[Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'

Wed Nov 20 05:55:07 UTC 2019

I had been out for the last few weeks and had left this proposal in standby.  I am back now and have revised and updated the original proposal and included some images as examples, so hopefully it is all more clear now and better explained, so everyone understands just how important this new tag is for the address system used in Latin America and several other countries in the world.

I would appreciate all to read the newer version found here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Addr:milestone

Thank you all.

Jorge

> On Oct 10, 2019, at 1:17 AM, tagging-request at openstreetmap.org wrote:
> 
> Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
> 	tagging at openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	tagging-request at openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	tagging-owner at openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: New tag proposal: 'add=milestone' (Agustin Rissoli)
>   2. Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
>      (Frederik Ramm)
>   3. Re: Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or
>      two (Mateusz Konieczny)
>   4. Re: Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or
>      two (Dave Swarthout)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 00:26:07 -0300
> From: Agustin Rissoli <aguztinqui at gmail.com>
> To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'add=milestone'
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAFJum92GuyDCpL25xWAGN-ec+97GUaah42o5AU3hMc5-Ry1s_Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
>> 
>> this implies road markers must be present, right? Isn’t this mainly about the distance from some zero point, even in the absence of road distance markers?
>> 
>> No, many times there are no marks, for me it does not have to be implicit
> 
> I would not invent myself these numbers, I would copy them from
>> the gate where they have been put by the owner or municipality (regardless
>> of actual distances or even if they are in slight contradiction with nearby
>> road markers, as I have seen occur). If nothing is signposted, I would
>> rather map the road markers nearby (if any).
>> 
>> agree, many times these addresses are calculated by the same owner
> 
> Somebody remarked earlier in the thread that there are places in the US
>> where the distances are
>> used as house numbers.  I think the duck test applies.  It doesn't matter
>> if a house number is
>> assigned sequentially, or is based upon distance from some specified point,
>> or is based upon
>> some mad king throwing darts at a map: if it looks like a house number, is
>> treated like a house
>> number, and appears on the house/gate/whatever as a house number, then it's
>> a house number.
>> House numbers don't have to be sequential or monotonic, I can think of a
>> couple of roads in my
>> town where the house numbers are counter-intuitive.  So it doesn't matter
>> if those house numbers
>> were assigned based on a distance along a road, and that subsequent road
>> remodelling has
>> resulted in them all being inaccurate without a milepost equation: if it
>> quacks like a house
>> number then it's a house number.
>> 
>> If they're not house numbers marked somewhere on the property, and if there
>> are sometimes
>> (as the OP has stated) missing markers, and if road remodelling has
>> rendered the distances
>> incorrect, then what good is addr:road_marker in those particular
>> circumstances?
>> 
>> It appears addr:road_marker is only really applicable where all of the
>> following apply:
>> 
>> 1: The number is not marked on the property (otherwise it's a house number,
>> however
>> derived).
>> 
>> 2) Road remodelling has not significantly changed the distances between the
>> property
>> and the two nearest road markers (so you know it's somewhere between marker
>> X and
>> marker Y).
>> 
>> 3) Road markers have not been recalibrated following extensive road
>> remodelling.
>> 
>> --
>> Paul
>> 
>> In Argentina it is common to have addresses with house number, street
> name, and also address per km., For example Avenida San Martín 5440, Ruta 9
> km 60.5
> It is often used on routes that cross small towns and suburban areas. I
> also saw the same thing in Uruguay, where I got to see addresses with
> street name, lot number, km number of the route without house number (the
> number of km belongs to the route and not the street numbering )
> 
> Agustin
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191010/3bb43d08/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 08:38:28 +0200
> From: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 	<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one
> 	way or two
> Message-ID: <ecd5a715-98cb-0fb3-90cf-23af31718069 at remote.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> Hi,
> 
> DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a local
> mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two
> lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in the
> middle which is physically possible but legally not allowed to cross).
> 
> Other mappers object to this saying that it violates the rule that there
> must be some sort of physical division to allow that form of mapping.
> 
> The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is
> clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn restrictions
> at junctions. Other mappers claim that the two-separate-way mapping is
> violating rules and that OSM will soon become unusable if everyone maps
> how they want.
> 
> The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established
> standards and rules concerning this situation, and two, in how far is it
> acceptable to deviate from these standards if a local mapper thinks it
> is a good idea.
> 
> Personally I believe that "physical division => separate ways; no
> physical division => shared way" is the standard in OSM, or perhaps at
> least the "rule of thumb". But (since people in the German discussion
> have more or less claimed that the world is going to end if local
> mappers are allowed to treat this differently) I'd like to hear from
> mappers in other countries how rigidly this standard is applied. Is it
> something where local mappers have some freedom of judgment (like when
> choosing which highway=* category to apply to a road) or do you have
> strict standards and definitions?
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 09:10:02 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 	<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways,
> 	one way or two
> Message-ID: <LqoVBKj--3-1 at tutanota.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Oct 2019, 08:38 by frederik at remote.org:
>> The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established
>> standards and rules concerning this situation
>> 
> Splitting road on physical separation
> seems to be a standard.
> 
> And painted line is not considered
> as physical separation.
> 
> Among obvious reasons is consistency,
> not changing popular things without really good reason and
> routing for emergency vehicles.
> Main issues is handling crossing
> with dual carriageway - even without
> physical separation on crossing itself
> ways typically continue split in two,
> or start splitting before crossing.
> 
> (I can send images if that is unclear)
> 
> It is also disputed whatever splitting
> road on small separations like
> crossing with island is advisable.
>> andtwo, in how far is it
>> acceptable to deviate from these standards if a local mapper thinks it
>> is a good idea.
>> 
> It seems poor idea like retagging
> highway=motorway into droga=autostrada
> because local mappers dislike English.
>> Personally I believe that "physical division => separate ways; no
>> physical division => shared way" is the standard in OSM, or perhaps at
>> least the "rule of thumb". But (since people in the German discussion
>> have more or less claimed that the world is going to end if local
>> mappers are allowed to treat this differently) I'd like to hear from
>> mappers in other countries how rigidly this standard is applied.
>> 
> During travel I made edits
> removing invalid separation (only
> painted line) that I spotted.
> 
> I never felt that I needed to consult local
> community or that opening note would be preferable.
> 
> In Poland some people expressed that changing
> road mapped as two ways into single one is waste of time,
> but I don't remember anyone claiming that it is wrong to do this.
> Though I remember cases of highly complex
> junctions where it seemed to be necessary/advisable
> to not follow this rule.
> 
> Theoretical example: equivalent of Magic Roundabout in Swindon,
> marked solely by paint, without physical separation
> would be place where violating this rule
> would make sense.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191010/5d3ac0b5/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 14:16:40 +0700
> From: Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 	<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways,
> 	one way or two
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAKWFYhVgG1a-2Qhxby=qPNMc8pbqnQCdV3Zz_FUM+0Q_njFj2g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Asking OSM mappers if they have "strict standards" on this issue is chasing
> a fantasy, IMHO. We discussed this in our local Thailand mapping forum and
> AFAIK, it wasn't resolved. In one example, a five-lane highway with no
> physical barrier and the "fifth lane" painted with big yellow stripes, the
> mapper used two separate ways, both tagged oneway=yes to represent the
> situation. I disagreed. My thinking is that OSM prefers having a physical
> barrier before tagging two separate ways and I do too. By the way, Google
> maps uses two lanes both tagged as oneway for this particular example.
> 
> YMMV
> 
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:40 PM Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> DWG has been asked to mediate in a user dispute in Germany where a local
>> mapper has chosen to represent a busy four-lane primary highway (two
>> lanes in each direction, and a double continuous line painted in the
>> middle which is physically possible but legally not allowed to cross).
>> 
>> Other mappers object to this saying that it violates the rule that there
>> must be some sort of physical division to allow that form of mapping.
>> 
>> The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is
>> clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn restrictions
>> at junctions. Other mappers claim that the two-separate-way mapping is
>> violating rules and that OSM will soon become unusable if everyone maps
>> how they want.
>> 
>> The question is basically two-fold; one, what are the established
>> standards and rules concerning this situation, and two, in how far is it
>> acceptable to deviate from these standards if a local mapper thinks it
>> is a good idea.
>> 
>> Personally I believe that "physical division => separate ways; no
>> physical division => shared way" is the standard in OSM, or perhaps at
>> least the "rule of thumb". But (since people in the German discussion
>> have more or less claimed that the world is going to end if local
>> mappers are allowed to treat this differently) I'd like to hear from
>> mappers in other countries how rigidly this standard is applied. Is it
>> something where local mappers have some freedom of judgment (like when
>> choosing which highway=* category to apply to a road) or do you have
>> strict standards and definitions?
>> 
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>> 
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191010/d79b17c6/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Tagging Digest, Vol 121, Issue 31
> ****************************************