Add rendering for golf=cartpath #3734
Comments
|
Can you link to any documentation/description/discussion of what is the meaning of this tag? Especially, how it it differs from See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/golf=cartpath and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q17294 (both automatically generated with no explanation what this tag means and why it is used). |
|
The rationale is explained in this post: The golf:cartpath and golf:paths don't connect into the main routing network and can exist as disconnected segments. They aren't useful for computing navigation or directions and so can't be marked as highways or errors are generated when they don't connect. |
|
Seems there is a concerted effort to push this tag against more common See: #3650 (comment) Tagging discussion, in particular for organized tagging for the router appeals 😉, should go to the tagging mailing list. I would in principle be open to dedicated rendering of golf cart paths - if we decide to render golf course features in general (which we haven't so far and which depends on a database reload). |
Is it actually general assumption or is it some assumption internal to iD? I am still unsure why openstreetmap/iD@25cc522 was made - is it inventing a new tagging scheme as workaround for limitations of iD validator? |
I don't think any of these are good reasons they cannot be tagged as highway. |
|
"The golf:cartpath and golf:paths don't connect into the main routing network and can exist as disconnected segments. They aren't useful for computing navigation or directions and so can't be marked as highways or errors are generated when they don't connect." Shouldn't they just be tagged as highway= then and set to either private or permissive? From my understanding people that live in planned suburb areas around golf courses still ride their carts around the paths. A bunch of planned communities in Arizona that have cart paths minus the golf courses also that are used permissively by anyone in the area with a golf cart. So they are still perfectly usable for routing. Id take this up with iD editor. |
|
It looks like most of these features were added by imports in 2015: At the time this tag was undocumented. It was only added to the wiki in September 2018: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:golf&diff=prev&oldid=1835154 I haven't found any discussion of the meaning for this tag except in the ID preset PR comments that were linked above. I'm surprised that ID decided to add golf=cartpath and golf=path as presets. |
For now I added in Wiki note that standard tags for paths and service roads are likely to be preferable. Also at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:golf%3Dcartpath page |
If I pave some part of the world for the purpose of walking or driving any kind of vehicle on it, it deserves a highway tag. Connected or not. Any other descriptive subtag can be added of course. If any Q/A-tool flags that as an error, the tool should be fixed or the error ignored. It seems to me |
|
This is not a matter of majority opinion but i am closing this none the less due to
|
|
As far as I can see this tag is not indicating feature different from Maybe I am mistaken, in this case I would encourage people using and promoting this tag to document it properly (iD issue discussion is not a proper place to document OSM tags, OSM Wiki is much better place for that). And as far as I can see claim that
and that it is OK to map I am not sure why inventing new tag was better than ignoring "connect to main routable road network" for ways with Usually I would open an issue on iD bug tracker requesting to fix this, but this time I have no idea what is the real root reason. I am pretty sure that either golf cart paths should be allowed to be unconnected or such rule should exclude 2022 EDIT: It is much easier to fix multiple QA tools and their connectivity checks than changing all renderers and habits of mappers and all editors that are not iD. I am still not getting why new Maybe new |
|
One note
is not the reason for closing this issue. It is based on not head count but on strength of arguments. Obviously it is hard to untangle "this argument is strong one" from "I share this opinion" and "majority shares this opinion". But in this case sole argument for using it is "iD added it to its preset" with no good explanation why this new tag is actually needed. We have |
Literally every Q/A tool out there will interpret this as an error. KeepRight, Osmose, and the JOSM validator will warn about paths that are not connected to anything. Also afaik every routing software will potentially try to snap to highways and get stuck on these. This is the reason I was ok with accepting @chadrockey's PR to iD. These paths really are not like other highways. |
|
@bhousel - whatever mental image you have of these paths - the iD users are not using the preset according to it. They are using it indiscriminately for all kinds of paths and service roads on golf courses - most of them naturally being connected to other roads. So the de facto meaning of I don't play golf so i am not in a position to say there is for sure no basis for creating distinct tags for certain types of paths on golf courses. But it has to be documented what these mean, when exactly to use them instead or in addition to standard tags for paths elsewhere, this meaning of the tags has to be verifiable and the tag needs to actually be used according to this meaning. Otherwise it should not be used and it definitely should not be rendered in this style. |
|
Thanks for the hint, I fixed my "majority" count in favour of strong arguments. |
I don't think this is an isolated problem for golf cart paths. It's quite common for footpaths and small roads to be isolated in the real world. Where I live, in Indonesia, many villages on the coast are surrounded by mangroves, and are only accessible by boat, so there is just one path connecting the houses in the village, and other travel is by boat. This is also common on small islands around the world. I also know of paths in universities and hospitals that are only accessible by passing through a building. In contrast, all of the golf courses that I know in California and Arizona have clear paths between their golf cart paths and the main street or road network. In Phoenix it's common to drive right from your house to the golf course via golf cart. |
|
Ok.. I don't really care much about which tag is used. @chadrockey wanted to map cartpaths. You told them to get their tag accepted first, so they wrote up documentation for it, sent me a PR, I looked through it, and I accepted it. I am sorry for the problems that this decision caused for osm-carto project, so I will just switch the iD presets to use Finally.. 😓 Many of you, but @imagico in particular, are exhausting. I don't think you realize how much you are hurting the OpenStreetMap project just by how rudely you treat people who just want to improve the map. Also.. There was a wiki page for For you guys to say "stop using an undocumented tag" while quietly deleting the documentaion for the tag is... really really disappointing. This was done, today. It now points to this page also written today by @jeisenbe which basically just says not to use the tag. Some proposal! My feelings for OSM have changed a lot in the past year. I stepped down from the board of directors for OSM-US and I won't be attending nearly as many events this year. It is very hard for me to continue to take this project seriously. I don't enjoy spending my free time this way anymore. |
That's incorrect, there was no wiki page for the tag at the time. User Cr7371 created the page for golf=cartpath and added it to Key:golf on 7 April 2019: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:golf&direction=next&oldid=1674712 As far as I know, this tag not documented at the time of the ID PR: openstreetmap/iD#5862 (comment)
It was me (@jeisenbe) not @matkoniecz. The wiki page for golf=cartpath was made 3 days ago, 7-April-2019, and I redirected the page to a proposal today, 10-April-2019 The page was not removed, but moved to Proposed_features/Tag:golf=cartpath - there is a redirect now. The previous documentation is there, though I added some additional comments suggesting that highway=path or highway=service could also be used, in addition to some comments that @matkoniecz added.
I made an official proposal page for Key:golf_cart in addition to the existing Key:golf_cart page And I submitted a RFC to the Tagging mailing list requesting discussion about which of these two tagging methods is best, so I think it is unfair to say this was done quietly. I did forget to write a comment on the Discussion page; I can add that if it helps. I thought it was recommend to propose and discuss new features, rather than creating a full wiki page without discussion. I've had a couple of proposals rejected; it would have been nice to just make a wiki page, but I'm trying to follow the rules. Normally I would not have considered redirecting a wiki page to a proposal, but since the page was only 3 days old, I felt it was reasonable in this situation. But if I'm wrong, I can undo the edit, or anyone else can edit the wiki. |
As an American living in Indonesia, I've had plenty of experience of being considered extremely rude. This is sometimes because I am rude by American standards, but mainly due to the communication style differences. Indonesians, especially Javanese people, do not confront someone or speak directly about issues. Everything must be done in a very subtle way. Often Americans (and my Dutch and German friends) fail to understand when they are doing something wrong, because they expect to be told more directly. Javanese people think that only children and fools say something directly when it can read between the lines. I've also seen the other side of this. My expat friends from Germany and the Netherlands are much more direct and frank. Often they offend me and my American friends by saying directly: "that's a bad idea", "this work is unacceptable, do it again", etc.. But apparently this is a completely normal way of speaking in their culture. German people think that only children and fools are ashamed to say exactly what they mean. (*These are stereotypical exaggerations for rhetorical emphasis. Not all Indonesians, Germans and Americans have the same communication style. See https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/direct-indirect-communication-styles-marjorie-friesen) As contributors to an international project, we call all try harder to understand one another. A good first step is to always assume good will. This is very hard; as humans we naturally assume that when we feel hurt or confused, it's because the other person intended to hurt us and confuse us. Some examples of not assuming good will: "Seems there is a concerted effort to push this tag against more common highway=* + golf_cart=*" ("seems" and "push" emphasized)
Now I see that I was wrong, it would have been much easier to just ask to change the preset before changing the wiki. And changing the wiki made it appear that I had bad intentions. It's very difficult to get this right on the internet, with no face-to-face interaction. Please accept my apology for jumping to conclusions and not waiting for advice and consensus. |
|
Ok, first of all i am positively surprised by @bhousel reconsidering the decision in the iD presets (and it is not easy to surprise me this way). I have been accused of being rude and wanted to add a few comments on that matter. @jeisenbe already explained how rudeness and friendliness are to a significant extent a matter of cultural differences, even in relatively cosmopolitic societies like in Europe and the US. I also feel @bhousel is being rude in many cases in his reactions to commenters on the iD issue tracker. But i try to form my opinion based on decisions made and not from the way they are communicated. The advise to always assume good will is a very good one. Explicitly communicating you respect others disagreeing with you is another good strategy that can help bridging cultural gaps. I apologize for here in my initial comment focusing on perceived motivation (which considering the decision is now being revised is now also proven to be wrong - but it would have been wrong to put that in the foreground even if my perception had been correct). In overall analysis i think the ultimate cause of the problem has been to a significant extent a failure in communication. When @chadrockey brought up golf cart paths on this issue tracker there seemed to have been agreement that the best way for this is using normal highway tags with supplemental tags as needed - i already liked to this discussion above: #3650 (comment) with @chadrockey agreeing (#3650 (comment)) this seemed to be settled. But the same subject was then discussed again on the iD issue tracker (openstreetmap/iD#5862) with a different outcome. The traditional way to avoid this kind of problems (with different parts of the OSM community developing different conflicting tagging ideas) is the tagging proposal process with wiki and mailing list. Yes, this is often unnecessarily elaborate and exhausting and frequently fails to yield useful results. But just foregoing the process does lead to the kind of problem we had here. This is somewhat out of scope here on the OSM-Carto issue tracker but i think this demonstrates that for developing editor presets some kind of RFC process on preset decisions that gives those from the OSM community who have something significant to say on the subject a well defined opportunity to do so is important. Avoiding at the same time the cacophony of special interests and unqualified opinions is of course the tricky thing. |
I replied at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:golf%3Dcartpath#redirecting_pages_to_a_proposal (as I would prefer to not start an offtopic here) |
|
Both
and
sadly reminds me about "The life cycle of contributors in collaborative online communities - the case of OpenStreetMap" article ( https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13658816.2018.1458312 )
I am not sure how to reduce this problem beyond
and standard "remember that other contributors are actually a living humans, not pixels in your monitor" or "do not comment/post/commit when angry" It is a combination of people actually attempting to improve situation (but sometimes with bad ideas or good ideas that for some reason failed). Miscommunications happen. Add to it competing interests, pride and small dose of malicious actions (pretty sure that the last one is rarer than most people would expect) and we end with sometimes highly frustrating situation. (sorry for a bit of offtopic rather than re-review of |
|
@matkoniecz, thanks for info and the link. Even if it is slightly off topic. Its definitely something I've been I've been struggling with lately myself. As is probably obvious to some people. I'm know were near being here 9 years though or as invested in the project as you guys are. A general comment, while I agree that this is as much just about the nature of contributing to an open source project and how people naturally peter out on them over time etc, there's still a large component of it that has to do with other contributors, their responses to things, and how understanding of other people they are in certain situations. I know from my own experiences without calling certain people out, that is a general mood of paranoia as to other peoples intentions that underlines a lot of interactions. There's a strong inclination toward people who think they have more time or experience in the project discounting anything from people who don't. Which often makes doing even basic things much harder then it should be. I don't think just chalking those antagonisms up to cultural differences in communication styles or saying "well, your problems clearly just do to the natural cycle something goes through as a contributor" is I've noticed a strong inclination to ascribe bad behavior in others and call them out for it when its convenient, but then not doing it when its that persons own behavior or the behavior of someone else higher up in the project. For instance shooting down other peoples opinions as campaigning, but then when that person is called out for doing the same its "not assuming good will" by whoever is doing it. Or they will just shut down the conversation when there is dissenting opinions by claiming the topic is just to controversial to discuss anymore. Which isn't productive. Or, allowing certain users to get wrung over the coals for two years straight in various mediums at every chance for what was a newbie mistake at the time, which they have tried to remedy since then, without anyone being called out for it. Whereas, if said person says something slightly sarcastic like calling one of the people who did the coal racking a troll they immediately get called out and warned about their behavior. Ultimately, its not balanced and things like "natural factors" and communications differences get most of the air time. Whereas other, more individual, things often get discounted when they probably shouldn't be. Whatever it is about communication style differences, its still on individual people to act better and be more understanding when they can. I come a pretty rough, lax place in California. Most the people here have no concept of verbal restraint. I'm actually considered pretty well spoken and good manured in real life. Its been an extremely hard thing for me to tone it down and be more measured when participating in this project, but how I behave is ultimately on me. Know matter how laissez faire my culture may be about things or how well behaved I already am by real life standards. I haven't wanted or gotten any special allowance for the culture differences either. Nor have I used it to hand wave away my sometimes bad behavior. Neither should others, for me or themselves. I'm not saying there isn't differences how we communicate. I just think those differences are not the sole or top cause of problems in this project and we should do what we can to get along despite it. |
I see nothing really sad in the process of people coming to and leaving the projects. The article suggests that it's quite universal law (probably similar to the "long tail" distribution pattern). In the active project all that matters is to have some balance between some people leaving (or just getting much less active) and some other joining and taking over. In the case of OSM Carto I see that we loose this balance and #2291 is not really solved.
While I believe it's a crucial problem for the project health, I think there are more of them and they are not limited to discounting less experienced participants. In general it's sparse communication, I guess, and I see too few examples of cooperation. Yet I'm not sure why is that happening and what to do with it. |
Since openstreetmap/iD#5862, iD has had a preset “Golf Cartpath” for paths in golf courses that are intended for pedestrians and golf carts. This preset adds the
golf=cartpathandgolf_cart=designatedtags but nohighwayorfootwaytag (example). These paths aren’t rendered by openstreetmap-carto:highway=pathis another common way to tag these paths that is rendered./ref #661 #3675
/cc @chadrockey @bhousel
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: