Proposal:Piste:type=connection
| Piste:type=connection | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | Helge.at |
| Tagging: | piste:type=connection |
| Applies to: | ways |
| Definition: | Ways that connect ski lifts with each other, mainly for routing purposes |
| Statistics: |
|
| RFC start: | 2016-09-27 |
| Vote start: | 2018-01-24 |
| Vote end: | 2018-02-08 |
Proposal
Introduce a tag that allows to connect ski lifts to ski pistes, when no one of the existing tags applies: Some times there are connections over bridges or other type of connections that are purely made to get from one lift to the other or from a lift to where the piste starts.
I propose a new tag piste:type=connection to cover these cases. This automatically implies oneway=yes, with an optional oneway=no for connections without (substantial) elevation difference that can be used in both directions.
Rationale
Connections of this type are especially important for ski routing applications. As with car routing: Routing won't work if ways aren't connected! Also Yvecai from OpenSnowMap.org has voiced his support.
Examples
openstreetmap.org/way/391480869
This example has been deleted before as it doesn't really qualify as piste:type=downhill, hence the comment.
Within short time after this proposal users in four countries starting to use the tag, according to Taginfo:
Only edits in one ski resort in Tirol are connected to efforts of the author of this proposal. More examples on the discussion page!
Features/Pages affected
External discussions
See discussion on discussion page.
Voting
Place your vote below. -->
I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. I support this tag janderwald (talk) 10:47, 05 February 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Essential for the ski routing engine we're working on --Helge.at (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- I second Helge.at's approach and already used it for some connections -- hoeflehner
I oppose this proposal. Tag description should describe what should be mapped (walkways for skiers, maintained during skiing season?), not how it is used by data consumers. Also, I would recommend rfc before vote. (note, I support idea behind this tag) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- RFC has happened. Do I understand you correctly, you are in favour of the tag but want a different/better description? Instead of voting no I'd suggest to use the wiki to help improving the tag page, once it exists. The text here was not intended to serve as template for the final tag page but just for the purpose of the proposal process. --Helge.at (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- "has happened" - sorry, I only looked at template at top of the site before this edit "you are in favour of the tag but want a different/better description" - yes. Unfortunately as too many people consider "proposal was successfully voted" and "may never be modified again" as the same, I prefer to at least make clear that I consider fixing description as necessary (also, because during fixing description some currently hidden issues may become obvious). Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Also, it is supposed to be piste:type=*, not Piste:type=*, right? I fixed this in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Piste:type%3Dconnection&diff=1558427&oldid=1558426 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- RFC has happened. Do I understand you correctly, you are in favour of the tag but want a different/better description? Instead of voting no I'd suggest to use the wiki to help improving the tag page, once it exists. The text here was not intended to serve as template for the final tag page but just for the purpose of the proposal process. --Helge.at (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Routing for "Sella Ronda" and others will then be possible :-) --ToniE (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. -- Sounds like a good proposel to me. I do agree that things should be clarified later though. -- Adamant1 (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Redrafting after voting is not on! If you change the definition then that may not be what I am voting for/against. The idea is when the proposal is mature then 'we' vote on it. Is the connection only for walking, skiing, sledding, ice-skates, all? While 'something' may be needed ... is this the best solution? Warin61 (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- The answer is "all". The tag describes (usually snow covered) connections between lifts to be used by any type of lift users. There is no redrafting after voting, all this has been stated here already. Of course the description could and should be improved after voting - and apparently clarified. --Helge.at (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Waldhans (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. If only this existed when I needed it a few months back. --RobJN (talk)
- I approve this proposal. --Michi (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Soldier Boy (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Stuart.ward (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Adavidson (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Roman H (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Very much needed to reflect real situations in ski areas and to enable navigation. --Skaragerald (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Schermy1985 (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Maxbe (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Pietervdvn (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
--
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was approved with 17 votes for, 2 votes against and 0 abstentions.