Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:04 PM Jack Armstrong wrote: > I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided > this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM > wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect? > I don't know if it is "correct"

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

On 6/9/20 7:27 PM, Warin wrote: To me in OSM a 'path' has always been too narrow for a motor car (4WD or not) to pass. If it is wide enough for a car then it is not a 'path' in OSM so they must be tagged in some other way. Descriptions of 'path': On 10/6/20 5:53 am, brad wrote: "If a path

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

> On Jun 9, 2020, at 2:22 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM brad > wrote: > A track does have a different function, it can handle a 2 track vehicle, a > path can't. > Yes, a "track" has a different function, its function is for

[Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Apologies if this has already been discussed. I searched the tagging list, but couldn’t find it.  Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways in addition to the street connecting nodes. In effect, a single pedestrian crossing is tagged twice. To me, this would seem contrary not only

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

To me in OSM a 'path' has always been too narrow for a motor car (4WD or not) to pass. If it is wide enough for a car then it is not a 'path' in OSM so they must be tagged in some other way. Descriptions of 'path': On 10/6/20 5:53 am, brad wrote: "If a path is wide enough for

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

On 9/6/20 9:30 pm, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 09:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: But :conditional = yes @ some text does not meet the specification of :conditional as per the wiki. From

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:13 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > The two major factions seem to be set in their ways: “It is only a track if > it is used for agriculture or forestry” on one side. “It has the same > physical characteristics as a track, so it is a track even if it is currently > used for

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

On 9/6/20 6:46 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, map it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM Warin, can you give an example

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

Jun 10, 2020, 01:05 by miketh...@gmail.com: > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:13 PM Tod Fitch <> t...@fitchfamily.org> > wrote: > > > In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and > > their values to make a decision if a “path” or “footway” might be what I > > want to

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:13 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and their values to make a decision if a “path” or “footway” might be what I want to render. This is ridiculous. It is neither easy for the mapper nor the renderer. > > On the

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

The dictionary doesn't help much: track: "a path or rough road that is made of soil

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

Jun 9, 2020, 21:53 by bradha...@fastmail.com: > It already says this: > "Some > highway > => track> > are used for various leisure activities - hiking, cycling, or asjeep/ATV > trails." > on the track wiki.  >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

When I just checked around Gunnersbury I noticed that someone is already retagging the London Underground to electrified=4th_rail so this discussion is probably already irrelevant On 2020-06-09 23:12, Michael Reichert wrote: > Hi Colin, > > Am 09/06/2020 um 15.36 schrieb Colin Smale: >

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM brad wrote: > A track does have a different function, it can handle a 2 track vehicle, a > path can't. > Yes, a "track" has a different function, its function is for agriculture or forestry. A wide path on the other hand has the same function as a narrow path. >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

Hi Colin, Am 09/06/2020 um 15.36 schrieb Colin Smale: > Great idea. Not sure about using "3rd" and "4th" though - it's a bit > tightly coupled to the English language and possibly prone to error. > Wouldn't "3rail" and "4rail" fit the bill? > > Actually, as electrified=rail is so widely used at

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

A track does have a different function, it can handle a 2 track vehicle, a path can't. If functional is sacrosanct,  why do we have motorway?   A motorway could just be a trunk or primary with extra tags denoting limited access. On 6/9/20 2:11 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2020

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:55 PM brad wrote: > > It already says this: > "Some highway=track are used for various leisure activities - hiking, cycling, or as jeep/ATV trails. " > on the track wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack Right, there is nothing that says that a

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

> I propose changing the path page... Disagree. A track is primarily used for agriculture, forestry or related activities. A path is primarily used by people on foot, on bicycles, or on horseback. While most paths are narrow, because those 3 means of transportation do not require a wide

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:14, Janko Mihelić wrote: > Photos of buildings are even more notable then photos of bicycle parking, > so I'll try and take photos of a few buildings and see how that goes. > > I probably won't be creating a category for each building, so then I will be > linking to

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

It already says this: "Some highway =track are used for various leisure activities - hiking, cycling, or as jeep/ATV trails. " on the track wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack I propose changing the path page from

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

My own simple definition, I may be wrong but that's how I map it : If there is two line on the ground indicating that a 4 wheel vehicle went trough, it's a highway=track. Yves ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 11:01:30 -0600 brad wrote: > I think if it's wide enough for a normal motor vehicle and is open > for that, even if only service & emergency, it should not be =path. > track or service In the United States, and probably in most other common-law countries, *everything* is open

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:43 AM Andrew Harvey wrote: > > If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance staff" motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's designated for walking then foot=designated + motor_vehicle=private, since it's wide enough and occasionally

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

OnTue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:03 AM brad wrote: > > I think if it's wide enough for a normal motor vehicle and is open for that, even if only service & emergency, it should not be =path. track or service in an emergency, almost everything is open to some authority using vehicles of some sort. Even

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

I think if it's wide enough for a normal motor vehicle and is open for that, even if only service & emergency, it should not be =path.   track or service On 6/9/20 8:42 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote: If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance staff" motor vehicles then I'd

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - electric_bicycle and speed_pedelec

On 09.06.20 17:37, Volker Schmidt wrote: an S-pedelec is a Light Moped, [...] mofa (which I presume is a Light Moped in OSM) No, most speed pedelecs are more like mopeds (limited to 45 km/h) than mofas (limited to 25 km/h). For the Tuebingen example one could use moped:electric=yes This

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - electric_bicycle and speed_pedelec

I missed the voting deadline.-my apologies. I only today had time to look for official EU documentation and found this EU fact sheet that clearly supports the

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

If the way is used by "law enforcement, emergency, and maintenance staff" motor vehicles then I'd tag it highway=track and if it's designated for walking then foot=designated + motor_vehicle=private, since it's wide enough and occasionally used by vehicles, even for a path that is mostly used for

[Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574 These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot, bicycle or horseback. One will occasionally see a park

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

Great idea. Not sure about using "3rd" and "4th" though - it's a bit tightly coupled to the English language and possibly prone to error. Wouldn't "3rail" and "4rail" fit the bill? Actually, as electrified=rail is so widely used at present, how about making that explicitly "3rd rail" and

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

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 13:44, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > Could we do similar with torn-up railways? > > Then the parts where rails or railbed are actually remaining could be > railway=abandoned or whatever, and parts with nothing remaining could > be plain ways in a relation like

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

Jun 9, 2020, 14:42 by ja...@piorkowski.ca: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 07:56, Paul Allen wrote: > >> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: >> >>> Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as >>> roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned

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

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 07:56, Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: >> Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as >> roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned > > Nope. We'd map the portions that are existing ways

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 09:16, Garry Keenor wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/3rd_and_4th_rail > > Definition: A track electrified with a 4th rail system, with two > additional rails on insulators and two shoe pickup by the train, and > traction current returning via

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

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 13:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Jun 9, 2020, 13:55 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > > Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as > roman_road=demolished nor

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

Jun 9, 2020, 13:55 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski <> ja...@piorkowski.ca> > wrote: > >> >> Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as >> roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned >> > > Nope.  We'd map the

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

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as > roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned > Nope. We'd map the portions that are existing ways like this:

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 09:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > But :conditional = yes @ some text does not meet the > specification of :conditional as per the wiki. > From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Access_time_and_other_conditional_restrictions For a full

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

Dear Martin, Yes. In November/December I will start working on an image workflow which will make Commons the image storage repository for all our and have the OpenStreetMap object point to the corresponding wikimedia_commons tag. Best regards, Stuart On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 12:20, Martin

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

Jun 9, 2020, 10:46 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, map >> it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM >> > > > Warin,

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

sent from a phone > On 8. Jun 2020, at 11:53, European Water Project > wrote: > > Which is why we seek to store user contributed images on Wikimedia Commons > (if they will accept them) rather than on our server. +1, I completely agree, of all available options wikimedia commons seems a

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

Here's another historic object no longer visible: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/297086978 I have to be honest, I didn't check the whole traject for possible visible remains. But in the fields east and west of approximately this point

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

sent from a phone > On 8. Jun 2020, at 18:14, Alan Mackie wrote: > > Last I heard it was "mostly harmless". the less dangerous an area is, the more the remaining dangers will be emphasized. Let’s tag normalized dangerousness ;-) Cheers Martin

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

sent from a phone > On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, map > it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not there

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

On 9/6/20 1:10 pm, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 22:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: On 8/6/20 10:14 pm, Paul Allen wrote: access=no access:conditional=yes @ (above water) Conditional key does not look to have text base entry ... might be better to use

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 3rd and 4th rail

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/3rd_and_4th_rail Definition: A track electrified with a 4th rail system, with two additional rails on insulators and two shoe pickup by the train, and traction current returning via one of the insulated rails best regards, Garry