Re: [Tagging] Should greenhouse et al have building=yes? (was building=digester)
If it's not a temporary structure (some greenhouses are only set up when they are needed), it should be tagged as building=greenhouse, imho. As Martin already noted, there are different types. Some are tent-like, some have a rigid steel structure that supports itself. Can I ask a silly question at this stage - taking something like a greenhouse, would someone ever treat it differently depending on whether it has a building tag or not? In my case when trying to figure out how to render things like this the answer was "no": https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L608 but in some cases a building tag was used as a cue for some other rendering: https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1502 If a greenhouse is a greenhouse, regardless of whether or not it has a building tag in OSM, surely it doesn't matter whether or not it is tagged building=yes? Cheers, Andy ___ 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] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
-1 for tagging it as amenity=shelter. We also don't do that with carports, garden sheds or dog houses. The object tagged amenity=shelter should imho be intended and usable for sheltering humans against bad weather and be freely accessible. -Martin 2013/2/6 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com 2013/2/6 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: So trying to remove ambiguity as much as possible you could tag this: building=field_shelter (or building=roof, layer=1) amenity=shelter shelter_type=field_shelter Except for the building, that was my first idea. In my opinion it would fit the description of amenity=shelter in the wiki quite well. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Combo Weight Bridges
2011/1/12 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de: Hi James. Here you see a typical double-sign at a German bridge: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WP_Burgtorbr%C3%BCcke.jpg As you can see, the distinction between oneway-traffic and two-way-traffic is usual here too. I assume the upper sign (showing 70/120) shows a tracked vehicle above as these often follow slightly higher max-weight restrictions. AFAIK in Germany this is only common for bridges, and I don't know a tagging scheme for OSM yet. These signs are refering to military load class (militärische Lastenklasse), not to maxweight. Other than the real weight of the vehicle, these classes contain factors like the number of axles, overall dimensions of the vehicle etc. AFAIK, this does not affect civilian traffic in any way. -Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Using route=road to group the segments of a street (was: Re: Reasons for associatedStreet?)
2010/9/1 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: +1, e.g. it allows you to download and select the complete road with one command. But what's a road? All segments with the same name? Continuing Segments of the same road type or administrative class, even if other ways with the same name branch off? etc... In reality, there are only segments of roads between intersections, or even smaller, that (roughly) share the same attributes - we have the same in OSM, with split segments where attributes change. It's not the target of road construction/traffic planning to conserve the structures of historical grown street networks, so these problems will always be there, at least if we don't have a proper definition for what a road should be. ;-) Maybe it would be better to be able to download connected ways sharing specified tags via the API in some future version. -Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Culvert and average contributor
2010/8/27 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: In those cases that are similar to bridges the road surface may change at the culvert. So just tag what's there: a different surface=* on the road. -Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC on two proposals: Motorway indication; Expressway indication
2010/7/14 David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com: From: fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com Please have a look at motorroad=yes/no and show the differences between that and your proposals on the proposal-pages. I was not aware of this tag. It's not significantly used in America. I took a look at the wiki page, and it does indeed seem quite similar. However, it will take me time to fully grasp the precise meaning and flavor of the terms used there, before I can determine whether the Motorway indication proposal is redundant to it. If so, a possible outcome might be to modify the proposal to simply adding motorroad=substandard to the existing key, as well as further rendering enhancements and wider promotion of the key's usage. Hi! Please be aware that the motorroad tag is not about motorway-like grade seperation, but only motorway-like access restrictions. I think a combination of motorroad=* and grade_seperated=* would do the job quite well (and could describe any combination of these criteria). -Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC on two proposals: Motorway indication; Expressway indication
2010/7/15 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com: On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Martin Simon grenzde...@gmail.com wrote: I think a combination of motorroad=* and grade_seperated=* would do grade_separated please (ie with an a in the middle) Right... :-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging churches that use non-church buildings.
2010/7/5 Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au: I'm was planning to add a church to OSM - the only problem is that the church doesn't have its own building, but rather uses a school hall. I've asked the Australian mailing list for ideas, but I thought I should ask here if anyone here has any tips or has come across a similar problem. The church has used the school hall for about 10 years. I know of a few other churches in Australia that use other facilities like halls rather than using their own building. Presumably it happens in other countries, also this may be relevant for other buildings with multiple uses. The school is currently marked with a way surrounding the grounds. I am planning to add the buildings. The church meets in the hall that is in one of the buildings (not the complete building). The options so far suggested at talk-AU are: - don't tag at all (are we marking 'buildings with pointy roofs' or 'building that congregation meets in?) - add a node for amenity=place_of_worship inside the relevant building, with note=church meets in school hall (this is my preferred option but I'm not sure if there's a better way to tag it) - use amenity=school;place_of_worship over the building - use a relation for the church over the building outline and a separate relation for the school for all the buildings (I'm not keen on this one as the amenity=school is already used for the school boundary). - amenity=school , place_of_worship=yes (again I'm not keen on this one) The church is located here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=-33.42085mlon=149.57153zoom=17 If anyone has any ideas, please let me/the list know. Thanks. I'd tag the school area with amenity=school and the hall with building=school_hall amenity=place_of_worship. This allows you to keep building type and function seperate. As amenity=place_of_worship doesn't mean church, but rather religious place, I also tag normal churches as building=church amenity=place_of_worship. -Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging churches that use non-church buildings.
2010/7/5 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: How many uses should we tag, what if it's mostly used for basketball 5 days of the week? What about school dances? Parent/Teacher meetings? Scouts? Well, from the description, this building has been used frequently and for a very long time as a religious meeting place by the same community - for me, that's a reason to tag it as such. I don't know how many uses *you* want to tag - I want to tag the important and stable ones for now. -Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging churches that use non-church buildings.
2010/7/5 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: I'm guessing most school halls would have a number of regular purposes... building=school_hall... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=motorway and motorroad (implies)
2010/6/11 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: good point actually. I think it would be better to tag these service areas as motorway_service instead of a simple service. That would make it a lot easier to see them if your on the motorway (-zoom level). (highway=service, service=motorway might be better for consistency). As service=* tags for highway service seem to be in widespread use these days, I'd rather propose service=motorway_service or service=lay-by for this use. (or another term that is more accurate for this kind of service ways) -Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature : World wide place=* standardisation only based on population
2010/6/2 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: so simply tag it as place=town, what's the problem? No problem, as that is how it's tagged... Just wanted to point out that these criteria are not bad at all when deciding on how to tag a place in both, very crowded areas and those with only sparse settlement. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature : World wide place=* standardisation only based on population
2010/6/1 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: If you can read German I also suggest this one, which is not comparable to the English version: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadt How about this approach? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_place_theory German: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_der_Zentralen_Orte -Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature : World wide place=* standardisation only based on population
2010/6/1 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 1 June 2010 19:41, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: why should we use a theory of spacial planning of the 1930ies that is loosing importance, and that is (as far as I understand it) less I think he was making a point about others already trying to standardise cities and how they weren't able to do it either and they probably spent a lot more time and effort on the problem. Well, actually I think the idea is not that bad at all, as it describes how important a place is to its surroundings, based on how broad and specialised the services it offers are. For example, I've been in a Croatian Island for mapping, er, vacation last year. The capital of this island has half the population of the village in Germany where I lived in my childhood, but it's a real town, offering far more services than a typical German village in the middle Rhine valley. ;-) But I don't know how to implement something like this in osm without running into a discussion on how important or unimportant single services are (in different cultures, of course). -Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
2010/1/6, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: highway=path precisely fits your definition (in my mind) of narrowway. So, use highway=path + access tags. +1 highway=path is the long-existing and equally long misunderstood solution to this osm problem. I don't get why some people hate it so much (or twist it to mean 'totally narrow mountain hiking path with bad surface and orcs waiting alongside to eat you'). ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
