Zur Info: SCEE fragt mich seit einiger Zeit bei allen barrier=* mit einem Rollstuhlsymbol, wie breit der breiteste Durchgang ist. Welches Tagging daraus resultiert habe ich nie nachgesehen.
Ich persönlich bin mit dieser Fragestellung nicht ganz glücklich, aus verschiedenen Gründen: Gerade im Bereich großer Industrieanlagen ist SCEE jetzt „zugeballert“ mit dieser Frage, ohne dass jemand was davon hätte (oder Breite=30 Meter noch irgendwas mit Rollstuhlfahrern zu tun hätte), und ausserdem frage ich mich jedesmal, was ich antworten soll, wenn innerhalb eines sehr breiten, aber im allgemeinen geschlossenen Werkstors ein 80-Zentimeter-Türchen ist…
…aber, egal, anderes Thema. Was ich eigentlich sagen wollte: SCEE scheint da was an „barrier“ dran zu hängen.
Der barrier_opening Quest kommt von StreetComplete upstream in SCEE.
In beiden Apps kannst du nach der Beantwortung auf das Rückgängig-Icon unten links klicken und dir im Dialog die Änderungen oder Ergänzungen des Tagging ansehen. Wenn alles korrekt ist, einfach wieder auf “Abbrechen” klicken.
Der Quest ist standardmäßig deaktiviert und muss vom Nutzer explizit aktiviert werden.
Aus meiner Sicht ist das der Grund, warum viele Quests standardmäßig deaktiviert sind. Bevor man mit einem solchen Quest arbeitet, sollte man sich über den Nutzen und die Konsequenzen im klaren sein.
Du hast mich unvollständig zitiert, hier fehlt der wichtige Teil:
ausserdem frage ich mich jedesmal, was ich antworten soll, wenn innerhalb eines sehr breiten, aber im allgemeinen geschlossenen Werkstors ein 80-Zentimeter-Türchen ist
Es geht mir nicht darum, dass ich das technisch nicht begreife. Ich halte die Fragestellung in ihrer Einfachheit für unangemessen „unterkomplex“ und wenig hilfreich. Ein Beispiel, dass ich schon gegeben hatte, war die Tür innerhalb eines Tores. Es ist relativ egal, ob ich das falsch oder richtig verstehe — man kann davon ausgehen, dass viele Nutzer es unterschiedlich verstehen, und dann hat man die Daten verschlechtert statt verbessert.
Wenn man solch ein Objekt korrekt erfassen will, dann muss man umtaggen. Hier würde dann ein simples „barrier“ am Node nicht mehr genügen.
Den Verdacht hatte ich schon von Anfang an. Ich stand vor einem großen Flutschutztor und konnte maximal 9,99 Meter antworten. Der entsprechende Bugreport von mir wurde beantwortet, welche barrier denn bitteschön breiter als 10 Meter wäre. Ähm… Werkstore? Flugzeughangars? Rolltore? So ziemlich alles in Hafen, Schwerindustrie und so?
Ich glaube, die Quest hätte einfach nur an bestimmte barriers gehängt werden dürfen, an denen Rollies und Fahrradanhänger betroffen sind, z.B. Poller. Generell an allen Toren, Schranken etc. macht wenig Sinn.
Ja, das stimmt. Für diesen Fall müsste man unsere Vereinfachung ein bisschen zurückdrehen, und die Türen und Tore, die eigentlich im Grundriss grundsätzlich lineare ways sein müssten, (aber der Einfachheit halber, und auch, weil die highways ja ebenfalls nur ways sind und keine Flächen, meist nur als Nodes eingetragen werden), als solche abbilden, damit man das darin liegende Tor topologisch passend eintragen kann.
Do you have an actionable idea how to better phrase the question so it is less misleading or better explains what one needs to be careful about? Or how to modify the selection (i.e. on which elements would the quest be asked) so it avoids asking the Quest on elements which are likely to be misunderstood?
If you do, it would be appreciated if you could file a StreetComplete issue with a suggestion which would improve the situation. Nobody wants to make OpenStreetMap data worse!
@Matija_Nalis I’d like to help, but honestly I don’t have an idea how that can be done at all.
I often map with SCEE in industrial areas of Hamburg. On the ground a huge steel factory is certainly very different from an average garden greenhouse, however, from a data perspective it is: A gate node in a rectangle barrier.
Most of this industrial objects are very simple, because not many mappers are interested in adding details to an Amazon Storage building (and often it’s not even possible to get there, for example for the whole Hamburg harbour access is strictly prohibited)
I do not see how it might be possible to differ between those objects. It would be possible if there were more detailled attributes, however, usually there’s not much data available as a base for filtering.
Well, I guess one could map gates separately - e.g. big one as a waybarrier=gate+hgv=private and a small one for pedestrians as a nodebarrier=gate+accces=no+foot=private, and have separate highway using each one (one highway=service other `highway=footway).
From the SC(EE) side however, only way to deal with such complex situation is to select Uh... / Can't say... / Leave note (with good description and preferably pictures – if it is allowed to take them!), and leave it to some more advanced editor software to deal with it properly.
That’s what I mean. The question is asked in SC(EE), but often not solvable in SCEE, real editor required here.
Users will in reality either just answer with the bigger or smaller gate width (and since there is a wheelchair icon, I guess they will chose the smaller gate), or clutter the map with “don’t know" notes nobody will fix. Fixing it requires micromapping the entrance of a steel factory that’s unavailable to wheelchair anways, so why.
The main issue here is IMHO: That quest was designed having middle Berlin in mind, but once activated, it also asks about industrial infrastructure intended for large vehicles, not wheelchairs.
If you map a gate as a way, then you still need a gate node where the gate way intersects with the highway/waterway way. But generally, I agree that the “Leave note” option should be the one to use if you cannot answer the question with SCEE only.
Can you share one such location “bombarded” with that question, so I can take a look what is happening?
I’ve now taken a deeper look at the code, and “What is the width of the opening here?” quest should only be asked on barriers on public ways which are also not intended for industrial / motorized vehicles (i.e. highway being one of footway, cycleway, path, bridleway, or steps).
E.g. if it was highway=service or highway=track (usual for industrial vehicles, depending on stage of area development), the Quest shouldn’t be asked. It also shouldn’t be asked if either that way (or barrier) is tagged with e.g. access=private or similar (which again should be the case for most industrial facilities), so I’m puzzled why are you being bombarded with it.
On a slightly related note, SCEE allows you (in any road overlay, like Surface) to Add access, i.e. tag such ways belonging to private industrial facilities with access=private), which is another way to handle it.
Anyway, people cluttering the map with Notes for this Quest does not (yet) seem to happening (or I’m too tired and have missed it). I’ve searched NotesReview for text “Specify width of opening” (which should be included in all such notes AFAICT) and cannot find a single OSM Note left by that quest. So unless I’m looking incorrectly, I wouldn’t worry too much about Notes spam in this particular case.
As noted, that is interesting and unexpected (at least to me) behaviour. Let me know the location(s) where it is happening, please. Likely it would either the case that:
that area is either currently mistagged (e.g. service roads incorrectly marked as footways), or
the SC(EE) code is buggy and not doing what it should be doing.
(also, if you could share which version of SC(EE) you are using where you are seeing that behaviour that would be very helpful!) Thanks!
I don’t have a list, but I can give an example. Last weekend I was mapping in such an area, and I noticed many gates looking like this one:
A door for walking people, a barrier for transporters for during opening hours, and a rolling gate to be closed at night. All of this collapsed in a single barrier=yes
This is basically the standard entrance in the harbour area.
OK, that is understandable that you see such gates in reality. But did you see a SC(EE) Quest asking you about width of those gates? Because you shouldn’t have.
I’ve opened that location in SCEE v60.1 now, and indeed it does not show gate-width quests there on those highway=service roads Way: 174509729 | OpenStreetMap and Way: 174509728 | OpenStreetMap) which have barrier=gate on them? And they do not seem changed for years (so they should not have asked you either).
Agreed, but perhaps my question was not clear. It was not about “do such dual-gates exist in reality (and how do they look like)” but rather “have SC(EE) actually asked you width-related quests for those gates, or are you just assuming that it would” ?
Because, if you’re just assuming (and did not actually see those quests pop up), that assumption is probably wrong. (And if you did actually see those quests pop up, I’d be very interested in area where it happened, so I can try to reproduce the issue and troubleshoot it).
Generally, In OSM, if the area is mapped as all, I see three ways how it would play out in practice (sorted from most likely scenario at the top, to the least likely at the bottom):
the area is only coarsely mapped, e.g. there is only a big highway=service with barrier=gate on it and no separate footways nor their gates (like in this example area you’ve shown). In this case, SC(EE) should not ask the quest at all. (I’ve checked and it does not ask here). Or,
the area is micromapped with all details - separate highway=service with its own barrier=gate, and separate highway=footway with its own barrier=gate, all of them with appropriate access=private. In this case, SC(EE) also should not ask the quest at all. Or,
the area is micromapped with almost all details - there is separate highway=service with its own barrier=gate, and separate highway=footway with its own barrier=gate, but they do not have appropriate access tag sets (yet). In this case, SC(EE) should ask only for width of pedestrian gate (one on highway=footway), while showing other bigger highway=service and its gate nearby (for which width quest would not be asked). So there should no confusion what width is being asked in this case either.
Does that make sense? Or do you see other scenarios happening in OSM with any regularity?
I get your point. OK,… I usually use SCEE to “clear“ complete areas in a multiple-hours walk, so I definitely cannot reproduce now, which single gate caused that question. I had multiple occurences, but I can’t remember where exactly that happened. I played with overpass and checked my history, both to no success.
If I understand you correct, that means the best way to deal with this is to open that place in Vespucci and check for invalid tagging, for example the highway=footway instead of service etc.?
Just a small note here that you don’t have to switch apps to do this. For example, you can select the surface overlay, click on the corresponding path, then click on the three dots in the bottom left corner and select “Show/Edit Tags”. This way you can look directly in SCEE to see which value was entered here in highway.
Yes, that is probably the easiest (one has to check the “Expert mode” in SCEE setting first, to enable that option, though).
That is also good! Or you can leave a note from SCEE if you think you shouldn’t have been asked the quest, and then mention it here in the thread, so we can take a look again what is happening. Edits have a history, so even if map was edited in the meantime, we should be able to see how exactly it looked, and reproduce the problem (same types of ways, crossing same types of nodes etc.)
I know, but that will only give access to the tags of that object. In Vespucci I can see all objects, all details, just deeper insights. For example, duplicate pathes. It’s more powerful.
It’s OK for me. I am familiar enough with Vespucci, I’m using it often to add objects or do more complex changes.
