Re: [Tagging] General Tags for unmapped cities

Hi Joseph, the mappers will survey the buildings with mapillary imagery that we upload for them, these buildings are already mapped in the Openstreetmap Database, but as a generic tag like "building=yes" Guillermo Silva El sáb., 21 mar. 2020 a las 0:12, Joseph Eisenberg (<

Re: [Tagging] General Tags for unmapped cities

Muchas gracias, Sr. Silva > we seek to upload more data to mapped building polygons by the MapPYOSM > project in different cities of Paraguay. Do you mean that these buildings are already mapped in the Openstreetmap Database, but as a generic tag like "building=yes"? Or are you planning to

[Tagging] General Tags for unmapped cities

Hello, I am currently working on a project called Atlas Urbano ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AtlasUrbano) where we seek to upload more data to mapped building polygons by the MapPYOSM project in different cities of Paraguay. The main idea is to be able to generate a first layer of general

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

I agree with "addr:mail=*" as a tag to add to guesthouses, shops, farms and other businesses, as a way to send letters and perhaps small parcels, which might be delivered to a PO Box or some rural delivery system, rather than to the physical address of the shop, business or other public feature.

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

On 21/3/20 9:00 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 21:55, Jan Michel > wrote: Yes. We shouldn't have a separate tag for each and every company that offers such services. No, that get's very unwieldy, very quickly, especially when

[Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

A few of us have been updating the Tag:place=square page, and Square: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsquare https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Square Originally a place=square was just defined as "A square", with a list of translations like "place, plaza, platz, piazza" etc.

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 21:55, Jan Michel wrote: > Yes. We shouldn't have a separate tag for each and every company that > offers such services. No, that get's very unwieldy, very quickly, especially when you get several different ways of spelling the same thing, as just demonstrated with PO

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

On 20/03/2020 15:26, Janko Mihelić wrote: the order of platforms and ways I'm unsure what you mean. Could you expand please? Is there a wiki page? DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 13:50, Tobias Wrede wrote: > Am 20.03.2020 um 12:30 schrieb Paul Allen: > > One of the parcel > delivery companies noted for delivering to the wrong > address (Hermes and DHL, I'm looking at you) has > dumped a package outside my door. The address is > PO Box 123. Which

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020, 15:21 Dave F via Tagging wrote: > True. There is no requirement for public_transport tags. PTv2 adds > nothing new. Maybe for tags, but relations with the order of platforms and ways was new if I recall correctly, and we should still use that (well, the platforms, maybe

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

On 11/03/2020 12:16, Jo wrote: But if the originally, more common tag highway=bus_stop is already used, there is no need to add bus=yes. OK, but if we have to keep highway=bus_stop anyway, then one could also say that it's not needed to add public_transport=platform to such nodes anymore.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

On 11/03/2020 12:07, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I notice that they also refer to adding bus=yes etc to platforms representing bus stops, which was not part of the PTv2 proposal, but I guess tries to deal with one of the issues that led people to prefer highway=bus_stop. Yes, that is a rather

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

Hi, Am 20.03.2020 um 12:30 schrieb Paul Allen: One of the parcel delivery companies noted for delivering to the wrong address (Hermes and DHL, I'm looking at you) has dumped a package outside my door.  The address is PO Box 123.  Which of the houses near me has that mailing address? I don't

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

On 11/03/2020 12:12, Jo wrote: That stop_position nodes became optional is probably because of my influence. Sorry. but In the beginning they were definitely part of how PTv2. railway=stop was, I believe, around before PTv2 concept. I disliked this very much because all of a sudden

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

On 20.03.20 11:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: but isn't this referring to post office boxes, as opposed to the other kind of lockers and boxes that the OP mentioned? Are you suggesting to use this for all kind of such boxes Yes. We shouldn't have a separate tag for each and every company that

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 05:19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Maybe yet another tag mail_address=* ??? (I can hear the hair pulling > from here, thanks.) > I'll try to grow some so I can pull it out. What is the key addr for? > > For physical addresses only? > > If not, what else OR ?

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

Am Fr., 20. März 2020 um 11:40 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel : > > I'm personally in favor of contact:pobox - it's not an address, but a > way of contact. but isn't this referring to post office boxes, as opposed to the other kind of lockers and boxes that the OP mentioned? Are you suggesting to use

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

Hi, I don't think we need another tag here, but we have to define one common way to tag these. There are several different keys already in use: addr:postbox (214) addr:pobox (185) contact:pobox (114) contact:p.o.box (84) addr:po_box (16) I'm personally in favor of