Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

27. Lipiec 2018 03:38 od t...@fitchdesign.com :

>
> My take is to toss an idea/problem into the list and see if there is anything 
> that comes back in the first few days that alters your opinion on how to tag. 
> Sometimes there are good suggestions that can improve your thinking on how 
> something should be tagged so it is worth submitting.




Tagging mailing list is not a decision making comiite. It is a place to get a 
feedback.




I remember some cases with "this is a bad idea" consensus, for some really poor 
ideas.

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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Warin]

On 27/07/18 11:38, Tod Fitch wrote:

On Jul 26, 2018, at 5:45 PM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

The only outcome of that thread - and several threads on the same
subject that preceded it - was that there was no consensus.

I’ve been following the talk and tagging lists for a couple of years now and 
don’t think I’ve seen consensus on anything.

My take is to toss an idea/problem into the list and see if there is anything 
that comes back in the first few days that alters your opinion on how to tag. 
Sometimes there are good suggestions that can improve your thinking on how 
something should be tagged so it is worth submitting. Just be prepared to read 
and delete a myriad of email that is basically bike shedding by people who seem 
to have never been out of their cultural home area.

Then just go for it and tag things. Better if you document your tagging, at 
least as a proposal.


On Jul 26, 2018, at 6:15 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just use the tag. 245 in the data base now.

As for fees they can be tagged with fee= tag
As for the permit conditions .. well you could just tag permit=*

I'd just do it. Overpass turbo shows a wide distribution around the world.
It makes much more sense that some tags already on the wiki.

I may well add it to the wiki, documents tags in the data base. While small in 
number it does show what they are about and may help others to use them 
appropriately rather than inappropriately or just ignore them through ignorance.



There are some that don't show up in a simple search .. for the Overland Track 
relation 1673569 in Tasmania, Australia I have

access:conditional=permit@ 1 Oct - 31 May

fee:conditional=yes@ 1 Oct - 31 May

Not certain how to include those with access=permit.




I haven’t bother to check, but if there is a world wide distribution of people 
who have decided that access=permit makes sense then I agree that it a good 
thing to document it on the wiki.


OverpassTurbo search on "access=permit" brings them up.
Apart for the places already mentioned there are
1 in Wales
a number in England
Belgium, Germany, Austria, Mozambique, Japan.

Note 50 of these are on nodes, possibly marking an entry point.
 

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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jul 26, 2018, at 5:45 PM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> The only outcome of that thread - and several threads on the same
> subject that preceded it - was that there was no consensus.

I’ve been following the talk and tagging lists for a couple of years now and 
don’t think I’ve seen consensus on anything.

My take is to toss an idea/problem into the list and see if there is anything 
that comes back in the first few days that alters your opinion on how to tag. 
Sometimes there are good suggestions that can improve your thinking on how 
something should be tagged so it is worth submitting. Just be prepared to read 
and delete a myriad of email that is basically bike shedding by people who seem 
to have never been out of their cultural home area.

Then just go for it and tag things. Better if you document your tagging, at 
least as a proposal.

> On Jul 26, 2018, at 6:15 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Just use the tag. 245 in the data base now.
> 
> As for fees they can be tagged with fee= tag
> As for the permit conditions .. well you could just tag permit=*
> 
> I'd just do it. Overpass turbo shows a wide distribution around the world.
> It makes much more sense that some tags already on the wiki.
> 
> I may well add it to the wiki, documents tags in the data base. While small 
> in number it does show what they are about and may help others to use them 
> appropriately rather than inappropriately or just ignore them through 
> ignorance.
> 
> 

I haven’t bother to check, but if there is a world wide distribution of people 
who have decided that access=permit makes sense then I agree that it a good 
thing to document it on the wiki.




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Warin]

On 27/07/18 10:45, Kevin Kenny wrote:

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 3:40 PM marc marc  wrote:

Le 26. 07. 18 à 19:39, Szem a écrit :
did you read the previous (a few month ago) thread about this kind of
issue ?
imho *=licence is included in the current meaning of *=customers

The only outcome of that thread - and several threads on the same
subject that preceded it - was that there was no consensus. I
understand that you are entirely convinced that your personal view is
the only correct one. Several others on the thread were convinced,
equally unalterably, that this regime is a special case of
'access=private' or 'access=no', and a few that it was not very far
removed from 'access=yes' or 'access=permissive'.

I'm equally convinced that 'access=permit' really is a thing unto
itself, and that attempting to force-fit it into one of the other
categories is misguided. (In fact, that force-fitting occasionally
comes across as being close to an admonition, "The data model is fine.
Fix your country!")

Several countries (US, CA, AU,


Add Papua New Guinea for Kokada Trail, there is a K350 fee for adults.
http://www.kokodatrackauthority.org/x,963,345,0/trek-permits-for-the-kokoda-track.html


apparently HU) have schemes where
government land is accessed by permit. The permits are often free or
granted for only a nominal fee, and usually the only condition is that
you have to identify yourself and agree to follow the specific
regulations pertaining to the area or way in question. The permits are
often more about getting a signed agreement to follow the rules than
they are about collecting fees or restricting numbers.



Just use the tag. 245 in the data base now.

As for fees they can be tagged with fee= tag
As for the permit conditions .. well you could just tag permit=*

I'd just do it. Overpass turbo shows a wide distribution around the world.
It makes much more sense that some tags already on the wiki.

I may well add it to the wiki, documents tags in the data base. While small in 
number it does show what they are about and may help others to use them 
appropriately rather than inappropriately or just ignore them through ignorance.


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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 3:40 PM marc marc  wrote:
> Le 26. 07. 18 à 19:39, Szem a écrit :
> did you read the previous (a few month ago) thread about this kind of
> issue ?
> imho *=licence is included in the current meaning of *=customers

The only outcome of that thread - and several threads on the same
subject that preceded it - was that there was no consensus. I
understand that you are entirely convinced that your personal view is
the only correct one. Several others on the thread were convinced,
equally unalterably, that this regime is a special case of
'access=private' or 'access=no', and a few that it was not very far
removed from 'access=yes' or 'access=permissive'.

I'm equally convinced that 'access=permit' really is a thing unto
itself, and that attempting to force-fit it into one of the other
categories is misguided. (In fact, that force-fitting occasionally
comes across as being close to an admonition, "The data model is fine.
Fix your country!")

Several countries (US, CA, AU, apparently HU) have schemes where
government land is accessed by permit. The permits are often free or
granted for only a nominal fee, and usually the only condition is that
you have to identify yourself and agree to follow the specific
regulations pertaining to the area or way in question. The permits are
often more about getting a signed agreement to follow the rules than
they are about collecting fees or restricting numbers.

An example is that New York City's Bureau of Water Supply has all of
the following cases - and some of us want to distinguish among them on
the map!

access=yes - http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/resources/watershed_sign3.jpg

access=private(or no) -
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/resources/watershed_sign4.jpg

access=permissive - I don't have a good example of signage, but there
are blazed trails that cross otherwise 'access=no' land and are signed
accordingly. Trailhead signs look like
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Wpha8SDETSw/VDfBDaXk3rI/kT4/aAKtBpPAs4g/s1600/IMG_6909%2B%281280x960%29.jpg,
the red markers regularly waymark the trail, but the 'NO TRESPASSING'
signs may be posted on both sides of the trail corridor.

access=permissive (but permission temporarily revoked) -
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/graphics/ashokan-temporary-closure.png
(I don't try to keep up with these projects on the map. They're too
volatile.)

access=permit -
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/resources/watershed_sign2.jpg (One
occasionally sees the obsolete
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/resources/watershed_sign1.jpg)

access=customers -
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/images/resources/watershed_sign5.jpg (You
pay for the deer tag and are allowed in in the hunting season only for
the purpose of hunting.)

From this list, perhaps people can see why I think that 'permit' is a
separate thing from the others. These areas aren't signed alike. They
truly do - to my thinking - have access restrictions that are
different in kind, not just in degree.

I've heard from some that the scheme I describe doesn't make any
sense. Nevertheless, it's there. It's field-observable (read the text
on the signs). I wish to produce maps that render all five of these
cases (public, private, permissive, customers, permit) differently.
(In previous discussions, I have been accused that such a desire is
'tagging for the renderer.' Nevertheless, it is an obvious logical
impossibility to render differently areas that are tagged alike.) I
wish to use these maps for planning purposes - to know, for instance,
whether I need to bring my New York City access card or parking tag on
a particular outing.

I do not see a consensus that 'access=permit' is a bad idea. Different
users repeatedly request it, and when I was unwise enough to bring it
up on my own accord, several other users agreed with me. Rather I see
that there is a failed consensus that it is a good idea, and no single
alternative has been presented for which there is a stronger
consensus. One user even asserted that the only way to map such an
area would be to create nodes for the individual signs!

I will confess that I've been remiss about wikifying my thoughts on
the matter, despite having entered quite a few 'access=permit' areas.
Part of the reason is that I'm virtually certain that doing so would
only be firing the first shot in an edit war. That's how badly mappers
disagree on this point.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: property for the presence of pitch markings

[Warin]

On 26/07/18 23:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Please comment on this proposal for a property to denote the presence 
of pitch markings / field markings.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pitch_markings

I would particularly be interested to learn from you, if there should 
be suggestions for more detail (e.g. multiple overlapping markings, 
fainted /incomplete markings, ) to cram into the values, or if a 
simple yes/no seems more appropriate.




The basketball wiki page has suggestions for line makings ..
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dbasketball

lines:basketball=yes/red/yellow/*

The tag allows multiple sport lines in different colours.

I think it should only be used on paved areas, other surfaces are too 
temporary unless well maintained.


-

The leisure=pitch is not a usefull combination .. it is a 'required 
combination'.


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

Re: [Tagging] Mirror setting marks

[Warin]

It would be part of a highway - so can be a sub tag as Tom suggests.

I don't know about the name .. there must be a better term. I'll try to 
think of one.


On 27/07/18 07:04, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
In order to shorten the tag, avoid the crowded amenity space, and be 
more descriptive what vehicles they are for, what about 
'hgv=mirror_adjustments' ?


On 26.07.2018 22:04, Tijmen Stam wrote:

On 26-07-18 15:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I'm fine with your proposal, I just wondered if the name is 
appropriate. Is access to these sites regulated / opening hours, 
etc., is it just a kind of "parking space" (where you might not be 
allowed to park), etc.
An alternative could be mirror_adjustment_site but maybe this sounds 
too big?


Cheers,
Martin


The sites all look the same.

Some of them are on the site of a trucking agency and thus private, 
some are accessible at places where truckers come often, i.e. at the 
exits of large distribution centres, at motorway truck stops etc.


It's a spot where one would pull up a truck (or bus/touring car), 
then check whether the mirrors are right, and if not, adjust them. It 
would be rude to really park there.


I wouldn't make more than a node out of it.

Tijmen


___
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Line clamps

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

This proposal intends to free tower:type from specific power values
(suspension, anchor...) and introduces line_clamp key
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps

It may be useful to extend the concept to other power supports, not only
towers and other fields of knowledge like telecoms or railways.

Feel free to comment it here or on Talk page

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Mirror setting marks

[Tom Pfeifer]

In order to shorten the tag, avoid the crowded amenity space, and be more descriptive what vehicles 
they are for, what about 'hgv=mirror_adjustments' ?


On 26.07.2018 22:04, Tijmen Stam wrote:

On 26-07-18 15:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I'm fine with your proposal, I just wondered if the name is appropriate. Is access to these sites 
regulated / opening hours, etc., is it just a kind of "parking space" (where you might not be 
allowed to park), etc.

An alternative could be mirror_adjustment_site but maybe this sounds too big?

Cheers,
Martin


The sites all look the same.

Some of them are on the site of a trucking agency and thus private, some are accessible at places 
where truckers come often, i.e. at the exits of large distribution centres, at motorway truck stops 
etc.


It's a spot where one would pull up a truck (or bus/touring car), then check whether the mirrors are 
right, and if not, adjust them. It would be rude to really park there.


I wouldn't make more than a node out of it.

Tijmen


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

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Mike H]

I went and updated the wiki a little bit. I added details to the
building=house  and
building=detached
 pages. I also
made a page for the building=semidetached_house
,
when writing that page I found that the building=semi
 tag already had a
page, and even talks about the semidatached_house tag, which has about
three times as many uses. I think everyone in this thread might be
interested in looking over the changes I made, and maybe even adding to
them as the pages are still pretty sparse on detail.

Jgon6

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 2:39 PM Philip Barnes  wrote:

>
>
> On 26 July 2018 19:47:11 CEST, Sebastian 
> wrote:
> >Thanks for this explanation. Detached sounds very strange to me.
> >Terrace house evokes in me the feeling of rice terraces or something
> >with a
> >distinct height difference between them.
> Terrace is a very common term and housing style in the UK, well England
> and Wales. It is usually used to refer to terraced houses built in the 19th
> and early 20th centuries.
> >
> >In Australia houses that share one or more walls with the next house
> >(can
> >be one or both sides) are called town houses.
> Interestingly this is the estate agent term used to describe modern
> terraced houses.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
> >
> >In Germany it's called 'Reihenhaus'.
> >
> >On 23 July 2018 at 00:27, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> >
> >> Probably the reason can be explained etymologically.
> >>
> >> In the UK, terraced houses (AmE row houses) are very common, so those
> >> lucky enough to hear less noise from their neighbours emphasize that
> >by
> >> owning a 'detached' (not attached to a terrace) or 'semi-detached'
> >(two
> >> houses sharing a wall) building. The detached/semi-detached also
> >allow
> >> outdoor access to the back garden, so the 'end-of-terrace' house is
> >> marketed with a similar advantage.
> >>
> >> In countries where terraced houses are less common, there is less
> >need to
> >> emphasize that the house is free-standing. Also, 'house' is easier to
> >> understand for a non-native speaker than 'detached'.
> >>
> >> tom
> >>
> >>
> >> On 22.07.2018 20:56, Mike H wrote:
> >>
> >>> The definitions of building=house and building=detached on the wiki
> >are
> >>> very similar and don't seem to have any meaningful difference.
> >>>
> >>> I've seen people say that house is meant for rowhouses, and detached
> >>> should be for stand-alone houses, but there is no documentation that
> >>> explains that. If that is the intended meanings of the tags, then
> >the wiki
> >>> pages need some work.
> >>>
> >>> As far as how I've seen things actually mapped, I've only ever seen
> >the
> >>> building=house tag. Taginfo shows 1.2 million uses of detached, and
> >27.2
> >>> million uses of building=house, so they are both used quite a bit,
> >but
> >>> house is used a lot more.
> >>>
> >>> Can anyone elaborate on these tags, or have ideas on how they could
> >be
> >>> better written about?
> >>>
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dhouse
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddetached
> >>>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> ___
> 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] Mirror setting marks

[Tijmen Stam]

On 26-07-18 15:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I'm fine with your proposal, I just wondered if the name is appropriate. 
Is access to these sites regulated / opening hours, etc., is it just a 
kind of "parking space" (where you might not be allowed to park), etc.
An alternative could be mirror_adjustment_site but maybe this sounds too 
big?


Cheers,
Martin


The sites all look the same.

Some of them are on the site of a trucking agency and thus private, some 
are accessible at places where truckers come often, i.e. at the exits of 
large distribution centres, at motorway truck stops etc.


It's a spot where one would pull up a truck (or bus/touring car), then 
check whether the mirrors are right, and if not, adjust them. It would 
be rude to really park there.


I wouldn't make more than a node out of it.

Tijmen

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

Re: [Tagging] power=line layer tag?

[François Lacombe]

2018-07-26 21:32 GMT+02:00 marc marc :

>
> I don't think so. it's implicit that the road is under the aerial line.
> I never see any issue with that.
>

+1 and location defaults to overhead.


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

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[marc marc]

Le 26. 07. 18 à 19:39, Szem a écrit :
> I'd like to draw your attention to a problem:

did you read the previous (a few month ago) thread about this kind of 
issue ?
imho *=licence is included in the current meaning of *=customers

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

Re: [Tagging] power=line layer tag?

[marc marc]

Le 26. 07. 18 à 19:30, Sebastian a écrit :
> just wondering as I add some maintenance roads under power lines.  
> Should the lines be tagged with layer=1?

I don't think so. it's implicit that the road is under the aerial line.
I never see any issue with that.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

Yet another discussion about values with units in the database.
In particular situations of keys implying particular units (like voltage=*
with Volt), would it be good to improve tools, editors, websites or any
other stuff dedicated to human reading to get voltage=40 displayed as
voltage=400 kV ? (example given)

Because using raw voltage=400 kV in the db prevent queries like
[voltage>2] to be successful.
Then store voltage=40 is far way better but harder to be read by humans
also.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units doesn't help
regarding such issues.

In practice, valid units could be put on keys wiki pages, collected by
taginfo and spread to any tools aiming to display formatted values.

I don't want to break things but only improve them, all the best

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

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Philip Barnes]

On 26 July 2018 19:47:11 CEST, Sebastian  wrote:
>Thanks for this explanation. Detached sounds very strange to me.
>Terrace house evokes in me the feeling of rice terraces or something
>with a
>distinct height difference between them.
Terrace is a very common term and housing style in the UK, well England and 
Wales. It is usually used to refer to terraced houses built in the 19th and 
early 20th centuries. 
>
>In Australia houses that share one or more walls with the next house
>(can
>be one or both sides) are called town houses.
Interestingly this is the estate agent term used to describe modern terraced 
houses.

Phil (trigpoint) 


>
>In Germany it's called 'Reihenhaus'.
>
>On 23 July 2018 at 00:27, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
>
>> Probably the reason can be explained etymologically.
>>
>> In the UK, terraced houses (AmE row houses) are very common, so those
>> lucky enough to hear less noise from their neighbours emphasize that
>by
>> owning a 'detached' (not attached to a terrace) or 'semi-detached'
>(two
>> houses sharing a wall) building. The detached/semi-detached also
>allow
>> outdoor access to the back garden, so the 'end-of-terrace' house is
>> marketed with a similar advantage.
>>
>> In countries where terraced houses are less common, there is less
>need to
>> emphasize that the house is free-standing. Also, 'house' is easier to
>> understand for a non-native speaker than 'detached'.
>>
>> tom
>>
>>
>> On 22.07.2018 20:56, Mike H wrote:
>>
>>> The definitions of building=house and building=detached on the wiki
>are
>>> very similar and don't seem to have any meaningful difference.
>>>
>>> I've seen people say that house is meant for rowhouses, and detached
>>> should be for stand-alone houses, but there is no documentation that
>>> explains that. If that is the intended meanings of the tags, then
>the wiki
>>> pages need some work.
>>>
>>> As far as how I've seen things actually mapped, I've only ever seen
>the
>>> building=house tag. Taginfo shows 1.2 million uses of detached, and
>27.2
>>> million uses of building=house, so they are both used quite a bit,
>but
>>> house is used a lot more.
>>>
>>> Can anyone elaborate on these tags, or have ideas on how they could
>be
>>> better written about?
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dhouse
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddetached
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

[Sebastian]

Thanks for this explanation. Detached sounds very strange to me.
Terrace house evokes in me the feeling of rice terraces or something with a
distinct height difference between them.

In Australia houses that share one or more walls with the next house (can
be one or both sides) are called town houses.

In Germany it's called 'Reihenhaus'.

On 23 July 2018 at 00:27, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> Probably the reason can be explained etymologically.
>
> In the UK, terraced houses (AmE row houses) are very common, so those
> lucky enough to hear less noise from their neighbours emphasize that by
> owning a 'detached' (not attached to a terrace) or 'semi-detached' (two
> houses sharing a wall) building. The detached/semi-detached also allow
> outdoor access to the back garden, so the 'end-of-terrace' house is
> marketed with a similar advantage.
>
> In countries where terraced houses are less common, there is less need to
> emphasize that the house is free-standing. Also, 'house' is easier to
> understand for a non-native speaker than 'detached'.
>
> tom
>
>
> On 22.07.2018 20:56, Mike H wrote:
>
>> The definitions of building=house and building=detached on the wiki are
>> very similar and don't seem to have any meaningful difference.
>>
>> I've seen people say that house is meant for rowhouses, and detached
>> should be for stand-alone houses, but there is no documentation that
>> explains that. If that is the intended meanings of the tags, then the wiki
>> pages need some work.
>>
>> As far as how I've seen things actually mapped, I've only ever seen the
>> building=house tag. Taginfo shows 1.2 million uses of detached, and 27.2
>> million uses of building=house, so they are both used quite a bit, but
>> house is used a lot more.
>>
>> Can anyone elaborate on these tags, or have ideas on how they could be
>> better written about?
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dhouse
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddetached
>>
>
> ___
> 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] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

[Szem]

Hi,

I'd like to draw your attention to a problem:
There are many special roads in Hungary only used for prior 
authorization / permission. The total length of these roads are hundreds 
of kilometers.
The type of permit applies to pedestrian / bike access or only motor 
vehicle depending on the roads. These roads are currently not properly 
tagged.
There is a significant difference compared to existing values (private, 
permissive), because mostly anyone can ask permission for these roads 
(what you get), but without it, entry is forbidden. That's why I've 
thought needs a new tag.

These roads can be classified into three main categories:
- Roads found in Waterworks area (These roads go in untouched nature, 
perfect for biking, running. Entry without permission is strictly 
forbidden, a photo ID is required, but anyone can get it. It had to pay 
for it, but it's free now):
The access tags would be sg like this: access=no / private?, 
*foot=license*, horse=no, motor_vehicle / vehicle? =no, *bicycle= license*
- Roads on the embankments (The longest ones in category. Driving by car 
without permission is forbidden, other access is free. Some roads on the 
embankments are free access):
The access tags are: access= private, foot=yes, horse=yes, motor_vehicle 
/ vehicle? =private, bicycle=yes, *motorcar=license, motorcycle=license*
- Roads managed by Hunting Association (wildlife reserves) (These roads 
go in huge forests. Crossing by vehicle without permission is forbidden):
 The access tags are: access= private, foot=yes, *horse= license, 
motor_vehicle / vehicle? =license, bicycle= license*
(I know the "*license or authorization?*", maybe not the best choice, 
but these are different from permissive and private. I'm waiting for 
your proposal.)


Thanks for your reply,

Szem

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

[Tagging] power=line layer tag?

[Sebastian]

Hi all,
just wondering as I add some maintenance roads under power lines. Should
the lines be tagged with layer=1?
They are definitely above ground and a path/track runs underneath.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mirror setting marks

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I'm fine with your proposal, I just wondered if the name is appropriate. Is
access to these sites regulated / opening hours, etc., is it just a kind of
"parking space" (where you might not be allowed to park), etc.
An alternative could be mirror_adjustment_site but maybe this sounds too
big?

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

[Tagging] RFC: property for the presence of pitch markings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Please comment on this proposal for a property to denote the presence of
pitch markings / field markings.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pitch_markings

I would particularly be interested to learn from you, if there should be
suggestions for more detail (e.g. multiple overlapping markings, fainted
/incomplete markings, ) to cram into the values, or if a simple yes/no
seems more appropriate.

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

Re: [Tagging] Mirror setting marks

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-07-26 15:18 GMT+02:00 Tijmen Stam :

>
> c: if not, I propose amenity=mirror_adjustment_marks and will make a
> proposal on the wiki




is it only about the marks, or could it be seen as a feature (the Dutch
word has "place" in it) and the marks are part of it?

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

[Tagging] Mirror setting marks

[Tijmen Stam]

In the Netherlands and Belgiums, many trucking agencies and some 
industrial lots have a "Mirror adjusting place" (litteral translation of 
Spiegelafstelplaats), a series of markings on the ground to check the 
proper adjusting of a truck or bus's mirrors.


An example can be seen at http://transpost.net/Spiegelafstelplaats.php 
and at 



In Europe there are mandated mirror sets for trucks (for vehicles after 
2007).


a: What is the English name for these markes
b: are they already in use on OSM?
c: if not, I propose amenity=mirror_adjustment_marks and will make a 
proposal on the wiki


Any suggestions?

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

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Warin]

On 26/07/18 20:29, Andrew Davidson wrote:

On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote:


Question 1:
a/ flood_mark
b/ high_water_mark
c/ highwater_mark


A.

High water mark is the level that the water got to, so if you marked 
that it would be a high water mark marker




Question 2:
Which tagging convention should we follow:
a/ flood_mark=yes + historic=memorial + memorial:type=flood_mark
b/ historic=flood_mark + flood_mark:type=(plaque, painted, ...)
c/ historic=highwater_mark


Have you thought about using something like man_made=flood_mark? 
Similar to man_made=survey_point 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurvey_point).


Historic suggests that the flood mark is interesting because it is 
old. Some flood marks are certainly old and interesting:


http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5861 

http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5857 



Others are quite new:

http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5865 

http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-6289 



Does it have to be flood_mark:type=*? Would flood_mark=* be adequate?

___



Some flood marks carry a number of different heights from different 
dates. Would be good to map those too.


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

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Andrew Davidson]

On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote:


Question 1:
a/ flood_mark
b/ high_water_mark
c/ highwater_mark   


A.

High water mark is the level that the water got to, so if you marked 
that it would be a high water mark marker




Question 2:
Which tagging convention should we follow:
a/ flood_mark=yes + historic=memorial + memorial:type=flood_mark
b/ historic=flood_mark + flood_mark:type=(plaque, painted, ...)
c/ historic=highwater_mark


Have you thought about using something like man_made=flood_mark? Similar 
to man_made=survey_point 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurvey_point).


Historic suggests that the flood mark is interesting because it is old. 
Some flood marks are certainly old and interesting:


http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5861
http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5857

Others are quite new:

http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-5865
http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks#jp-carousel-6289

Does it have to be flood_mark:type=*? Would flood_mark=* be adequate?

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