date:20180921

sent from a phone

> On 22. Sep 2018, at 00:18, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> Yep, those are useful, but it doesn't state that they are "operated" by a 
> specific group (the specific temple down the street) - just what is the 
> religion/denomination is practiced there.

if these are added to a school or kindergarten or monastery or place of worship 
or hotel/hostel or radio station, or administration building, or ... it means 
that they operate it, around here.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] cadastral plan now open data

2018-09-21 Thread André Pirard

On 2018-09-22 01:08, Lionel Giard wrote:
André, i don't really see your point with the argument you made about
cadastre data. i don't know of anybody looking to use this data to add
building into OSM. It is outdated data regarding buildings and roads
in a lot of different place in Belgium. And as, the people at cadastre
are not the source for these data, they don't need to update it
anymore ! Most people are only using the default imagery (they often
don't know about anything else).

When tracing buildings, we should always base our self on the PICC for
Wallonia or Urbis for Brussels or GRB for Flanders and the relevant
best imagery in each case (comparing them keeping in mind that
vectorial data are not up to date everywhere at the same time).

Lionel,

I'm not sure what you read because what you say is exactly what I wrote:

But there is a *BIG WARNING*.*
*PLEASE *DO NOT* use the [Cadastre] WMS to trace, and I suppose that
the import data exhibits the same problem.

..
For what I have seen of it in Wallonia, the Cadastre WMS map usually
exhibits an error shift (wrong coordinates) as large as 10m and the
houses and other elements have a wrong shape and location within the
parcel.

See example below.
Instead, use JOSM with PICC in Wallonia and AGIV in Flanders.

The Cadastral map can be useful to:

* find a house number not displayed on other maps
* find a house not displayed on other maps, but do not rely on the
house location (latlon)
* trace boundaries, especially former municipalities', but be aware
that Cadastre's boundaries are slightly different from other
sources, in particular because they avoid crossing a parcel. They
are official.
* use names not displayed on other maps and in particular a very
nice set of locality names
* maybe use other features not needing a precise location

So, the usage of the cadastre is limited to displaying a JOSM layer,
just for comparison with the PICC, aerial or other maps.

Even more than tracing, beware of importing cadastral data !
PLEASE DO NOT destroy with cadastre imports patient corrections with
JOSM and PICC of ID and Potlatch inaccuracies and mistakes !!!

What's the problem?
I'm glad that we totally agree.

About what you write below, if you have contacts with PICC (SPW don't
always reply)...
You don't define ICAR (not free) but I seem to recall that there is a
free list of street names.

Could you ask them to specify the coordinates of both ends in this list?
I think that the list is freely usable and those coordinates would allow
OSM to at last start mapping roads correctly.

Also, PICC welcome corrective remarks but they don't say how to do that
and they ... don't reply.

I have quite a number of corrections I didn't send because of that.
I suggested reviving OpenStreetBugs or equivalent for OSM to notify bugs
to PICC ... or equivalent ... no answer.

Support in JOSM would be nice.

All the best,

André.

To quote a report from the last PICC meeting in June, wallonia have
the following idea on official source :

Wallonia is planning a “*georeferentiel*” (base of layers that are
high accuracy and authentic source) within the application of
INSPIRE.There are 4 major datasets that will be made as accurate
as possible and with one authentic source for each:

* /buildings/ (in PICC),

* /admin limits/ (in cadastre),

* /addresses/ (in ICAR) and

* /Roads/ (in PICC/”direction des routes” collaboration with
attributes (like primary, secondary, highway, bridge,…) on
road, not only geometry).

from:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Contacts_with_local_autorities/Wallonia/Compte_rendu_Rencontre_des_utilisateurs_du_PICC_Juin_2018

So cadastre is really about admin. limits and parcels :
- For admin. limits i already talked about it before (as quoted, it is
even the authentic source for all Belgium apparently),
- and for parcels, there is an open debate about adding this
information to OSM (mainly because it is huge amount of work to
maintain it) -> as discussed on the wiki page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel

So there is no ambiguity in what official data exist, the only problem
is that ICAR for the addresses is not yet finished for all
municipalities (and not complete in the PICC as far as i know ?! but i
may be wrong about that) and more importantly, it is not open nor
viewable except for special customers. So we still need to rely on
tracing from the imagery and the PICC WMS at the moment (for
buildings, roads and addresses) and now, the Cadastre data (or wms) to
maybe update admin limits.
Note that these official data are considerably improving over time !
They are still outdated or imprecise in some place, but even then it
is still the official source at the moment (so we should NOT copy
blindly as you said, but compare with recent imagery and survey !!!).
The plan is to make an update cycle

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] cadastral plan now open data



sent from a phone

> On 22. Sep 2018, at 01:18, André Pirard  wrote:
> 
> In Beijing, it was Google Maps that moved.
> Satellites (several if I recall) were showing OSM in the right place.


here is some information about the coordinate processing and geodata in general 
in China:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China

cheers,
Martin___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream

2018-09-21 Thread EthnicFood IsGreat

Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 10:13:41 +0200
From: François Lacombe 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Le ven. 21 sept. 2018 à 09:17, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :

Ok .. thinking on it, if the word 'sewer' is confusing for 'native'
English speakers (and dictionaries) it may be best avoided within OSM.
So what word/s to use?
I would think storm_water and waste_water or stormwater and wastewater
might be reasonable values? However that does not name the pipe function.

Perhaps man_made=pipe would do? Then subtags for diameter, substance,
pressure etc.

We already have man_made=pipeline
It is only the nutshell, how the conduit is actually built, not what's
going inside. Substance=water is recommended and useful but not enough to
qualify the flow.
A pipeline may be opposed to tunnel. In the current situation it's
certainly a pipeline and not a tunnel.

[...]

I don't think "pipeline" is appropriate here.  My reasoning is the same 
that Martin Koppenhoefer expressed recently in another thread titled 
"Landuse for government offices?"  He said, "A lot of people have an 
adversity to making up new tags and prefer using established tags even 
if the meaning is not fitting perfectly for the thing they map, but this 
is harmful because it devalues/blurs the meaning of the established 
tag."  I think that fits here.  What I
 mean is, I think most people think of a pipeline as being 
pressurized.  If you include something under this heading that is not 
pressurized, I think it blurs the meaning of the tag "pipeline".  I 
think in this case a different tag is warranted.  If "sewer" is 
confusing, I like Warin's suggestion of man_made=pipe.

Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

2018-09-21 Thread Paul Johnson

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 6:05 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 19. Sep 2018, at 21:16, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> >
> > This is a good argument against tagging an explicit maxspeed=X when
> > there is actually no speed limit sign around (X is what the OSM mapper
> > by his knowledge about the law thinks should be the default limit here).
>
>
> everything that you map will be according to your understanding of it, I
> cannot see a good argument for not tagging implicit limits, even more as
> there is judgement needed based on the situation (something humans can do
> much better than computers). Every holder of a driving license should have
> the requisites to recognize the speed limit on a given piece of road in
> their local area, so it doesn’t require specialist knowledge.
>

Even then, those of us who *do* have specialist knowledge are more likely
to contribute such information; why discourage that, further diseminating
that knowledge in a more readily digestible format?

> There actually is a speed limit on most roads, including those without
> explicit signage. Omitting it will leave us in the situation that it really
> becomes unclear whether there is no sign or nobody has bothered to enter it.
>

In Oregon and a good number of Oklahoma counties, that would be a
for-certain thing on all public roads.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

sent from a phone

> On 19. Sep 2018, at 22:12, Jérôme Seigneuret  
> wrote:
> 
> highway:legal_type=urban or highway:legal_type:FR=agglomération

I agree with the idea but would use a different tag, something like 
highway:zone=urban (or whatever you need to distinguish).

“legal_type” can mean a lot of things.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] cadastral plan now open data

2018-09-21 Thread André Pirard


On 2018-09-21 23:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone

On 21. Sep 2018, at 21:32, André Pirard > wrote:



The whole cadastral map is offset by that 7m.
...

*Picture 3:* So, I dragged his parcel right onto the wall.
And now it's correctly located, aligned with the fencing all around.



how did you know which source was off, the cadastral map or the 
orthophoto?

The ortophoto is guaranteed with a 20 cm precision all over Wallonia.
On the other hand, all aerial photos cannot be off by the same 7m could 
they?
On the first foot, juxtaposing precisely measured parcels produces huge 
errors that vary all over a village.

I just can't figure.
I did not check if this occurs at gaps when crossing roads or what.
I'm not working for the Cadastre. I pay them ;-)

In Beijing, it was Google Maps that moved.
Satellites (several if I recall) were showing OSM in the right place.

All the best,

André.



...

The Belgian cadastre is not the only one with an error shift.
With JOSM, I have similarly proved that Google Map has a 120m NE 
shift in Beijing.

Nobody noticed it.



it is well known that the chinese government requires all imagery and 
map providers to use chinese algorithms which distort the map 
coordinates systematically, in a way that they remain usable as long 
as your navigation system uses the same algorithms.


Ciao, 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

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

sent from a phone

> On 19. Sep 2018, at 22:09, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> 
> This is France though. The abutters-key would only need to be used in
> the United States in order to infer the default speed limits as only
> there, a difference is made between residence districts and business
> districts.

the abutters tag has a different definition, it isn’t intended for the purpose 
of mapping the context according to traffic law classification. I would not 
start using this established tag differently.

My proposition for the purpose of maxspeed would be using source:maxspeed = 
country/state code:residence or business, unless signposted of course.

Cheers,
Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] cadastral plan now open data

2018-09-21 Thread Lionel Giard

André, i don't really see your point with the argument you made about
cadastre data. i don't know of anybody looking to use this data to add
building into OSM. It is outdated data regarding buildings and roads in a
lot of different place in Belgium. And as, the people at cadastre are not
the source for these data, they don't need to update it anymore !  Most
people are only using the default imagery (they often don't know about
anything else).

When tracing buildings, we should always base our self on the PICC for
Wallonia or Urbis for Brussels or GRB for Flanders and the relevant best
imagery in each case (comparing them keeping in mind that vectorial data
are not up to date everywhere at the same time).

To quote a report from the last PICC meeting in June, wallonia have the
following idea on official source :

> Wallonia is planning a “*georeferentiel*” (base of layers that are high
> accuracy and authentic source) within the application of INSPIRE.There are
> 4 major datasets that will be made as accurate as possible and with one
> authentic source for each:
>
>- *buildings* (in PICC),
>
>
>- *admin limits* (in cadastre),
>
>
>- *addresses* (in ICAR) and
>
>
>- *Roads* (in PICC/”direction des routes” collaboration with
>attributes (like primary, secondary, highway, bridge,…) on road, not only
>geometry).
>
> from:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Contacts_with_local_autorities/Wallonia/Compte_rendu_Rencontre_des_utilisateurs_du_PICC_Juin_2018

So cadastre is really about admin. limits and parcels :
- For admin. limits i already talked about it before (as quoted, it is even
the authentic source for all Belgium apparently),
- and for parcels, there is an open debate about adding this information to
OSM (mainly because it is huge amount of work to maintain it) -> as
discussed on the wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Parcel

So there is no ambiguity in what official data exist, the only problem is
that ICAR for the addresses is not yet finished for all municipalities (and
not complete in the PICC as far as i know ?! but i may be wrong about that)
and more importantly, it is not open nor viewable except for special
customers. So we still need to rely on tracing from the imagery and the
PICC WMS at the moment (for buildings, roads and addresses) and now, the
Cadastre data (or wms) to maybe update admin limits.
Note that these official data are considerably improving over time ! They
are still outdated or imprecise in some place, but even then it is still
the official source at the moment (so we should NOT copy blindly as you
said, but compare with recent imagery and survey !!!). The plan is to make
an update cycle closer to 1-2 years (for every municipalities) for the
PICC, but they are still far from it (6.5 years of average update time).

Is there something i'm missing out in your explication ? If so tell me, i
may not understand all your point !

Le ven. 21 sept. 2018 à 23:23, Martin Koppenhoefer 
a écrit :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 21. Sep 2018, at 21:32, André Pirard  wrote:
>
> The whole cadastral map is offset by that 7m.
> ...
>
> *Picture 3:* So, I dragged his parcel right onto the wall.
> And now it's correctly located, aligned with the fencing all around.
>
>
>
> how did you know which source was off, the cadastral map or the orthophoto?
>
>
> ...
>
> The Belgian cadastre is not the only one with an error shift.
> With JOSM, I have similarly proved that Google Map has a 120m NE shift in
> Beijing.
> Nobody noticed it.
>
>
>
> it is well known that the chinese government requires all imagery and map
> providers to use chinese algorithms which distort the map coordinates
> systematically, in a way that they remain usable as long as your navigation
> system uses the same algorithms.
>
> Ciao, 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

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

sent from a phone

> On 19. Sep 2018, at 21:16, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> 
> This is a good argument against tagging an explicit maxspeed=X when
> there is actually no speed limit sign around (X is what the OSM mapper
> by his knowledge about the law thinks should be the default limit here).

everything that you map will be according to your understanding of it, I cannot 
see a good argument for not tagging implicit limits, even more as there is 
judgement needed based on the situation (something humans can do much better 
than computers). Every holder of a driving license should have the requisites 
to recognize the speed limit on a given piece of road in their local area, so 
it doesn’t require specialist knowledge.

We already have a reliable way to distinguish implicit from explicit limits (we 
even have several of them), if you want to treat them differently in your app, 
you can do it.

There actually is a speed limit on most roads, including those without explicit 
signage. Omitting it will leave us in the situation that it really becomes 
unclear whether there is no sign or nobody has bothered to enter it.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - landcover clearing


On 21/09/18 23:16, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

I am not sure why landcover=clearing is described as better than other.

If someone wants to leave gixme, the fixme key or OSM note is the best 
solution.


Best solution for what?

This started because a group wanted to map clearings from imagery.
Why I don't know - they have not communicated despite attempts at contact.
They did not use a fixme etc by used something they thought described 
what they were seeing in imagery.
A fixme tries to contact locals to map the thing, as this group wants 
things done in a hurry they don't use fixmes.




6. Aug 2018 02:11 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :

and stop land covers becoming regarded as a legitimate use of the
key landuse.


too late for that, see landuse=forest



So landuse=sand
landuse=dirt
landuse=rock
landuse=scrub
landuse=valley
landuse=peak
landuse=cliff
landuse=tunnel

will all be fine to use?
I don't think so.


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

Re: [Tagging] Area of Firestations / Area of Ambulancestations


On 21/09/18 23:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 21. Sep 2018, at 11:28, dktue  wrote:

but: it's not amenity=ambulance_station we're using at the moment. We're using 
emergency=ambulance_station -- so: How do we solve this?


I’m not sure what an ambulance station is, but not all of the features I have 
in mind (a place where ambulances and their staff are parked and waiting for 
orders, usually with a coordinating office and radio unit) are emergency 
related. Some organizations only provide ambulance transports for people with 
special requirements.



Here 'patent transport' is provided by the same organisation that provides 
ambulances.

They are co-located and have very similar vehicles, different colours and 
lettering. The staff that man them have less training.


If they were completely separate then I'd use different tags. But what tags to 
use?
Not emergency as they are scheduled and not urgent. Amenity? 
amenity=patient_transport?


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose

On 22/09/18 07:42, John Willis wrote:

On Sep 22, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:

Problem: most assembly points are multi-purpose around here. At least fire and
earthquake. And they are not marked with a purpose.

Very true - I think most people assume an assembly point is "safe", as the
location is chosen because it is low-risk for many types of disasters.

Perhaps we need to have a few assembly_point:foobar=yes, in case people want to
map a specific aspect of one - especially if it is *not* good for one aspect.

Some are atom bomb shelters.

Some are in the open, possibly a car park - away from the building where the
alarm has been activated - usually a fire alarm.

Some 'multi purpose' assembly points would also be used for bomb threats.
For bomb threats the location should not be known nor regular as the bomb could
be placed within the assembly point to cause maximum devastation.
This kind should not be mapped.

Tsunami (height in M)
Earthquake
Fire
Landslide
Flood (out of the path of a possible dam breach, levee break, or flash floods.
Tornado (assumed no, yes has to be explicit)

With certian assembly points, the idea it is "safe" from a tsunami is very
important. Tornadoes will be basements/bunkers/buried shelters, possibly fallout shelters.

But this would be a very small minority of assembly_points. Most will have no
:foobar=tags.

Perhaps if we can say :tsunami=25 means it is 25m above sea level (the safe top
of the structure) or tsunami=yes/no to say at least go/don't go here. Same with
tornado.

Many of the assembly points in Japan are chosen specifically because they will
not be flooded if a nearby dam bursts, to be away from known landslide risks,
and to have no tall buildings nearby to fall in an earthquake.

:Purpose=foobar locks you into a certian purpose, Whereas :tsunami=yes just means it is
"safe" from a tsunami - *if you care to map that*.

Besides tornado, all are implied yes, so an the assembly point inherits all the
implied traits.

Javbw.
___
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] landuse for government offices ?

> On Sep 22, 2018, at 6:07 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> the important tags here are “religion” and “denomination”,

Yep, those are useful, but it doesn't state that they are "operated" by a 
specific group (the specific temple down the street) - just what is the 
religion/denomination is practiced there. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose

> On Sep 22, 2018, at 5:17 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> Problem: most assembly points are multi-purpose around here. At least fire 
> and earthquake. And they are not marked with a purpose. 

Very true - I think most people assume an assembly point is "safe", as the 
location is chosen because it is low-risk for many types of disasters. 

Perhaps we need to have a few assembly_point:foobar=yes, in case people want to 
map a specific aspect of one - especially if it is *not* good for one aspect. 

Tsunami (height in M) 
Earthquake
Fire
Landslide
Flood (out of the path of a possible dam breach, levee break, or flash floods. 
Tornado (assumed no, yes has to be explicit)

With certian assembly points, the idea it is "safe" from a tsunami is very 
important. Tornadoes will be basements/bunkers/buried shelters, possibly 
fallout shelters. 

But this would be a very small minority of assembly_points. Most will have no 
:foobar=tags. 

Perhaps if we can say :tsunami=25 means it is 25m above sea level (the safe top 
of the structure) or tsunami=yes/no to say at least go/don't go here. Same with 
tornado. 

Many of the assembly points in Japan are chosen specifically because they will 
not be flooded if a nearby dam bursts, to be away from known landslide risks, 
and to have no tall buildings nearby to fall in an earthquake. 

:Purpose=foobar locks you into a certian purpose, Whereas :tsunami=yes just 
means it is "safe" from a tsunami - *if you care to map that*. 

Besides tornado, all are implied yes, so an the assembly point inherits all the 
implied traits. 

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] cadastral plan now open data

sent from a phone

> On 21. Sep 2018, at 21:32, André Pirard  wrote:
> 
> The whole cadastral map is offset by that 7m.
> ...
> 
> Picture 3: So, I dragged his parcel right onto the wall.
> And now it's correctly located, aligned with the fencing all around.

how did you know which source was off, the cadastral map or the orthophoto?

> ...
> 
> The Belgian cadastre is not the only one with an error shift.
> With JOSM, I have similarly proved that Google Map has a 120m NE shift in 
> Beijing.
> Nobody noticed it.

it is well known that the chinese government requires all imagery and map 
providers to use chinese algorithms which distort the map coordinates 
systematically, in a way that they remain usable as long as your navigation 
system uses the same algorithms.

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?



sent from a phone

> On 21. Sep 2018, at 03:59, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> Similar with religious schools. My buddhist school is operated by a 
> “business” representing the temple.  
> 
> the school is a school, operator=[temple business]. 


the important tags here are “religion” and “denomination”, you can add them to 
the school (or whatever it is you want to tag), just like you add them to 
placeofworship

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?



sent from a phone

> On 20. Sep 2018, at 08:25, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> In your part of the world, perhaps.  Elsewhere, this isn't guaranteed to be 
> the case.  Certainly here in the UK many formerly "civic" services have been 
> privatised and are run for out-and-out commercial gain;



 you wrote “formerly civic services”, i.e. they are not civic services any more?


> others are run as commercial entities owned by the government or 
> non-governmental third sector organisations.


I would distinguish these 2, the former as civic admin and the latter as 
commercial.



> What this means is that people will need to pick the landuse that works best 
> for them in their local area - to say that something is "always wrong" is, in 
> OSM, almost always wrong(!).


agreed

cheers,
Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

sent from a phone

> On 20. Sep 2018, at 04:57, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> I wholeheartedly believe the decision to use commercial for Civic buildings 
> was wrong, and came from an adversity to making enough new landuse values at 
> the start. I want to correct that. 

I support this. IMHO it stems from a misconception, someone wrote that 
commercial landuse is typically offices, and other people understood all 
offices must be commercial landuse.

A lot of people have an adversity to making up new tags and prefer using 
established tags even if the meaning is not fitting perfectly for the thing 
they map, but this is harmful because it devalues/blurs the meaning of the 
established tag.

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

sent from a phone

> On 19. Sep 2018, at 21:26, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> The landuse also is perhaps better in that it's a more appropriate tag
> for 'government' facilities such as a highway maintenance garage

IMHO landuse is never a good tag for a feature (or facility). We can have 
landuse =governmental but it doesn’t mean we should not tag the individual 
offices/facilities as well.

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

2018-09-21 Thread egil



On 9/20/18 9:54 PM, SelfishSeahorse wrote:

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 11:20, egil  wrote:

I tend to agree with Colins arguments below, because in Sweden gov. agencies 
are very mixed into the central spaces of cities but often not clustered 
together in large complexes or whole areas.

Just because a tag would have no use in a specific area doesn't mean
it shouldn't be used at other places in my opinion. By the way: what
land use would you tag the perimeter of the Riksdag with?


See https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/34395

amenity    parliament
building    yes

It seems there is no landuse-tag on the island the building reside on or 
nearby.


--

Around the Bundestag I found this: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/102979498


landuse    civic_admin
name    Deutscher Bundestag
operator    Deutscher Bundestag


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

[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - assembly_point:purpose

2018-09-21 Thread Daniele Santini

Link of the proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/assembly_point:purpose
.

Hi,
I propose to add the tag key assembly_point:purpose to specify which
emergency an emergency=assembly_point is designed for.
Possible values would be fire, tzunami, earthquake, tornado, etc.

Kind regards,
Danysan
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities



sent from a phone

> On 20. Sep 2018, at 03:30, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> I see that the suggestions about "free refills" are included here because 
> there was some confusion about the use of "free_refill=yes" in central 
> Europe. The English word "refill" implies that it is the second time 
> something has been filled. Thus a customer may request that their glass be 
> filled again with the same beverage. 
> 


the same here in Europe, although it is not very common.



> I'd suggest a separate proposal page to discuss the free_refill=yes tag.
> 


+1, go for it ;)

cheers,
Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] Area of Firestations / Area of Ambulancestations

sent from a phone

> On 21. Sep 2018, at 11:28, dktue  wrote:
> 
> but: it's not amenity=ambulance_station we're using at the moment. We're 
> using emergency=ambulance_station -- so: How do we solve this?

I’m not sure what an ambulance station is, but not all of the features I have 
in mind (a place where ambulances and their staff are parked and waiting for 
orders, usually with a coordinating office and radio unit) are emergency 
related. Some organizations only provide ambulance transports for people with 
special requirements.

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

Re: [Tagging] Area of Firestations / Area of Ambulancestations

sent from a phone

> On 21. Sep 2018, at 11:17, Anton Klim  wrote:
> 
> Are landuses supposed to be for larger areas?

landuse is a property of the land more than an actual feature. It doesn’t 
matter if you cut a landuse in 2 parts, it has the same meaning.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - landcover clearing

2018-09-21 Thread Mateusz Konieczny

I am not sure why landcover=clearing is described as better than other.
If someone wants to leave gixme, the fixme key or OSM note is the best 
solution. 

6. Aug 2018 02:11 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :

 

> and stop land covers becoming regarded as a legitimate  use of the key 
> landuse. 
>




too late for that, see landuse=forest 

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

Re: [Tagging] Area of Firestations / Area of Ambulancestations

> On Sep 21, 2018, at 7:47 PM, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> Landuse primarily for *services* for the public: libraries, community halls, 
> fire stations, police stations, etc.

I messed up: civic_saftey for all manner of Saftey services. Ambulances, fire, 
police, ranger, lifeguard, and other public safety stations may be privately 
operated, but are a public Saftey service. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Area of Firestations / Area of Ambulancestations

> On Sep 21, 2018, at 6:29 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> There is a parallel discussion going on about landuse=civil_administration 
> which might include smaller areas for individual government offices

In my original landuse=Civic proposal, I included all Civic buildings. 

Later, I split off those kinds of things into landuse=civic_services, as people 
suggested Civic was too broad. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse=civic

Landuse primarily for *services* for the public: libraries, community halls, 
fire stations, police stations, etc.  

Perhaps that would be of use. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Area of Firestations / Area of Ambulancestations

> On Sep 21, 2018, at 6:17 PM, Anton Klim  wrote:
> 
> I’m not sure I understand why it would be a landuse instead of an amenity tag 
> on the area, or the other way round? Are landuses supposed to be for larger 
> areas?

landuse areas can be as small as the land for housing plot, a factory building, 
or a convenience store. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.30597/139.32742 

look at the landuse polygons there. 

Just like parks or farmland, they can be very big - or very small. 

landuse does *not* show zoning or what is “allowed” it is used to denote the 
general purpose of the area when mapped in large polygons **or** to denote the 
extenant of a single map pin (ie, the retail land a mall sits on, the land used 
by a single factory in a industrial zone. if you are in a mixed area - you 
might have a ton of different landuses. ) 

the landuse is often several times bigger than the building, allowing the 
amenities of the site to be grouped together logically 

older tags (like school) use one tag to define the landuse as well, just train 
station or fire station. But this is a tagging discrepancy (to me). landuse is 
used for the other tags discussed. 

I would prefer that this discrepancy is evenutally resolved (landuse=school) - 
but tags like school are way too entrenched to ever be changed. 

new tags created should follow the landuse=* model, but the older way of using 
area=yes+building=yes/no is still common, and some people might like it better 
- or wonder what landuse=* is for. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Emergency=levee_breach_materials

> On Sep 21, 2018, at 4:09 PM, Anton Klim wrote:
>
> Do these have anything to identify them, like a ref

I cannot find an official name or ref - but I can see their purpose.

The next time I am on a cycling survey, I will take a picture of any small
plaques they usually put somewhere on a man_made construction.

I haven’t been able to find any sign onsite or web site explaining them - they
are for someone with access to big (military) helicopters, so there is
little-to-no public facing information at the sites themselves - but somewhere
someone has a PDF with all the locations marked and ref'ed.

I imagine it is not important to map them, but since I know what they are, I’d
like to do it.

All the signs tell people not to dump garbage, and one that says that the
public parking lot is an emergency=assembly_point, but that is not present at
the others - most are just stacks and stacks of blocks fenced in, waiting for a
helicopter year after year. Some of the areas are very small - 100m2 - but the
contents are just breakwater blocks surrounded by a fence, and they are stored
adjacent to the levee - so there is only one purpose they could serve. you
usually only see these kind of blocks near the ocean, protecting coastlines and
and stacked into breakwaters.

all of the permanent levee protection is poured concrete and boulders, so they
are not normal building materials.

I have found 15-20 caches of these blocks along the river in my area. Some are
really old. The more I look, the more I find. I imagine there are several
hundred Just around Tokyo.

there are very few things that can stop a levee breach:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/10/439106520/japanese-river-levee-fails-flooding-spurs-evacuation-order-for-130-000

Levee_breach_materials is a mouthful, but I cannot think of a shorter way to
make the tag descriptive enough to avoid mistagging.

Javbw

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

Re: [Tagging] Area of Firestations / Area of Ambulancestations

2018-09-21 Thread Colin Smale

There is a parallel discussion going on about
landuse=civil_administration which might include smaller areas for
individual government offices. Just wondering if an ambulance station
(or fire station or police station for that matter) might be analogous. 

I believe that landuse tagging should be monovalent and contiguous -
ultimately, every point on land should come under exactly one landuse
value, with the exception of land that has not been put to any use by
humans.

On 2018-09-21 11:17, Anton Klim wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand why it would be a landuse instead of an amenity tag 
> on the area, or the other way round? Are landuses supposed to be for larger 
> areas?
> 
> 21 сент. 2018 г., в 9:58, Colin Smale  написал(а):
> 
> What about landuse=ambulance_station on the area? What would the landuse be 
> otherwise?
> 
> Asking for a friend... 
> 
> On 2018-09-21 10:47, dktue wrote: How about ambulance stations?
> 
> Should we tag the area with emergency=ambulance_station and the building with 
> building=ambulance_station?
> 
> dktue
> 
> Am 21.09.2018 um 03:23 schrieb Mike H: 
> I've only mapped one station like this so far, but the area is actually 
> rendered on the map. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/616033018 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:43 AM Tom Pfeifer  wrote: 
> Yes of course, I've been doing this for long already.
> 
> On 20.09.2018 14:06, Philip Barnes wrote:
>> Yes, just go for it. Makes perfect sense.
>> 
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>> 
>> On 20 September 2018 12:56:03 BST, dktue  wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I love how we map areas with amenity=school and buildings inside of it
>> with building=school. The same goes for amenity=hospital and
>> building=hospital.
>> 
>> What I'd like to have is the same schema for firestations: They often
>> have a large area and one or multiple buildings on it.
>> 
>> Should I go with amenity=fire_station for the area and
>> building=fire_station for the buildings inside of it?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> dktue
> 
> ___
> 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

___
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] Area of Firestations / Area of Ambulancestations

2018-09-21 Thread dktue

I personally think that

    amenity=ambulance_station + building=ambulance_station

would work well and fit in the schema we're using for

    * schools
    * hospitals
    * fire stations

but: it's not amenity=ambulance_station we're using at the moment. We're 
using emergency=ambulance_station -- so: How do we solve this?

Am 21.09.2018 um 11:17 schrieb Anton Klim:
I’m not sure I understand why it would be a landuse instead of an 
amenity tag on the area, or the other way round? Are landuses supposed 
to be for larger areas?

21 сент. 2018 г., в 9:58, Colin Smale > написал(а):

What about landuse=ambulance_station on the area? What would the 
landuse be otherwise?

Asking for a friend...

On 2018-09-21 10:47, dktue wrote:

How about ambulance stations?

Should we tag the area with emergency=ambulance_station and the 
building with building=ambulance_station?

dktue

Am 21.09.2018 um 03:23 schrieb Mike H:
I've only mapped one station like this so far, but the area is 
actually rendered on the map. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/616033018

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:43 AM Tom Pfeifer > wrote:

Yes of course, I've been doing this for long already.

On 20.09.2018 14:06, Philip Barnes wrote:
> Yes, just go for it. Makes perfect sense.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On 20 September 2018 12:56:03 BST, dktue
mailto:em...@daniel-korn.de>> wrote:
>
>     Hello,
>
>     I love how we map areas with amenity=school and buildings
inside of it
>     with building=school. The same goes for amenity=hospital and
>     building=hospital.
>
>     What I'd like to have is the same schema for
firestations: They often
>     have a large area and one or multiple buildings on it.
>
>     Should I go with amenity=fire_station for the area and
>     building=fire_station for the buildings inside of it?
>
>     Cheers,
>     dktue

___
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

___
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] Area of Firestations / Area of Ambulancestations

2018-09-21 Thread Anton Klim

I’m not sure I understand why it would be a landuse instead of an amenity tag 
on the area, or the other way round? Are landuses supposed to be for larger 
areas?

> 21 сент. 2018 г., в 9:58, Colin Smale  написал(а):
> 
> What about landuse=ambulance_station on the area? What would the landuse be 
> otherwise?
> 
>  
> Asking for a friend...
> 
> 
> 
>> On 2018-09-21 10:47, dktue wrote:
>> 
>> How about ambulance stations?
>> 
>> Should we tag the area with emergency=ambulance_station and the building 
>> with building=ambulance_station?
>> 
>> dktue
>> 
>>> Am 21.09.2018 um 03:23 schrieb Mike H:
>>> I've only mapped one station like this so far, but the area is actually 
>>> rendered on the map. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/616033018
>>>  
>>> 
 On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:43 AM Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
 Yes of course, I've been doing this for long already.
 
 On 20.09.2018 14:06, Philip Barnes wrote:
 > Yes, just go for it. Makes perfect sense.
 > 
 > Phil (trigpoint)
 > 
 > On 20 September 2018 12:56:03 BST, dktue  wrote:
 > 
 > Hello,
 > 
 > I love how we map areas with amenity=school and buildings inside of 
 > it
 > with building=school. The same goes for amenity=hospital and
 > building=hospital.
 > 
 > What I'd like to have is the same schema for firestations: They often
 > have a large area and one or multiple buildings on it.
 > 
 > Should I go with amenity=fire_station for the area and
 > building=fire_station for the buildings inside of it?
 > 
 > Cheers,
 > dktue
 
 ___
 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
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Area of Firestations / Area of Ambulancestations

2018-09-21 Thread Lionel Giard

It depends as some ambulance_station are located inside the hospital
campus, some other are "external services" and are only a sort of "depot"
like for taxi or buses. Personaly, I don't think landuse is a good tag for
that. Why not an amenity tag like everything else ?
(amenity=ambulance_station to be similar to amenity=fire_station ...).

Le ven. 21 sept. 2018 à 11:00, Colin Smale  a écrit :

> What about landuse=ambulance_station on the area? What would the landuse
> be otherwise?
>
>
> Asking for a friend...
>
>
> On 2018-09-21 10:47, dktue wrote:
>
> How about ambulance stations?
>
> Should we tag the area with emergency=ambulance_station and the building
> with building=ambulance_station?
>
> dktue
>
> Am 21.09.2018 um 03:23 schrieb Mike H:
>
> I've only mapped one station like this so far, but the area is actually
> rendered on the map. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/616033018
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:43 AM Tom Pfeifer 
> wrote:
>
>> Yes of course, I've been doing this for long already.
>>
>> On 20.09.2018 14:06, Philip Barnes wrote:
>> > Yes, just go for it. Makes perfect sense.
>> >
>> > Phil (trigpoint)
>> >
>> > On 20 September 2018 12:56:03 BST, dktue  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I love how we map areas with amenity=school and buildings inside of
>> it
>> > with building=school. The same goes for amenity=hospital and
>> > building=hospital.
>> >
>> > What I'd like to have is the same schema for firestations: They
>> often
>> > have a large area and one or multiple buildings on it.
>> >
>> > Should I go with amenity=fire_station for the area and
>> > building=fire_station for the buildings inside of it?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > dktue
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] Area of Firestations / Area of Ambulancestations

2018-09-21 Thread Colin Smale

What about landuse=ambulance_station on the area? What would the landuse
be otherwise?

Asking for a friend... 

On 2018-09-21 10:47, dktue wrote:

> How about ambulance stations?
> 
> Should we tag the area with emergency=ambulance_station and the building with 
> building=ambulance_station?
> 
> dktue
> 
> Am 21.09.2018 um 03:23 schrieb Mike H: 
> I've only mapped one station like this so far, but the area is actually 
> rendered on the map. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/616033018 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:43 AM Tom Pfeifer  wrote: 
> Yes of course, I've been doing this for long already.
> 
> On 20.09.2018 14:06, Philip Barnes wrote:
>> Yes, just go for it. Makes perfect sense.
>> 
>> Phil (trigpoint)
>> 
>> On 20 September 2018 12:56:03 BST, dktue  wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I love how we map areas with amenity=school and buildings inside of it
>> with building=school. The same goes for amenity=hospital and
>> building=hospital.
>> 
>> What I'd like to have is the same schema for firestations: They often
>> have a large area and one or multiple buildings on it.
>> 
>> Should I go with amenity=fire_station for the area and
>> building=fire_station for the buildings inside of it?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> dktue
> 
> ___
> 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] Area of Firestations / Area of Ambulancestations

2018-09-21 Thread dktue


How about ambulance stations?

Should we tag the area with emergency=ambulance_station and the building 
with building=ambulance_station?


dktue

Am 21.09.2018 um 03:23 schrieb Mike H:
I've only mapped one station like this so far, but the area is 
actually rendered on the map. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/616033018



On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:43 AM Tom Pfeifer > wrote:


Yes of course, I've been doing this for long already.

On 20.09.2018 14:06, Philip Barnes wrote:
> Yes, just go for it. Makes perfect sense.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On 20 September 2018 12:56:03 BST, dktue mailto:em...@daniel-korn.de>> wrote:
>
>     Hello,
>
>     I love how we map areas with amenity=school and buildings
inside of it
>     with building=school. The same goes for amenity=hospital and
>     building=hospital.
>
>     What I'd like to have is the same schema for firestations:
They often
>     have a large area and one or multiple buildings on it.
>
>     Should I go with amenity=fire_station for the area and
>     building=fire_station for the buildings inside of it?
>
>     Cheers,
>     dktue

___
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] Stormwater outlet into stream

2018-09-21 Thread François Lacombe

Le ven. 21 sept. 2018 à 09:17, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :

>
> Ok .. thinking on it, if the word 'sewer' is confusing for 'native'
> English speakers (and dictionaries) it may be best avoided within OSM.
> So what word/s to use?
> I would think storm_water and waste_water or stormwater and wastewater
> might be reasonable values? However that does not name the pipe function.
>
> Perhaps man_made=pipe would do? Then subtags for diameter, substance,
> pressure etc.
>

We already have man_made=pipeline
It is only the nutshell, how the conduit is actually built, not what's
going inside. Substance=water is recommended and useful but not enough to
qualify the flow.
A pipeline may be opposed to tunnel. In the current situation it's
certainly a pipeline and not a tunnel.

According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway#Values
waterway=drain is suitable for discharge of superfluous water, which rain
water actually is.
As waterway=canal, a drain is always free flowing in open air. For
pressurised water conduit, use waterway=pressurised (if intake is always
below water level in operation, in the catch basin)
Then usage=sewer or usage=discharge would be ok.

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Area of Firestations

2018-09-21 Thread Tom Pfeifer


On 21.09.2018 03:23, Mike H wrote:
I've only mapped one station like this so far, but the area is actually rendered on the map. 


Yes police and firestation areas are rendered for a while this year in osm-carto, with the same 
colour as military but without the hatching.


Thus I don't understand the 'but'.

tom

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

Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream