User talk:Pietervdvn

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Footway phrasing

What kind of case you considered?

Is "For urban paths which are designated primarily for pedestrians (potentially with bicycle=yes), it's better to use highway=footway." a good phrasing in your opinion? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, I should indeed have given this more thought, sorry about that. In some cases, there are footpaths (often between buildings) where cycling is allowed to. Some contributors tag this as 'highway=path + bicycle=yes + foot=yes', but then this could be a small forest path too. I wanted to to point those contributors too footpath as well, as is documented in that wiki. The phrasing you propose here is definitively clearer, thanks for improving this. Pietervdvn (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reply! And sorry for reverting and later changing, rather than just changing - I thought about case (that is tagged rather as either highway=path or highway=cycleway - in both cases with bunch of additional tags) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
No problem - tagging can be tricky. For the latter case you did send to me, I would go with highway=cycleway + foot=designated + segregated=yes as that signals the high quality for both of them. Again, a highway=path is IMHO a small (~50cm or even less) unpaved path through the forest. However, how to map the surfaces on your path is still a bit of a mystery to me ;) Pietervdvn (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
See Key:cycleway:surface. In this case I would use highway=path + segregated=yes + foot=designated + bicycle=designated + surface=paved + cycleway:surface=asphalt and footway:surface=paving_stones.
Or maybe highway=cycleway, I am considering to propose deprecating use of highway=path for such cases Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Deprecating the use of path for these cases? Please do! I've been routed around a high quality cycleway a few days ago because of this mistagging with OsmAnd! Pietervdvn (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


What is the sport tag for Five-a-side? Because for now you modified sport=soccer page and you probably wanted to create a new one (see ) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, f***. I indeed swapped them around, I wanted to use soccer as template to get started on. Hang on, gonna fix. Pietervdvn (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I reverted soccer to the original contents, and created . Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for pointing out! Pietervdvn (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No problem :) One of strength of wikis is that you need to be both malicious and with some technical knowledge to actually cause a real damage that is hard to fix :) Misplaced article present for a short time is definitely outweighted by fact that one more sport tag is documented Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


This is a very new tag, Have you (and possibly other mappers) considered using more verbose sport=five-a-side_soccer? I worry about potential future collision with other five-a-side sport (that may be not invented right now!) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Though obviously feel free to ignore that comment (or ask for more feedback somewhere), any tags you like and all that Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't think it through. I discovered that one in the wild and documented it, that is all. As it turns out, there are very few mapped features, so we are still in the region where could retag. However, most of them are either 'five-a-side' or 'five_a_side' (~35 instances) wherea (soccer_five_a_side) occurs only 8 times and (five_a_side_soccer) just once: (search for five). So, I would opt for either 'five-a-side' as wikipedia spells it or 'five_a_side' which is a more common OSM tag. I should actually ask input on the tagging mailing list, but don't have time available for that... Pietervdvn (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)