|
What should I call this barrier here?
Location on Geolocation.ws redacted because it includes Google map and aerial images. It's mostly like a barrier:cycle_barrier, except that it is used to block cars, not bikes. |
|
I would use this http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dbollard and tag foot=yes and other modes of transport according to signage. Hmmm yeah even though the horizontal bar makes this barrier more than just two pilars, I guess the effect is the same. If nobody comes up with other suggestions, then I'll tag this barrier as a bollard... (Note: barrier:bollard already implies access=no, foot=yes and bicycle=yes.)
(13 Jun '13, 13:04)
pbb
1
I think bollard as the same effect as your sketch and i agree that the tags are implied work fine in this case, but there will be exceptions, it may be to bar horses or bikes as well as cars which would require modified tags.
(13 Jun '13, 13:15)
andy mackey
1
I think using bollard is a bad idea because the effect is not the only thing that matters: The appearance is also relevant for some use cases. Unfortunately, my English isn't good enough to suggest a value.
(15 Jun '13, 17:46)
Tordanik
|
|
One seller of these in the UK calls them hoop barriers. Since barrier=hoop_barrier nor barrier=hoop are currently in use in OSM, it is very important to also tag the access restrictions if you use that. Very good point. Since barrier=bollard defines the physical form of the barrier, barrier=hoop would be better in this place. However, if I'm going to be very nitpicky, hoop barriers look like they are made from one rod of metal that is bended twice. The barrier in my case is really two pillars with a horizontal bar on top of it. Definetly not a standard bollard, but not really a hoop either... :-)
(15 Jun '13, 21:57)
pbb
|
I think on the whole we would greatly prefer that you use your own photographs, and place them on the site, rather than linking to material which is copyright and not suitable for incorporation in OSM. By asking us what something is on Google Maps, you expose people replying to the possibility of infringing their T&C, and certainly any edit based on looking at this picture is not appropriate for OSM (effectively it's derived from Google data which violates the T&C. You also don't provide an open link to the co-ordinates.
I am not asking people to edit the map. Like you said, I did not provide a link to the co-ordinates. I am asking for information on a certain object.
The link that you replaced it with, is no help in answering this question. The object that I am asking about, is not visible on that page. Actually, this "open link" is also using Google Maps!! So in a way, this new link is far more likely to invite people to copy from Google Maps to OSM.
I am not exposing people to the possibility of infringing Google's T&C, people are already exposed. Besides, whose responsibility is it what editors do?
The link provides access to suitable geolocated photos which have suitable copyright permissions for use in OSM. And of course you provided a link to the co-ordinates in the form of a Google short link (how else do I know it was in Trondheim).
The responsibility is a collective one. Recently the chairman of OSMF removed most if not all links to Google Maps on the wiki: I dont think we should start adding them here.
Why not make a simple drawing of the relevant barrier, or go and take a photo of it. Then we have no problems & the image could be used in the wiki.
Okay, but if links to Google Maps are taboo, then links to sites that provide the same Google Maps imagery are just as bad. That means Geolocation.ws is also out of the question.