<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>"not tagging anything at all would convey about as much information"<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">not exactly, it does not allow to mark that something was checked and surveyed<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">For example in similar cases (looking for bridges with signed max weight limit)<br></div><div dir="auto">there are at least following options<br></div><div dir="auto">- record only signed maxweight (lower amount of used tags, but systematic<br></div><div dir="auto"> survey for missing maxweight is impossible to coordinate - mappers may<br></div><div dir="auto"> keep checking the same bridges and completely miss other)<br></div><div dir="auto">- record also that max weight limit is not signed - maxweight:signed=no<br></div><div dir="auto"> gets added to bridges without max weight signs but this allows<br></div><div dir="auto"> systematic survey, for example thanks to this I found that<br></div><div dir="auto"> <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nad_Zalewem_2019-07-08_17-23-24.jpg">https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nad_Zalewem_2019-07-08_17-23-24.jpg</a><br></div><div dir="auto"> in a very well mapped area was missing maxweight=2.5<br></div><div dir="auto"> ( <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71494222">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/71494222</a> )<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It is tricky to decide when it is used to record such data.<br></div><div dir="auto">noname=yes has quite decent acceptance <br></div><div dir="auto">( <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:noname%3Dyes">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:noname%3Dyes</a> ),<br></div><div dir="auto">tagging maxweight:signed=no on every road (not only bridges) would be silly etc...<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Though I encountered mappers who wanted to remove noname=yes<br></div><div dir="auto">as pointless clutter and ones who wanted to add either oneway=yes<br></div><div dir="auto">or oneway=no on every single road.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Aug 7, 2021, 18:25 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Absolutely agree, StreetComplete would have to check whether the underlying waterway allows for ship traffic before tagging. Really not sure how “unknown” ever came into existence, not tagging anything at all would convey about as much information.<br></div><div class=""><div class=""><br></div><div class=""><br></div></div><div><br></div><div class=""><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div>On Wednesday, August 4th, 2021 at 1:30 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="" type="cite"><div>In my opinion it is a good idea for a tag.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Though it should be only added in case of waterway marked as usable by boats<br></div><div dir="auto">or with some indicator that would be likely usable for boats.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It should not be used for every single drain, stream and other minor waterways.<br></div><div><br></div><div dir="auto">=unknown is unclear as it may be both "not checked"/"not verified" and<br></div><div dir="auto">"not signed"<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br></div><div>Aug 4, 2021, 11:43 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:<br></div><blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Hi everyone,<br></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/2929" target="_blank" title="https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/2929" rel="noopener noreferrer">Over on the StreetComplete GitHub page</a> we've been discussing support for seamark:bridge:clearance_height=* and associated tags. This tag concerns the space that ships have to pass under bridges. Often, there are signs next to bridges indicating to ships what this clearance is. One question we're facing is what to tag if there is no such indication of clearance. <a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/seamark%3Abridge%3Aclearance_height#values" target="_blank" title="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/seamark%3Abridge%3Aclearance_height#values" rel="noopener noreferrer">Taginfo tells us </a>that "unknown" is used in practice in such cases, however, I suggest using "no_indications" for StreetComplete, similar to the <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxheight#Non-numerical_values" target="_blank" title="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxheight#Non-numerical_values" rel="noopener noreferrer">"maxheight" key</a>, as it conveys more accurate information than "unknown" does. Neither "unknown" nor "no_indications" are currently mentioned on the relevant <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Bridges#Clearances" target="_blank" title="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Bridges#Clearances" rel="noopener noreferrer">wiki page</a>, and before introducing this value, we wanted to run it past this group for feedback. Bear in mind, this is not a suggestion to mechanically replace all "unknown" values with "no_indications", just a suggestion of a new value.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I'm looking forward to your feedback!<br></div><div><br></div><div>Kind regards,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Tomagori<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>