Hi,
I am proposing a new key:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trafficability
Cheers
BGNO
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
2014/1/3 Richard Welty :
> On 1/2/14 8:31 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>> I think of the word "flat" as being distinctly British. I have only
>> rarely heard the word "flat" used to describe and apartment in the
>> U.S. When I first glanced at the beginning of this thread I thought
>> the OP was refer
Dear Dave, Steve, Philip
Thank you very much for your replies.
If I understand correctly, you all advocate to use "apartment" instead of
"flat".
As being non-native English, I can not really judge on this (I just learned
"flat" in school, so ... at may age :-) ), so no problem for me to change
This could be a very useful tag - I'm particularly interested in
unsealed and 4x4 roads/tracks, sure you have seen the recent discussion.
We have been trying to massage existing tags for the purpose.
The problem as I see it is that with a wealth of tags everyone chooses
to use different ones. And
Whilst the idea is sound, I am not sure about the name. Is it even a
word? As a native English speaker its not a word that would spring to
mind when I am looking for a tag.
Phil (trigpoint)
On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 09:27 +0100, BGNO BGNO wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I am proposing a new
> key: http://wiki.o
2014/1/3 BGNO BGNO
> I am proposing a new key:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trafficability
>
I removed your "Key:trafficability" page in the wiki. You shall keep the
proposal form some time, at least until you get some kind of consensus or
positive feedbacks. I forwarde
Hi,
It reminds me quite a lot of opening_hours
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours
Would that be appropriate?
Dan
2014/1/3 BGNO BGNO
>
> Hi,
>
> I am proposing a new key:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trafficability
>
> Cheers
>
> BGNO
>
> ___
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Martijn van Exel
wrote:
> I would look at how these places are already tagged in, say,
> Amsterdam. I know, I should know, having lived there for 20 years, but
> I don't :p
Colorado will be full of coffee shops.
- Serge
__
I agree with Philip. Trafficability is not a good choice of terms. The root
word, traffic, is more a descriptor of the types and/or density of vehicles
using a way rather than something to rank its usability under certain
conditions.
Perhaps usability or passable or ??? Both passable (21) and impa
And it's about time. LOL
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Martijn van Exel
> wrote:
> > I would look at how these places are already tagged in, say,
> > Amsterdam. I know, I should know, having lived there for 20 years, but
> > I don't
2014/1/3 Dave Swarthout
>
> That said, I agree that too much fussiness in assigning surface conditions
> is overall probably less helpful than just knowing if a road is paved or
> unpaved. I have driven on classified highways here in Thailand that are
> tracks in all but name. They're paved but s
Yes, I'm saying that British people booking holiday accommodation will
mostly talk about 'apartments', not 'flats' - perhaps partly because
that's what they will see in the brochures. I'm saying that the famous
US/UK split between 'apartment' and 'flat' is largely confined to
residential accomm
On 3 January 2014 04:35, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> Well, that road is certainly not a good example of what we have in Alaska.
> Our unpaved roads are all-weather roads and can tolerate a lot of rain.
> The great majority would not degrade to that condition. They are a mixture
> of sand, clay and g
On 1/3/14 6:23 AM, Dan S wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It reminds me quite a lot of opening_hours
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours
> Would that be appropriate?
>
there are different types of trafficability issues.
here in upstate NY, we have two types of seasonal
road. most are simply unpa
Well, let's just inventory Walmart's selection while we're at it.
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Adam Schreiber wrote:
> Perhaps shop=marijuana, marijuana:recreational=yes/no,
> marijuana:medicinal=yes/no, marijuana:paraphernalia=yes/no,
> marijuana:edibles=yes/no?
>
> Cheers,
> Adam
>
> On Th
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Martijn van Exel
> wrote:
> > I would look at how these places are already tagged in, say,
> > Amsterdam. I know, I should know, having lived there for 20 years, but
> > I don't :p
>
> Colorado will be ful
On 3 January 2014 11:53, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Martijn van Exel
> wrote:
>> I would look at how these places are already tagged in, say,
>> Amsterdam. I know, I should know, having lived there for 20 years, but
>> I don't :p
In the Netherlands, mainly amenity
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Adam Schreiber wrote:
> The last two may be crack, but the first two come from my, perhaps
> mistaken, understanding that not every medicinal dispensary was able to
> secure a recreational use license. Someone more knowledgeable pleas
> correct me.
Well, I'd go
Am Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:57:35 +
schrieb Matthijs Melissen :
> One thing I can think of is to introduce a new tag paved=yes
I disagree.
This is redundancy.
I would recommend a list where values of surface= would be collected and
either be classified as "unpaved" or "paved" if the data consuming
Am Thu, 02 Jan 2014 19:36:13 +0100
schrieb Peter Wendorff :
> I know (without being able to show you photos or something like that)
> ways that are paved with paving stones (and thus clearly counted as
> paved), but due to tree roots below the way and so on are
> tracktype=grade3 or worse
This i
Am Thu, 2 Jan 2014 08:15:14 -0800 (PST)
schrieb gweber :
> I would strongly favour a simple dashed border style whenever the
> surface tag falls into the unpaved categories. It is as simple as
> that. From my experience in driving on rural roads in Brazil, nothing
> else is required.
So these two
>-Original Message-
>From: mve...@gmail.com [mailto:mve...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Martijn van Exel
>I would look at how these places are already tagged in, say,
>Amsterdam. I know, I should know, having lived there for 20 years, but
>I don't :p
I was hoping you might have some insight Ma
I first reacted in the same way ("is it an English word at all?"). But then
I looked it up on Wikipedia. There it is, since 2006(!), with correct
Google translations in several other languages.
On 3 January 2014 12:57, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> I agree with Philip. Trafficability is not a good
>
> So these two roads you'd consider the same?:
> http://www.malenki.ch/Touren/11/Galerie/Tag_20/slide_19.html
Based on the agreed practice in Brazil, I would tag this one either as
highway=unclassified or highway=track, depending on how much this is in use
and what it connects (I cannot determi
On 03/01/14 16:06, Volker Schmidt wrote:
I first reacted in the same way ("is it an English word at all?"). But
then I looked it up on Wikipedia. There it is, since 2006(!), with
correct Google translations in several other languages.
Well, the English wikipedia is also used by people whose f
I didn't think it was a word and my old American dictionary does not have it.
But my microprint edition of the Oxford English Dictionary does have it and
lists it use in 1899 regarding how the streets in London were able to carry
traffic. Certainly not a word that I, as an American English speak
Me either, but there it is. I wouldn't give it much chance of gathering
world wide approval as a classification term but maybe I'm wrong.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
> I didn't think it was a word and my old American dictionary does not have
> it. But my microprint edition
Am Fri, 3 Jan 2014 14:09:59 -0200
schrieb Gerald Weber :
> malenki wrote
>> Gerald Weber wrote
> > So these two roads you'd consider the same?:
> > http://www.malenki.ch/Touren/11/Galerie/Tag_20/slide_19.html
(btw: sorry for me having been a little polemic)
> Based on the agreed practice in Braz
Hi,
this is the first time I am answering to a mailing list. I checked
"digest" and now I am not sure how to give individual answers, so I am
going to answer to various questions of you within a single mail.
Sorry. (I already unchecked "digest", so hopefully things will become
easier next time.)
I decided to extend my comparison between tracktype and surface, now
including smoothness. I think we may need a new tag to integrate all
surface quality classification systems (it can well be a simple
numeric tag). See this: http://i.imgur.com/yEJ52eE.png
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:49 PM, malenki
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> but in the long run it's going to give us less precise
> maps.
If you like precise maps, how can you recommend "smoothness" ? what is
precise between "smoothness=intermediate" (city bike) and
"smoothness=good" (racing bike) ?
Pieren
___
Hi Fernando.
I'm not exactly sure what you want to show with your table, but if you
want to add a new tag to integrate all existent systems (surface,
tracktype and so on), and if you table should be a way to calculate that
fourth tag, then why should we add the tag itself?
Who really needs a single
On 3 January 2014 15:19, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> I decided to extend my comparison between tracktype and surface, now
> including smoothness. I think we may need a new tag to integrate all
> surface quality classification systems (it can well be a simple
> numeric tag). See this: http://i.imgur.
Well, Peter, I feel that we cannot reach an agreement on "which
tagging recommendation is best" (in a way that is both semantically
meaningful and also useful for rendering of unpaved/unsealed ways)
because we all have "one preferred tag" and we are not willing to let
go of that. A new tag covering
2014/1/3 Fernando Trebien
> I decided to extend my comparison between tracktype and surface, now
> including smoothness. I think we may need a new tag to integrate all
> surface quality classification systems (it can well be a simple
> numeric tag). See this: http://i.imgur.com/yEJ52eE.png
>
Well, when proposing this, I'm trying to avoid these problems:
- the set of paved and the set of unpaved surfaces is not closed, and
so it would require us to continuously update Carto with new surface
types
- people don't seem to agree on which tag to recommend overall to
describe surface conditio
I'm trying to account for driveability, cyclability, walkability, and
wheelchair-ability. Grade values 6-8 here are those that the Australian
community advocates:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo#Draft_4x4_road_proposal
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> 2
Hi Fernando,
What I'm afraid of is how a new quality-scale should be used by
arbitrary mappers around the world.
Let's assume the scale is from 1 to 5 (like tracktype is now).
For a city boy in the US who never left it's city the gravelled highway
malenki posted in this thread would be a bad road,
On 03/01/14 19:56, Fernando Trebien wrote:
Well, when proposing this, I'm trying to avoid these problems:
- the set of paved and the set of unpaved surfaces is not closed, and
so it would require us to continuously update Carto with new surface
types
I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "car
2014/1/3 Pieren
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> > but in the long run it's going to give us less precise
> > maps.
>
> If you like precise maps, how can you recommend "smoothness" ? what is
> precise between "smoothness=intermediate" (city bike) and
> "smoothness=good" (
> I don't think that unifying them all into a single tag is a bad idea.
> It would be easier while editing the map (only 1 choice to make,
> instead of 5), easier to describe to users (instead of 5 different
> tags), to consume in applications (such as the renderer, but also in
> routers), and it w
>
>
> For the average mapper, I think the best solution is to have a picture of
> most surfaces and their corresponding smoothnesses. So a picture of
> excellent asphalt, a picture of good asphalt,... a picture of intermediate
> ground,... and a picture of horrible sand. And everything in between.
"Does it look bad" can have many different answers for the same way,
depending on whether you're on a bike, a car or on foot, right? How is
"horrible" different from "bad" and in which situations? Honestly,
there's no way you can tell everyone that they can skip the
documentation and hope the resul
My bad, I thought "Carto" was the name of the main Mapnik style. So
I'm referring to openstreetmap-carto.
Well, I was trying to expose my idea that the multiple current
classifications of "trafficability" may not be necessary at all.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Andy Townsend
wrote:
>
> On 03
+1 Smoothness is not necessarily more descriptive than tracktype, and
it may actually produce more disagreement if users skip reading what's
on the wiki.
However, I like that "smoothness" tries harder to cover more transit
types. As the table I posted a while ago shows, both provide more
detail on
So, the idea of unifying the classification systems is not popular.
I'll leave you with one last thought, and then I won't insist anymore.
To challenge that idea, I decided to plot my own subjective
"trafficability" values (what I think each of these tags mean for
choosing a way based on the descr
Hi,
I've been observing for a while but I want to chime in on the discussion.
Let's not forget that mapping for OSM is not about the rendering, it's
about mapping what is actually on the ground. Therefore we are actually
discussing two different but related issues.
The first is how to appropriate
Hi,
I want to add the following on-street parking data in Newton, Massachusetts:
Acacia Avenue - Prohibited, west side, Monday through Saturday, 7:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m.
I am confused about how to apply a parking tag for the "west side."
Although there are tags called parking:lane:right and parkin
If we follow the idea of "mapping what's on the ground", then it seems
reasonable to say that none of the tags we have discussed so far
represents the ground more objectively than the "surface" tag. All
other tags attempt to describe how the ground behaves in different
situations (when used for tra
On 1/3/14 7:58 PM, One Hwang wrote:
>
> I am confused about how to apply a parking tag for the "west side."
> Although there are tags called parking:lane:right and
> parking:lane:left, I am not sure whether west should be considered
> left or right.
>
> I plan to work with a number of citizens from
Suppose I wanted to tag to show that parking is prohibited on north side of
Street X. Should I use parking:lane:right or parking:lane:left?
Thanks.
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 1/3/14 7:58 PM, One Hwang wrote:
> >
> > I am confused about how to apply a parking tag
I like what Dominic is saying quite a bit. The more complicated we make the
assignment of values to describe usability or trafficability the more
people will simply opt for the lowest common denominator, the easiest
choice. I can guarantee that I will not be going out and measuring the
frequency an
On 1/3/14 8:10 PM, One Hwang wrote:
> Suppose I wanted to tag to show that parking is prohibited on north
> side of Street X. Should I use parking:lane:right or parking:lane:left?
that depends on what the direction of the way representing Street X is
within OSM. which means that you can't make that
Fernando Trebien wrote on Fri, 3 Jan 2014 17:56:15 -0200:
>- people don't seem to agree on which tag to recommend overall to
> describe surface conditions: tracktype, or smoothness, or simply
> surface
OSMers seem to agree that they need all of them.
* Tracktype at least for more or less unimp
Now that is a bad road, even though it's paved. Before reading anything in
this thread I would have applied the tags surface=asphalt,
surface_condition=rough_less_than_40 kph (used 1232 times).
Now, I'm not sure what I'd do ;-)
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 8:19 AM, malenki wrote:
> Fernando Trebien
On 1/3/14 8:19 PM, malenki wrote:
> How else would you describe an asphalted road like this?:
> http://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/lidar1.jpg
>
surface=car_breaker
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mail
This is why I said that a full description that is useful to everyone
would require many more tags than we currently have (about 6 or 7 as
far as I can imagine). Note that the way in this picture would be
classified quite differently for each vehicle type (pedestrians, and
maybe bikes to some exten
I mean, maybe the renderer can follow this logic: all untagged ways
are paved ("good") by default, and they're represented as "bad" if
they include any of the following tags with different values than
those shown:
- tracktype=grade1
- smoothness=excellent/good/intermediate
Thus, it would ignore th
Dave Swarthout wrote on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 08:26:53 +0700:
> Now that is a bad road, even though it's paved. Before reading
> anything in this thread I would have applied the tags surface=asphalt,
> surface_condition=rough_less_than_40 kph (used 1232 times).
Nice talking but unsemantic tag
> Now, I
Hm there are a few types of vehicle ways
(highway=residential/living_street/pedestrian/service/cycleway) which
present high usage by non-vehicles, so I think it would also make
sense if the renderer also checked for these values:
- mtb:scale=0
- sac_scale=T1
- wheelchair=yes/limited
Which, of cour
Oh, that makes so much more sense now! The left/right tags have always
confused me, but thanks for clarifying to someone who has been a mapper for
nearly 3 years.
-Compdude
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 1/3/14 7:58 PM, One Hwang wrote:
> >
> > I am confused about how
61 matches
Mail list logo
