Re: [Tagging] New access key for Segway needed

[Dave Swarthout]

wow, that's a good question. Wikipedia classifies a Segway device as a
personal_transporter and that would seem to be a good place to start. But
how to avoid confusion with wheelchairs and the like?

I like gyropode even more. The English Wikipedia doesn't contain that term
as yet but the French section does. It's a better term IMO because it
specifically relates to the self-balancing aspect of the transporter device.

-1
Hoverboard. Although there are devices called "hoverboards" that resemble
the Segway (which I was unaware of until I looked just now), I tend to
think more of an airborne transporter, like a hovercraft when I hear that
term.

Cheers,

Dave

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Dalibor Jelínek 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> the center of my beautiful city of Prague has been marked in a large scale
> recently by new road signs stating
>
> that use of Segway PT and similar devices is prohibited there.  (Search
> google - images for “zákaz segway”.)
>
> I guess that some would like to map these.
>
> The discussion is here https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Talk:Key:access#Segways
>
>
>
> The obvious access key to use for me would be {{Tag|segway}}, but there is
> an objection
>
> that we should not use trademark.
>
> Is there a generic (but usable for OSM) name for Segway-like family of
> devices used in English?
>
> Gyropode?
>
> Hoverboard?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dalibor (chrabros)
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] New access key for Segway needed

[Dalibor Jelínek]

Hello,

the center of my beautiful city of Prague has been marked in a large scale
recently by new road signs stating

that use of Segway PT and similar devices is prohibited there.  (Search
google - images for "zákaz segway".)

I guess that some would like to map these.

The discussion is here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:access#Segways

 

The obvious access key to use for me would be {{Tag|segway}}, but there is
an objection

that we should not use trademark.

Is there a generic (but usable for OSM) name for Segway-like family of
devices used in English?

Gyropode?

Hoverboard?

 

Thanks,

Dalibor (chrabros)

 

 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Review of wiki documentation for is_in

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 03/09/2017 10:55 PM, Andrew Hain wrote:
> The documentation for is_in [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in] 
> has accreted various additions from multiple hands that do not always 
> correspond to the Nominatim advice 
> [https://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg56183.html]. Could we 
> thrash out something that represents best practice for this tag?

"delete on sight"?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=courier

[John F. Eldredge]

We already have an "amenity=post_office" tag.  I note that the wiki page 
for that tag includes an operator subtag, for if the post office is 
operated by a private company rather than a government agency. The 
United States Postal Service is quasi-governmental; the US Constitution 
calls for its establishment, and there are laws that apply specifically 
to it, but it is self-funded by selling its services, not funded by the 
Federal government.



On 03/09/2017 04:49 PM, Warin wrote:
In this case I would tag it "office=courier" with the description "An 
office where goods are sent/received".

The tag 'operator' can be used to specify the firm.

I would not use amenity.

On 10-Mar-17 01:26 AM, muzirian wrote:
By courier I meant a place where you can sent and receive parcels and 
mail, like post office.


On Thursday, March 9, 2017, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 08-Mar-17 08:42 PM, muzirian wrote:

A company that transports commercial packages and documents.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcourier



What physical feature are you mapping?

The description says "A company.." Companies are legal entities
... not physical features.





___
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=courier

[Warin]

In this case I would tag it "office=courier" with the description "An 
office where goods are sent/received".

The tag 'operator' can be used to specify the firm.

I would not use amenity.

On 10-Mar-17 01:26 AM, muzirian wrote:
By courier I meant a place where you can sent and receive parcels and 
mail, like post office.


On Thursday, March 9, 2017, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 08-Mar-17 08:42 PM, muzirian wrote:

A company that transports commercial packages and documents.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcourier



What physical feature are you mapping?

The description says "A company.." Companies are legal entities
... not physical features.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple 3D buildings, proposed redefinition of building:levels and building:min_level for building:part

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9 Mar 2017, at 19:39, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
> 
> I believe you are mistaken here.


you are of course right. (It would have worked for all cases I had in 
mind/mapped so far, but it won't work in general).

Insisting on the original definition isn't likely an option, is it? Thing is, 
the "new"(2012) version does not work at all in some cases. Imagine a building 
split in half, in the backside there are 4 residential floors, in the front 
there are 3 office floors (offices ~4m, housing ~3m). On top of both there's 
another 3 residential floors, these could be tagged:

building:part=apartments 
min_height=12
but you can't indicate the number of levels with building:levels 
for simple 3D rendering it would be sufficient to indicate the height but the 
levels are also interesting in itself)

"virtual" building levels, which appear in the current building:levels 
definition, don't exist. You cannot count them, they are not verifiable. We 
should not model like this.

Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Review of wiki documentation for is_in

[Andrew Hain]

The documentation for is_in [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:is_in] has 
accreted various additions from multiple hands that do not always correspond to 
the Nominatim advice 
[https://www.mail-archive.com/talk@openstreetmap.org/msg56183.html]. Could we 
thrash out something that represents best practice for this tag?

--
Andrew
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] NEW APPROACH : Feature Proposal tag "motorcycle friendly" for accomodations

[Warin]

On 09-Mar-17 10:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2017-03-07 16:27 GMT+01:00 Thilo Haug >:


Is there any "basic info" I should read ?




frankly I don't know. The wiki is so huge, nobody has ever read it 
completely ;-)


There are a some references to tagging here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Joto/How_to_invent_tags
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging



There are many different tagging methods in OSM. And no universal view 
as to what is best.
Unfortunately that is a failing of the 'any tags you like', it is also a 
strength in that you can immediately tag something for which there is no 
existing tag - you simply make one up.
Any tag that is 'made up' on the spot may not be a great tag, it will do 
until something better comes along.
I think any tag that is made up on the spot needs (later) to be 
discussed, improved if possible and then documented.


Welcome to the struggle of getting better tags. There are many different 
views ... pick the best for you.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple 3D buildings, proposed redefinition of building:levels and building:min_level for building:part

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Martin,

Am 09.03.2017 um 19:39 schrieb Tobias Knerr:
> Your proposed change would, therefore, make data mapped using these keys
> mostly useless due to the unresolvable ambiguity. In my opinion, that
> kind of cost is not worth it.

I oppose the proposed change for exactly the same reasons. Redefinitions
like this just cause confusion amongst mappers and data users. As a
consequence, mappers will focus on other topics than 3D mapping. Is that
your goal? I hope not.

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple 3D buildings, proposed redefinition of building:levels and building:min_level for building:part

[Tobias Knerr]

On 08.03.2017 18:32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

building:levels - building:min_level < 0
yes: new
no: old


I believe you are mistaken here. Consider the following example:

building:levels = 2
building:min_level = 1

According to the Simple 3D Buildings standard, this means that there is 
a building part with one "real" level. According to your idea, there 
would be two "real" levels. And there's no way to tell which 
interpretation was intended by the mapper.


Your proposed change would, therefore, make data mapped using these keys 
mostly useless due to the unresolvable ambiguity. In my opinion, that 
kind of cost is not worth it.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Discouraging frequency=* on power lines and cables

[Michael Reichert]

Hi David,

Am 09.03.2017 um 06:35 schrieb David Marchal:
>> Le 8 mars 2017 à 23:04, Michael Reichert  a écrit :
>>
>> Please keep OSM simple. I don't want to add a power route relation on
>> every tiny minor distribution line/cable (230 V).
>>
> Totally agree with that. I don’t understand the usage of a relation binding 
> the distribution network elements: the connections between them can be 
> retrieved from the nodes and ways, and the relation would merely be use for 
> group tagging. IMHO, the relation would only make sense for transport lines, 
> which are often viewed and treated as continuous, even if their 
> characteristics change along their path (overhead, underground…). At a 
> distribution level, however, this sounds overkill to me.

I am not against the usage of power route relations in general. There
are lots of cases where they are useful. The Elbekreuzung 2 (Elbe
Crossing 2) is a simple and nice example why they are necessary: Most
cables of that line are 380 kV AC but four of them are used by DB
Energie GmbH for their 110 kV 16.7 Hz to supply traction current for the
electrified railway line(s) in Schleswig-Holstein.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Crossing_2

I just don't like the necessity to add route relations to every power
line just to indicate its frequency.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=courier

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9 Mar 2017, at 15:38, muzirian  wrote:
> 
> Also people dont usually refer these private facilities as post office 


+1,

and please shorten the quoted text,

cheers,
Martin 


 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>> 
>> 
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=courier

[muzirian]

post office are used for a facility used offered by state or national
postal system, and they usually offer more services than just
sending/receiving post. wikipedia's explanation is better i think.People

On Thursday, March 9, 2017, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> OK, why not amenity=post_office, operator=*?
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:26 AM, muzirian  > wrote:
>
>> By courier I meant a place where you can sent and receive parcels and
>> mail, like post office.
>>
>> On Thursday, March 9, 2017, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 08-Mar-17 08:42 PM, muzirian wrote:
>>>
 A company that transports commercial packages and documents.

 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcourier


>>> What physical feature are you mapping?
>>>
>>> The description says "A company.." Companies are legal entities ... not
>>> physical features.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=courier

[muzirian]

Also people dont usually refer these private facilities as post offices.So
better not to mix and cause confusion.

On Thursday, March 9, 2017, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> OK, why not amenity=post_office, operator=*?
>
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:26 AM, muzirian  > wrote:
>
>> By courier I meant a place where you can sent and receive parcels and
>> mail, like post office.
>>
>> On Thursday, March 9, 2017, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 08-Mar-17 08:42 PM, muzirian wrote:
>>>
 A company that transports commercial packages and documents.

 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcourier


>>> What physical feature are you mapping?
>>>
>>> The description says "A company.." Companies are legal entities ... not
>>> physical features.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=courier

[muzirian]

Couriers do offer pickup and drop at home, but as you said they have
offices too, also there are places where  pickup/drop service area is
limited and people have to go to these offices for sending/receiving.

On Thursday, March 9, 2017, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At least some courier firms have offices where you can go to;
> send things - saves waiting for a courier to arrive at "some time" during
> the day.
> pick something up .. when you have not been home when the courier arrived
> (supposedly).
>
> On 09-Mar-17 08:56 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
>
>> Are you trying to map the location of an office of a courier service?
>> Couriers themselves are people, and by the nature of their business have no
>> fixed location.
>>
>>
>> On March 8, 2017 3:32:23 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 08-Mar-17 08:42 PM, muzirian wrote:
>>>
 A company that transports commercial packages and documents.

 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcourier


>>> What physical feature are you mapping?
>>>
>>> The description says "A company.." Companies are legal entities ... not
>>> physical features.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Discouraging frequency=* on power lines and cables

[Jherome Miguel]

Though busy, I will share my opinion on tagging frequency on power lines,
and also the use of power route relations

On Mar 9, 2017 5:40 PM, "François Lacombe" 
wrote:

Hi David,

2017-03-09 6:35 GMT+01:00 David Marchal :

>
> > Le 8 mars 2017 à 23:04, Michael Reichert  a écrit :
> >
> > Please keep OSM simple. I don't want to add a power route relation on
> > every tiny minor distribution line/cable (230 V).
> >
> Totally agree with that. I don’t understand the usage of a relation
> binding the distribution network elements: the connections between them can
> be retrieved from the nodes and ways,

Not always:
https://www.google.fr/maps/place/74150+Rumilly/@45.
8717133,5.9644766,3a,64.8y,288.41h,97.09t/data=!3m4!1e1!
3m2!1sc9ie9WHjYs2bM-s5jagK9g!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x478b9d830296190d:
0x1ef1a2064da6b8cf

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2560701992

Here you would connect all lines while they are actually not, and sometimes
the two apparently independent circuits are actually connected at such
points. No general rule regarding this.
No relations are currently setup in my example but we'll need to.


Distribution lines tend to have that complicated connections than the main
transmission lines, as in the case you used, that is a distribution line
branching out from its main circuit via a tap connection. And tapping is
very common on distribution systems, and ways to isolate the branch in case
of power line issues on the main line where the branch is connected is
through mechancal switches or fuse cutouts. Switches will see use on a
power line segment connected to another circuit in a distribution system
with a radial configuration, but may also appear on higher voltage lines,
where they are opened to isolate loads from the main line in case of faults
or line repairs. Fuse cutouts are rather limited to distribution systems,
and are used to isolate a power line segment from the main line in cases of
overcurrent or long voltage spikes, but will not isolate a power line
during line repair, unless linemen open them using insulated sticks.
Indicating switches or fuse cutouts on a distribution circuit may be useful
on power route relations, when assuming that power distributors use the
data to locate portions of the circuits having faults, or loads temporarily
disconnected for line repairs.



> and the relation would merely be use for group tagging. IMHO, the relation
> would only make sense for transport lines, which are often viewed and
> treated as continuous, even if their characteristics change along their
> path (overhead, underground…). At a distribution level, however, this
> sounds overkill to me.
>
Distribution networks change more often between overhead and underground,
and seems more messy than a A-to-B transmission lines
Have you seen this example ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6087750

By the way, you aren't forced at all to make relations if you don't want
to, right ?
You can join the discussion ongoing on : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org
/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal

All the best


And yes,distribution systems will have the most variations in location,
either overhead, undergound, or underwater. And while it may occur on
distribution systems whose primary lines run in the open countryside
instead on the roads, like those in Europe, they are the same on countries
where such systems have the primary lines run beside roads or railways,
like those in the Americas and most of Asia, but on an urban area, these
will usually be found on tunnels accessible via manholes. And finding
underground power lines are difficult, unless markers (like manholes or
signage) or knowledge from working as a lineman wil help you find their
routes. But, it's still fine to add underground or underwater power cables
on a power route relation, especially when assuming that utilities or
transmission system operators will use the data on the relation to find the
specific circuit or line where a line or cable needs repair.


___
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=courier

[Paul Johnson]

OK, why not amenity=post_office, operator=*?

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:26 AM, muzirian  wrote:

> By courier I meant a place where you can sent and receive parcels and
> mail, like post office.
>
> On Thursday, March 9, 2017, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08-Mar-17 08:42 PM, muzirian wrote:
>>
>>> A company that transports commercial packages and documents.
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcourier
>>>
>>>
>> What physical feature are you mapping?
>>
>> The description says "A company.." Companies are legal entities ... not
>> physical features.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=courier

[muzirian]

By courier I meant a place where you can sent and receive parcels and mail,
like post office.

On Thursday, March 9, 2017, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08-Mar-17 08:42 PM, muzirian wrote:
>
>> A company that transports commercial packages and documents.
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcourier
>>
>>
> What physical feature are you mapping?
>
> The description says "A company.." Companies are legal entities ... not
> physical features.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] NEW APPROACH : Feature Proposal tag "motorcycle friendly" for accomodations

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-03-07 16:27 GMT+01:00 Thilo Haug :

> Is there any "basic info" I should read ?




frankly I don't know. The wiki is so huge, nobody has ever read it
completely ;-)

There are a some references to tagging here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Joto/How_to_invent_tags
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Positioning motorway exits

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> On 09.03.2017 11:15, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Does anybody mind if I take a crack at the whole cloverleaf and upload a
> > changeset?  This kind of junction is pretty bog standard for Oklahoma
> > and I'm familiar enough with EU markings to not get it completely worng.
>
> Which changes are you talking about, and is it still the same junction
> that sparked the talk here?


getting the placement and change:lanes tags added with the junction nodes
at the start of physical separation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] simple 3D buildings, proposed redefinition of building:levels and building:min_level for building:part

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-03-09 6:04 GMT+01:00 Eugene Alvin Villar :

> I'm not now commenting on whether the proposal is good or not, but other
> redefinition proposals have been shot down for numbers much less than the
> number given in the argument above.



Yes, it is not completely ignorable, but compare it to the amount of
building:part objects: 422 381 or building 221 520 339 or building:levels 8
190 936

one third of the building:min_level objects are buildings, the other 2
thirds are building:part objects. I would conclude from those numbers that
we are still relative at the beginning of mapping this kind of detail
(which I would expect to grow rapidly with a larger diffusion of 3d vector
maps).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Positioning motorway exits

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 08.03.2017 19:40, Johan C wrote:

'Add a highway
=*motorway_junction*
tag at each node Node
 along a highway with
named or numbered junctions where a driver can legally exit'.


Haven't investigated when that was written, but it might have been way 
before all the turn:lanes and change:lanes were intoduced.


I consider the "only physical separation" rule stronger, and applicable 
for all data consumers.


On 09.03.2017 11:15, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Does anybody mind if I take a crack at the whole cloverleaf and upload a
> changeset?  This kind of junction is pretty bog standard for Oklahoma
> and I'm familiar enough with EU markings to not get it completely worng.

Which changes are you talking about, and is it still the same junction 
that sparked the talk here?


tom

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Positioning motorway exits

[Paul Johnson]

Does anybody mind if I take a crack at the whole cloverleaf and upload a
changeset?  This kind of junction is pretty bog standard for Oklahoma and
I'm familiar enough with EU markings to not get it completely worng.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Discouraging frequency=* on power lines and cables

[François Lacombe]

Hi David,

2017-03-09 6:35 GMT+01:00 David Marchal :

>
> > Le 8 mars 2017 à 23:04, Michael Reichert  a écrit :
> >
> > Please keep OSM simple. I don't want to add a power route relation on
> > every tiny minor distribution line/cable (230 V).
> >
> Totally agree with that. I don’t understand the usage of a relation
> binding the distribution network elements: the connections between them can
> be retrieved from the nodes and ways,

Not always:
https://www.google.fr/maps/place/74150+Rumilly/@45.8717133,5.9644766,3a,64.8y,288.41h,97.09t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sc9ie9WHjYs2bM-s5jagK9g!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x478b9d830296190d:0x1ef1a2064da6b8cf

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2560701992

Here you would connect all lines while they are actually not, and sometimes
the two apparently independent circuits are actually connected at such
points. No general rule regarding this.
No relations are currently setup in my example but we'll need to.


> and the relation would merely be use for group tagging. IMHO, the relation
> would only make sense for transport lines, which are often viewed and
> treated as continuous, even if their characteristics change along their
> path (overhead, underground…). At a distribution level, however, this
> sounds overkill to me.
>
Distribution networks change more often between overhead and underground,
and seems more messy than a A-to-B transmission lines
Have you seen this example ?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6087750

By the way, you aren't forced at all to make relations if you don't want
to, right ?
You can join the discussion ongoing on : https://wiki.openstreetmap.
org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_routing_proposal

All the best
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging