Hi @iboates and others.

interesting investigation. This looks very focused on cars. Charging stations however also exist for other vehicles (e.g. cars, bicycles, trucks, busses, scooters, boats) and some are even useable by different types of vehicles at a time. All are mapped in osm with amenity=charging_station. So

1. Capacity does not necessarily mean cars
2. Capacity including text could indicate somebody thought about different vehicles (and did not know how to do it better)
3. Unfortunately many charging stations in the osm database lack to mention which vehicles can be charged there
4. From my understanding answering this is not always easy (or we have not yet found a good suggestion for it), see https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/4003 and https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/29863

Is there anybody having any more insights or tips on vehicle types?

Very interesting!

How do you do the visualization? I am not familiar with postgis/qgis?

Which kind of changes do you do with Vespucci? Tag changes could be done with StreetComplete Expert Edition

Have you encountered any situations you cannot map well with the existing schema or where you were unsure?

How much percentage of time have you roughly been on the road?

Looks great. Are you planning something similar for cycleways? I see you already mark shared footway/cycleway.

Thank you dcapillae for adding the schema. On the German wiki page there is another picture, however not covering charging.

Since you and others already showed interested in parking spaces, maybe you can also help with the following:

1) I was wondering why on the wiki there is no documentation for parking spaces for trucks and busses. Too unimportant?

According to taginfo for amenity=parking_space there are only 0,07% combinations mapped with hgv=* and for amenity=parking, there are 0,36%. Of course if not documented it won’t help growing, even when in reality occurrences are probably much higher.

Discussions

• there is an unanswered question on the discussion page.
• a similar question is answered here for amenity=parking and another one here (German).

Is there a difference in mapping if trucks are allowed to if the size of the parking space is sufficient for a truck / bus / trailer?

2) Another question I have is: Is there a good tagging for a collection of (marked or unmarked) parking spaces inside of a parking? Like e.g. here: osm.org/note/3437700#map=19/50.46167/3.93245

3) On a github issue I opened for surveying charging stations in Streetcomplete there came up the question on how to map parking spaces with charging for motorcar compared to truck or bus. Is there anything documented or in use to differentiate this?

Also das Gebiet kenne ich nicht, ebensowenig deine Abkürzungen. Wird nur die Wanderroute nicht mehr geplegt, oder auch die Wege dazu? Wege als disused oder je nach Rechtslage / on-the-ground Tatsachen auch access=no einzutragen ergibt definitiv Sinn. Auch für Relationen (wie z.B. Wanderrouten) ist disused=yes vermutlich sinnvoll. Ein Löschen führt nur dazu, dass der Nächste es wieder einträgt, weil es ja scheinbar fehlt.

Es gibt/gab für ähnliche Sachlagen auch schon einige Diskussionen. Ein interessanter Foren-Thread ist z.B. dieser hier: Sachsenforst Stelle: rechtliche Schritte gegen Online-Kartendienste?

Thank you, that’s interesting to know. Would there be a way to achive this using web tools only?

In my opinion the map should only be changed when things are physically in place. Osm guidelines suggest to map what can be validated on the ground.

Interesting post. I am not very familiar with Map Roulette yet, but thought some could create a callenge directly from overpass query. Is that not possible? thanks

Welcome :-)

Hi, thank you for your interest and replies. In a private message SK53 mentioned his older blog post, where he suggested a separate tag for plantifications. Maybe the time has come to rediscuss this?

More about tagging woodland can be found here: osm.wiki/Forest

While I am unable to provide a specific plantification date I could only narrow it down to a range of 2-11 years (depending on available imagery) which is not too helpful I guess?

Hi BudgieInWA, this is very interesting. Good to see people are organizing to meet and map in real life 😀

Your gif is a really nice visualization 😍 And after reading the description even more then “nice”, but helpful to understand how the different stages came into existence and why the are important. This is a very helpful blog post and wiki entry, motivating to start the same.

Some questions:

• When you are talking about osm first time users - how did you get in contact with them?
• Have you been walking alone or e.g. in pairs? Any more guidance that was given to the newbies?
• Which apps have you (and others) been using for on-the-ground surveying?
  • just saw your older blog post where you mentioned OSM Go!, Street Complete, pen and paper, JOSM - same here?
  • any specific configuration / mode used (e.g. quest selection or group mapping mode used in SC)?
  • did you use any tagging for this organized mapping (or is it even possible with the used apps)?
• Can you share more experiances like: What went well? what could be improved? Which app/approach use best for what? …

Im Forenthread meinte ich diesen Beitrag mit einem Beispiel eines Fahrradwegverlaufs (und note mit Fotos): https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=860855#p860855

Nachtrag: Für Fußgängerzonen, Parks etc gilt “bicycle=dismount” wenn es ein Schild dazu gibt. Ansonsten “bicyle=yes”

Hallo, ich hatte vor ein paar Tagen im Forum einen ähnlichen Thread eröffnet: https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=75399

Schaut euch auch gerne die Bilder in der verlinkten note an.

Hier nun meine Gedanken zu ein paar hier beschriebenen Situationen:

Ich finde die Lübecker Methode klar beschrieben, nachvollziehbar und damit hervorragend geeignet: osm.wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren_L%C3%BCbecker_Methode

• abgetrennte Wege (durch mehr als einen Bordstein*1) ohne Schilder: “footway” und “bicycle=yes” (oder “path” impliziert “foot=yes”, “bicycle=yes”)
• Wege die von der Straße nur durch einen Bordstein*1 getrennt sind (Bürgersteige), sind “footway=sidewalk”. Auf solchen gilt in DE implizit “foot=yes”, “bicycle=dismount” (nicht etwa “no”, das hingegen gilt implizit auf Kraftfahrstraßen und Autobahnen). D.h. man muss es nicht extra angeben.
• Fahhradverbotsschild “bicyle=no”
• mit weißem Schild “Fahrrad frei” wird daraus “bicycle=yes” (und wenn gegen die Einbahnstraße oder <Fahhrad mit 2 Pfeilen> “oneway:bicycle=no”)
• mit den blauen Schildern “bicycle=designated”; expliziter Weg/Spur nur für Radfahrer, zusätzlich “cycleway=*”

*1 nach StvO ist eigentlich nicht die Form, sondern die “Widmung” des Weges entscheidend. Da man aber nicht vorher in amtlichen Unterlagen schaut bevor man einen Weg betritt/befährt, fällt es zurück auf das was als Bürgersteig wahrgenommen wird (oder eben nicht).