are not experts in all fields. I may identify a structure on the aerial imagery and identify it as a building but I have no way of knowing if it is a family home, a corner shop or a local pub ... so I tag it with the most general tag building=yes. I need to be able to do the same with power lines ... a very basic tag for general use. From: David Marchal Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 8:19 AM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line Well, I would say: mainly on poles = minor_line, and mainly on towers = line; this way, the difference is easy to see for mappers, even on Bing imagery, and, as poles, AFAIK, are always smaller that towers, that would properly model the landscape impact these power lines have. Besides, I know we're not supposed to map for the renderer, but the OSM Mapnik stylesheet seems adapted for such modelling, as minor_line are rendered only on higher zooms, i.e. starting from z16, which seems to me a correct rendering for lines on poles, far less visible than lines on towers. I mean, the stylesheet guys made a logical choice, why not adopting the same? Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:48:58 +0200 From: fl.infosrese...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line (Sent from a phone) Hi David, Many opinion exists regarding the minor or not line qualification and still no consensus. As consumers may not be able to make the right distinction between minor or major lines, I assume using power=line only, in continental France and always in combination with voltage=* and operator=*. Thus both users and mappers only have information instead of hypothesis and can make the distinction they want from the voltage, location and operating company. Additionally, underground power paths use to be mapped with power=cable + location=underground Let us know if you have better idea to improve power line mapping ;) All the best François ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Please don't think name_1 tags are errors.
I am quite in favour of people coming forward to discuss the possibility of improving the iD Editor if it is causing problems. I object to the continuous use of naming new mappers as a problem. I will defend the reason for iD preventing new mappers from being given the option of inadvertently or erroneously deleting other mapper's work. At least until they understand what they are deleting. New mappers have a lot to learn. They have enough of a problem just learning how to use the tools and finding out what basic tagging is without being inundated with error messages telling them they cannot save their work because of some technical fault. Let them save their work rather than it getting lost or they get so frustrated that they give up and walk away. And believe me when I say that they are nor learning bad tagging from the iD Editor because most new mappers will not understand what just happened or that the tag is different, they will just be grateful that their work has been saved and they can continue mapping. To really understand the tagging requires a concerted study and even then it does not help. When I started a waterway=wadi was an accepted tag but within a period of three months it was deprecated by a group that did not really understand it's cartographic usage. Now we are left with intermittent=yes which does not adequately depict a dry river bed that is a natural feature but only occasionally (as opposed to regularly or seasonally) has flowing water. Throughout the arid countries we now have these features (wadi/ouadi/arroyo/dry gulch/ etc.) without an appropriate tag. So I would say, do not knock the new mappers, this area is a minefield of correctness ... or incorrectness as the case may be ... and we do not want to discourage new mappers. I sympathise with the frustrations of the very experienced mappers/taggers/renderers but we have to remember that Openstreetmap has developed and grown with everyone being a new mapper at some stage. Please be tolerant of the new mappers so that they can grow with us and become the experienced mappers of the future... with our help not our criticism. Please all have a Happy Mapping year and help this immense undertaking to grow. -Original Message- From: moltonel 3x Combo Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 2:26 PM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: [Tagging] Please don't think name_1 tags are errors. Hi, I've just reverted http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/36573638 where the mapper thought that name_1 tags were typos. That user is on a key typo fixing spree, which is a good thing in itself, even if mistakes happen. But I wonder if some people know about the iD editor behavior below, and assume that a name_1 tag must have been created that way ? If so, consider this email as a reminder that the _N suffix is used on purpose by many people. As always, contact the mapper if unsure. On 09/01/2016, Hakuch wrote: **iD-Editor problem** unfortunately, the iD-editor is creating such prefixed tags and is training newbies to use them as a good tagging practice. When you use the raw-tag-editor and tries to add an already existing tag, iD does not throw any error or information but adds the tag with a suffixed number like _1 or higher. It suggests to the unexperienced mapper, that this is a usable method to add multiple values, although this suffixing is only made to prevent the user of deleting data. We still couldn't convince the developer, that this suffixing method leads new mappers to bad practice (https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2896). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=residential road
Thank you Gerd, The incorrect tagging that you have picked up is by an inexperienced mapper that worked on a square in the tasking manager but has not marked that square as completed yet so no validation has taken place. An even more extensive error that has been done by that same mapper is to incorrectly tag a load of residential roads as highway=service. In the course of mapping, because this square is not completed, someone else would open it to complete it and may very well have corrected that themselves before the square is marked as complete and we might not have picked it up during validation. Introducing new mappers to OSM is really a hit and miss affair, not knowing at the beginning who will go on to become a regular mapper and who will not find it their favourite pastime. During the early days of the mapper’s experience on OSM we do need to do quite a bit of baby-sitting to check and control the quality of the work. We are continually trying to increase the number of validators to assist with this task so that we can try to get in early on with new mappers and correct any errors in the way they do things. In general the new mappers welcome some kind of feedback to understand that they are doing the right thing and can confidently continue. So we give positive feedback to help with this. So thank you for giving us a head start on this one and we can contact this mapper and correct the error before he/she creates more errors. Ralph From: Gerd Petermann Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 8:51 AM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=residential road I fixed one or two edits in Africa during the last days thinking those were simple typos, but new mappers continued to use this tag, so I thought I should try to contact the more experienced mappers to point out that there might be a recent change in the instructions which was not good. I'll contact the mappers as well. Gerd Von: althio Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Februar 2016 09:07 An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Betreff: Re: [Tagging] highway=residential road I am on mobile, this is what I found: 8 objects http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/etp At least on this project #hotosm-project-1465, #MissingMaps, #Mozambique, #Bing http://tasks.hotosm.org/project/1465 Pretty standard instructions with references to wiki-highway_tag_africa At least with this changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/37272932 Best course in my opinion would be to contact directly mapper(s) via OSM changesets discussion to welcome and explain. See you all - althio On Feb 18, 2016 7:57 AM, "Gerd Petermann" wrote: Hi all, in the last days a few newby mappers started to map highway="residential road" . They all contribute to #hotosm tasks, so it seems that the hints for these projects suggest to use this tagging. Can anybody from HOT check this, please ? Gerd ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft of proposal tag 'sells' for shops..
My personal opinion is that this is getting totally out of hand. Shops pay a lot of money to advertise their wares and you are stepping in and trying to do commercial marketing for free. Not only that but who is going to maintain this information? Shops rotate their stocks on a seasonal basis. They also stock multiple brands! So we will end up with tagging ... sells:bread:white:medium:Hovis= sells:bread:white:thick:Hovis= sells:bread:50-50:medium:Hovis= sells:bread:white:medium:Own_Brand= sells:bread:white:thick:Own_Brand= etc. etc. etc. With this kind of trend we are definitely moving away from the realms of sustainable Mapping and creating some kind of stock take for each shop! And some of us know that with regard to stock taking even the shops themselves are hard pressed to maintain an up-to-date record. So where does that leave us two weeks, two months or two years down the line? If GIS professionals want to access this kind of detail for a study of shops in an area they would be totally nuts to use the Openstreetmap data for their study, for any kind of credibility they would have to do an up-to-date stock check of the shops in the study area before embarking on this kind of study. I would prefer if we concentrated on just identifying whether it is a clothing shop or a jewellery shop with a link to the shop's website for more up-to-date detailed information of what that shop is promoting rather than seeing time and effort spent on this kind of unsustainable detail. Just my humble opinion. -Original Message- From: Warin Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 7:52 AM To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Draft of proposal tag 'sells' for shops.. On 6/03/2016 5:58 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: I like this, but have a few question: - Do we always place brand at the end ? e.g. sells:cloths:children:Mói=yes or sells:cloths:Mói:children=yes ? - Can we somehow define whether one should use sells:cloths:children vs. sells:children_cloths what I mean can we put forward some "rules" or "guidelines" for defining new subkeys ?. Guide line? Possible? From least to most specific. I think that should be the overall principle .. appears to be a principle inuse by OSM .. at least I think so? More specific? I would reject sells:children_cloths and accept sells:cloths:children as this is more universal method (applies to bread etc)? I would put the brand last - as that is more specific than the type (of clothing, bread etc). - Do we always need all subkeys ? e.g. sells:clothes:brandX:women=yes sells:clothes:brandX:men=yes sells:clothes:brandX:children=yes or sells:clothes:women:brandX, ... or is it in that case sufficient to write sells:clothes:brandX=yes I think the last would be sufficient, and should indicate that most, if not all, products made by that firm are for sale. But the first 3 would be very clear that at least those 3 types are sold (but tagging rearranged to brand last). At least for some tags OSM has two complimentary kinds of tagging in the data base. e.g. oneway=no compared to no tags for oneway. Both are taken as meaning the same thing. There are others, but I cannot think of them now. - how do we incorporate all the values for clothes in this ? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:clothes 1:1 substitution for all values? cloths:women becomes sells:cloths:women ? Similar for shop=tabacco stamps=yes the tag stamps=yes becomes sells:stamp=yes Or better yet would be sells:stamps:revenue=yes and sells:stamps:postage=yes As both exist in various countries! And there could be more different kind of stamps? ! You see I have not gone far in my thinking ... but certainly further than others. I guess similar questions will pop up for other goods. I hope the general principle will be accepted without too much problems, but I expect quite some discussions on the subkeys. (neverending discussions :-) ) Yep. And there will be future 'problems'. regards m Keep them coming! On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: sells:motorcycle:yamaha=yes sells:motorcycle:honda=yes sells:bread:wholemeal=yes sells:bread:sourdough=yes sells:bread:tip_top=yes sells:cloths:children=yes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building
Hi all, I notice the same trend happening with nearly all discussions. Instead of being able to consistently look at and discuss these key features as a world-wide general term the discussion tends to become mired in precise local situations. The discussion was originally about the key ‘building’ which is a general term used to indicate a structure of some kind (this would be the broadest definition which would be acceptable in nearly every part of the world). The value would be what defines the more precise description of that structure (e.g. Single household, multiple use, shed, garage, etc.) With armchair mapping it may not always be possible to identify the extent of single buildings (as in an informal slum area, or a complex high rise city centre where the imagery is oblique). It is preferable in this situation to allow the indication that there are structures there that need more detailed sorting and am in agreement with Blake about the possibility of adding a tag building=multiple which should flag up in any validation process as needing attention (as highway=road does). I also agree that this should be only used as a last resort and sparingly. At the moment I see mappers leaving blank spaces because they cannot identify individual buildings, either because of the complexity of the area or because the imagery is not sharp enough. This approach will allow them to indicate that there are structures there but need more attention. From: Martin Koppenhoefer Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 8:55 AM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building 2016-03-17 1:04 GMT+01:00 Clifford Snow : I used to work in the telecom field. We often did lateral additions to the building. Many times different entrances would have different addresses. yes, multiple addresses on the same building do occur, at least in some regions. I am aware of Germany and Italy where it both happens (in Italy it is the standard). Assigning addresses to a building can make sense in some cases (areas), but it definitely doesn't (always) in others. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use?
When I was maintaining survey plans the landuse=highway would cover the extent of the area owned and maintained by the highways agency and not just the highway itself. This area would include the highways, the soft or hard shoulders, sidewalks (pavements), roundabouts and islands, central reservations, the landscaped and lawn areas, the buffer areas, the trees/shrubs/barriers for soundproofing and the fences/barriers along the outer perimeter to keep animals and humans off the highway. Even in the towns the landuse=residential would be islands separated by landuse=highway, which would include all maintained roads, sidewalks and adjoining land acquired for the road servitude. Depicting landuse=highway like this would be cartographically correct and any features within this road servitude would be tagged accordingly. Ralph -Original Message- From: John Willis Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 11:40 PM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use? On Jan 10, 2017, at 5:49 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: The wiki page has been reverted. Stop trolling. tom Not trolling. Raising the discussion, waving the flag ... this tag is something I trip over every now and then and it really annoys me. As a person who "raised the discussion" around here in the past, you can pretty much say whatever you want - but doing unilateral changes to an established tag is not accepted community behavior. Documenting an existing in-use tag by creating a new page, fine - but changing the def to break such a well used tag is not good etiquette. Changing the tag to discourage use in favor of other tags (like landuse=farm was depreciated) is also something people do - But going and changing the wiki page unilaterally to break existing usage just gets you a reverted wiki page and a scowl from members of the community. Which is what just happened. Hash it out here (where very little gets changed) instead of doing by yourself (where your big change is reverted to nothing). Your point about how a highway overrun being an overrun no matter the covering is valid - but you are not going about it in a good way. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
