Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:29 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> >> I agree that it is good example of something on a boundary (assuming that >> both "rails completely gone" and "track of former railway is

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > I agree that it is good example of something on a boundary (assuming that > both "rails completely gone" and "track of former railway is > recognisable"). Do you have some good images showing both?

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

May 28, 2020, 23:42 by vosc...@gmail.com: > This is a "problem" that is being exaggerated, in my view. There are very > small percentage of historic "things" in the OSM database that really do not > exist anymore in the sense that they are truly invisible. > And it should stay the same,

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

May 28, 2020, 23:54 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > "treed farmland" or "heavily wooded residential" prove slightly problematic > to OSM tagging. > Map tree-covered area (landuse=forest) and map farmland (landuse=farmland) or residential (landuse=residential). Yes, the same area may be tree

Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines

Yes, exactly. In Denver, Colorado there are numerous train lines that use the same rails. It seems like a lot of work to name all the member railway tracks, name=C-Line;E-Line;W-Line. It seems the rail itself should have no name because the name will be on the relations assigned to the

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

This is a "problem" that is being exaggerated, in my view. There are very small percentage of historic "things" in the OSM database that really do not exist anymore in the sense that they are truly invisible. There are plenty of historical "things" in OSM of which large parts still exist today,

Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines

I just had a quick go on the key:line. There seems to be a plethora of meanings of this tag, some so obscure that I have not the faintest idea what they mean. Try this overpass turbo Wizard search search “type:way and highway=* and line=*” and try to make sense of the results. Volker On Thu,

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Le jeu. 28 mai 2020 à 22:07, Kevin Kenny a écrit : > My very first attempts at editing with JOSM, some years ago, were > adding hiking paths. I followed JOSM's templates, with > 'Highways->Ways->Path' appearing to be a natural match, and got > `highway=path foot=designated etc.` for the

Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines

Hi Le jeu. 28 mai 2020 à 21:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit : > > Yes, name tag is for name of the object. > I agree I'd be in favour of removing such mention on wiki wouldn't you? Le jeu. 28 mai 2020 à 21:56, Jack Armstrong a écrit : > If the rail is

Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:56 PM Jack Armstrong wrote: > I have wondered for a long time... > > If the rail is tagged name=* but the railway also has a relation with the > same name, isn't this naming something twice? it seems to me the relation is > sufficient and the rail itself should not be

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

My very first attempts at editing with JOSM, some years ago, were adding hiking paths. I followed JOSM's templates, with 'Highways->Ways->Path' appearing to be a natural match, and got `highway=path foot=designated etc.` for the constructed path. I uploaded the result. Another mapper gave me a

Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines

I have wondered for a long time...If the rail is tagged name=* but the railway also has a relation with the same name, isn't this naming something twice? it seems to me the relation is sufficient and the rail itself should not be named?-Original Message- From: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging

Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines

May 28, 2020, 20:36 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com: > Hi all, > > On the line=* wiki page, it is mentioned this key is used to give railway > lines names in combination with branch=* > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:line > > Shouldn't name=* be used instead? > Yes, name tag is for name

[Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines

Hi all, On the line=* wiki page, it is mentioned this key is used to give railway lines names in combination with branch=* https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:line Shouldn't name=* be used instead? I don't know the use case precisely, may someone more familiar with railway lines could give

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Hello, That's crazy how much people get confused about the triplets path/footway/cycleway highway=path for mixed path highway=footway for foot path highway=cycleway for cycle path Nothing to do with surface, localization, or whatever other properties, just there main usage. We should not map

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

Hi Arne, On 2020-05-28 02:36, Arne Johannessen wrote: > Colin Smale wrote: > >> In the UK simple trespass to land is not illegal, it is for the landowner to >> claim under civil law: "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the >> immediate and exclusive possession of another".