Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

The reception you get depends on your phone: Android and iPhone use different algorithms to determine bars from signal strength. Phones vary on which bands they support, antennas, RF processing, etc., depending on manufacturer and age. So cell phones are not very good for detecting how good a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging type of ownership of a road

I am no expert on the subject but from what I see in my part of California things can get very confusing. Take, for example, the toll roads in my area. They are, I believe, owned by a toll road authority which is a governmental entity specifically created to finance, build and manage the toll

Re: [Tagging] dry swamps

In the deserts of the southwest United States there are features that could probably use similar help in tagging. In California they usually have “Dry Lake” in the name (assuming they are named). At least one in Arizona has “Playa” (Spanish for beach or shallow) in its name. From your

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

It makes sense to me that each segment of a long distance walking/hiking route should be looked at individually. It might have no name (uses a section of a driveway), it might have a name of its own (the “San Clemente Beach Trail” near me is part of the long distance “California Coastal

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

Maybe animal_path=yes|cow|deer|... Where the values cover the various animals that create paths visible on imagery. -- Sent from my phone, please forgive my brevity. > On Monday, Nov 30, 2020 at 1:15 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick (mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at

Re: [Tagging] Power line going underground

> Kind regards, > Hidde > > > > On 09-11-2020 18:40, Tod Fitch wrote: >> There are a number of places where an above ground power line transitions to >> below ground. I am not equipped to guess where the line runs once it goes >> below ground so I stop mapp

[Tagging] Power line going underground

There are a number of places where an above ground power line transitions to below ground. I am not equipped to guess where the line runs once it goes below ground so I stop mapping at the last power pole. However the validation in JOSM flags this with a warning and I hate warnings on my

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

Sounds line what are signed as “fire lanes” in the United States. -- Sent from my phone, please forgive my brevity. > On Tuesday, Oct 27, 2020 at 6:59 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick > mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 09:43, Supaplex (mailto:supap...@riseup.net)>

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

> On Sep 17, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > On 17/09/2020 10.07, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: >> On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote: >>> It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. As >>> much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of mapping >>>

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

> On Aug 18, 2020, at 2:29 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > > > Maybe we should use a different character to indicate a range, such as a > slash? > In the United States it is not too uncommon for infill housing in urban areas to have fractional street numbers. So you can see addresses like “123

Re: [Talk-us] Potential Mechanical Edit to remove access=private from Amazon Logistics driveways in NH

Don’t recall if it was on talk-us or tagging, but yes there was a recent discussion on this. If I recall correctly it seemed access=destination was preferred if you were going to tag an access value. But since a significant number of driveways (nearly all?) are not physically through roads

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

> On Aug 14, 2020, at 6:23 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 00:57, Paul Allen > wrote: > > I'm not saying that OS is right to make those distinctions. I'm not saying > we should automatically do what they do. But I do think we ought to

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

r other open cave entrance, often found in limestone > (karst) geology areas. > > -- Joseph Eisenberg > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 9:52 AM Paul Allen <mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 17:07, Tod Fitch <mailto:t...@fitchfamily.org>>

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

> On Aug 12, 2020, at 4:49 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 19:19, Tod Fitch <mailto:t...@fitchfamily.org>> wrote: > > It occurred to me that the area where water flow disappears is indeterminate > [1], thus the problem mapping it. >

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

be useful in cases other than an ephemeral water way in the desert though I haven’t thought of one yet. Cheers! Tod [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indeterminate [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peter%20out > On Aug 3, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > > S

Re: [Talk-us] Marking structure as damaged or condemned

> On Aug 5, 2020, at 6:11 PM, Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us > wrote: > > Tropical Storm Isaias left several homes in my neighborhood severely damaged > and condemned. Is there a proper way to map these structures? > I would look to the lifecycle prefix [1] but I don’t see a tag prefix

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

My reading of the wiki [1] indicates that the more specific tag overrides the less specific tag. And the transport mode section [2] of that has examples very much like those in your question. So: access=no foot=yes Means that all access other than foot is prohibited. And: access=yes

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

I’ve yet to find a term or tag name that I like for the case where the water disappears from the surface in a desert environment. One issue is the location will vary depending on how big the storm was (or perhaps for a seasonal stream how wet the preceding wet season was). So it might be a tag

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

> On Jul 22, 2020, at 10:24 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 17:27 Uhr schrieb Tod Fitch <mailto:t...@fitchfamily.org>>: > It certainly would not be my pick of terms, but it seems manhole=drain has an > appropriate definition in

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

> On Aug 1, 2020, at 7:45 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Slightly OT question here, please. > > I remember reading a US press article ~12 months ago (may have even been > mentioned on here in discussions at the time re = aboriginal_land?) to the > effect that the US Supreme Court was

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

> On Jul 31, 2020, at 12:45 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > So keep State Highway 214 in addr:street=* values, but that doesn't stop > noname=yes and ref=NY 214 being the correct values for the way itself. > Which will, as I have found by experience, result in OSM QA tools flagging you as the

[Talk-us] Import of Orange County, California Buildings and Addresses

I'm planning an import of buildings and addresses for Orange County, California. Information on the proposed import can be found on the wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Orange_County_Building_and_Address_Import This is a one time import using JOSM. A links to the data being imported

[Imports] Import of Orange County, California Buildings and Addresses

I'm planning an import of buildings and addresses for Orange County, California. Information on the proposed import can be found on the wiki at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Orange_County_Building_and_Address_Import This is a one time import using JOSM. A links to the data being imported

Re: [Tagging] Orange County, California Building and Address Import

and making the announcement here. —Tod > On Jul 28, 2020, at 12:11 PM, Alan Mackie wrote: > > I thought the thing ESRI recently announced was basically additional layers > within RapiD, but I may be conflating two separate things. > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 15:53, To

[Imports] Orange County, California Building and Address Import

it. So, do I continue with my import plan with the next step being creating a new wiki page for it? Or do I wait for ERSI to do an import then verify the quality? I don’t see a way to participate with ERSI listed in the import wiki page they’ve created. Thanks for the guidance! Tod Fitch [1

Re: [Tagging] Orange County, California Building and Address Import

Oops. Sent to wrong email list. Should have been imports. Please disregard. —Tod > On Jul 28, 2020, at 7:52 AM, Tod Fitch wrote: signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org ht

[Tagging] Orange County, California Building and Address Import

it. So, do I continue with my import plan with the next step being creating a new wiki page for it? Or do I wait for ERSI to do an import then verify the quality? I don’t see a way to participate with ERSI listed in the import wiki page they’ve created. Thanks for the guidance! Tod Fitch [1

[Talk-us] Orange County, California Building and Address Import

it. So, do I continue with my import plan with the next step being creating a new wiki page for it? Or do I wait for ERSI to do an import then verify the quality? I don’t see a way to participate with ERSI listed in the import wiki page they’ve created. Thanks for the guidance! Tod Fitch [1

[Talk-us] Limited import of buildings and addresses for Orange County, California

When I moved to my current city, I walked all the publicly accessible streets within several miles of my house to collect and map address information. And those buildings that I collected address data for I traced outlines using OSM compatible imagery. But there are private gated communities

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

> On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Jmapb wrote: > > If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the idea > of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) then I'd suggest > a new key, dismounted_bicycle=*, which will function as a regulation key > (like

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

It certainly would not be my pick of terms, but it seems manhole=drain has an appropriate definition in the wiki [1] and considerable use [2] for a place that water disappears into a man made structure. Most of them around here are not circular and many appear to be too small for a person to

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

This thread has been quite amazing to me. My impression is that it starts with some routers (a.k.a data consumers, a.k.a. “renderers”) treating a “no” as a “maybe” and now people are looking for a new term to indicate that “we really, really, mean NO!”. This is worse than tagging for the

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

Thank you for the clarification. > On Jul 20, 2020, at 6:08 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > The legend is just for the USFS road layer that is served by Mapbox on JOSM. > signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Talk-us mailing list

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

> On Jul 20, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > > >> On Jul 20, 2020, at 4:35 PM, Clifford Snow > <mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:46 AM > <mailto:tj-osmw...@lowsnr.net>> wrote: >> Clifford,

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

> On Jul 20, 2020, at 4:35 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:46 AM > wrote: > Clifford, > > Could you repost the legend? It's hard/impossible to make out the > surface reliably from aerial photos. > > Sure - here is a link >

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

> On Jul 18, 2020, at 12:24 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: > > On 18/07/2020 19:41, Alan Mackie wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 19:09, Paul Allen wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 18:53, Tod Fitch wrote: >> >> What I’d like is one or two

[Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

During this period of “social distancing” I’ve been trying to work down the number of errors that tools like Osmose have reported about my editing. I am getting close to starting on the warnings about waterways not connecting properly. There are a couple of situations that I’ve mapped that I

Re: [Tagging] How to tag minor commercial roads?

> On Jul 16, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:17 PM Matthew Woehlke > wrote: > I'm wondering what, if anything, I should do with > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351516889 > .

Re: [Talk-us] access=private on driveways (was: Deleting tiger:reviewed=no/addr:street for routes)

> On Jul 13, 2020, at 10:52 AM, Jmapb wrote: > (Trying once again to change this thread subject!) > > I'm also in the "worry about it" camp. > > To me, it's sad to see a mapper go to all the trouble of fixing the routing > to the house https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/263869602 >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

> On Jul 10, 2020, at 9:26 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > On 10/07/2020 11.24, Peter Elderson wrote: >> Well, if you do a couple of intersections it's no big deal, but if every >> intersection would need this and it breaks relations, no matter whose fault >> it is, it is a problem. Then it's

Re: [Talk-us] Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?

On Jul 7, 2020, at 5:03 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > > One thing that I only recently figured out: You can include a search for > > your OSM user ID in the Overpass query. That might help to find roads > > you’ve edited in the past so you can remove the tiger:reviewed tag. > >

Re: [Talk-us] Streaming JOSM -- suggestions?

One thing that I only recently figured out: You can include a search for your OSM user ID in the Overpass query. That might help to find roads you’ve edited in the past so you can remove the tiger:reviewed tag. I am using that to find all those highway=stop I mapped back when the Wiki said

Re: [Tagging] QA Tag for addr:city vs al8/al9 boundary

Simon is being much more polite and succinct than my first reaction. Checking the addr:city against the enclosing administrative boundary will not work well in the areas I am familiar with. Let me give some examples from the western United States: • The “town” I lived in growing up was Tucson,

Re: [Talk-us] Is summit register something that is often found in USA mountains?

Summit registers are fairly common on the higher peaks in California. > On Jun 24, 2020, at 12:07 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:03 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-us > mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: > > > > Is summit register something that is often

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

A few questions: 1. What is the “elevation” tag supposed to mean? It is not in the wiki and the use count is pretty small [1]. 2. Why level=-3? I seems like that would be dependent on what other underground features were being mapped. 3. Why status=abandoned | active? Wouldn’t the lifecycle

Re: [Talk-us] USGS Topo layer for JOSM?

enstreetmap.de/wiki/Maps/Worldwide?action=diff=101_version=100 > > <https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Maps/Worldwide?action=diff=101_version=100> > > > > > > > -Brandon > > > > From: Mike Thompson mailto:miketh...@gmail.com>> > Sent: Saturday,

[Talk-us] USGS Topo layer for JOSM?

Sometime pretty recently the USGS topographic map layer disappeared from JOSM and I don’t even see it in the available layers to add back in. I don’t use it a lot, but when I want to verify the direction of flow of a stream, etc. it comes in very useful. Is it just my configuration having a

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

> On Jun 10, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Jun 10, 2020, 19:40 by t...@fitchfamily.org : > > >> On Jun 10, 2020, at 12:31 AM, Volker Schmidt > > wrote: >> >> Two points to get this thread back on track:

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

> On Jun 10, 2020, at 12:31 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Two points to get this thread back on track: > > 1) The highway=track tag has always been wider than agriculture and forestry. > There is an often overlooked "etc." in the description on the wiki, and it > has been there from the

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

> On Jun 9, 2020, at 5:29 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > I don't use 'path' very much except that JOSM wants to use it for > 'combined foot- and cycleway'. Using JOSM, I'll typically tag a way > as a 'path' so that I get the dialog where I can quickly fill in > surface, smoothness, maybe

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

> On Jun 9, 2020, at 2:22 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM brad > wrote: > A track does have a different function, it can handle a 2 track vehicle, a > path can't. > Yes, a "track" has a different function, its function is for

[Talk-us] Off-highway vehicle recreation areas

I have noticed a couple of off-highway vehicle recreation areas that are tagged with things that seem incorrect to me: As generic parks or as protected areas. Consider the Hungry Valley State Vehicle Recreation Area [1][2][3][4] and the Wildomar OHV Area [5][6]. My problem is that I can’t tell

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

> On Jun 3, 2020, at 5:45 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 20:40, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > (about Map Features wiki page) >> In its current state it is still barely usable. > > Personally I've given up on the current Map Features page and would > rather

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

> On Jun 3, 2020, at 4:19 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 23:56, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > The one issue is whether it is clearly different than landuse=landfill. > > Different. > > Spoil heaps are, as the Wikipedia article documents,

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

> On Jun 2, 2020, at 5:48 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren > wrote: > I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag > according to function. A trail/path can have many users/functions, but

Re: [Talk-us] USGS Topos, "Draw", "Gulch", etc.

> On Jun 1, 2020, at 10:59 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 12:57 PM Mike Thompson > wrote: > Do the names on the USGS Topo Maps that end in "Draw", "Gulch", and similar > terms refer to a stream, or a valley? I have always assumed a stream, and

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

> On May 30, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Something else that I've just thought about & not sure whether it would need > to be mentioned - possibility of encountering dangerous wildlife? > > Yes, there are 1000 things in the Australian bush that'll kill you :-), but >

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

> On May 30, 2020, at 7:57 AM, Rob Savoye wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 15:46:31 +0200 >> From: Daniel Westergren > >> *An additional issue:* >> 6. sac_scale is currently the only tag (possibly together with mtb:scale) >> to denote the difficulty of a hiking trail (that is, the way, not

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> On May 30, 2020, at 6:46 AM, Daniel Westergren wrote: > > Ok, I hope this will be my final post in this long thread. I will try to > summarize what I understand from the discussion as the main issuesa and what > needs to be addressed to make it easier for mappers and data consumers. > > I

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> On May 27, 2020, at 6:42 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > This does not describe the situation > highway=footway is "urban", implies foot=designated, usage can be expanded > with tags like bicycle=yes|permisive||designated to describe mid-use ways > > highway=cycleway implies bicycle=designated,

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> On May 26, 2020, at 9:18 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For me highway=footway and highway=path without any other tags are the same > thing. Introducing yet another tag for similar paths/footways may lead to > more confused tagging of these things. > I think the use of sub

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> On May 26, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > May 26, 2020, 20:50 by bradha...@fastmail.com: > Yes! We have an overload of tags for trails, many poorly defined, many > rarely used. KISS - keep it simple stupid. I think it would help if we > narrowed the

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Being a Sierra Club member in California, it seems to me that the Yosemite Decimal System (YDS) [1], originally created by the Sierra Club is made to order for this. Classes 1 through 3 are basically hiking, 4 is transitional and 5 is technical climbing. My understanding having been exposed to

Re: [Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

I was under the impression that the consensus was that a route name should be in a route relation that holds all the segments and that the segment names, if different from the route name, were on the segment. Has that consensus changed or has my impression been wrong? Cheers! Tod > On May 23,

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> On May 22, 2020, at 5:24 AM, Ture Pålsson via Tagging > wrote: > > > >> 22 maj 2020 kl. 12:52 skrev Daniel Westergren > >: >> >> […] Then there is width, which is only tagged on 3.5% of highway=path. I was >> discussing width of paths in another forum. For a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard

dog=yes|no|leashed already exists for a totally different semantic (letting dog owners know if their pet is allowed). If this goes forward I would prefer reversing thing and make it hazard=dog. That would also allow other types of hazards to be mapped. Checking taginfo it seems hazard=* [1] is

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

> On Apr 30, 2020, at 11:25 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 19:17, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > This mis-tagging is probably common because OpenStreetMap-Carto and some > other common map styles do not distinguish between unpaved and

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

> On Mar 27, 2020, at 5:29 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 5:23 PM Paul Allen > wrote: > > I can think of one US city square which has "square" in the name > (not square shaped, though) that is rather well-known. If you > can't think of

Re: [Tagging] What language is the name tag value? Was: Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

I was blissfully unaware of the issues involved in creating a bilingual map (dual labeled in the local language and in my language) until I actually tried to create one. Most objects in OSM do not have name: tags for non-local languages and it is unreasonable to expect that every named

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

> On Mar 25, 2020, at 8:05 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would think that a default should be used - where the required language > name is not within OSM then the local language name should be used. > This should stop the copying of the local language name into other languages

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

> On Mar 25, 2020, at 3:56 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 22:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: > > Is there any reason to actually specify name:en= when English is the > Australian language? > > It's not the language of all Australians. Ayers

[Talk-us] Tagging historic US routes

This weekend I drove part of AZ-79 and noticed that Arizona has now put up some “Historic US 80” signage. On the sections of highway I drove, every occurrence of a AZ-79 route marker now also has a historic US-80 route marker. (Back in the day that highway was dual signed as US-80 and US-89 but

Re: [Tagging] key damage and HOT

> On Feb 6, 2020, at 10:35 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/2/20 3:47 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 14:30, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> Let say a hospital has collapsed. >> >> The crisis mapping

Re: [Talk-us] Mapping for emergency services

> On Feb 5, 2020, at 12:32 PM, Mike N wrote: > > On 2/5/2020 9:49 AM, Eric Christensen via Talk-us wrote: > >> For the record, my team(s) has many cartographic resources at our >> fingertips that we can use for search and rescue including, but not >> limited to: USGS 7.5' maps, National Park

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

Grabbing some random images off the Internet, here are some highway=* and how I’d tag them: highway=path [1] This may or may not allow horses or bicycles depends on local signage and regulations. highway=footway [2] This may or may not allow bicycles, depends on local signage. My decision

[Talk-us] USFS trail/road/route numbers

In my area there seems to be a mix of how the US Forest Service route numbers are tagged on roads and trails. The main variations seem to be: name=“Forest Route 9N24” name=“FR 9N24” alt_name=“Forest Route 9N24” alt_name=“FR 9N24” ref=“FR 9N24” ref=“9N24” Things I’ve seen in the wiki that might

Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins

The name value almost certainly should not be “Indian Ruin”. If “Indian Ruin” is used for a value at all it should be in the description tag. Probably the more politically correct nowadays might be “Native American ruins”. Most of the larger sites have official names. “Montezuma Castle National

Re: [Talk-us] Jefferson Notch Road and latest "GPS made me do it" in the news

In the California Sierra Nevada I tagged a couple of roads with: conditional:access=“no @ (Nov-May)” note=“Seasonal closure from first snow until spring, see CalTrans website for status” website=“http://www.dot.ca.gov/cgi-bin/roads.cgi” With the barrier=gate at either end of the seasonal

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

Based on this discussion and my own checking to see what search engines are doing with the data, I think it would be okay to move the alt_name tag value to be a short_name value for the counties in California and Arizona where the current alt_name tag is the same string as the name but without

Re: [Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

> that the mapper added the alt_name so that searches would be successful. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78850121 > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78850121> > > On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 6:26 PM Tod Fitch <mailto:t...@fitchfamily.org>> wrot

[Talk-us] Wilderness areas separate from forest?

If I am looking at the map data correctly, it seem that at least some designated wilderness areas are excluded from the forest that they are in. For example the Chumash Wilderness [1] seems to have its border as an outer on the Los Padres National Forest [2]. This does not seem correct to me.

[Talk-us] Alt_names on counties

I’ve noticed that a number of counties in California and Arizona have what seems to be unneeded alt_name tags in their boundary relations. For example Pima County, Arizona has name=“Pima County” and alt_name=“Pima”. Same for Pinal County in Arizona and Riverside, Orange, Kern and Ventura

Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary,

> On Dec 20, 2019, at 5:25 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > What I'm saying is highway=bundesstraße could be acceptable, but > straße=bundestraße wouldn't be. Mostly so way type objects with highway=* > are still potentially routable. I sure wouldn’t want to be the person in charge of

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

> On Dec 20, 2019, at 5:25 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > What I'm saying is highway=bundesstraße could be acceptable, but > straße=bundestraße wouldn't be. Mostly so way type objects with highway=* > are still potentially routable. I sure wouldn’t want to be the person in charge of

Re: [Talk-us] confusing state of USFS trail names in Oregon

In my area there are variations on the Forest Service signs as well (“Ice House Canyon Trail” vs “Icehouse Canyon Trail” and “Chiquito Trail” vs “Chiquita Trail” are two examples that come to mind). I suspect some of the variations are due to changes in spelling, etc. over time so the older

Re: [Tagging] Public WLAN boxes

In the U.S. it would be called wifi or wi-fi rather than wlan. Anyone know what the British English is? Sent from my phone, please excuse my brevity. > On Dec 18, 2019, at 2:22 AM, Cascafico Giovanni wrote: > > Hello ML, > which tags for those boxes, usually on pole or wall mounted which >

Re: [Talk-us] Alaska Highway AK-2 tagging

My reading of the wiki indicates that for the United States a trunk is “a high speed Arterial Divided highway that is partially grade separated.” [1] What is the problem with having the main road between regions/cities/towns being “primary”? Do you like the rendering of trunk better? For

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

In my area lots of search and rescue teams use maps and services provided by CalTop, SarTopo and other similar providers. And it turns out that CalTopo/SarTopo and others use OpenStreetMap data when generating maps. One reason for this is that OSM has much better (more data and more accurate

Re: [Tagging] Rethinking Map Features

> On Aug 6, 2019, at 12:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > sent from a phone > >> On 6. Aug 2019, at 05:33, Tod Fitch wrote: >> >> When I walk down a street collecting house numbers I have no indication of >> the ZIP code of each building. If

Re: [Tagging] Rethinking Map Features

Requiring postal codes on addresses makes no sense even in countries that use ZIP codes. When I walk down a street collecting house numbers I have no indication of the ZIP code of each building. If you require ZIP codes then I am forced into an import situation rather than a field survey.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

> On May 20, 2019, at 4:28 PM, marc marc wrote: > > Le 21.05.19 à 00:58, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : >> I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging >> standard to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch >> and tourism=camp_pitch > > it's an argument that makes

Re: [Tagging] tag linking [was: Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch]

> On May 21, 2019, at 4:07 PM, marc marc wrote: > > Hello, > > Le 21.05.19 à 03:25, Tod Fitch a écrit : >> If there is someplace I can read up on this “logic of tag linking”? > > this logic is massively used and yet I had a hard time finding a link > whos

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

> On May 20, 2019, at 4:28 PM, marc marc wrote: > > Le 21.05.19 à 00:58, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : >> I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging >> standard to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch >> and tourism=camp_pitch > > it's an argument that makes

Re: [Tagging] Whispering asphalt

I have not heard of “whispering asphalt” but I know that in some areas of the state I live in they have been using a porous asphalt on roads to provide better traction during rain storms. So I am not sure if the current uses of “asphalt:type=porous” would be to indicate pavement designed for

Re: [Tagging] Wiki page for natural=mountain_range

> On Apr 30, 2019, at 9:28 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Depends? > > Warning - my interpretation! > > SADDLE = low point between two high points (mountains), it does not descend > near the level of the adjacent valleys. > > PASS =A gap in a range of mountains or hills

Re: [Talk-us] trail tagging

> On Apr 19, 2019, at 7:28 AM, brad wrote: > > Everywhere I've been in the US or Canada a dirt 'way' too narrow for a 4 > wheel vehicle is called a trail, path, or single track. For the most part > they are appropriately (IMO) tagged as path. Unfortunately the wiki says > this for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Subkey camp_pitch:*

> On Apr 11, 2019, at 1:01 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Thank you for your comments, Graeme > >> aren't you duplicating everything that exists under the >> tourism=camp_site & caravan_site pages ? > > This proposal is for designating features that are available at > individual spots for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

> On Apr 10, 2019, at 12:02 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I've restarted the proposal process for camp_site=camp_pitch > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch > > > This tag has

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

> On Mar 14, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM marc marc wrote: >> no:landcover=trees ? >> or, as the previous landcover/imagery show tress, was:landcover=trees > > However you want to spell it. > > I just saw two replies to Lorenzo that were suggesting

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

> On Mar 11, 2019, at 10:44 AM, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > Note that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Rudolf/draft_landcover > > is proposal from 2014 and is rarely used (not used) in mapping. > Maybe not that

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >