Re: [Tagging] parking

> > I agree that useful is a good criteria, but there are times when > "authorised" is not adequate. For example, different parking areas are > authorized for different functional entities. Maybe I should know if my > authrorization qualifies for a particular area, but there's a significant > proba

Re: [Tagging] parking

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >>In that case maybe we should continue trying to bend "access" to fit the >> purpose, > > This is not so wrong, imho, if "access=" means "use is restricted to". "Use" > for a road means driving, "use" for a parking lot means parking, "use" fo

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 11:52:30AM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Second comment: As always, its not that easy. You can't just read osm.xml. > > At least you have to take the osm2pgsql config into account. Also you > > probably > > > > Sure, can you give me a few pointers? I haven't got Mapnik or

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

tight/spacious/critical are terms from the Dutch guidance on assessing/adapting roads for cycling, and endorsed by UK guidance (Type "LTN208" into your favourite search engine if interested) Richard On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Richard

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

Steve - dip your toe in the Smoothness debate on the wiki, and recoil with horror that people have devoted so much time to arguing over suitability measures. You can get a basic classification of physical attributes using the highway tag (especially when you know that 99% of the use of "path" is f

Re: [Tagging] Coastlines and structures

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > Yep. In river water there is less than 500 ppm of dissolved salts. So, rent > a boat, take water samples at determined positions and measure the > conductivity. > > (Just kidding... :-) ) I just had to look this up converted 500ppm to EC units (microSi

Re: [Tagging] parking

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > Ok, so it looks like we're back to access=destination then :). > > Well, "access=destination" was intended for roads that you can drive through, if you're going somewhere nearby, right? "access=customer" would be more intuitive, no? > > > For

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Richard Mann < richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Steve - dip your toe in the Smoothness debate on the wiki, and recoil with > horror that people have devoted so much time to arguing over suitability > measures. > Heh, I've only seen the results of it

Re: [Tagging] Coastlines and structures

2009/12/9 Liz : > Just as well you were only kidding, because this method isn't going to work > worldwide. Especially where the water table has been drained and sailinity is an issue :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.ope

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Craig Wallace wrote: >> >> See these pages: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer >> >> As that page says, its probably more acurrate t

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

2009/12/9 Erik Johansson : > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Craig Wallace wrote: >>> >>> See these pages: >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer >>> >>> As that pag

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Peter Childs wrote: > 2009/12/9 Erik Johansson : >> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Roy Wallace wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Craig Wallace wrote: See these pages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice http://wiki.opens

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:29 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Richard Mann < > richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> Steve - dip your toe in the Smoothness debate on the wiki, and recoil with >> horror that people have devoted so much time to arguing over su

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

Craig Wallace wrote: > As that page says, its probably more acurrate to say "Don't deliberately > tag incorrectly for the renderer". Someone (I'm too lazy to look up who right now) recently gave a wonderful example: Just because "landuse=industrial" is rendered with pink color, you shouldn't tag

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 5:58 AM, Erik Johansson wrote: > Yes but people say "don't tag for the renderer" which a horrible meme, > I say "always tag for the renderer". > I don't remember who to give credit to, but the best restatement I've heard went something like "don't tag for a renderer; alway

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Anthony wrote: > I'm not sure if it was meant to be taken this way or not, but I interpret > that as "tag for what the renderer should be, not what the renderer is". > Remember, the OSM API is 0.6. We need to be tagging with the assumption that the renderers are

[Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

(First, I'm heartened by all the common sense regarding the "don't tag for the renderer" meme - someone needs to update that page.) I have made an interesting second step: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Stevage/osmarender What I've done is apply the same technique against the Osmarender

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Anthony wrote: > And that's what happens when you try to map suitability. > Well, that's what happened to *them*, at any rate. >As I've said before, I have absolutely no idea how suitable a particular way is for bicycling. Sure, but presumably you could follow

Re: [Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

Looking through the list, there are some interesting points - not just mistakes in the data. For example, osmarender has much more detailed support for historic=*. Both support landuse=conservation, although it's not documented in the wiki, etc. Question: Do you think support in those two renderer

Re: [Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

Steve Bennett wrote: > Question: Do you think support in those two renderers is sufficient > basis to document a tag in the wiki? Mere use of the tag is sufficient basis to document in the wiki. What the renderers support is secondary to that. If no-one ever used/documented a tag until a rendere

Re: [Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Jonathan Bennett < openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk> wrote: > Mere use of the tag is sufficient basis to document in the wiki. What > the renderers support is secondary to that. If no-one ever > used/documented a tag until a renderer supported it, OSM wouldn't > devel

Re: [Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

2009/12/9 Jonathan Bennett : > Steve Bennett wrote: >> Question: Do you think support in those two renderers is sufficient >> basis to document a tag in the wiki? > Mere use of the tag is sufficient basis to document in the wiki. What > the renderers support is secondary to that. If no-one ever > u

Re: [Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

Hi! Am 09.12.2009 18:00, schrieb Peteris Krisjanis: >> Mere use of the tag is sufficient basis to document in the wiki. What >> the renderers support is secondary to that. If no-one ever >> used/documented a tag until a renderer supported it, OSM wouldn't >> develop anywhere near as quickly as it

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

"follow the wiki" - yes, perhaps - but WHICH wiki ... See my earlier long message on this sight pointing out (as if we didn't all know already!) that there are many ideas in the wiki that are not all mutually consistent or compatible. No surprise there ... but hence my question ... > -Origina

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

... That seems entirely sane ... Imho the most important thing is to map what's there on the ground ... If wonks like me want to add further information that they happen have available then that's fine too - but we're all volunteers! > -Original Message- > From: tagging-boun...@openstreetm

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

... is this even correct? subtags off access=* or values for highway=* ? _ From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett Sent: 09 December 2009 03:34 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicy

[Tagging] bicycle=no

As a travelling cyclist I need to know if I am going to be able to take a particular road or not before I get there. I know bicycles are not permitted on motorways/autobahns/autovias etc so I suspect that it is implied that bicycle=no on roads designated as such on the Map. But sometimes, you can b

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

Erik Johansson wrote: > Yes but people say "don't tag for the renderer" which a horrible meme, > I say "always tag for the renderer". If there is not visual > feedbackyou are doing it wrong (except in keepright). Only using a tag because it appears in a renderer style sheet (or conversely not us

Re: [Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

Steve Bennett wrote: > Cool. In that case, what purpose do the "proposals" serve exactly? It > seems you don't need to wait for a proposal to pass in order to use > it, document it, implement it in renderers...:) There's some disagreement over that exact point. There are some mappers (myself inc

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

On 08/12/2009, at 21.44, Richard Mann wrote: > Could you point us to an example, please? I assume you mean an example of how OSMArender renders cycleway=track? I found an example [0] where you can see a cycleway=track in the north part of the tile; the road turns in the SW direction, and for

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Peter Childs wrote: > > By "Don't Tag for the renderer" we generally mean don't tag for one > particular renderer, Its like writing a website for IE that does not > work in Firefox; Not a good idea. Nice analogy! ___ Tag

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Anthony wrote: > > "tag for what the renderer should be, not what the renderer is". +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

For a one, I think there should be some clarification what Mapnik on OSM exactly renders. If it renders "traffic map" (roads, streets, directions and things of interest for traffic - fast food, caffes, motels, etc.), then it should be said what will be left out. It is clear that there will come a t

Re: [Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > > The "voting" procedure was never an official policy, and when it was > first discussed (in something like 2006) it was only for tags to appear > on the Map Features page as a "core tag". This sounds sensible to me. The Map Features page

Re: [Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Looking through the list, there are some interesting points - not just > mistakes in the data. For example, osmarender has much more detailed support > for historic=*. Both support landuse=conservation, although it's not > documented in the w

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

>> > So - question to the group - do people think that foot / bicycle / >> > etc. = yes / no / permissive etc. has any strictly legal >> implication >> > in their area / usage? >> >> Technically, yep, best to follow the wiki on this one. > > "follow the wiki" - yes, perhaps - but WHICH wiki ... See

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:09 PM, David Calder wrote: > As a travelling cyclist I need to know if I am going to be able to take a > particular road or not before I get there. I know bicycles are not permitted > on motorways/autobahns/autovias etc so I suspect that it is implied that > bicycle=no on

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > Erik Johansson wrote: >> Yes but people say "don't tag for the renderer" which a horrible meme, >> I say "always tag for the renderer". If there is not visual >> feedbackyou are doing it wrong (except in keepright). > Only using a tag beca

Re: [Tagging] parking

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> Ok, so it looks like we're back to access=destination then :). > > Well, "access=destination" was intended for roads that you can drive > through, if you're going somewhere nearby, right? "access=customer" would be > more intuitive, no? Hm

Re: [Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Jonathan Bennett < openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk> wrote: > > There's some disagreement over that exact point. There are some mappers > (myself included) who completely ignore the proposal procedure, because > they believe that it's a needless layer of bureaucracy t

Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Erik Johansson wrote: > leisure=golf_course: > bunker: natural=beach > water: natural=water > start point (tee?): highway=pedestrian > > Excellent example. I'd tag the water that way (and possibly also golf:water_hazard or whatever), but tagging the bunker as a b

Re: [Tagging] parking

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Roy Wallace > > Hmm, I think access=destination is just as intuitive, and is a bit > more "general" (e.g. it would work equally well for "visitor" > parking). > > > How about access=visitor then? Now *that* seems general: customers, visiting a friend, patients at

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Anthony wrote: > >As I've said before, I have absolutely no idea how suitable a particular > way is for bicycling. > > Sure, but presumably you could follow directions if they were spelt out for > you. > I

Re: [Tagging] parking

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Roy Wallace >> >> Hmm, I think access=destination is just as intuitive, and is a bit >> more "general" (e.g. it would work equally well for "visitor" >> parking). >> >> > > How about access=visitor then? No

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Anthony wrote: > > ... I'm not going through a lookup table > of road surfaces and their suitability for bicycling when I could just tag > the road surface and let a computer do that. +1. And more importantly, let the user specify what they want. It's not the map

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Anthony wrote: > > I could, but quite frankly, I won't. I'm not going through a lookup table > of road surfaces and their suitability for bicycling when I could just tag > the road surface and let a computer do that. Especially since if we have to > map suitabi

Re: [Tagging] More cycleway=* values needed

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > > [0] http://osm.org/go/0H9xGkqbE-?layers=0B00FTF > > > That renders nicely, but the oneway tags seem redundant. I guess that's the downside of mapping a oneway bike lane distinctly from the road. You need the oneway=yes for routing, but

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > > We must be operating under different assumptions. I'm thinking it's *easier* > to use a single tag, like "bicycle:suitability=medium" for a stretch of a > few kilometres, rather than tagging the width each time it changes, the > surface ea

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > We must be operating under different assumptions. I'm thinking it's > *easier* to use a single tag, like "bicycle:suitability=medium" for a > stretch of a few kilometres, rather than tagging the width each time it > changes, the surface each

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Anthony wrote: > What kind of surface/width changes are we talking about? I'd support a > relaxaton of the width tag to support a range of tags (width=2-3). The tag > "est_width=2.5" is already in the wiki. As for surface changes, I don't > know how common that

Re: [Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > > Consistency between our two example renders would be a good thing, so > thanks for putting some work into this. I think there may be some tags > missing -- I can't see highway=turning_circle in your list, which I know > the Mapnik render

Re: [Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

2009/12/10 Steve Bennett : > Anyone know why this is? Perhaps a hack implemented before > was invented or something? Why would it need to filter? The SQL query is pretty specific and I'm guessing the zoom levels are sane as well. ___ Tagging mailing l

Re: [Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:07 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/10 Steve Bennett : >> Anyone know why this is? Perhaps a hack implemented before >> was invented or something? > > Why would it need to filter? > > The SQL query is pretty specific and I'm guessing the zoom levels are > sane as well. I

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > There's a big difference between a fence intended to keep cars out, and one > that keeps people out. > *Sigh*. I'll bite. What would be a fence which is a barrier to one, but not to the other? You know barrier doesn't mean "impenetrable"

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Anthony wrote: > *Sigh*.  I'll bite.  What would be a fence which is a barrier to one, but > not to the other?  You know barrier doesn't mean "impenetrable", right? Well a series of boulders is a barrier to vehicles, but not even noticeable to pedestrians. > Yes,

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Anthony wrote: > > *Sigh*. I'll bite. What would be a fence which is a barrier to one, but > > not to the other? You know barrier doesn't mean "impenetrable", right? > > Well a series of boulders is a bar

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Anthony wrote: > Most OSM tags are poorly named for a lot of instances.  Personally, I've > learned to treat them like terms in a foreign language. There's a lot to be said for this approach. The problem area is when a tag causes certain expectations of what it me

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > I don't think anyone is suggesting not tagging this as bicycle=no. The > issue, as I see it, is what to do with roads and paths where there is > _not_ a sign that specifies whether or not you may cycle there. Yep, even extremists who believe

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> Yep.  Fortunately, there aren't too many ways which use both highway=* and >> barrier=*. > > Yeah...but still. I'm not a fan of having "bicycle=no" mean two > similar, but distinctly different things, when applied to different > kinds of o

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Anthony wrote: > > Yep. Fortunately, there aren't too many ways which use both highway=* > and > > barrier=*. > > Yeah...but still. I'm not a fan of having "bicycle=no" mean two > similar, but distinctly d

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Anthony wrote: >> > Yep. Fortunately, there aren't too many ways which use both highway=* >> and >> > barrier=*. >> >> Yeah...but still. I'm not a fan

Re: [Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

Data is grouped in layers. These layers get their data from a datasource. This data is styled with styles. Some styles contain a filter expression, to restrict the application of that style to only a limited number of items within the layer. Other styles simply apply to all the data within the l

Re: [Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Wednesday 09 December 2009 17:21:38 Steve Bennett wrote: > Both support landuse=conservation, although it's not > documented in the wiki -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Tagging m

Re: [Tagging] A second step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Cartinus wrote: > Data is grouped in layers. > These layers get their data from a datasource. > This data is styled with styles. > > Some styles contain a filter expression, to restrict the application of that > style to only a limited number of items within the la

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Anthony wrote: > Hmm, thinking about it I'm not so sure we aren't mapping the legalities, at > least not in situations where it makes sense to ask the question of whether > or not crossing a barrier is legal.  The purpose of a barrier, at least a > barrier in a pub