Re: [Tagging] Names: Building & Comapny. Which takes precident.

One feature = one OSM entry? Tag the building as one OSM way with the buildings name Tag the company presence here as one OSM node/way with the service offered and its name. Will that work for you? On 17-Nov-16 04:37 AM, Dave F wrote: Hi I've a office building that has a name. It's rented

[Tagging] Names: Building & Comapny. Which takes precident.

Hi I've a office building that has a name. It's rented to a company. Obviously they can't both be under 'name'. Is addr:housename being used for commercial buildings? Is the company name put in the 'name' tag? Tag count: company_name/company:name = 4 building:name/building_name = 1050 (still

Re: [Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas

On 16/11/2016 15:36, Dave F wrote: On 16/11/2016 01:04, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: Other group (including me) find that this is wrong: we should not tag streets considered dangerous in OSM (specially when "dangerous" is subjective). +1 As this is clearly subjective, it should not be

Re: [Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas

On 16/11/2016 01:04, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: Other group (including me) find that this is wrong: we should not tag streets considered dangerous in OSM (specially when "dangerous" is subjective). +1 As this is clearly subjective, it should not be mapped at all, no matter what tag. Are

Re: [Tagging] stop area hierarchy

In bus stations all stops have names like Brussels North Station Platform 1", so all the names are different, which is why I created separate stop_area there too. This is the situation where I create most stop_area relations. For the 69000 other stops around the country I'm less keen on creating

Re: [Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas

On 2016-11-16 14:08, André Pirard wrote: 2016-11-16 2:04 GMT+01:00 Nelson A. de Oliveira : Since they can't find another tag to indicate those

Re: [Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas

Thanks for bringing this up, I just opened a ticket with OSRM to track this: https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/issues/3325 We're more than happy to support your idea of taking dangerous areas / hazards into account when routing once we can parse it from the data. Cheers, Daniel J H

Re: [Tagging] stop area hierarchy

On Tuesday 15 November 2016 19:50:14 Tijmen Stam wrote: > > Whoa, that's quite different from how I interpret the stop_area. For > example, for a "normal" bus stop, this would include 4 nodes (or 2 nodes > and 2 ways): a platform and a stop_position for each direction. In Hong Kong, we always

Re: [Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas

2016-11-16 2:04 GMT+01:00 Nelson A. de Oliveira : Since they can't find another tag to indicate those "dangerous" places, they argue that access=destination is valid for this

Re: [Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas

I think if a tag is used for this, it should be clear what the source is. For example, if you have police info about which streets are dangerous, then put a tag like: hazard:source:policeStationXY=crime. If you have a NGO that tracks this, put hazard:source:NGOXY=crime. That way you could have

Re: [Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas

Absolutely agree that access=destination is wrong here. I also like the idea of using an external dataset. Actually, the similarity with an altitude model is quite interesting. You could use an existing router that takes elevation data and replace it with crime data. Converting crime statistics

Re: [Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas

I don't think tagging access=destination is a good idea. The access tag is used for the legal restrictions for a road. access=destination means you can only legally go on the road if your destination is on it. A router won't route you down a road that it thinks you (legally) can't go down. Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas

2016-11-16 2:04 GMT+01:00 Nelson A. de Oliveira : > Since they can't find another tag to indicate those "dangerous" > places, they argue that access=destination is valid for this case. > > Other group (including me) find that this is wrong: we should not tag > streets considered