[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - tourism=aquarium
I have updated the proposal page and set it to "Proposed" but i think the page will not go in the Proposed features list because it was preexistent. Can someone here do it manually? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Aquarium Lorenzo ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route relations - Forward & Backward
The stop_position nodes are part of the ways the bus travels along. These ways together with the public_transport=platform/highway=bus_stop nodes are membes of the route relations. They can also be members of stop_area relations, together with the public_transport=platform/highway=bus_stop nodes. This is enough information to calculate the stop_positions automatically. Adding them would mean constantly validating whether they are still correct though. Jo 2014-09-06 15:12 GMT+02:00 Éric Gillet : > Now if it were me, I wouldn't add roles to stops either, except for those >> which are only to let people off or on. But usually I add a platform role >> anyway. Even though it's obvious that a node tagged with >> public_transport=platform/highway=bus_stop is a platform and a way is part >> of the route. >> > > In a bus station for example, there can be multiple stops for multiple bus > lines, and each bus/line only stop once. I think it's better to add all > stop_position and platform to routes relations for this reason. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route relations - Forward & Backward
> > Now if it were me, I wouldn't add roles to stops either, except for those > which are only to let people off or on. But usually I add a platform role > anyway. Even though it's obvious that a node tagged with > public_transport=platform/highway=bus_stop is a platform and a way is part > of the route. > In a bus station for example, there can be multiple stops for multiple bus lines, and each bus/line only stop once. I think it's better to add all stop_position and platform to routes relations for this reason. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route relations - Forward & Backward
On 9/6/2014 7:03 AM, Jo wrote: What I don't do, in the route relations is to add the stop_positions. I don't even always add the stop_position nodes. Adding the stops themselves (the independent nodes on either side of the way) is easy for us, as we have access to the official data and I created some software scripts to convert those to OSM data. Same here - I don't bother with stop_position or the stop_position nodes, as software that needs that information can derive it automatically. I only found 1 case where it attached a stop to the wrong road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route relations - Forward & Backward
Uh oh. Some explanation is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport#Route What I don't do, in the route relations is to add the stop_positions. I don't even always add the stop_position nodes. Adding the stops themselves (the independent nodes on either side of the way) is easy for us, as we have access to the official data and I created some software scripts to convert those to OSM data. There is also this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Bus_and_tram_lines Now if it were me, I wouldn't add roles to stops either, except for those which are only to let people off or on. But usually I add a platform role anyway. Even though it's obvious that a node tagged with public_transport=platform/highway=bus_stop is a platform and a way is part of the route. Jo 2014-09-06 12:10 GMT+02:00 Dave F. : > On 06/09/2014 10:42, SomeoneElse wrote: > >> On 06/09/2014 07:38, Jo wrote: >> >>> I hope noboby is still using the older way of adding bus routes for >>> adding new bus routes to OSM. >>> >>> >>> >> Lots of people are, because they understand how they work :-) >> >> > I'm more confused now than when I asked my original question! > > Jo: Where are the new rules for bus route listed? > > > Dave F. > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus > protection is active. > http://www.avast.com > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route relations - Forward & Backward
On 06/09/2014 10:42, SomeoneElse wrote: On 06/09/2014 07:38, Jo wrote: I hope noboby is still using the older way of adding bus routes for adding new bus routes to OSM. Lots of people are, because they understand how they work :-) I'm more confused now than when I asked my original question! Jo: Where are the new rules for bus route listed? Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route relations - Forward & Backward
On 06/09/2014 07:38, Jo wrote: I hope noboby is still using the older way of adding bus routes for adding new bus routes to OSM. Lots of people are, because they understand how they work :-) Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route relations - Forward & Backward
> Il giorno 05/set/2014, alle ore 21:00, Jo ha scritto: > > Most bus routes in Belgium have several variations. Most have at least 2. One > from A to B, another from B to A. To me it makes most sense to create one > route relation for each variation, which contains all the stops in the order > they will be passed by. Occasionally it happens stops occur more than once. > > Before all the stops (because that is how JOSM would sort them) come all the > ways the bus travels along. If a way is used twice, the route relation also > contains it twice. If all the ways are sorted properly there is no need for > forward/backward roles. If there is no need for something, I prefer to not > add it. We also do. it. Like this around here Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tag for livestocks pens
> > Am 01.09.2014 12:20, schrieb Severin Menard: > > How should we map the livestock pens in farmyards? > barrier = fence > And (IMHO): it should be a permanet installation and no temporary thing... > Thanks for your answer. Sure for barrier=fence, but it does not say what is inside the fence. The houses have a fence for the people and those ones are for the animals. When it deals with potential epizootics, it is not the same thing. What about pen=yes or run=yes? (I do not find any occurrence in taginfo, though). livestocks=* would serve to mention the kind of penned animals. Regarding the temporary aspect, it is permanent as anything can be permanent there when the houses are made of traditional materials (straw, mud or non heated bricks) and last only a few years, when they are not regularly wiped out when flooding (I am mapping in flood prone areas). Sincerely, Severin > > > > > -- > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:50:17 -0400 > From: Bryan Housel > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] include smoothness=* in JOSM presets? > Message-ID: <5fa26a84-0a46-4d89-906b-06de69ec6...@7thposition.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > So I have some thoughts on smoothness… > > It’s not a terrible tag. I think if we just replace “usable by” with > “suitable for” on the wiki, it would be a bit better. We all know that > it’s certainly *possible* to take a road bike or inline skates down a pile > of rocks, (I do it myself too). That doesn’t mean the map should suggest a > person actually try it just because we insist on sticking to a very > *literal* definition of “usable by". Try to think of people with > wheelchairs, strollers, little kids on a bike with training wheels, etc. > > The text descriptions make sense to me. The pictures can be improved, and > I’m happy to help with that — I have good pictures of all the different > smoothness types. How should I proceed with this, just make the change? > > Thanks, Bryan > > > > On Sep 1, 2014, at 8:51 AM, Pieren wrote: > > > First, most of the people using presets (JOSM or ID) don't read the > > wiki. Tags have to be self-explanatory as much as possible. > > And even if you explain that "smoothness=excellent" is for roller > > blade, I know skaters that could use "smoothness=good" ways easily. > > And I'm still waiting some clarifications between "very_bad" and > > "horrible"... We also had long discussions about reducing/simplifying > > the list of values... > > I would also like to see at least one application using it, if any. > > > >> I am not really happy about it, but I was unable to invent something > better and it > >> not as bad as say maxspeed:practical. > > Do we have to choose between bad and worse ? > > As already mentionned, the skater, biker or car driver will have a > > totally different idea/view of what a "good" or "bad" smoothness is > > for his means of transport. > > > > Pieren > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > -- > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 22:27:43 +0200 > From: fly > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=* > Message-ID: <5404d6bf.8070...@googlemail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Am 24.08.2014 17:10, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: > > On 24.08.2014 13:31, Christian Quest wrote: > >> In that case, how should application resolve housenumbers ? > >> What tagging do you propose to allow it ? > > > > I wrote down some thoughts here: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Multiple_addresses > > ...although I do now prefer addr2:* instead of addr[2]:*, because the > former > > is more widely used and easier to understand. > > The easiest way for me still seems to place two nodes each with one > address with in the building polygon (or on its perimeter with entrance=*) > > > > Concerning number ranges, I think that they should be mapped as they are > > (i.e. ranges), because that's how they are used in the real world (number > > plates, addresses in letters, etc.). > > Well, I had a closer look at my city and found all combinations: > > 1. two separate buildings with one entrance in common. > 2. one housenumber as range (probably former two buildings/lots) > 3. one housenumber as range on bigger polygons with single buildings > with simple housenumber inside > 4. one housenumber as range for multiple single housenumbers > > >> I'm working on the BANO project who aims to create a nationwide address > >> database, using in part OSM data. > >> I already have to deal with this kind of addr:housenumber=* > >> > >> For the moment, 265-269 is transformed into 265 and 269 only, but having > >> some tag based clue that we have an odd number range meaning that 2
