[Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

Hi, as probably most of you are aware of, common access tags such as foot=*, bicycle=* etc. are every often misunderstood by the people contributing to OSM. The problem is that people, unless they have read the wiki, believe that these tags define whether it is _possible_ to walk or cycle alon

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

On 28/08/2015 13:15, Anders Fougner wrote: So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which isn't misunderstood so easily. The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

sent from a phone > Am 28.08.2015 um 02:37 schrieb John Willis : > > We don't have "building=drop_forge" and building=paint_booth for industrial, > yet those are specialty building types - I agree those are particular building types (with particular requirements that lead to specific archit

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone > Am 28.08.2015 um 02:08 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > As highway=path could be sub tagged to be the same as highway=footway > > It was simply a lazy way of tagging a 'footway' with some sub tags rather > than actually using the existing tags. as path can be s

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

Den 28.08.15 14.41, skrev Andy Townsend: On 28/08/2015 13:15, Anders Fougner wrote: So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which isn't misunderstood so easily. The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On 28/08/2015 13:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: as path can be sub tagged to be the same as bridleway or cycleway and excluding pedestrians, this is simply not true No, it can't. It _can_ be sub-tagged to have the same _access_ restrictions_ as a bridleway and cycleway, sure, and you could pr

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

On Fri, 2015-08-28 at 14:43 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > sent from a phone > > > Am 28.08.2015 um 02:37 schrieb John Willis : > > > > We don't have "building=drop_forge" and building=paint_booth for > > industrial, yet those are specialty building types - > > > I agree those are parti

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 04:00:15PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 27.08.2015 13:51, Andy Townsend wrote: > > On 27/08/2015 12:15, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > With disused:amenity=pub you may get in trouble. What if it was a pub at one > time, a nightclub at another time and a restaurant at

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

sent from a phone > Am 28.08.2015 um 01:59 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > Nothing wrong with being generic, highway=residential covers a lot of > different looking roads around the world. > OSM can use existing sub tags to further describe them if required. the more generic we ar

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

sent from a phone > Am 28.08.2015 um 15:33 schrieb Philip Barnes : > > In a department store I would pay for each item individually, in the > department and hence have three transactions. And you would have often less trouble finding someone who can give you advice. cheers Martin _

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

sent from a phone > Am 28.08.2015 um 01:59 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > There are existing tags to describe the number of floors in a building. If > that is the only difference. it's not cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagg

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone > Am 28.08.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Andy Townsend : > > No, it can't. It _can_ be sub-tagged to have the same _access_ restrictions_ > as a bridleway and cycleway, sure, and you could probably approach cycleway > with smoothness etc., but what about bridleway? How do you comm

[Tagging] Construction

Is there any way to tag roads as being under construction but which are not closed to traffic? I was wondering because Eglinton Avenue in Toronto is under long term construction for the Eglinton LRT (underground light rail) which will not be finished until at least 2020 and a suitably designed rout

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:15:56 +0200 Anders Fougner wrote: > So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which > isn't misunderstood so easily. > The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at >

Re: [Tagging] Construction

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:29:58 -0400 Andrew MacKinnon wrote: > Is there any way to tag roads as being under construction but which > are not closed to traffic? I was wondering because Eglinton Avenue in > Toronto is under long term construction for the Eglinton LRT > (underground light rail) which

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On 28/08/2015 15:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: horse=designated That's an access tag. Are you saying that access tags convey physical characteristics somehow? In the absence of any other evidence you might assume that "because I can legally ride my horse / bicycle / drive my car down ther

Re: [Tagging] Construction

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:29:58 -0400 > Andrew MacKinnon wrote: > >> Is there any way to tag roads as being under construction but which >> are not closed to traffic? I was wondering because Eglinton Avenue in >> Toronto is under long term

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

Den 28.08.15 16.56, skrev Mateusz Konieczny: On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:15:56 +0200 Anders Fougner wrote: So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which isn't misunderstood so easily. The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

> Am 28.08.2015 um 16:18 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > sent from a phone > >> Am 28.08.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Andy Townsend : >> >> No, it can't. It _can_ be sub-tagged to have the same _access_ >> restrictions_ as a bridleway and cycleway, sure, and you could probably >> approach cyc

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On 28/08/2015 17:28, ksg wrote: Am 28.08.2015 um 16:18 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer : sent from a phone Am 28.08.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Andy Townsend : No, it can't. It _can_ be sub-tagged to have the same _access_ restrictions_ as a bridleway and cycleway, sure, and you could probably app

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 01:47:28AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > My suggestion is to not assume any access defaults but rather explicitly tag > everything, and surface as well. Everything you assume will be questioned and > taken from you in a few years ;-) what is there explicitly will li

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 18:44:52 +0200 Richard wrote: > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 01:47:28AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > My suggestion is to not assume any access defaults but rather > > explicitly tag everything, and surface as well. Everything you > > assume will be questioned and taken

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:52:17 +0200 Anders Fougner wrote: > Den 28.08.15 16.56, skrev Mateusz Konieczny: > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:15:56 +0200 > > Anders Fougner wrote: > > > >> So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which > >> isn't misunderstood so easily. > >> The use of

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:07:54 +0100 Andy Townsend wrote: > On 28/08/2015 15:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > horse=designated > > That's an access tag. Are you saying that access tags convey > physical characteristics somehow? > > In the absence of any other evidence you might assume that "be

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Friday 28 August 2015 18:28:44, ksg: > Some horse whisperer may translate that to English Done. I'm not a native English speaker nor a native German speaker so please do check the translation if you have the time. -- The field "from" of an email is about as reliable as the address written on th

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

Friday 28 August 2015 19:05:52, Mateusz Konieczny: > For example iD - is it clearly > indicating that it is about legal status? I am also regularly checking > situation in my region and fixing new problem. In English it's called "Access". How it's called in other languages depends on the translato

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Warin wrote: > On 28/08/2015 9:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > My suggestion is to not assume any access defaults but rather > > explicitly tag everything, and surface as well. Everything you assume > > will be questioned and taken from you in a few years ;-) what

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Warin wrote: > > > On 28/08/2015 9:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > > My suggestion is to not assume any access defaults but rather > > > explicitly tag everything, and surface as well. Everything you assume > > > will

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone Am 28.08.2015 um 17:07 schrieb Andy Townsend : >> On 28/08/2015 15:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> horse=designated > > That's an access tag. Are you saying that access tags convey physical > characteristics somehow? this is explicitly a synonym for bridleway. It says t

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Ilpo Järvinen wrote > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Warin wrote: > > For those who would want to have a separate tag for 'trails', it's > exclusive but obviously those who would want to tag everything with > highway=path+subtags will disagree :-). > > I see there are three main sides in this, those who

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

sent from a phone > Am 28.08.2015 um 19:05 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : > > Adding access: will not improve anything as it is still not indicating > that it is about legal access. legal_access:bicycle=* would at least > give chance that it will be more easily understood (not that it would > be a

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Fri Aug 28 23:10:59 2015 GMT+0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > Am 28.08.2015 um 17:07 schrieb Andy Townsend : > > >> On 28/08/2015 15:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> horse=designated > > > > That's an access tag. Are you saying that access tags convey physica

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

> On Aug 28, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > true for small shops, less so for huge buildings like supermarkets, > department stores, production halls, storage warehouses, swimming pools, > auditoriums, baseball stadions, high rise hotels, shopping malls, television > tow

Re: [Tagging] Shop vs amenity

Javbw > On Aug 28, 2015, at 9:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > nah, landuse is a quite limited set of values, building types are endless... Types. Industrial Residential Commercial Education Hospital Station Civic/government And a corresponding generic building. You can have a

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

> On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:17 AM, geow wrote: > > An additional highway type "trail" is no solution to the problem of missing > decent classification criteria "path vs footway" and would likely cause > further trouble for many sorts of reasons. When you have one region say "all sidewalks are pat

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, geow wrote: > Ilpo Järvinen wrote > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Warin wrote: > > > > For those who would want to have a separate tag for 'trails', it's > > exclusive but obviously those who would want to tag everything with > > highway=path+subtags will disagree :-). > > > > I

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

John Willis wrote >> On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:17 AM, geow < > ksgeo@ > > wrote: >> >> An additional highway type "trail" is no solution to the problem of >> missing >> decent classification criteria "path vs footway" and would likely cause >> further trouble for many sorts of reasons. > > Being a

Re: [Tagging] Access tags (general question, but mostly regarding bicycle)

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 02:15:56PM +0200, Anders Fougner wrote: > Hi, > as probably most of you are aware of, common access tags such as > foot=*, bicycle=* etc. are every often misunderstood by the people > contributing to OSM. The problem is that people, unless they have > read the wiki, believe