On 08/16/2018 02:32 PM, seirra wrote:
> Hello, i was wondering whether there was a way to tag areas that may be
> risky/dangerous to walk in? i can think of a few streets that could use
> the tag, was there anything of the sort that has been agreed on?
Past discussions have indicated this is not
On 17/08/18 08:25, seirra wrote:
i did originally mean more for example if an area is known for a
specific crime... listing it there? for example where a friend of mine
lives they say if someone sees your phone it gets stolen? so
safety:phone=no could be a good example? i can think of other
sent from a phone
> On 17. Aug 2018, at 00:25, seirra wrote:
>
> lives they say if someone sees your phone it gets stolen? so safety:phone=no
> could be a good example?
like you have to take special care of your phone, but don’t worry for your
money or your car, they’re only interested in
sent from a phone
> On 17. Aug 2018, at 00:39, seirra wrote:
>
> where a point clearly defines a building in these areas should it be
> corrected? also if a floor of a building is for example: a store at the
> bottom of the building, and the rest is apartments... shouldn't it then be a
>
sent from a phone
> On 17. Aug 2018, at 00:19, seirra wrote:
>
> also i saw some cases of access:disabled=customers? wouldn't access=customers
> paired with access:disabled=designated be a good pairing?
actually the documented tag is
“disabled=*” and it has more than double the usage than
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 6:40 PM seirra wrote:
> oh! before i go to bed just one last one, when correcting some typos or
> wrong use of tagging i've noticed a few locations that used points
> rather than directly applying the feature to the building (as in no
> buildings having features at all as
oh! before i go to bed just one last one, when correcting some typos or
wrong use of tagging i've noticed a few locations that used points
rather than directly applying the feature to the building (as in no
buildings having features at all as if it was an agreed style)... most
notably:
italy
i did originally mean more for example if an area is known for a
specific crime... listing it there? for example where a friend of mine
lives they say if someone sees your phone it gets stolen? so
safety:phone=no could be a good example? i can think of other examples
such as specific streets
"assigned with a specific role" is probably the best interpretation for
example "this is a designated disabled parking area" would mean the
specific role is parking for disabled people. the preferred model does
seem to be tagging access=no then the exceptions from what i can tell.
there
sent from a phone
> On 17. Aug 2018, at 00:09, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
> What, like tax avoidance and insider dealing?
I believe he’s more after corruption and abuse of institutional power.
Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
sent from a phone
> On 17. Aug 2018, at 00:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Even the mapping of areas of land mines has been left to third parties.
I don’t know about individual land mines, but there is the tag
military=danger_area which can be used for those places where mines
On 16 August 2018 at 22:34, seirra wrote:
> hmmm i do see the point there about racial/class bias... i was thinking more
> about areas that were known crime spots/had associated illegal activities
> people may want to avoid
What, like tax avoidance and insider dealing?
--
Andy Mabbett
you mean it must be tagged:
access=no
+exceptions
?
designated is an odd word. I started to understand it as signposted as
such, or clear from road markings.
but it's not the meaning it has in designated driver, where it means
"assigned with a specific role/responsability"
Op do 16 aug. 2018
There has never been agreement here on 'dangerous' areas. Even after
people have lost there lives using GPS to go in to 'dangerous areas'.
Some 'dangerous areas' require the police to go heavily armed and in
large numbers to ensure their own survival.
Even the mapping of areas of land mines
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2018, at 23:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> I think Frederik is actually pointing out masonAry!
>
> Is it possible to do an automated spell-check-&-fix?
It is possible of course, question in these cases is often: is it the only
problem? What’s the cause
On 17/08/18 07:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 16. Aug 2018, at 23:35, seirra wrote:
should cases where yes was used be corrected to designated? or should it be
considered a stylistic choice?
generally, it doesn’t work very well, because you want to express who can
alright, when i get the time i'll correct them and link to this
discussion, perhaps tomorrow if i remember
On 08/16/18 22:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 16. Aug 2018, at 23:35, seirra wrote:
should cases where yes was used be corrected to designated? or should it be
On 17 August 2018 at 01:43, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> "building:structure" has a significant proportion of misspelled values
> (the most common value is "confined_masonary"):
>
I think Frederik is actually pointing out masonAry!
Is it possible to do an automated spell-check-&-fix?
Thanks
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2018, at 23:35, seirra wrote:
>
> should cases where yes was used be corrected to designated? or should it be
> considered a stylistic choice?
generally, it doesn’t work very well, because you want to express who can park
there not who can access the lot. It
should cases where yes was used be corrected to designated? or should it
be considered a stylistic choice?
On 08/16/18 22:29, marc marc wrote:
Le 16. 08. 18 à 21:42, seirra a écrit :
another query, for access:disabled should the correct usage for a
standard disabled parking space be
hmmm i do see the point there about racial/class bias... i was thinking
more about areas that were known crime spots/had associated illegal
activities people may want to avoid(to the point there are regular
police patrols at night)? also places where getting a phone out could
lead to it being
Le 16. 08. 18 à 21:42, seirra a écrit :
> another query, for access:disabled should the correct usage for a
> standard disabled parking space be designated or yes?
designated seems the better value for this case
___
Tagging mailing list
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2018, at 22:52, Jmapb wrote:
>
> On the other hand, an overlay with data about various risk factors -- crime,
> weather, accidents, air quality, cancer clusters, whatever -- would be a fine
> feature for a 3rd party map app to offer. But these things don't
On the other hand, an overlay with data about various risk factors --
crime, weather, accidents, air quality, cancer clusters, whatever --
would be a fine feature for a 3rd party map app to offer. But these
things don't belong in the OSM database.
As far as "bad areas" and "class and racial
Other than dog toilets, this is too subjective to be included in OSM at
all, and tends to stink of class and racial biases.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 14:35 seirra wrote:
> Hello, i was wondering whether there was a way to tag areas that may be
> risky/dangerous to walk in? i can think of a few
another query, for access:disabled should the correct usage for a
standard disabled parking space be designated or yes? the usage is mixed
so i'm unsure... i'm sticking with designated for now (it's 'designated'
to a disabled driver)
___
Tagging
Hello, i was wondering whether there was a way to tag areas that may be
risky/dangerous to walk in? i can think of a few streets that could use
the tag, was there anything of the sort that has been agreed on?
___
Tagging mailing list
On Thursday 16 August 2018, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> I started using the service=irrigation tag a
> couple of years ago when I discovered it in the Wiki somewhere. I
> also noticed today that there is a "usage=irrigation" that applies to
> waterway=canal. It's all a bit confusing.
Yes, it is.
On Thursday 16 August 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > All of this together has its origin in the fact that in the UK and
> > other early OSM countries large artificial waterways are almost
> > always for navigation and small artificial waterways are almost
> > always for transporting away
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2018, at 17:43, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> (the most common value is "confined_masonary"):
could be the result of an effort to map the earthquake resistance of buildings
in certain areas. I wouldn’t expect Joe Mapper to use this term for a building
structure.
Hi,
I accidentally discovered that the little-documented tag
"building:structure" has a significant proportion of misspelled values
(the most common value is "confined_masonary"):
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/building%3Astructure#values
However, not being knowledgeable about buildings
There are thousands of kilometers of irrigation waterways scattered around
Thailand. Many but not all of these are concrete lined and may be from 1 to
5 meters across. The Thai word used in names for the larger ones is "klong",
which means "canal" in English.
The tagging practice of mappers
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2018, at 16:14, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> All of this together has its origin in the fact that in the UK and other
> early OSM countries large artificial waterways are almost always for
> navigation and small artificial waterways are almost always for
>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 3:02 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 16/08/2018 08:49, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>
> It seems to me that waterway=ditch +
>> usage=headrace/tailrace/irrigation fits best, but the wiki defines
>> waterway=ditch as 'a small man-made draining waterway, often found
>> along
On Thursday 16 August 2018, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
> Hello
>
> What is the usual (or sensible) way to tag small canals like mill
> races (example: [^1]) or small irrigation channels (example: [^2]),
> i.e. the small equivalent of waterway=canal?
A bit of information on current meaning of
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2018, at 16:02, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> Personally I'd probably use "drain" for those two, and "ditch" maybe for some
> smaller ones.
me too, on a pragmatic level and because there are no alternatives, just that
it doesn’t make sense on a semantic level and
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2018, at 15:36, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> In British English usage we have regional names for the category between a
> stream and a river. Where I come from they are called Brooks, but I am aware
> of Burns and Becks being used in the North.
there are a lot
On 16/08/2018 08:49, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
What is the usual (or sensible) way to tag small canals like mill
races (example: [^1]) or small irrigation channels (example: [^2]),
i.e. the small equivalent of waterway=canal?
[^1]:
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2018, at 10:57, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>
> So how would you tag these distance-based numbers in OSM without using
> addr:full?
you can’t, or you would have to introduce a new tag. Are they „housenumbers“?
If they are not, you should not use the tag.
On 16 August 2018 14:15:23 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>There isn’t a universal definition of river, but locally people usually
>know whether a waterway is considered a river or not (in my home area,
>a 3-5 m waterway is usually not considered a river, but you cannot jump
>over it
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2018, at 09:49, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>
> It seems to me that waterway=ditch +
> usage=headrace/tailrace/irrigation fits best, but the wiki defines
> waterway=ditch as 'a small man-made draining waterway, often found
> along roads'.
yes, waterway tagging is
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 3:45 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I know in the US there are distance based housenumbers, and also in Rome
> there is one single street which has distance based numbering, still the
> vast majority of distance based address indications around here are _not_
>
Hello
What is the usual (or sensible) way to tag small canals like mill
races (example: [^1]) or small irrigation channels (example: [^2]),
i.e. the small equivalent of waterway=canal?
[^1]:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:15-19-077,_mingus_creek_-_panoramio.jpg
[^2]:
sent from a phone
> On 16. Aug 2018, at 03:05, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> In many communities in the US, all housenumbers are distance based,
> often from a central chaining origin. They are indeed house numbers
> when appearing on a postal address: "13430 North Black Canyon Highway,
I know in
44 matches
Mail list logo
