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

Here's a picture of some mountain flowers (the tiny pink ones) on Kusatsu-shirane, near Kusatsu. They look natural, but they were all planted and maintained as a tourist attraction. They were not native to the area. https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/javbw/11094084766/ The picture I took is not so

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

In Toronto there are overhead signs that say something like "EXPRESS AND COLLECTOR MOVING VERY SLOWLY BEYOND NEXT TRANSFER" (on Highway 401). Sometimes these signs will have safety messages like "DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE" or will show the name of the next few exits, or will display that there is an

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

sent from a phone > Am 04.11.2015 um 12:52 schrieb tomoya muramoto : > > I want to use natural=flowerbed (or another tag which will be agreed here) to > a flower field grown naturally (not planted by man). Is it appropriate? to me (non-native) flowerbed doesn't

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

Mateusz Konieczny writes: > 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:*

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

sent from a phone > Am 04.11.2015 um 11:29 schrieb John Willis : > > But a flower field is not a man_made=* object, in the common OSM usage. I think it's not that different to a cutline for instance, which is one of the most used values in man_made. I don't insist in man_made

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

For Mizubasho, most famous field is Oze swamp(but sorry I have never been there) due to a famous japanese fork song, you know. I remember natural Katakuri flower field at the top of Mt. Tsukuba. They say there are 30 thousand Katakuri flowers in 20,000 m2 area ( http://www.ttca.jp/?p=1552), they

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

Thanks. landuse=meadow looks fine to me. I will add meadow=perpetual and taxon/genus/species=* to that natural flower fields. muramoto 2015-11-04 21:03 GMT+09:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > sent from a phone > > > Am 04.11.2015 um 12:52 schrieb tomoya muramoto

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Gerd Petermann < gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > 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

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

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 8:52 PM, tomoya muramoto wrote: > > to a flower field grown naturally (not planted by man). Is it appropriate? AFAIK that a natural open area of grasses is natural=grassland. If it is a bit taller stuff, possibly natural=scrub ( like the 1m tall

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

sent from a phone Am 04.11.2015 um 07:16 schrieb John Willis : >> 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

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

sent from a phone > Am 04.11.2015 um 07:22 schrieb Gerd Petermann > : > > E.ON,RWE,Vattenfall and EnBW. > I am sure there are offices somewhere, but probably not for the public. > of course there are, at least in the big cities... cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

The reason why we have two different mapping approaches for mini-roundabout and roundabout is that at least in one country (that happens to be the birth-country of OSM) there is a clear distinction between the two with different road layouts (see

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

Hi Martin, I know a shop in my town driven by EWE . They sells power, internet access, telephone lines and maybe more. I would not call that an office, EWE calls it "EWE ServicePunkt" Gerd Von: Martin Koppenhoefer Gesendet:

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

2015-11-04 8:24 GMT+01:00 johnw : > 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. >

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

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 5:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > The building tag is about the building itself, That is a good point. I don't want to throw all this in amenity. It isn't a shop... Office=*. ? I always assume that a building at this level is usually

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

thanks for the link to the pdf, I think it shows that OSM is again a bit too close to UK rules ;-) In Germany roundabouts are getting more popular, but they require more space, and unused space is rare here. Gerd Von: Volker Schmidt

Re: [Tagging] traffic_sign:forward=*

2015-11-04 7:17 GMT+01:00 Georg Feddern : > 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 that > can not work in all cases. > If you read the english wiki page, you may

Re: [Tagging] traffic_sign:forward=*

Hi Martin, I think you are mixing two things now. I talked about the "As part of a way" part, not the "On a way or area" part, which looks even more weird to me. Besides that: Yes, I also think that we should map a traffic_sign as a node with the position of the sign. Gerd

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

Javbw > On Nov 4, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > everything's an object ;-) (if you want/need to) In a general sense, everything is a node, way or area object, yea. But a flower field is not a man_made=* object, in the common OSM usage. It's

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

That depends on how the mini-roundabouts are modelled in the route network, so it's chicken and egg. I mentioned what I would expect, and you are right, that's not always how it happens now. But if I ask a fellow human for directions, they will call it a roundabout, as in "turn left at the

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

I just notice that center_barrier or center_obstacle would be US spelling, so it has to be centre_* In other words, we should probably not use a key that is different in UK / US spelling, else we'll see many wrong entries. Another problem that I see here is that we allow to map a roundabout as

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

2015-11-04 9:49 GMT+01:00 Gerd Petermann : > I would not call that an office, EWE calls it "EWE ServicePunkt" > > well. then call it a shop or an amenity. Banks for instance are amenities in OSM. You are right that "office" is typically used for back offices

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 05:35:53PM +0100, Colin Smale wrote: > > > 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 They are currently not - Most navigational software basically does not

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

Just to add to the fun, we're now getting a new type of roundabout, with a different-coloured circle of tarmac and no signs (or markings) at all. I'd use a node if the mini-roundabout is just an ineffectual piece of traffic calming, and make a circle if people genuinely give way (yes I know that's

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

> On Nov 4, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > while front facing offices often get the shop tag. Most offices that provide customer service for existing services or billing resolution don't seem like a shop. If the role for shop=* is so expansive,

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

2015-11-04 10:00 GMT+01:00 John Willis : > > That is a good point. I don't want to throw all this in amenity. > why not? There's still room ;-) > > It isn't a shop... > > Office=*. ? maybe we should distinguish between amenity (open to the public) and office (no public

Re: [Tagging] roundabouts without obstacles in the middle

Maybe we should have roundabouts as a relation, containing all the road segments which should produce a closed polygon. Then we put the centre obstacle stuff on the relation. That would be closer to the OSM model of having one OSM object for one real-world object. Then a magic roundabout could