User talk:Alv

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to OpenStreetMap

--EdoM (lets talk about it) 10:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Passing Places

Thanks for your work on the passing places. Bruce89 21:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean that tracktype proposal is now obsolete?

Thanks for clarifying on the tracktype=* page. I wonder, should we stop using tracktype now, and what are the alternatives (surface=*)? What can I expect from renderers?
Vibrog 07:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it means that only the proposal is obsolete because tracktype=* is in Map Features and in use and usable even without a vote. Alv 08:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

landuse=farmland vs. landuse=farm

Hello Alv, but - don't you think, in the descriptions should be made the distinction, that farm includes "all", too farm-buildings and farmland matters just the cultivated ground? Thats, what we had discussed in the ng (thread "farmland in DE:MapFeatures"). cheers, t.--Typoshrub 12:35, 20 October 2010 (BST)

No. Farm = farmland. If your translated description for it was misguided some years ago, doesn't mean it's any bit ambiguous. See also Farm. Alv 12:43, 20 October 2010 (BST)



You are the developer of the template, and I want to ask for permission to change the image of the car in this template into this one [1]. Becauce it fits better with the other templates, such as hiking, biking, etc. [2]. Smarties 19:37, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Sure, go ahead, that was just the only one available/easy-to-find at the time I created the template. Alv 10:43, 28 June 2011 (BST)
Thanks. I changed the image. Smarties 00:05, 29 June 2011 (BST)


I don't understand your description of M2c: "Oneway cycle lane in the direction as the oneway road, between driving lanes (different directions). ". Why "different directions" if all lanes are going to the same direction in your picture ? --Pieren 09:58, 16 September 2011 (BST)

Ok, it could be better. At the next intersection the rightmost driving lane turns right, left is for continuing straight/left. Without the explanation it could seem like a pointless arrangement. --Alv 10:08, 16 September 2011 (BST)
Ok, I get it now but I will remove all those comments. You don't have to explain why such arrangement exists. It happens, that's it. --Pieren 11:51, 16 September 2011 (BST)


Am I right, you added to the Template:Map Features:natural the tag bedrock? Where does the tag bedrock come from? I used times before always natural=rock. And with Proposed_features/bare_rock we have now a third tag for the same thing. Way don't we stay with rock. As for Tagwatch, bedrock is used 62 times and rock 4592 times. Please tell me your motives. Thanks, fireball2 11:34, 23 September 2011 (BST)

I didn't add it, I just fixed the syntax needed for translating the template to other languages. On the other hand, there's discussion on some of the pages how "rock" has multiple meaning from "boulder" to "submerged stone hazardous to boats" to "bedrock" to "tiny bit of land in the sea/in a lake". Alv 11:08, 23 September 2011 (BST)

I'm sorry, it was my failure. It seems Lzhl did this before you. I hope I'm right with that now :-). Anyway thank you very mutch for your reply.


hi, i try to create a cycle map of my city, taking "traffic safety" into account.

i've seen but it is updated long time ago and taginfo is blank (but there are many possible combinations). from my point of view a reasonable tagging scheem, yet too complicated to get good results (after 1 week of mapping).

is this tagging used somewhere? any thoughts on refining/giving some examples of actual usage?


--MichalP 15:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have sporadically experimented with it nearby (esp. when walking the dog), but only in the data collection sense. Or maybe I once made an excel graph showing how the traffic goes up at day time. The format does have it's flaws, but when I tried the "other possible way" (i.e. like traffic:hourly=Mo 09: 270/6:00;Mo 10: 192/8:00; Tu 11: ... it very quickly becomes even more difficult to insert new values, or to refine old observations. And the 255 character tag value length limit is too easily exceeded, so one has to split the data to multiple tags anyway. There's some example data at and around node 290342396 and some older data at and around node 493983043. Some observations are also scattered across the city. The results are pretty consistent, though, given long enough observation time. And they do seem to reasonably match the values the officials publish for the motorways. Would be nice to have a simulation/visualization with these as the starting point, but that's been just an idea for several years now.
If somebody was to really gather and utilize the data, there would have to be a JOSM plugin or a separate mobile app that would allow both easier editing, and storing the data either somewhere else, or in some not-so-manually-editable tag format. I've also experimented with signals:cycle=* (varies with time!), signals:green_per_cycle=* and even (parking) capacity:free:hourly:fall=Mo 05: 98; Mo 09: 1; and-so-on. With those, the length limit is an issue even faster - and it seems the values vary much more than they do with the traffic observations. Alv 15:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Status from highway=give_way

Hallo ALV, du hast mit der folgenden Änderung meine Statusänderung von gestern rückgängig gemacht. Kannst du mir bitte sagen warum? Auf der zugehörigen Proposal-Seite steht der Status "Draft". Daher handelt es sich eindeutig um einen nicht abgestimmten Entwurf. Daher sollte man den Artikel auch so kennzeichnen. Siehe:

Translate into English: Hi ALV, you've made ​​with the following change my status change from yesterday reversed. Can you please tell me why? On the accompanying Proposal-side is the status "Draft". This is a mis-matched design. It is useful to characterize the article that way. see: Siehe:

Vielen Dank. --Reneman (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. The only linked proposal is for a different feature, some sort of give way relation.
  2. No matter what proposals exist, or at what stage, the tag is widely used. The majority of tags that are used have not gone through the wiki based proposal process, and many of those tags have documentation pages about them. And likewise many proposals have been abandoned usually at the draft stage, but nevertheless mappers have started using them. They are "defacto approved" by use.
Only tag usage, and data consumer support matters. Alv (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Es gibt dennoch Regeln. Sieh dir die Seite Proposal process an. Es ist nicht in Ordnung, wenn man die Regeln ignoriert. Es ist nie zu spät für eine Diskussion und eine Abstimmung. Wenn das Attribut den Status "Approved" erhält, wird es überall öffentlich sein. Das geht aber nicht, wenn man die Regeln nicht beachtet. Wie oft ein Attribut im Einsatz ist, dass kan jeder über Tagwatch sehen, dafür braucht es nicht den status Defacto. Es ist sinnvoll den Leser darüber zu informieren, dass das Attribut ein Entwurf ist. Nur so weiß er, dass es hier noch Änderungen geben kann oder dass auf der Proposalseite noch eine Abstimmung erforderlich ist. Ich bitte dich daher den Status in DRaft zu ändern. Danke.
There are still rules. Look at the page Proposal process. It's not right, if you ignore the rules. It's never too late for a debate and a vote. If the attribute status of "Approved" gets, it will be everywhere in public. But this is not, unless you followed the rules. How often an attribute in use is that each about Tagwatch kan see, but it does not need the de facto status. It is useful to inform the readers that the attribute is a draft. Only he knows that there still may be changes or that the Proposalsite more consistency is needed. I ask you therefore, to change the status to Draft. Thank you.
--Reneman (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I can even quote that Proposal process: "which is one of multiple ways to introduce and discuss new features". The "Proposed features" process is not a rule, but a tool to find and to discuss the merits and shortcomings of new tagging ideas. You won't find any historic proposals for, say, leisure=park, or even most of the highway=* values. There's no need to! This was the core idea from the beginning, and this has brought osm so far. OSM wiki does not rely on bureaucratic rules and processes, even if you'll find some documented, and a couple of them might get enforced. The osm wiki is here to document what is in the database. Alv (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This is not correctly. Yesterday i read some sites about highway=*. This is a Approved proposal, with a list of values. see Proposed features/Highway key voting importance, Proposed features/highway=tertiary and more sites. A Doku of a new Tag is a good idea, but this is a "proposal" very well suited. Only a "Proposol" you will inform all that there is to be a new attribute. Together, this will be discussed and voted on then. An existing page should reflect the status of the Proposal. Otherwise, I do not need "Proposal" page. --Reneman (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
You are mistaken.
  • trunk: no proposal
  • motorway: no proposal
  • primary: no proposal
  • secondary: no proposal
  • unclassified: no proposal
  • residential: no proposal
  • track: no proposal
  • bridleway: no proposal
  • cycleway: no proposal
  • footway: no proposal
  • pedestrian: proposed, "approved"
  • living_street: proposed, "approved"
  • path: proposed, "approved"
Status of a proposal is really only relevant on tag documentation pages, when a better alternative has been presented. Otherwise, the status is just to keep track what will happen next with the proposal, which is mostly unrelated to the tag usage. Alv (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)