Re: [Tagging] Two way street, but entry of motor vehicles blocked at one end. Relation correct? Tagging correct?

Am Di., 21. Mai 2024 um 15:01 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > In such case I would typically place such tags on > a short section (meter or two) of way near end where > such restriction is applied. > the restriction is not applied to a section, it is

Re: [Tagging] Two way street, but entry of motor vehicles blocked at one end. Relation correct? Tagging correct?

sent from a phone > On 20 May 2024, at 21:57, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > I tried that, but could not get the from, via and to nodes to work out. create a node at the actual start of the crossing street (some meters away from the crossing of the center ways) and split it there, that’s your

Re: [Tagging] Two way street, but entry of motor vehicles blocked at one end. Relation correct? Tagging correct?

there is also restriction=no_entry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] voting shop=tortilla

sent from a phone > On 11 May 2024, at 23:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > If you do, I will appreciate it if you comment in this thread that you did > crosspost my call for votes on the proposal. I sent it to the tagging ml ___

[Tagging] voting shop=tortilla

forwarding this from the forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/voting-feature-proposal-shop-tortilla/113059 Voting will start tomorrow for shop=tortilla at the proposal page. I am not familiar with mailing lists, so, please, cross post this announcement on the tagging mailing list on my

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Industrial tagging scheme complementing man made=works (was:works:type and works:process)

sent from a phone > On 3 May 2024, at 15:39, Daniel Evans wrote: > > This proposal has now been updated on feedback, both here and on the talk page thank you for working on this, the current improvements are promising, I think you could work a little bit on the page structure, now there

Re: [Tagging] breads of bakeries

Am Fr., 3. Mai 2024 um 14:09 Uhr schrieb Zoon van Michiel < spaanse@gmail.com>: > What is the benefit of putting the breads a bakery sells into OSM? > Otherwise, bread is just bread. I will choose the variety I like best when > I get there. That even bakers might not advertise which

Re: [Tagging] breads of bakeries

I agree for specific types of bread, but maybe we can have "classes" of breads, if that makes sense. Personally, when going into a bakery I am interested in the quality of the bread more than the exact type. Typically I would ask "do you have bread made of natural sourdough" and the answers will

Re: [Tagging] breads of bakeries

what about sells:bread=X;Y;Z (xyz being bread types) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

Am Di., 30. Apr. 2024 um 01:47 Uhr schrieb Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana < jptolosanz...@outlook.cl>: > It has no sense to inflating classifications of every island in the word > for being the most important road in respective island. > > If a neighbor garage is more quieter than the mine is not a

Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags

Am Di., 30. Apr. 2024 um 10:54 Uhr schrieb Szem : > There was a similar conversation in the Hungarian community as well. I > would like to ask what you think about such (and similar) official bicycle > route signs: > >

Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags

sent from a phone > On 30 Apr 2024, at 08:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > >> In fact, some bicycle trails are signed where >> cycling is illegal > > So does that then make it legal? no, in Germany it also happens from time to time that we discover signposted bicycle routes where cycling

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

Am Mo., 29. Apr. 2024 um 16:25 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > (second note also may benefit from fix as the most important in > Vatican is not highway=trunk - though again, maybe it can be avoided > via "Vatican has no road network system"). > the

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

Am Mo., 29. Apr. 2024 um 16:06 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien < fernando.treb...@gmail.com>: > > why you think that place=hamlet are automatically entitled to > > highway=tertiary? > > The wiki emphasizes the highway classification should consider the > relative importance of roads within regional

Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

Am Mo., 29. Apr. 2024 um 09:47 Uhr schrieb Jo : > I was wondering about that myself. They seem to be 'long' steps. So a > horse wouldn't have too much trouble with them. > there is this property which might be applying: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flat_steps

Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

Am So., 28. Apr. 2024 um 16:40 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend : > Assuming we're talking about something that's signed as a "Public > Bridleway" in England and Wales*, then at the most basic level there are > two tags to consider: > >- highway=steps >- designation=public_bridleway > > The

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - works:type and works:process

sent from a phone > On 28 Apr 2024, at 19:58, Daniel Evans wrote: > I've seen "industry=" proposed/discussed before, with the big problem that > it's very close to the existing "industrial" tag, and it would likely be too > confusing if they had different meanings (one for land use, one for

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - works:type and works:process

sent from a phone > On 27 Apr 2024, at 10:55, Daniel Evans wrote: > > works:industry= is an option which is much clearer about exactly what the tag > means. Does that sound good to you? it is fine, maybe also just “industry”? There are a few hundred of them but not so much with works:

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

apart from the usefulness in routing (as there aren’t alternatives it doesn’t matter for routing if a road on antarctica is unclassified or primary, and usual time estimates would generally not be useful in this particular context and also likely more depend on the vehicle than the “road”),

Re: [Tagging] Direct reduced iron plants

sent from a phone > On 26 Apr 2024, at 14:34, Daniel Evans wrote: > > Thanks. I have been partly lost between some competing (but perhaps poorly > supported) proposals which suggested more focus on making the `industrial=` > tag more detailed. I'll give some thought to what a sequence of

Re: [Tagging] Direct reduced iron plants

sent from a phone > On 26 Apr 2024, at 13:11, Daniel Evans wrote: > > It sounds like your feeling is that the tagging of industrial sites should be > closer to power=plant and the associated plant:x tags. I say it already is like this. The meaning of landuse=industrial is land used for

Re: [Tagging] Direct reduced iron plants

sent from a phone > On 26 Apr 2024, at 09:30, Daniel Evans wrote: > > Differentiating with different `product=` values doesn't seem sensible - both > types of works "produce steel", and getting into specific types of steel > doesn't help. The two `landuse=industrial + industrial=x` tags do

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

sent from a phone > On 25 Apr 2024, at 09:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > By established conventions of functional road tagging in OSM these would > almost all be service roads (no through-traffic to other destinations than > the ones the route ends at). this is also the case with some

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

to be more concrete, I think for an important link like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole_Traverse highway=primary would be appropriate. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

Am Mi., 24. Apr. 2024 um 16:33 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien < fernando.treb...@gmail.com>: > As Antarctica is international space,[1] I understand that, in > principle, the highway classification scheme of no particular country > applies there. Generally, highway classification is not done

Re: [Tagging] traffic_signs: human readable values vs. ISO and law codes

Am Mo., 15. Apr. 2024 um 12:33 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > > It seems really obvious that normalized osm words and CC:codepoint are > different things and belong in different keys. > they are both ways to refer to a traffic sign, you do not have to know they are "CC:codepoint" values, you can

Re: [Tagging] traffic_signs: human readable values vs. ISO and law codes

sent from a phone > On 15 Apr 2024, at 07:37, yo paseopor wrote: > > It is not a big problem...except they are using the same key. it is not a problem, as long as the values describe a traffic sign. It means parsing doesn’t become even slightly more laborious, as a datauser you have to

Re: [Tagging] The reason to not use loc_name is far too subjective.

sent from a phone > On 27 Mar 2024, at 20:36, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > > what determines the cut off point for a name being too "slangy"? the “what” is harder to generalize, but the “who” is pretty clear: the local mapper decides this ___

Re: [Tagging] shops for display

sent from a phone > On 22 Nov 2023, at 18:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > I would consider it more as device than showroom can you provide a dictionary definition for “device” that could refer to a room? Because the ones I looked at wouldn’t fit. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] shops for display

Am Mi., 22. Nov. 2023 um 17:12 Uhr schrieb Anne- Karoline Distel : > > My case was where you can't enter the premises, it's really just displaying > goods or even (slightly different) displaying contact details for the > business which has moved to the outskirts of town. yes, your thread was

Re: [Tagging] shops for display

sent from a phone > On 21 Nov 2023, at 21:42, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > > With more stuff being sold online, we will probably see more showrooms, > and I think we should have a way to tell users if they can buy anything > at a shop, or it is just a showroom yes, this is a good idea.

Re: [Tagging] shops for display

sent from a phone > On 21 Nov 2023, at 12:47, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > The wiki for Tesla says that Tesla showrooms are tagged shop=car > A lot of shop=kitchen are really showrooms where you can order a > kitchen which will be installed in you kitchen. The shop do not actually > have

Re: [Tagging] shops for display

sent from a phone > On 20 Nov 2023, at 20:59, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > > Hi, > > is there a way to tag shops that are not used for selling goods > directly, but are just used for display for the actual shop or even to > advertise something different? Here in Ireland, I think they are

[Tagging] voting for highway=ladder has ended

Hi, just a short headsup that voting is ended now, the proposal was approved with 95% of votes: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Ladders I have created a page for the approved feature: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dladder Cheers, Martin

[Tagging] Voting highway=ladder

Voting is now open for highway=ladder https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Ladders Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

sent from a phone > On 20 Oct 2023, at 10:23, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > maybe just removing this bad advise without proposal would be a good idea +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

[Tagging] RFC Ladders

Please comment on the proposal for highway=ladder https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Ladders ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Millstone

Am Mi., 27. Sept. 2023 um 10:32 Uhr schrieb Mitchel van Duuren < mitchelvanduu...@hotmail.com>: > This proposal suggests the addition of a new tag to represent historic or > decommissioned millstones found worldwide within the OpenStreetMap > database: historic=millstone. > I think it is

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:

sent from a phone > On 17 Sep 2023, at 20:25, Mark Wagner wrote: > > was it deliberately pulled over by a snowmobiler > (thus, "vandalized:") if you don’t know it you can remain on the save side and put “destroyed“ because this is what you see. It doesn’t mean there aren’t lots of other

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:

sent from a phone > On 17 Sep 2023, at 14:12, Marc_marc wrote: > > If you're not there at the precise moment of the change of state, > the only thing you can see is that the bench is no longer there > or isn't in a working state anymore maybe, but there might be other ways to learn how it

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

sent from a phone > On 11 Sep 2023, at 08:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > foot:oneway=yes / oneway:foot=yes? as „oneway“ is defined for vehicles only, „oneway:foot“ doesn’t make a lot of sense. The wiki suggests „foot:backward“ or „foot:forward“ as alternatives that follow the generic

Re: [Tagging] cancelling proposal

Am Mi., 6. Sept. 2023 um 19:46 Uhr schrieb Anne-Karoline Distel < annekadis...@web.de>: > I've decided to cancel the proposal I started on August 22 in favour of > using the vending machine option in combination with fee=no instead. I am thinking about using natural=bay with water=no for some

[Tagging] [RFC] Historic main tag for defensive works

forwarding by request. Begin forwarded message: > From: Casper Kersten via OpenStreetMap Community Forum > > Date: 20 July 2023 at 13:41:38 CEST > > Reply-To: OpenStreetMap Community Forum > > >  > Friendly_Ghost Casper Kersten > July 20 > Hello friends, > > I wrote a short

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Wave Lounger

sent from a phone > On 3 Jul 2023, at 01:27, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Ah, but is that frame, material or surface? :-) frankly I believe this level of detail would be overdoing it. Feel free to develop any scheme you feel suits well. If I wanted to tag more detail, priority would be

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Wave Lounger

https://i.etsystatic.com/26861520/r/il/09aa34/3144992841/il_1140xN.3144992841_ps9i.jpg___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Wave Lounger

sent from a phone > On 2 Jul 2023, at 20:19, Asa Hundert wrote: > > I'd have to propose to deprecate the uses on areas > that allows for such atrocities as "amenity=lounger; surface=grass". I don’t think this would be suitable tagging for a Liegewiese (habe recently seen such a sign in the

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

sent from a phone > On 26 Jun 2023, at 20:50, Minh Nguyen wrote: > > For what it's worth, the Sporting Goods Retailers subindustry in NAICS > includes "gun shops". what’s the category for multi role combat aircraft or heavy battletanks? ___

Re: [Tagging] Tag which restaurant or cafe allows bringing your own food or drink?

sent from a phone > On 25 Jun 2023, at 18:11, Timeo Gut wrote: > > Other than the obvious yes/no we should also have a value to indicate that a > place generally allows outside food but charges a fee for bringing particular > items. this is something typical also in Italy: people bring

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

sent from a phone > On 24 Jun 2023, at 00:29, Minh Nguyen wrote: > > But if we focus too pedantically on legal status at the expense of common > sense, then we've reinvented designation=*, and mappers and data consumers > have to find yet another key to express what could've been in

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

sent from a phone > On 23 Jun 2023, at 16:13, Greg Troxel wrote: > > My point is that a tag defines a semantic concept and that we should strive > to have it mean that concept everywhere. That is the point, so that data > consumers can use it. agreed. The problems for example arise

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

Am Do., 22. Juni 2023 um 14:41 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > > Suppose in some other country, bakery is a term that means a shop that > primarly sells sausages. We wouldn't say that this should be > amenity=bakery. this is why we have agreed to use English words. A "bakery" in English is a

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

Am Do., 22. Juni 2023 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano < zelonew...@gmail.com>: > > yes, but motorway is an exception because it is usually defined by signs >> rather than characteristics (e.g. if the signs are missing but it looks and >> feels like, we use motorroad=yes in some

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

sent from a phone > On 22 Jun 2023, at 00:43, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Generally, yes, I'd however not invoke the law at this point - I'd say a > shop=firearms is whatever locals would call a firearms shop, if that term is > used locally. agreed > > Generally speaking I object to an

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

sent from a phone > On 21 Jun 2023, at 15:52, Greg Troxel wrote: > > It is absolutely the wrong thing to say that shop=firearms means "a shop > that sells whatever the local law means by firearms". This is a > general principle in OSM that we define something and then expect > mappers to

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

sent from a phone > On 21 Jun 2023, at 13:10, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I note the absence of 'fire' in the above definitions. Explosions can be had > from compressed gas doesn’t seem to cover electromagnetic weapons, or does it? ___

Re: [Tagging] navigational aid relation

Am Sa., 17. Juni 2023 um 21:48 Uhr schrieb Minh Nguyen < m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>: > You're quite fortunate that the meaning of an address is unambiguous in > Italy. At least you can be sure that a pedestrian route will lead to the > main entrance, even if other modes aren't as well-served.

Re: [Tagging] What separator do you use for multiple value

sent from a phone > On 15 Jun 2023, at 09:41, Simon Poole wrote: > >  >> Am 14.06.2023 um 11:26 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: >> ...for housenumbers periods are an alternative to semicolons. > You probably wanted to write "commas", periods are not in use

Re: [Tagging] What separator do you use for multiple value

sent from a phone > On 14 Jun 2023, at 11:15, _ _ wrote: > > What separator do you use, and what advantage do they have over the others? the semicolon is standard for most cases, for multilingual names dashes and slashes are in use, for housenumbers periods are an alternative to

Re: [Tagging] road accident memorials

sent from a phone > On 10 Jun 2023, at 17:58, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > > I don't know if > wayside_cross is used for this in some instances, for example, which > IMHO it shouldn't be agreed. One tag I am aware of in this context is memorial=ghost_bike

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bbq without grill/grate ?

sent from a phone > On 10 Jun 2023, at 00:13, Matija Nalis > wrote: > > I think in such vandalized case it would be better tagged as > disused:amenity=bbq or abandoned:amenity=bbq there is also fireplace as tag ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Coach parking

sent from a phone > On 9 Jun 2023, at 12:56, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The difference between a coach and a bus? > > A 'coach' is intended for long distance transport - so more comfortable, > provision for luggage and possibly an on board toilet. yes, but this is a

Re: [Tagging] Coach parking

sent from a phone > On 9 Jun 2023, at 12:04, Greg Troxel wrote: > > I can't find it either. I remembered that JOSM presets have a lot more > detail than the wiki. But I checked, and I don't see anything about > "coaches" (which I think is the word in EU for what we Yanks would call >

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Extended playground equipment

sent from a phone > On 27 May 2023, at 08:45, Alex wrote: > > As a group of mappers who regularly map playgrounds, we are proposing more > values to the list of documented playground equipment to better map typical > devices that had no documented value before. > >

Re: [Tagging] Picnic_table with barbecue table extension.

sent from a phone > On 22 May 2023, at 20:06, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > > I've a leisure=picnic_table but has an extended table top made of metal to > accommodate disposable barbecues. > > Can anybody recommend a sub-tag that's more descriptive than barbecue=yes? for the avoidance of

Re: [Tagging] Tagging proposal On Wheels app 1 - toilets wheelchair extra tags

Am Di., 16. Mai 2023 um 13:33 Uhr schrieb : > Hi everyone, > > > > As promised I will make separate emails with our tagging questions and > proposals that we want to add to OSM for our app. > > With our On Wheels app we give more objective information to wheelchair > users about dimensions of the

Re: [Tagging] Tag government equals emergency defintion

sent from a phone > On 15 May 2023, at 09:18, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tag it with office=government + government=emergency. " > > > One of 'my' cases are "Fire Control Centres" where directions are given to > bush fire fighters in the field. > > Thoughts??? I think this

Re: [Tagging] Help with new tags about wheelchair

sent from a phone > On 8 May 2023, at 10:39, Sebastian Felix Zappe > wrote: > > For example, a door width or step count should be tagged on the node that > represents the entrance door, not the café PoI node inside the building (or > worse, the building polygon) but this requires to

Re: [Tagging] roof:shape=pitched imprecise value ?

sent from a phone > On 20 Apr 2023, at 22:04, Marc_marc wrote: > > is roof:shape=pitched an imprecise value ? as you ask about imprecise, what about “round” or “many”? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/roof:shape#values___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] roof:shape=pitched imprecise value ?

sent from a phone > On 24 Apr 2023, at 16:03, Timothy Noname wrote: > > Probably a tagging error by someone who doesn't know the correct tags like > skillion and gabled. it’s probably a skillion roof, single pitch, wouldn’t expect a gabled or hipped roof, but who knows. It isn’t an

Re: [Tagging] shop=screenprinting

sent from a phone > On 21 Apr 2023, at 16:26, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > shop=printing_on_objects ? seems more clear than shop=screenprinting screenprinting is about the specific technique, in Polish I think it is Druk sitowy I think if the shop is specialized in this

Re: [Tagging] Difference between graffiti and mural

sent from a phone > On 17 Apr 2023, at 01:08, António Madeira wrote: > > The question is: is it relevant? no, it is not the question, the requirement is: does it exist? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Tagging type of ownership of a road

sent from a phone > On 16 Apr 2023, at 23:28, Jens Glad Balchen via Tagging > wrote: > > If the operator tag is missing and the owner tag is present, isn't it the > general assumption that the owner is also the operator -- i.e. that the owner > information is a relevant substitute for the

Re: [Tagging] Difference between graffiti and mural

Am So., 16. Apr. 2023 um 17:29 Uhr schrieb Daniel Capilla < dcapil...@gmail.com>: > On 4/16/23 at 16:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > nobody has yet responded to the question about scratchings > > The wiki says that "A mural is any piece of artwork painted or ap

Re: [Tagging] Difference between graffiti and mural

nobody has yet responded to the question about scratchings, similarly here is an article about a monumental and recognized artwork created by cleaning: https://publicdelivery.org/william-kentridge-rome/ The article calls it a "mural" in the title, in osm it wouldn't currently be, because our

Re: [Tagging] Difference between graffiti and mural

typically a graffiti could also be considered a mural, but there are exceptions like scratched artwork, e.g. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=graffiti+scratching=images=images=images___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Disambiguation between statue and sculptural group

sent from a phone > On 9 Apr 2023, at 10:46, Daniel Capilla wrote: > > I propose to update the documentation to differentiate between > "artwork_type=statue" (sculpture of one person/animal) and > "artwork_type=sculptural_group" (sculpture of group representing two or more >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging type of ownership of a road

We're ocassionally using "operator" around here to mark who is comissioned with the maintenance of parts of roads, it is different from ownership I agree (generally it depends on the country how and on whom public property is registered, and which kind of property is registered how (buildings vs.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging type of ownership of a road

sent from a phone > On 13 Apr 2023, at 09:04, Jens Glad Balchen via Tagging > wrote: > > I couldn't find an official way to capture this information in OSM. > Is there one? you could use the operator tag (although it doesn’t relate to ownership, it is about the entity in charge of

Re: [Tagging] incubator for the birth of chicks

sent from a phone > On 20 Mar 2023, at 17:26, Allan Mustard wrote: > landuse=farmyard > farmyard=poultry > commodity=chicks there is already some use of animal_breeding=poultry which seems a suitable tag: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/animal_breeding=poultry commodity is not in use

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - landcover proposal V2

landcover=mud? Can you explain where this is expected to be a permanent condition? Maybe wasteland with soil pollution that prevents things from growing? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Slate roof tiles

sent from a phone > On 13 Mar 2023, at 21:03, Timothy Noname wrote: > > Every source I've seen indicates that slate is a type of roof tile and that > roof tiles don't need to interlock to be roof tiles. yes, it depends on the tiles whether they interlock, old types often don’t, like

Re: [Tagging] Rail replacement bus service

Am Fr., 10. März 2023 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > Drives like a bus, uses roads like a bus .. it is a bus. There are a few > permanent ones in my State run by the railways people (usually > contracted to a local firm) and I'd map them as a bus route. > I agree,

Re: [Tagging] Wall gardens as ways?

sent from a phone > On 1 Mar 2023, at 07:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > However https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type says that it > can't be used for ways though? this doesn’t mean it can’t be used on ways it means it typically isn’t. You can use it on walls

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Proposed automatic replacements of multiple surface=* and shop=* values (review welcomed!)

Am Sa., 25. Feb. 2023 um 23:50 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > I guess that you can argue that fresh pasta is subtype of dumpling > ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpling ) or that dumplings are subtype > of fresh pasta. > > yes, I'd say the latter

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Proposed automatic replacements of multiple surface=* and shop=* values (review welcomed!)

I'm moving this to tagging. Am Sa., 25. Feb. 2023 um 22:04 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk < t...@openstreetmap.org>: > Shops selling pierogi are definitely not shop=pasta > compare these pictures, pierogi: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierogi_z_cebulk%C4%85.jpg pasta:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=trailhead

I believe setting up voting to approve a tag with "de-facto"-status is a waste of time, particularly if you do not intend to refine the definition, and an approval will only "downgrade" the tag from "de-facto" to "approved". People have already voted on the tag by using it thousands of times.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=trailhead

Am Fr., 24. Feb. 2023 um 10:49 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson < pelder...@gmail.com>: > Sorry, I wasn't clear. The current status of the tag is de facto (was: in > use, but someone, not me, amended that). The proposal intends to alter > that from de facto to approved, by voting. > > Fr gr Peter

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=trailhead

Am Do., 23. Feb. 2023 um 11:24 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson < pelder...@gmail.com>: > I would like to change the status of this established tag to approved. I > have altered the previous proposal > to > match the established

Re: [Tagging] dry swamps

sent from a phone > On 11 Feb 2023, at 12:06, Jez Nicholson wrote: > > They aren't wetlands as they aren't wet all the time. for wetlands is isn’t a requirement they be wet all the time, the first sentence in the OpenStreetMap definition is: “ A wetland is a land area that is saturated with

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

sent from a phone > On 2 Feb 2023, at 16:04, Marc_marc wrote: > > I thought there were only open-top tanks there are but they are called basin or reservoir, we also have landuse=reservoir as its own tag (although that’s landuse tagging, not countable features, effectively the tag is

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

sent from a phone > On 2 Feb 2023, at 04:34, Matija Nalis > wrote: > > If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply mark it > as > `hgv=no`? because hgv=no means forbidden to hgv (vehicles which may weight more than 2.8t). There are a lot of different sizes

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

Am Di., 31. Jan. 2023 um 11:16 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes < p...@trigpoint.me.uk>: > I am with Dave on this one. > > The tag is clear, concise and intuitive. > > It says exactly what a map user would expect to find > > Changing to practice_pitch with sport=cricket loses the descriptive nature > of

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

Am Di., 31. Jan. 2023 um 10:19 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > Soccer pitches have defined dimensions.. but there are smaller soccer > pitches for children to play soccer on, I'd not call those practice > pitches. > we can very easily see the pitch size from the data, but you

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

sent from a phone > On 30 Jan 2023, at 14:58, Illia Marchenko wrote: > > Hello everyone, > I suggest deprecating sport=cricket_nets on the wiki and recommend > leisure=practice_pitch & sport=cricket as a replacement, since sport=* > generally refers to a sport, not a physical

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

sent from a phone > On 19 Jan 2023, at 10:25, Philip Barnes wrote: > > The one I mentioned is a bit unique. It's not fake or a folly, it is an > active place for burials. it may not be “fake” in the sense of pretending to be something different, but it mimics neolithic construction

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

Am Mi., 18. Jan. 2023 um 19:43 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes < p...@trigpoint.me.uk>: > I am using local knowledge here, > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulton_Long_Barrow > > It has been featured on Country File so known outside The Shire. > architectural style: "neoneolithic", ok, a fake

Re: [Tagging] Best practices for creating a categorical key=value

sent from a phone > On 18 Jan 2023, at 19:25, Daniel Bégin wrote: > > I just wrote: “I used office=construction_company because it's the only > related tag in the wiki (Key:office).” +1, sorry hadn’t seen the rest of the conversation, for offices “office”. The landuse would be

Re: [Tagging] Best practices for creating a categorical key=value

sent from a phone > On 18 Jan 2023, at 16:28, Daniel Bégin wrote: > > For example, the mapping of a company that produces and installs precast > concrete could be tagged as… > > > > office=construction_company > > construction_company=precast_concrete > > > > but I have my doubts on

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Utilities facility

sent from a phone > On 12 Jan 2023, at 19:44, François Lacombe wrote: > > man_made=water_works isn't the only possible value, there is > man_made=pumping_station, man_made=covered_reservoir... > utility=water is way simpler and cover them all. If I got it right, utility=water is for all

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

sent from a phone > On 9 Jan 2023, at 17:53, António Madeira wrote: > > when the covering is not a man-made structure that would allow layer > differentiation." > > I would like to know what the community thinks about elaborate that line a > bit more, to include emergency storage tanks so

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >