Re: [Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 20:12 Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > Mar 18, 2019, 12:48 AM by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:33 PM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > Note that bicycle only lanes are not included in lanes tag count (only > full lanes are counted). > > > Lets fix

Re: [Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

Mar 18, 2019, 12:48 AM by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:33 PM Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > >> Note that bicycle only lanes are not included in lanes tag count (only full >> lanes are counted). >> > > Lets

Re: [Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:33 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Note that bicycle only lanes are not included in lanes tag count (only > full lanes are counted). > Lets fix this error by omission already. Not counting all lanes serves *nobody*. ___

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal Approved - boundary=aboriginal_lands

OK, all the tribal boundaries in Oklahoma are updated. This will be handy depending on how SCOTUS rules later this year on tribal issues as some of these lines might become state lines. On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 3:32 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > I'm currently working on conflating the boundaries in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Am 17. März 2019 22:38:30 MEZ schrieb marc marc : >Le 17.03.19 à 11:23, Jan S a écrit : >> it wasn't obvious which were police stations and which were other >facilities. In the end, I used Google maps... So there is practical >relevance. > >i'm in favor of police=* (execpt the double tag for the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Am 17. März 2019 21:47:03 MEZ schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick : >There are some extensive Police areas, rather than just buildings - as >mentioned, the Academy, driver training area, Mounted Police stable, >which >would usually include paddocks & so on. > I think this is similar to universities.

Re: [Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

Mar 17, 2019, 9:28 PM by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 2:43 AM Andrew Davidson <> thesw...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> On 17/3/19 4:30 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >> > Or even >> > >> >>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal Approved - boundary=aboriginal_lands

I notice most of the tribal land in Washington State has been mapped. There are some smaller reservations that need to be mapped. Plus it look like some boundaries need to be adjusted, especially for Yakima and Colville. There is also a large section of disputed land we have included in Yakima

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Le 17.03.19 à 11:23, Jan S a écrit : > it wasn't obvious which were police stations and which were other facilities. > In the end, I used Google maps... So there is practical relevance. i'm in favor of police=* (execpt the double tag for the station) but it's not a food relevance to promote a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 21:44, Jan S wrote: > > Okay, I think the police scheme is consolidating. > Yep, coming together nicely :-) > I had included a new landuse=police tag, inspired in landuse=military. I'm > not sure whether we really need that. I came to think that the police > doesn't use

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal Approved - boundary=aboriginal_lands

I'm currently working on conflating the boundaries in Oklahoma right now, got most of the northeastern ones handled. On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 11:13 PM Alan McConchie wrote: > After a few months of discussion and refinement in the default OSM style > sheet, and then a few more weeks of waiting

Re: [Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 2:43 AM Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 17/3/19 4:30 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Or even > > > https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0766007,153.4447888,3a,20.7y,49.91h,89.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3dPlQ9YxNBm-7lRm4GOUPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 > > > > & back another 30 m's or so >

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

Yes, all of them, rationale: For cycleway=opposite_track or cycleway=opposite_lane you won't know which track or lane it refers to (or if it refers to both), if two lanes or tracks accompany the road. cycleway=opposite (in the sense that no lane is marked and no track exists, but cycling a

Re: [Tagging] "satellit"

I agree that we should focus our mapping efforts primarily on landmark antennae. Although, there could exist other reasons to map one. For example, I map broadcast FM radio or TV masts even if they are only a few meters high, as that helps listeners point their (directional) receiving antennae.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

sent from a phone > On 17. Mar 2019, at 12:42, Jan S wrote: > > I had included a new landuse=police tag, inspired in landuse=military. I'm > not sure whether we really need that. I came to think that the police doesn't > use land in the same way the military does for training grounds, huge

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

Mar 17, 2019, 10:50 AM by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: > On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 09:09, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > >> >> I like to use it to mark that given oneway:bicycle=no has no designated >> contraflow lane. >> > > cycleway=no +

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 13:38, "Christian Müller" wrote: > > I support discouraging both opposite* values. I suppose you mean all three? > Re-using oneway semantics is easy. oneway is an established > tag with established interpretation - if its meaning is not > reshaped in an obscure way it is

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 12:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > cycleway=opposite specifies a track (=distinct bicycle carriageway) whose > position and direction are opposite to the direction you would expect (e.g. > it is left for right traffic jurisdictions), right? No, that's

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

sorry, that mail 5min ago, was send by accident. Am 17.03.2019 um 04:19 schrieb Andrew Davidson: On 17/3/19 10:18 am, Hubert87 wrote: No, not exactly the same: cycleway:[left|right|both|none]:oneway=no implies oneway:bicycle=no, but no vice versa. cycleway:[left|right|both|none]:oneway=[-1]

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

I support discouraging both opposite* values. Re-using oneway semantics is easy. oneway is an established tag with established interpretation - if its meaning is not reshaped in an obscure way it is reusable in all its namespace variants with confidence and no frills. I'm also in favour of a

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

Am 17.03.2019 um 04:19 schrieb Andrew Davidson: Nice straw man you've made there. I didn't say that either of those forms of tagging imply the other. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

This is not or at best conditionally true. oneway:bicycle=no tells you /nothing more/ than that bicycles can pass in both directions of a oneway, but it does not tell you /where/ in the street or /how/, nor about the degree of safety doing so, i.e. if a lane is marked.

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

What are you gonna do with the *=track cases then? Imho your approach would mean to generally discourage cycleway*=* and generally represent cycleway tracks using a separate geometry. In the case where cycleway tracks are separated merely by a curb, this may be unsatisfactory as well. If the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Okay, I think the police scheme is consolidating. I had included a new landuse=police tag, inspired in landuse=military. I'm not sure whether we really need that. I came to think that the police doesn't use land in the same way the military does for training grounds, huge shooting ranges,

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

sent from a phone > On 17. Mar 2019, at 10:50, Markus wrote: > > I support discouraging cycleway=opposite. This tag gets too often > confused with cycleway=opposite_lane. cycleway=opposite specifies a track (=distinct bicycle carriageway) whose position and direction are opposite to the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Am 16. März 2019 20:09:05 MEZ schrieb Mateusz Konieczny : >Some police facilities will remain mistagged, no matter tagging scheme. > >Have you already fixed such objects or opened OSM notes mentioning >mistaggings? No. I wouldn't have known which other tags could've been applied. That's why I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Am 16. März 2019 23:18:38 MEZ schrieb Joseph Eisenberg : >The key “police” is not currently on the list of features that import >as a >polygon in osm2pgsql, when mapped as a closed way. > >So renderers and other database users that rely on osm2pgsql will need >to >add the “police” key to the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Am 17. März 2019 00:56:42 MEZ schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: >On 17/03/19 03:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> >> >> >> sent from a phone >> On 16. Mar 2019, at 15:53, Jan S > > wrote: >> >>> So you basically can't rely on OSM to find a police station in

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 09:09, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I like to use it to mark that given oneway:bicycle=no has no designated > contraflow lane. cycleway=no + oneway:bicycle=no is much clearer in my opinion. I support discouraging cycleway=opposite. This tag gets too often confused with

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

I like to use it to mark that given oneway:bicycle=no has no designated contraflow lane. This way all oneway:bicycle=no have either cycleway=opposite or cycleway=opposite_lane or are waiting for survey. Mar 17, 2019, 8:37 AM by thesw...@gmail.com: > On 17/3/19 10:42 am, Martin Koppenhoefer

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Thanks everybody for the input. I try to summarize the discussion so far as following. Please reply if I misunderstood some arguments. - Not many are in favor of oneway=cw / oneway=ccw to indicate the actual direction. This is currently in the wiki but is hardly in use (about 5 times in

[Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

On 17/3/19 4:30 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Or even https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0766007,153.4447888,3a,20.7y,49.91h,89.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3dPlQ9YxNBm-7lRm4GOUPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 & back another 30 m's or so

[Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

On 17/3/19 10:42 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I didn’t know this tag, historically the cycleway tags were used for bicycle infrastructure, seems people are working to change this. I didn't say I liked the cycleway=shared tag. There are a lot of highways in Australia tagged with this and