Re: [Tagging] How to tag a way with several conditional access restrictions

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 21:48:36 +0200 SelfishSeahorse wrote: > Note that the wiki states that wheelchair=* should be used instead of > disabled=*. However, I think this is wrong: wheelchair=* gives > information whether something is suitable for wheelchair users, while > disabled=* gives

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

On 31/07/18 02:33, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:39 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I did not check any numbers, but I would also expect a lot of data not following this definition. [of the ele=* tag meaining EGM96] Uhm, yeah. I've been using NAVD88 as orthometric datum. I

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a way with several conditional access restrictions

On 07/30/2018 03:48 PM, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > Hi Paul > > This is not perfect, but it is how I would tag that service road: > > vehicle = delivery Yes, I saw "access=delivery", but it seemed like a stretch when most people think something else when they see that term. Still, it seems to fit

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a way with several conditional access restrictions

Hi Paul This is not perfect, but it is how I would tag that service road: vehicle = delivery disabled = yes foot = yes description = "Vehicular access for launching boats only. Vehicles must be returned to the main parking area." Maybe someone else has a better idea. Note that the wiki states

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:39 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I did not check any numbers, but I would also expect a lot of data not > following this definition. [of the ele=* tag meaining EGM96] Uhm, yeah. I've been using NAVD88 as orthometric datum. I have the tables loaded in my GPS app,

Re: [Tagging] default access tag for driveways

sent from a phone > On 30. Jul 2018, at 16:06, Anton Klim wrote: > > Is there a reason to add access tags to the way, when you have a barrier node > that should already hold these tags (lift gate, bollard)? > Seems over complicated access tags on a node apply to this node, in some cases

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 5:56 AM Volker Schmidt wrote: > I would make the distinction bub from a map-data end-user's point of view: > can I walk/drive up to the place and obtain a permit on the fly, with or > without paying a "fee". The on-the-fly payment may include payment of > membership of

Re: [Tagging] default access tag for driveways

sent from a phone > On 30. Jul 2018, at 12:11, joost schouppe wrote: > > So I think I can safely conclude that driveway does not imply any access > restrictions by itself, and that a private or destination tag is to be > welcomed, depending on the context. But it only really mathers if the

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

sent from a phone > On 30. Jul 2018, at 10:18, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Where it is written on Wiki? ele tag definition > Nobody is really following that. I did not check any numbers, but I would also expect a lot of data not following this definition. Cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] default access tag for driveways

Op ma 30 jul. 2018 16:07 schreef Anton Klim : > Is there a reason to add access tags to the way, when you have a barrier > node that should already hold these tags (lift gate, bollard)? > Seems over complicated. > Then it might indeed not be necessary. These are very often not mapped or not even

Re: [Tagging] default access tag for driveways

Is there a reason to add access tags to the way, when you have a barrier node that should already hold these tags (lift gate, bollard)? Seems over complicated. Anton > 30 июля 2018 г., в 9:07, Mateusz Konieczny > написал(а): > > 27. Lipiec 2018 18:07 od joost.schou...@gmail.com: > > You

[Tagging] How to tag a way with several conditional access restrictions

A local fishing lake has a parking area for all users, then a gravel service road that leads from the parking area to the lake shore. Signage on the service road indicates that the road is for use by: * Vehicular access for launching boats only (explicitly stating that the boat-carrying vehicle

Re: [Tagging] landuse=clearing

On 30/07/18 18:21, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 29. Lipiec 2018 12:37 od pla16...@gmail.com : It's a matter of minutes to add a relation to the wood, transfer the tags from the wood to relation, then add one of the clearings to the relation and see what

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

There is a relatively simple solution that could satisfy everybody. (Except maybe the people paying for the storage, but let's say tags are cheap) For each tag that describes a measurement, add a counterpart tag with the values converted to SI units, meter, second, km/h (or even m/s, everybody

Re: [Tagging] default access tag for driveways

So I think I can safely conclude that driveway does not imply any access restrictions by itself, and that a private or destination tag is to be welcomed, depending on the context. But it only really mathers if the way is connected to the road network in two places. I'll adapt the wiki to

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

I would make the distinction bub from a map-data end-user's point of view: can I walk/drive up to the place and obtain a permit on the fly, with or without paying a "fee". The on-the-fly payment may include payment of membership of some kind on first entry, or similar arrangements. If access

Re: [Tagging] landuse=scrub

25. Lipiec 2018 00:56 od 61sundow...@gmail.com : > But in principle I think this should be done. Any thoughts? > I think that it is desirable to make a mechanical edit proposal (that involves checking at least some of them to confirm that it is mistagging of

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

30. Lipiec 2018 01:00 od dieterdre...@gmail.com : >  elevations should be with respect to the EGM96 sea level Where it is written on Wiki? Nobody is really following that. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] default access tag for driveways

28. Lipiec 2018 00:20 od graemefi...@gmail.com : > On 28 July 2018 at 03:33, Mike H <> 1jg...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> service=driveway isn't just for residential driveways. It is also used for >> other driveways. Here is an example of

Re: [Tagging] landuse=clearing

29. Lipiec 2018 12:37 od pla16...@gmail.com : > It's a matter of minutes to add a relation to the wood, transfer the tags from > the wood to relation, then add one of the clearings to the relation and see > what happens. In JOSM with "create multipolygon"/"update

Re: [Tagging] landuse=clearing

28. Lipiec 2018 04:31 od 61sundow...@gmail.com : > I think the basic tag is trying to show that the surrounding area (usually > trees) stops around this area. So why not tag the trees as a multipoygon and > use these tagged clearings are inners?  In cases like

Re: [Tagging] default access tag for driveways

27. Lipiec 2018 18:07 od joost.schou...@gmail.com : > You would only add "private" if there is signage, and only something else if > there is a right of way or something. I am adding access=private not only for cases with explicit signage but also when

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

I disagree in the specific case of maxheight and maxwidth: An important use of these tags is to compare the dimension of a vehicle with the limits. Also the format maxheight=12'11" imposes a particular cognitive load on subsequent mappers and data users who may not be familiar with the format.

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

That sounds right but would not be clearer to use spacename instead of underscore? Like maxspeed:mph=25 That way you have to deal with main keys instead of split them into one key per unit. El lun., 30 jul. 2018 0:22, Martin Koppenhoefer escribió: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 29. Jul 2018,