Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:59:41 +0200 David Marchal wrote: > Thanks for the full story, Lauri. I understand now why the subject > seems so sensitive to some. I retain from your story, if I correctly > understood it that:* the current usage of minor_line/line is the one > I

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 10:16:55 -0400 Bryan Housel wrote: > Trying to define this based on line voltage or tower heights or > danger to aircraft is silly. Transmission and distribution lines can > be located underground. Why? For almost everybody electric lines are

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

landuse=flowerbed is proposed here.( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/flowerbed) I think this tag is suitable to map flower beds in a park or a garden as written in proposal document. muramoto 2015-11-03 21:22 GMT+09:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > >

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

sent from a phone > Am 03.11.2015 um 13:52 schrieb tomoya muramoto : > > landuse=flowerbed is proposed > here.(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/flowerbed) > I think this tag is suitable to map flower beds in a park or a garden as > written in

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Gerd Petermann > wrote: > > I would use leisure=garden, but I assume I must be missing something as you > didn't pick this (obvious) tag. Can you explain why you don't want to > use/think abotu/like this tag ? > The wiki page

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

2015-11-03 11:08 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > But John said "The blue flowers in the google street view above will be > removed and other flowers planted to grow for the next season. " > > > So it is 'man made'. > > > actually there is a tag that might be suitable for similar

Re: [Tagging] traffic_sign:forward=*

sent from a phone > Am 02.11.2015 um 19:18 schrieb Gerd Petermann > : > > The overpass query > > node[ "traffic_sign"="maxspeed"]["source:maxspeed"="sign"]; > shows 831 nodes. My understanding is that one tag is for the > node, the other for the way. yes,

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a "overhead electronic display" ?

> On Nov 2, 2015, at 5:11 PM, Gerd Petermann > wrote: > > > Maybe we should move this discussion to the "More human readable values for > traffic sings" thread? I’m not sure - that thread seems to be really full ^_^ I think that, in general, there needs to

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

On 3/11/2015 6:22 PM, Gerd Petermann wrote: My understanding was that John wants to point out that this part of the nature is very beautiful at a certain time and without the "help" of humans. But John said "The blue flowers in the google street view above will be removed and other

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

2015-11-03 10:39 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 10:16:55 -0400 > Bryan Housel wrote: > >> Trying to define this based on line voltage or tower heights or >> danger to aircraft is silly. Transmission and distribution lines can >>

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

During the past year, I mapped a rose garden. I made a umap [1] for it, explaining my tagging. I used landuse=flowerbed as that was the only documented one that I could find. This area will have a significant impact on the usage numbers for that tag. I'm willing to change it to something

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

Hi Colin, yes, I think for most drivers the destinction between the two types is not needed. I guess that a routing software specilized for large vehicles would also be able to interpret the circular shape like a highway=passing_place. Gerd Von: Colin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

Would be fine to me and I'd prefer this to the current sparse situation and it really would make it much more coherent. When I was looking for the proper tagging for power utilities common sense directed me to the key power (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:power) of for the water (

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

sent from a phone > Am 03.11.2015 um 20:09 schrieb Marc Gemis : > > I don't like the man_made=flowerbed. I prefer natural=flowerbed, just as we > do with tree_row, tree there's a difference: flowerbed is the place inside which the flowers are put, tree is the plant

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

Would you still use building=civic for power utility offices when it's a commercial company ? The power distribution in Belgium is complex. The network is ran/owned by a government institution, the actual power distribution by commercial providers. So when you want a contract to get electricity

Re: [Tagging] traffic_sign:forward=*

Am 03.11.2015 um 17:43 schrieb GerdP: I read the wiki a few times and still did not fully understand how this traffic_sign:forward idea should work. If you read (and use) _only_ traffic_sign:forward - I suppose you read only the german wiki page and then I understand your problem, because

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > The network is ran/owned by a government institution, the actual power > distribution by commercial providers. So when you want a contract to get > electricity you go to a commercial entity. So building=civic is not

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

voschix wrote > if you are talking only about your specific example, I would say that in > this specific case we have normal roundabout which has been adapted for > the > situation of the harbour area where the centre piece has no rigid border, > but it's certainly not flat. It seems also the

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 5:27 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > there's a difference: flowerbed is the place inside which the flowers are > put, tree is the plant itself I think you are thinking of a flower box. googling flowerbed leads to a small area of ground

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

In Germany, you probably don't have to care at all. By default, you have a contract with one of the major comanies, if you want, you can chose another via Internet. My understanding is that the network is in the hand of a 4 large companies: E.ON,RWE,Vattenfall and EnBW. I am sure there are

Re: [Tagging] traffic_sign:forward=*

Well, I typically look at the english page, if I don't understand it, I check the german one as well. You are right, the german one doesn't even mention the :backward suffix. Still, there is no example that shows in detail how to use this tagging, and that's probably the reason for the mistakes.

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

W dniu 03.11.2015 17:14, Gerd Petermann napisał(a): I'd also be happy with e.g. center_barrier=no or just barrier=no as an attribute on the ways which make up the junction=roundabout. For me area=yes would work (because it's the area instead of the line). -- "The train is always on time /

[Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

Hi all, I think the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout is very clear about this, one has to connect the roads in a single node and add the tag highway=mini_roundabout. However, there seems to be a need to draw a circular way instead. See my discussion with

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

For me, area=yes in combination with highway=* almost always means something like "please ignore for routing", that's not what I am looking for. Gerd Von: Daniel Koć Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. November 2015 17:20 An: Tag discussion,

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

Hi Gerd, Personally from a navigation point of view I expect roundabouts and mini-roundabouts to be treated the same, i.e. "take the first exit at the roundabout" not simply "turn right". In the UK (where there are lot of mini-roundabouts) you are expected to drive "around" a painted

Re: [Tagging] traffic_sign:forward=*

dieterdreist wrote >> Also funny: >> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/traffic_sign%3Aforward#values >> shows 1050 entries for the tag traffic_sign:forward=* >> (yes, "*" as value) >> >> My understanding so far is that I should see e.g. these tags on a node >> which is part of a highway: >>

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

Gerd, if you are talking only about your specific example, I would say that in this specific case we have normal roundabout which has been adapted for the situation of the harbour area where the centre piece has no rigid border, but it's certainly not flat. It seems also the islands in he roads