Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[Mateusz Konieczny]

"Values would go from right to left / top to down of the pole while values in 
each section 

would be given from left to right in the direction of the way passing by the 
support node."

What is section in "line_attachment=suspension;pin;suspension|suspension"?

First one suspension;pin;suspension 
Second one suspension

I would explicitly note "| separates sections" or "; separates sections"

Mar 8, 2019, 12:35 AM by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com:

> Hi all
>
> The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments received 
> all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps 
> 
>
> It is not restricted to power nor telecom lines. Any line can be anchored or 
> held with suspension clamps over heads.
>
> This sounds to be ok for me and may be voted shortly.
> Feel free to raise objections or comments prior of this to help building a 
> more useful tagging.
>
> All the best
>
> François
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 8, 2019, 1:47 AM by graemefi...@gmail.com:

> I've seen the same tracks marked for once-a-year car races on otherwise 
> normal streets - they should also be deleted?
>
Is route marked on the ground or at least exactly the same every year?

If yes, then I am not sure. Currently unmarked on the ground and changes
every year - then it is for a deletion.

If someone wants this data - feel free to add it, but not to OSM.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

[Warin]

On 08/03/19 15:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Here's the one I was talking about 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9325885#map=16/-27.9868/153.4270


Only operates as a race track for 4 days a year - 1 practice, 1 
qualifying & 2 race days. The rest of the year it's normal public roads.


I'd drop highway=raceway ... or make it conditional 
highway:conditional=raceway @ During GC600 Race only


change route=road to route=road_raceway ...



(& I even get a mention for editing part of it, but certainly don't 
remember doing so?)

:) Yep.. trouble remembering what I have edited and why is not infrequent.


Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 14:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 08/03/19 11:47, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> I've seen the same tracks marked for once-a-year car races on
> otherwise normal streets - they should also be deleted?

I would first transfer them to something else. If they have historic
significance then OHM.

The bicycle routes are used by various people so need some care
with those.

Car race routes... who renders/uses/displays them? In other words
.. are
they causing problems to end users?
The only issue for 'us' is data bloat and confusion. If they are not
confusing (they make sense) .. then?

___
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 - Line attachments

[OSMDoudou]

Notice, one shouldn’t confuse “historical” (exists and is historic interest) 
with “out of date” (doesn't exist anymore and cannot be verified on the ground) 
and with “life cycle” (change of state or usage).

Definitions are mine and can be imperfect.

In fact, I want to allude to:

- Open Historical Map: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map

- Historic: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic

- Lifecycle: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Here's the one I was talking about
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9325885#map=16/-27.9868/153.4270

Only operates as a race track for 4 days a year - 1 practice, 1 qualifying
& 2 race days. The rest of the year it's normal public roads.

(& I even get a mention for editing part of it, but certainly don't
remember doing so?)

Thanks

Graeme


On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 14:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/03/19 11:47, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> > I've seen the same tracks marked for once-a-year car races on
> > otherwise normal streets - they should also be deleted?
>
> I would first transfer them to something else. If they have historic
> significance then OHM.
>
> The bicycle routes are used by various people so need some care with those.
>
> Car race routes... who renders/uses/displays them? In other words .. are
> they causing problems to end users?
> The only issue for 'us' is data bloat and confusion. If they are not
> confusing (they make sense) .. then?
>
> ___
> 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 - Line attachments

[OSMDoudou]

Specifying bolts May also be of interest for climbing: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Climbing.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[Warin]

On 08/03/19 12:16, Sergio Manzi wrote:

On 2019-03-08 02:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin<61sundow...@gmail.com>  wrote:

Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
Here we should be getting the best tags

+1, I would rather have a well-specified tag that is rarely used than
no tag at all.

--Jarek


Then why not bolts and nuts? I suppose there are many nuts of 
historical significance around.


Have a look at this: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_(hardware)#/media/File:SydneyHarbourBridgeNutMilsonsPoint.JPG


Do you have something against nuts? I don't..



PS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_of_the_coco_de_mer
A natural nut that reaches up to 0.5 metres diameter

And the Bunya nut .. up to 18 kg .. in season people are warned not to 
walk there ... 18 kg falling on your head is not good.

These nuts are edible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araucaria_bidwillii
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[Warin]

On 08/03/19 12:16, Sergio Manzi wrote:

On 2019-03-08 02:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin<61sundow...@gmail.com>  wrote:

Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
Here we should be getting the best tags

+1, I would rather have a well-specified tag that is rarely used than
no tag at all.

--Jarek


Then why not bolts and nuts? I suppose there are many nuts of 
historical significance around.




Open Historical Map for historical stuff...

Have a look at this: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_(hardware)#/media/File:SydneyHarbourBridgeNutMilsonsPoint.JPG


Do you have something against nuts? I don't...



I do if they come up done when they should not, or they strip.

If you want to tag nuts and bolts .. then put up a proposal.


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

[Warin]

On 08/03/19 11:47, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
I've seen the same tracks marked for once-a-year car races on 
otherwise normal streets - they should also be deleted?


I would first transfer them to something else. If they have historic 
significance then OHM.


The bicycle routes are used by various people so need some care with those.

Car race routes... who renders/uses/displays them? In other words .. are 
they causing problems to end users?
The only issue for 'us' is data bloat and confusion. If they are not 
confusing (they make sense) .. then?


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 20:16, Sergio Manzi  wrote:
> Then why not bolts and nuts? I suppose there are many nuts of historical 
> significance around.

Indeed, and if someone comes up with a good tagging proposal for them,
I'll support it, rather than disparage just because I personally don't
find them fascinating.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-08 02:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
>> Here we should be getting the best tags
> +1, I would rather have a well-specified tag that is rarely used than
> no tag at all.
>
> --Jarek

Then why not bolts and nuts? I suppose there are many nuts of historical 
significance around.

Have a look at this: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_(hardware)#/media/File:SydneyHarbourBridgeNutMilsonsPoint.JPG

Do you have something against nuts? I don't...

Sergio



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
> Here we should be getting the best tags

+1, I would rather have a well-specified tag that is rarely used than
no tag at all.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-08 01:39, Warin wrote:
> On 08/03/19 10:40, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>> On 2019-03-08 00:35, François Lacombe wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments 
>>> received all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps
>>>
>>> It is not restricted to power nor telecom lines. Any line can be anchored 
>>> or held with suspension clamps over heads.
>>>
>>> This sounds to be ok for me and may be voted shortly.
>>> Feel free to raise objections or comments prior of this to help building a 
>>> more useful tagging.
>>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> François
>>
>> ... I suppose a vote for bolts and nuts is imminent too, isn't it?
>
> Nuts on trees?
>
> 
> Providing a way for something to be sensibly tagged is what this is about.
> If enough people map it and then a render shows it then it is justified.
> If few map it and no one renders it the it will wither on the line. (pun).
>
> Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
> Here we should be getting the best tags, not thinking 'this is not something 
> for OSM' as that is one persons view.


... beside that "/this one person/" happens to have a name, Sergio, and feels 
fully entitled to express his opinion about "/this not being something for 
OSM/", as much as those who are using those tags which I'm convinced will be 
minimally and sparsely used.

Sergio



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

I've seen the same tracks marked for once-a-year car races on otherwise
normal streets - they should also be deleted?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[Warin]

On 08/03/19 10:40, Sergio Manzi wrote:

On 2019-03-08 00:35, François Lacombe wrote:

Hi all

The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments received 
all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps

It is not restricted to power nor telecom lines. Any line can be anchored or 
held with suspension clamps over heads.

This sounds to be ok for me and may be voted shortly.
Feel free to raise objections or comments prior of this to help building a more 
useful tagging.

All the best

François


... I suppose a vote for bolts and nuts is imminent too, isn't it?


Nuts on trees?


Providing a way for something to be sensibly tagged is what this is about.
If enough people map it and then a render shows it then it is justified.
If few map it and no one renders it the it will wither on the line. (pun).

Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
Here we should be getting the best tags, not thinking 'this is not something 
for OSM' as that is one persons view.





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

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

[Sergio Manzi]

+1!

On 2019-03-07 19:02, Richard Welty wrote:
> i think OSM should stick to mapping what is legal. first responders
> frequentlhy have permission to ignore the restrictions that apply
> to normal motorists, but they usually have relevant policies that
> probably don't belong in OSM proper and which aren't knowable
> without interviewing the responders in question (and i've
> interviewed a bunch while developing requirements, i have some
> insight into common policies.)
>
> richard



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-08 00:35, François Lacombe wrote:
> Hi all
>
> The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments received 
> all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps
>
> It is not restricted to power nor telecom lines. Any line can be anchored or 
> held with suspension clamps over heads.
>
> This sounds to be ok for me and may be voted shortly.
> Feel free to raise objections or comments prior of this to help building a 
> more useful tagging.
>
> All the best
>
> François


... I suppose a vote for bolts and nuts is imminent too, isn't it?

Sergio




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[François Lacombe]

Hi all

The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments
received all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps

It is not restricted to power nor telecom lines. Any line can be anchored
or held with suspension clamps over heads.

This sounds to be ok for me and may be voted shortly.
Feel free to raise objections or comments prior of this to help building a
more useful tagging.

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Baby-sitting

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-07 23:31, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:
> How can I tag an hotel which features baby-sitting?

I think it should be something in the lines of "service:babysitting=yes" unless 
we already have something different in use...

Cheers!

Sergio




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Baby-sitting

[Cascafico Giovanni]

How can I tag an hotel which features baby-sitting?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Pets allowed

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Unfortunately dataset I'm manually importing has a boolean "pets" field.
I guess if go for "dogs" it will be 9/10 right, while a generic "pets"
99/100 (considering the alligator anomaly :-) The latter has less taginfo
popularity, but better fits source data.

Il gio 7 mar 2019, 14:09 seirra blake  ha
scritto:

> while I can't see a problem with a tag for each pet, it may still make
> more sense to have a pets tag and just namespace species/related things
> under it similar to the access tag. use cases I can think of:
>
>- pets=no | no matter what, no pets
>- pets=yes | open to all or at least most pets other than specified
>examples such as...
>- pets:dogs=no | dogs that are pets are not allowed, a guide dog does
>not necessarily count as a pet or at least, I don't think of one as being a
>pet.
>- pets:cats=1 | only one cat allowed
>
> this does still make it vague in the sense that if only one cat is
> allowed, is it per party or per person, but this probably could be made
> more specific with another tag namespaced under pets (my mind is blank, I
> haven't eaten yet. however this feels like the best approach to cover most
> situations). this may also be useful for things like water-bowls/treats for
> pets as mentioned elsewhere here; for example: my bank offers dog biscuits
> for dogs, the train station used to offer a water-bowl as well, but I
> haven't put much thought into seeing if it's there after the take over by
> LNER.
> On 3/7/19 12:17 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 12:05,  wrote:
>
>> Pets is probably a bit vague, many hotels will accept pet dogs, but are
>> less likely  to accept cats and extremely unlikely to my pet alligator (no
>> I don't really own one).
>>
>
> Some holiday cottages accept dogs but place a limit on the number (only
> one; a maximum of two; etc.)
> Yes, some do accept cats, and there are many cat owners who would love to
> be able to take their
> cat on holiday with them.  So it would be nice if we had something a
> little more flexible than
> dog=yes/no.
>
> Obviously dogs=no will only apply to pets, registered assistance dogs are
>> covered by the law of the country, in the UK a hotel/pub/restaurant is not
>> allowed to refuse assistance dogs. I assume the same is true throughout the
>> EU.
>>
>
> I believe that, in the UK, NO business can refuse assistance dogs (but I
> could be wrong).  It's also
> the case in the UK that non-assistance dogs are NOT legally prohibited
> from pubs and
> restaurants but only from food preparation areas: it's the owner's
> decision as to whether or not
> dogs are allowed where food is served and sold.  See
>
> https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/our-resources/kennel-club-campaigns/be-dog-friendly/
>
> Many shops and a few restaurants in my town display a sign somewhere
> saying that dogs
> are allowed.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Tagging] "satellit"

[Warin]

On 07/03/19 20:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Do., 7. März 2019 um 09:57 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>:


It's good that radio telescopes have been mentioned. While considering
this issue, you should also take a look at towers with
tower:type=communication and tower:construction=dish

I'm not sure if it is sensible to tag a large satellite dish as a
"tower" but that is currently an option that has been used
occasionally.



I'm also aware that a common recommendation is to tag them as towers, 
but I would not see this as a good option, for "big/high structures" 
we could have a basic distinction already in the main tag (and these 
tags are also already used), e.g. cooling_tower, chimney, dish, 
lighthouse, bell_tower, water_tower, flagpole etc. rather than 
cramming everything into a big "pre-category", which isn't useful on 
its own anymore because of the very broad scope.
If a tower is a structure that is higher than wide, some dishes could 
fall out. If you require a tower is a structure where people can go 
into or atop, a requirement that isn't currently set but isn't 
completely unreasonable either, dishes would also be excluded.


A tower of a mast could be used for lighting, or an antenna. Or flags, 
or a signal lamp ... 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Signals


The tag mast or tower should not be assumed to indicate the presence of 
another feature.

OSM guide - one feature = one OSM entry.
So tag the mast/tower.. then add another entry for the antenna (or other 
feature).




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

Re: [Tagging] Pets allowed

[Warin]

On 08/03/19 00:07, seirra blake wrote:


while I can't see a problem with a tag for each pet, it may still make 
more sense to have a pets tag and just namespace species/related 
things under it similar to the access tag. use cases I can think of:


  * pets=no | no matter what, no pets
  * pets=yes | open to all or at least most pets other than specified
examples such as...
  * pets:dogs=no | dogs that are pets are not allowed, a guide dog
does not necessarily count as a pet or at least, I don't think of
one as being a pet.
  * pets:cats=1 | only one cat allowed



Presently they are tagged as per access tagging.
motor_vehicle=yes/no
horse=yes/no
dog=yes/no
ferret=yes/no
parrot=yes/no
etc

this does still make it vague in the sense that if only one cat is 
allowed, is it per party or per person, but this probably could be 
made more specific with another tag namespaced under pets (my mind is 
blank, I haven't eaten yet. however this feels like the best approach 
to cover most situations). this may also be useful for things like 
water-bowls/treats for pets as mentioned elsewhere here; for example: 
my bank offers dog biscuits for dogs, the train station used to offer 
a water-bowl as well, but I haven't put much thought into seeing if 
it's there after the take over by LNER.




Where a quantity limit applies ? dog:1= yes @ per party ???

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

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

[Richard Welty]

On 3/7/19 12:49 PM, OSMDoudou wrote:
> I would expect the police would first re-organize the scene to revert
> circulation.
> 
>  
> 
> If the house on fire is just a few meters in the opposite one-way
> direction, they might go directly, but technically they would break the
> law, if I read the articles correctly.
> 
>  
> 
> So, we should map what it authorized and not authorized under normal
> circumstances, otherwise we map no restriction at all (because the
> policy may always reorganize things in urgent situations).

i think OSM should stick to mapping what is legal. first responders
frequentlhy have permission to ignore the restrictions that apply
to normal motorists, but they usually have relevant policies that
probably don't belong in OSM proper and which aren't knowable
without interviewing the responders in question (and i've
interviewed a bunch while developing requirements, i have some
insight into common policies.)

richard
-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

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

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

[OSMDoudou]

I would expect the police would first re-organize the scene to revert 
circulation.

 

If the house on fire is just a few meters in the opposite one-way direction, 
they might go directly, but technically they would break the law, if I read the 
articles correctly.

 

So, we should map what it authorized and not authorized under normal 
circumstances, otherwise we map no restriction at all (because the policy may 
always reorganize things in urgent situations).

 

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 14:23
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

 

 

 

Am Mi., 6. März 2019 um 14:16 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com> >:

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 11:52 AM OSMDoudou
<19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com 
 > wrote:

If there was an explosion due to a gas leak and the road is blocked by
debris, I guess they can go in the opposite direction of a one-way
street as well.

 

 

I don't know the Belgian law, but in cases like these it is likely there will 
be police at the scene and will temporarily organize the traffic as required. 
Policemen everywhere (?) are higher ranked than road markings and street signs. 
;-)

 

If you need to infract some traffic regulations in order to save lifes, there 
might be exceptions or even obligations. 

 

Cheers,

Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

[Jmapb]

On 3/7/2019 9:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Parking along street is a specific place for parking, in fact
it basically cannot be used for anything except as a place to park 
vehicles.


at least as long as there are cars parked ;-)
https://www.klimareporter.de/images/karo3imgmanager/resized/1001-1100/RS18190_DSCI0571-1018-960-640-80-c.jpg

Quite so -- Na zdrowie! I've seen previously parkable streetsides 
transform to outdoor amenity seating, bicycle lanes, bicycle 
parking/rental stations, electric car charging stations, food 
trucks/carts/stalls, small parks/gardens, etc. And all that aside, the 
parking regulations can change at any time. So if streetside parking is 
to be mapped, it needs survey or recent imagery, and it needs ongoing 
maintenance. (That's one of the disadvantages of using unrendered tags 
to encode this info -- it will be more difficult to see when updates are 
needed.) J
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] dog=yes | Re: Pets allowed

[Rory McCann]

There are already ~14k of usage of `dog=yes/no/...` so that's a good 
start. You can add other animals if the venue allows others (e.g. 
`cat=yes/no/...`).


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:dog

On 07/03/2019 11:40, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:

Hello ML!

how can I tag and hotel (or whatever) that allows pets? Besides, 
semi-OT, if hotel offers babysitting, is childcare=yes ok?


I briefly googled in OSM wiki and couldn't find. If already answered, 
please forgive me.


___
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] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

[Jmapb]

On 3/7/2019 2:05 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

even though it would prevent a routing engine from actually being 
able to arrive inside the parking amenity.


I wouldn't think that should be a problem, would it? Wouldn't a router 
only work to take you to "that" particular individual space?


I don't see it as a problem. I imagine some mappers might prefer all 
vehicle-accessible ways to be connected. J


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

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 14:44, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> usually areas end at their actual borders in OSM, so unless you can park
> in the middle of the road, it should not be contained in the parking area.
>

If we usually mapped roads as areas, I'd agree with you 100%.  The edge of
the area that is the
parking space should be contiguous with the edge of the area that is the
road.  All would be
clear and unambiguous in the editor.  All would be clear and unambiguous in
the rendering.
All would be routeable in a sensible way: you could park in the middle of
the parking area
by turning off the road at that point.

But we don't normally map roads as areas.  Which is why, when a footpath
perpendicularly
joins a road, we extend the footpath all the way to the road itself.  I
found it hard to reconcile
myself to doing that at first, because the footpath doesn't extend to the
middle of the road,
it extends to the sidewalk.  In the editor, it looks wrong.  But it's
routable.  And in the rendered
map it all works out because a mathematically, infinitely-thin line in the
editor becomes a wide
road in the rendered map.  It all looks and works well, except in the
editor.  But that's the price
we have to pay because we usually map roads as lines.  We get used to what
we do in the
editor to work around the ease of mapping roads as lines rather than areas.

Your way, we'd have a gap between the parking area and the road when it
renders.  Which
there isn't because in reality they're conjoined and contiguous.  Your way,
the parking area
wouldn't be routeable.  Your way, people would spend a lot of time mapping
for the renderer by
tweaking the parking area until it just touched the road (which renders as
a line of non-zero
width).  Only to have to change it if the road classification changes and
so the width of the
line representing the road changes.

You're being a purist for the editor and the data structure, you don't care
how it renders or routes.
Some of us are pragmatists.

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

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Mar 2019, at 02:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> The question I have is whether the parking area should be mapped out to the 
> middle of the road,


usually areas end at their actual borders in OSM, so unless you can park in the 
middle of the road, it should not be contained in the parking area.

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

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 6. Mar 2019, at 19:48, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Parking along street is a specific place for parking, in fact
> it basically cannot be used for anything except as a place to park vehicles.


at least as long as there are cars parked ;-)
https://www.klimareporter.de/images/karo3imgmanager/resized/1001-1100/RS18190_DSCI0571-1018-960-640-80-c.jpg


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

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

[Tony Shield]

Fire fighting foam needs to be mixed with water.

On 07/03/2019 14:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 7. Mar 2019, at 14:39, Richard Welty  wrote:

there are other examples. for example, the Chief of the Port
Henry department in upstate NY oversees a district that
is adjacent to Lake Champlaign, so you would think he has
a big enough water source. but the RR tracks running down his
side of the lake frequently carry huge trains loaded with
light crude oil. if one derails and catches fire, he can't
get to the lake.


AFAIK you should not try to extinguish burning petrol or oil with water, 
because it will distribute the fire over a larger area, but will not stop it. 
You could dig trenches or use different extinguishing substances.

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

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Mar 2019, at 14:39, Richard Welty  wrote:
> 
> there are other examples. for example, the Chief of the Port
> Henry department in upstate NY oversees a district that
> is adjacent to Lake Champlaign, so you would think he has
> a big enough water source. but the RR tracks running down his
> side of the lake frequently carry huge trains loaded with
> light crude oil. if one derails and catches fire, he can't
> get to the lake.


AFAIK you should not try to extinguish burning petrol or oil with water, 
because it will distribute the fire over a larger area, but will not stop it. 
You could dig trenches or use different extinguishing substances.

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

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Mar 2019, at 15:02, Phake Nick  wrote:
> 
> The route us currently operated by two different operators on coordinated 
> timetable and each operator have their own ETA system. While they do not 
> provide a GTFS feed for now, it can be expected that each of them will 
> provide their own feed if they would like to do so in the future. However it 
> doesn't make sense to have multiple relationship for them as they run on 
> exact same route with exact same route number and run on a coordinated 
> schedule


IMHO it could make sense to have multiple relations, we will also have multiple 
GTFS urls in this case. There are route master relations which can group route 
variants and could be used here as well. A coordinated schedule means they have 
completely different schedules, right? (although the customers might not care).

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

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Mar 2019, at 13:06, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> It's just that at one time the bus will have the
> livery of "Foo Brothers" and at another time it will have the livery of "Bar 
> Buses."  They're not variant
> routes but variant operators.


the basic options are different routes for each operator, or several operators 
within the same relation (if really all other info is the same, I would 
probably go for the multiple values operator tag).

It is a bit of an edge case, imagine the companies started operating the route 
in a different year, according to what you consider “the route” (route number, 
stops, operator, etc. you might use a different start_date=* for them and will 
require different relations, or if you see the route independently from the 
operator you would have only one start date.

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

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

[Phake Nick]

Nope. For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3352395 The route
us currently operated by two different operators on coordinated timetable
and each operator have their own ETA system. While they do not provide a
GTFS feed for now, it can be expected that each of them will provide their
own feed if they would like to do so in the future. However it doesn't make
sense to have multiple relationship for them as they run on exact same
route with exact same route number and run on a coordinated schedule.

在 2019年3月7日週四 14:33，Martin Koppenhoefer  寫道：

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 5. Mar 2019, at 21:33, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > Routes do exist with more than one operator.
>
>
> wouldn’t these simply be tagged as several relations?
>
>
> 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

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

[Richard Welty]

On 3/6/19 5:17 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 16:29, Richard Welty  wrote:
>> i spent some time looking at a project to build OSM based
>> emergency maps. i concluded we needed to do layers of
>> information, some of which were appropriate to host in
>> OSM and others which were not. there would have been a
>> program to conflate the data to produce an OSMAnd or similar
>> data file that met the department needs but avoided
>> dumping inappropriate data into OSM.
> 
> Out of curiosity, if you don't mind/can share - what was not
> appropriate for OSM? Internal preferences or policies ("prefer to go
> down 1st rather than 2nd even though both look the same" - if only so
> drivers don't have to make that decision every time separately) or
> something else/more?

mostly, policy things like that. a lot of the things that FDs care
about are local policy rather than local regulations. if we stick to
the classical OSM theory that we map things that are observable
(which is something that is not fully honored of course) then
local policies are something a mapper on the ground can't see
unless they interview firefighters (which i've done a bit of.)

there are other examples. for example, the Chief of the Port
Henry department in upstate NY oversees a district that
is adjacent to Lake Champlaign, so you would think he has
a big enough water source. but the RR tracks running down his
side of the lake frequently carry huge trains loaded with
light crude oil. if one derails and catches fire, he can't
get to the lake. so he's been testing water flow of the streams
feeding the lake. that's the sort of data that's you can get
that benefits the FDs, but is not ground observable  in the
usual OSM manner.

a lot of rural FDs have designated landing sites for EMS
helicopters. they're not secrets, you can go to the local
FD and ask about them. but they are generally not marked, so
again, a mapper can't just walk up to them.

in the case of the Albany NY FD, there are streets downtown
that present challenges for some equipment. this matches
roughly with your example. it ends up being things like
if we want to get this piece of equipment to this building,
we need to go the wrong way on this street.

the thing i learned from all the interviews, though,
that is most interesting, is that the firefighers know
their districts, they don't need such aids if they're
responding at home. the value comes in when a company
crosses district borders to assist. this means that
a real tablet OSM app to support emergency services
should be a regional solution to support mutual
assistance calls.

richard
-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search

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

Re: [Tagging] Pets allowed

[seirra blake]

while I can't see a problem with a tag for each pet, it may still make 
more sense to have a pets tag and just namespace species/related things 
under it similar to the access tag. use cases I can think of:


 * pets=no | no matter what, no pets
 * pets=yes | open to all or at least most pets other than specified
   examples such as...
 * pets:dogs=no | dogs that are pets are not allowed, a guide dog does
   not necessarily count as a pet or at least, I don't think of one as
   being a pet.
 * pets:cats=1 | only one cat allowed

this does still make it vague in the sense that if only one cat is 
allowed, is it per party or per person, but this probably could be made 
more specific with another tag namespaced under pets (my mind is blank, 
I haven't eaten yet. however this feels like the best approach to cover 
most situations). this may also be useful for things like 
water-bowls/treats for pets as mentioned elsewhere here; for example: my 
bank offers dog biscuits for dogs, the train station used to offer a 
water-bowl as well, but I haven't put much thought into seeing if it's 
there after the take over by LNER.


On 3/7/19 12:17 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 12:05, > wrote:


Pets is probably a bit vague, many hotels will accept pet dogs,
but are less likely  to accept cats and extremely unlikely to my
pet alligator (no I don't really own one).


Some holiday cottages accept dogs but place a limit on the number 
(only one; a maximum of two; etc.)
Yes, some do accept cats, and there are many cat owners who would love 
to be able to take their
cat on holiday with them.  So it would be nice if we had something a 
little more flexible than

dog=yes/no.

Obviously dogs=no will only apply to pets, registered assistance
dogs are covered by the law of the country, in the UK a
hotel/pub/restaurant is not allowed to refuse assistance dogs. I
assume the same is true throughout the EU.


I believe that, in the UK, NO business can refuse assistance dogs (but 
I could be wrong).  It's also
the case in the UK that non-assistance dogs are NOT legally prohibited 
from pubs and
restaurants but only from food preparation areas: it's the owner's 
decision as to whether or not

dogs are allowed where food is served and sold.  See
https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/our-resources/kennel-club-campaigns/be-dog-friendly/

Many shops and a few restaurants in my town display a sign somewhere 
saying that dogs

are allowed.

--
Paul


___
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] Pets allowed

[phil]

On Thursday, 7 March 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> 
> Many shops and a few restaurants in my town display a sign somewhere saying
> that dogs
> are allowed.
> 
Some pubs make dogs  very welcome by providing biscuits and water bowls.

Phil (trigpoint) 


-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Pets allowed

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 12:05,  wrote:

> Pets is probably a bit vague, many hotels will accept pet dogs, but are
> less likely  to accept cats and extremely unlikely to my pet alligator (no
> I don't really own one).
>

Some holiday cottages accept dogs but place a limit on the number (only
one; a maximum of two; etc.)
Yes, some do accept cats, and there are many cat owners who would love to
be able to take their
cat on holiday with them.  So it would be nice if we had something a little
more flexible than
dog=yes/no.

Obviously dogs=no will only apply to pets, registered assistance dogs are
> covered by the law of the country, in the UK a hotel/pub/restaurant is not
> allowed to refuse assistance dogs. I assume the same is true throughout the
> EU.
>

I believe that, in the UK, NO business can refuse assistance dogs (but I
could be wrong).  It's also
the case in the UK that non-assistance dogs are NOT legally prohibited from
pubs and
restaurants but only from food preparation areas: it's the owner's decision
as to whether or not
dogs are allowed where food is served and sold.  See
https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/our-resources/kennel-club-campaigns/be-dog-friendly/

Many shops and a few restaurants in my town display a sign somewhere saying
that dogs
are allowed.

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

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 06:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 5. Mar 2019, at 21:33, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > Routes do exist with more than one operator.
>
> wouldn’t these simply be tagged as several relations?
>

I don't know.  It's the same route, with the same service number, the same
destination on the
bus destination board, the same stops.  It's just that at one time the bus
will have the
livery of "Foo Brothers" and at another time it will have the livery of
"Bar Buses."  They're not variant
routes but variant operators.  I hadn't considered the possibility of
treating them as variant routes
and am not sure if that would be considered valid (or sensible).

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

Re: [Tagging] Pets allowed

[phil]

Pets is probably a bit vague, many hotels will accept pet dogs, but are less 
likely  to accept cats and extremely unlikely to my pet alligator (no I don't 
really own one).

Maybe search for dogs rather than pets.

Obviously dogs=no will only apply to pets, registered assistance dogs are 
covered by the law of the country, in the UK a hotel/pub/restaurant is not 
allowed to refuse assistance dogs. I assume the same is true throughout the EU.

Phil (trigpoint) 


On Thursday, 7 March 2019, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:
> Hello ML!
> 
> how can I tag and hotel (or whatever) that allows pets? Besides, semi-OT,
> if hotel offers babysitting, is childcare=yes ok?
> 
> I briefly googled in OSM wiki and couldn't find. If already answered,
> please forgive me.
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 02:18, Jmapb  wrote:

Yo passepor wants to "draw exactly what space is occuping" so in that case
> putting the area to the side of the road probably makes more sense, even
> though it would prevent a routing engine from actually being able to arrive
> inside the parking amenity.
>

Going from memory (I've deleted his mail with the link), those parking
areas were contiguous with
the road.  On one of them, the cars parked perpendicular to the road and
access was along the
whole length of the parking bay.  It is, I believe, correct to connect
them.  Not just for routeing but
because it represents reality on the ground.

> Personally I wouldn't be inclined to directly connect a side of the
> parking area to the highway way unless they really were completely
> indistinguishable.
>
Here's a (very small, delivery-only) parking space I mapped as connected to
the way:
https://goo.gl/maps/oaXMUYZTLn72 (relax, I didn't use Google Maps to map
it, it's literally
a two-minute walk from where I live).   I mapped it as
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/525946296  I consider that to be
indistinguishable
from the way, and from my memory of the aerial imagery for Yo passepor's
parking spaces, I believe
they were similar.

I'd only separate the parking spaces from the way if there were some
physical barrier along the
common border.  But in that situation I'd map map a driveway at each end
and possibly a
parking aisle along it.  Something more like this:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/525370232
(except that's wider than either of Yo passepor's examples, being wide
enough for two rows of
parking spaces).  The barrier in that case is a raised kerb, so you could
drive over it if you really
wanted to, but it's easier to use the entrances.

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

[Tagging] Pets allowed

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Hello ML!

how can I tag and hotel (or whatever) that allows pets? Besides, semi-OT,
if hotel offers babysitting, is childcare=yes ok?

I briefly googled in OSM wiki and couldn't find. If already answered,
please forgive me.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

[Volker Schmidt]

>
> On 07/03/19 18:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> They could go into OHM on a year by year basis?
>
There is an old proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/historic_event
but it has not been approved.

I think this type of event-related  track should go into any of the many
bicycle route sites that are out there, unless it's signposted on the
ground.

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

Re: [Tagging] "satellit"

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 7. März 2019 um 09:57 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> It's good that radio telescopes have been mentioned. While considering
> this issue, you should also take a look at towers with
> tower:type=communication and tower:construction=dish
>
> I'm not sure if it is sensible to tag a large satellite dish as a
> "tower" but that is currently an option that has been used
> occasionally.



I'm also aware that a common recommendation is to tag them as towers, but I
would not see this as a good option, for "big/high structures" we could
have a basic distinction already in the main tag (and these tags are also
already used), e.g. cooling_tower, chimney, dish, lighthouse, bell_tower,
water_tower, flagpole etc. rather than cramming everything into a big
"pre-category", which isn't useful on its own anymore because of the very
broad scope.
If a tower is a structure that is higher than wide, some dishes could fall
out. If you require a tower is a structure where people can go into or
atop, a requirement that isn't currently set but isn't completely
unreasonable either, dishes would also be excluded.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Is this course signed in terrain? Is it the same every year?

Given "traject of the 2014 edition" I suspect to second is no, but such data
can avoid deletion if it is marked on a ground.

Otherwise it should be deleted quickly, mostly because it may encourage 
people to waste time adding more.


Mar 7, 2019, 8:19 AM by s8...@runbox.com:

> After a discussion with another user, I saw some people put a lot of effort 
> in adding and maintaining the course of professional bicycle races. For 
> example the world famous Paris-Roubaix (traject of the 2014 edition: > 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4853475 
> > ) I also found for example 
> local 10K and half marathon running events being added.
>
> Is this something that should be in OSM?
>
> For me, it's not verifiable, it's a historic event / temporary event. (> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice 
> > )
>
> If it's not part of OSM, should we go out and delete these things?
> ___
> 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] "satellit"

[Joseph Eisenberg]

It's good that radio telescopes have been mentioned. While considering
this issue, you should also take a look at towers with
tower:type=communication and tower:construction=dish

I'm not sure if it is sensible to tag a large satellite dish as a
"tower" but that is currently an option that has been used
occasionally.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dtower
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:type
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:construction
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tower:construction%3Ddish

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

[Peter Elderson]

If a route is indicated/waymarked on the road not just for an event but as
a permanent route, adding it to OSM is ok. If it's not waymarked on the
road, or just for the event, it's non-OSM material. There are numerous
sites and apps for planning/publishing/recording/archiving such tracks on
all kinds of maps, including OSM.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 7 mrt. 2019 om 09:41 schreef Volker Schmidt :

>
>
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019, 08:57 Richard Fairhurst,  wrote:
>
>> They don’t belong in OSM for the reasons you state,
>>
>
> I strongly second this statement.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Tagging professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

[Warin]

On 07/03/19 18:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

They don’t belong in OSM for the reasons you state, and would be better
hosted independently on umap or similar.


They could go into OHM on a year by year basis?

Each year can have a different route...


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

[Volker Schmidt]

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019, 08:57 Richard Fairhurst,  wrote:

> They don’t belong in OSM for the reasons you state,
>

I strongly second this statement.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging