[Tagging] Abusing name tags on type=route

Dear all, According to the talk page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Public_Transport#name_as_.22prose_description.22.3F), the use of name=* key on a public transport route is considered an abuse (unless the route has a real name). However, without abusing the name

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

sent from a phone > Il giorno 18 set 2016, alle ore 00:08, Colin Smale ha > scritto: > > Martin, are you suggesting to drop the convention for the way direction that > it goes with the flow? Or are you OK with oneway=reverse? the latter, or oneway=-1 FWIW, the is

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

sent from a phone > Il giorno 17 set 2016, alle ore 14:20, Andy Townsend ha > scritto: > > I've certainly used "oneway=yes" on inland waterways to document signed > traffic flow control, so a blanket removal would make no sense. +1, this is the meaning of the oneway tag

Re: [Tagging] lit=yes, but with luminous discs built into the path

On 17-Sep-16 10:38 PM, Daniel Koć wrote: W dniu 17.09.2016 14:10, Dave F napisał(a): That's accurate to describe it's location. I'd also like to indicate that it's not lit up like the Singapore Grand Prix, but just low light indicating the edge of the path. Typing out loud: lit=low_level? lit=

Re: [Tagging] using Michelin's road classification (was: Routing in Liège)

André Pirard wrote: > Last point is what source:???=Michelin ??? to use to prevent a > StijnRR or like arbitrarily destructing well thought out tagging > without notifying the author. I suggest > source:highway=https://viamichelin.be/web/Cartes-plans 2016 2016. No, you must not copy from

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] using Michelin's road classification (was: Routing in Liège)

> > I did not investigate further (I'm short sighted indeed) but I suggest > that anyone contesting an OSM route compared it with the same routing by > Michelin, tried to find an explanation by comparing my overpass >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Through service

On Saturday 17 September 2016 12:13:49 Michael Reichert wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Am 2016-09-14 um 05:10 schrieb Michael Tsang: > > RFC: Through service > > > > This proposes a kind of relation to associate different public transport > > services to become a through service, i.e. the vehicles run

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

On 2016-09-17 16:36, Dave F wrote: > Clarification: I'm meant a route relation for the whole canal, not just to > define travel direction. That's exactly my point... The whole canal may be hundreds of km long, and the section where oneway vs. flow direction is actually an issue might be as

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

Clarification: I'm meant a route relation for the whole canal, not just to define travel direction. On 17/09/2016 13:45, Colin Smale wrote: I would expect that the situation where the flow direction conflicts with the traffic direction is likely to be quite short - under bridges, around

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways (Colin Smale)

For waterways I find upstream/downstream more suitable to indicate direction of navigational channel. These terms are also represented in maritime maps and publications. counter_flaw, reversed, and backwards all seems odd for marine people. A typical description in a Pilots Guide (traffic

Re: [Tagging] using Michelin's road classification (was: Routing in Liège)

sent from a phone > Il giorno 16 set 2016, alle ore 21:51, André Pirard > ha scritto: > > At very first (short) sight, I am surprised that Martin did not spot that the > ref=N3 road that's going north-west is primary (in red) mostly but is > interrupted by

Re: [Tagging] lit=yes, but with luminous discs built into the path

sent from a phone > Il giorno 16 set 2016, alle ore 22:33, Dave F > ha scritto: > > I'll use lit=yes but what sub-tags should I use? glare=yes? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

I did not think of traffic directions, good point! I think oneway makes sense better than traffic_direction. This would means that oneway apply to traffic whether it is on ground, water, air, rail... much more easier for routing engines (and for amphibian vehicles such as Duck tours!). The

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

I would expect that the situation where the flow direction conflicts with the traffic direction is likely to be quite short - under bridges, around obstacles etc. In these cases we could always call on our old friend "oneway=-1" or "oneway=reverse" to mean "traffic direction is opposite to the

Re: [Tagging] lit=yes, but with luminous discs built into the path

W dniu 17.09.2016 14:10, Dave F napisał(a): That's accurate to describe it's location. I'd also like to indicate that it's not lit up like the Singapore Grand Prix, but just low light indicating the edge of the path. Typing out loud: lit=low_level? lit= dimly? Just 2 uses:

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

I've seen it used on navigable canals to indicate traffic direction. If there is a route relation I think it should be indicate with forward/backward roles. If not then for clarity, maybe something like traffic_flow=backwards? Adding a route relation would be preferable though. Dave F. On

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

I've certainly used "_oneway_=yes" on inland waterways to document signed traffic flow control, so a blanket removal would make no sense.There may be places where a previous mapper has tried to use it in error to

Re: [Tagging] lit=yes, but with luminous discs built into the path

That's accurate to describe it's location. I'd also like to indicate that it's not lit up like the Singapore Grand Prix, but just low light indicating the edge of the path. Typing out loud: lit=low_level? lit= dimly? Dave F. On 17/09/2016 12:57, Daniel Koć wrote: W dniu 17.09.2016 12:40,

[Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

Hi According to the waterway=stream wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream): /If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be downstream (i.e. the way direction follows the flow)/ As of today there is a very small percentage of streams (17593 ways

Re: [Tagging] lit=yes, but with luminous discs built into the path

W dniu 17.09.2016 12:40, Dave F napisał(a): Err.. Yes, but not recommended if there is already a corresponding tag in use. Hence my query. Could it be just one use? =} http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/level=ground Other, less convincing for me, but more popular tags:

Re: [Tagging] lit=yes, but with luminous discs built into the path

Err.. Yes, but not recommended if there is already a corresponding tag in use. Hence my query. Dave F. On 17/09/2016 08:00, yo paseopor wrote: I think you can propose/use/invent some new lit=* tag, could you? yopaseopor salut i taggin On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Dave F

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Through service

Hi Michael, Am 2016-09-14 um 05:10 schrieb Michael Tsang: > RFC: Through service > > This proposes a kind of relation to associate different public transport > services to become a through service, i.e. the vehicles run through the > services sequentially, allowing passengers staying on board.

Re: [Tagging] lit=yes, but with luminous discs built into the path

I think you can propose/use/invent some new lit=* tag, could you? yopaseopor salut i taggin On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Dave F wrote: > Hi > > I've a path that's lit with luminous discs built into its surface: > > http://tinyurl.com/hucxeoa > > I'll use