Re: [Tagging] Intermittent highways?

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:23 AM John Sturdy wrote: > I've been adding some detail to a site that is used annually for a > festival (not happening this year because of Covid-19), where there are > paths in the same place year after year, but the paths are not there when > the festival is not

Re: [Tagging] Intermittent highways?

I too would suggest opening_hours. Seasonal is related to the climate and the climate does vary from one year to the next and may be why the tag has a 'loose description'. An annual festival is not usually held for an entire climatic season, so I would not use it for them. Similar argument

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 23:44, Matthew Woehlke wrote: The multipolygon is just ammenity=parking, but the sub-objects are > tagged with more information (capacity, in particular). Again, is that > sane, or do I need to do this differently? > Doesn't look sane at present. You have combined one

Re: [Tagging] Intermittent highways?

If the festival is held at some date expressible using the opening hours syntax, you could use the "open hours" tag[0] or add conditions to the "access" tags[1]. Though these tend to represent temporary accessibility, not temporary existence the way "intermittent" or "seasonal"[2] do. I'll also

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

On 14/07/2020 12.05, Peter Elderson wrote: Just two outers is a regular use of multipolygon. One parking lot on two sides of a road is perfect for this method. Okay, since you brought it up... is this¹ an appropriate use of a multipolygon? On the subject of: it will then get the

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

Jul 14, 2020, 17:48 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > sent from a phone > >> On 14. Jul 2020, at 16:55, Lionel Giard wrote: >> >> That's a bit of a stretch of the multipolygon definition as there is no >> inner ring. >> > > sorry? The minimum requisite for a multipolygon is one outer ring. >

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

Another pet example, of mine this time: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3161183 It's a cross-country ski "resort": 3 small cabins where you can pay a fee and share a hot tea and a set of track. First open and last closed of the season, it would be of notability in another project. Yet no

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

Sure! I was just sidestepping about the parking lot example. Best, Peter Elderson Op di 14 jul. 2020 om 18:34 schreef Volker Schmidt : > Sorry to keep riding this horse, but many of my examples have areas, ways > and nodes as members, so they cannot be described by any kind of polygon. > Lets

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

Sorry to keep riding this horse, but many of my examples have areas, ways and nodes as members, so they cannot be described by any kind of polygon. Lets take my favourite example of a dismantled railway. It contains: - nodes: tourist information tables - ways: embankments, all kinds of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

I suggested this as a helpful guide when defining tag values. I don't think it can be used one-to-one for OSM. Bare ground, BTW, can be found also the area covered by CORINE, as it includes the Sahara for example) Volker On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 18:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from

[Tagging] Intermittent highways?

I've been adding some detail to a site that is used annually for a festival (not happening this year because of Covid-19), where there are paths in the same place year after year, but the paths are not there when the festival is not happening, although increased wear on the ground around them is

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multipolygon_Examples example 1.7 describes disjunct outers. Too bad you have to wrestle through some very complicated examples to get there if you start at the beginning. And, these complex examples should not be followed, because they advocate tying landuse

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

Just two outers is a regular use of multipolygon. If the tags of two areas are the same, you can represent two or more distinct areas as a multipolygon If you have one area as a multipolygon with an inner, a separate closed way can be used as an extra outer, it will then get the attributes of the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

sent from a phone > On 14. Jul 2020, at 17:36, mbranco2 wrote: > > Unluckily it's only about part of Europe (from 62°N to 28°S, from 14°W to > 29°E) > The working scale of the project was 1/10, and the smallest mapping unit > was 25 hectares. thank you for mentioning significant

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

sent from a phone > On 14. Jul 2020, at 16:55, Lionel Giard wrote: > > That's a bit of a stretch of the multipolygon definition as there is no inner > ring. sorry? The minimum requisite for a multipolygon is one outer ring. There must not be inner rings or multiple outer rings. It is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

*"...Said this, why not try to use CORINE [1] definitions?"* Thank you Voschix to mention this paper, searching the ISBN code (ISBN 92-826-2578-8) I was able to download it from researchgate.net (it's a pdf with 120 pages). Unluckily it's only about part of Europe (from 62°N to 28°S, from 14°W to

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

> > Wouldn't a multipolygon with just two outers solve that parking case? > Best Peter Elderson > That's a bit of a stretch of the multipolygon definition as there is no inner ring. I never used multipolygon for anything else than complex geometry (with inner ring(s)) and that seems to be what

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

This proposal is interesting. Giving a rapid look on the CORINE classes, it seems bare soil is included in all other classes but it hasn't a class per se. * CORINE library *

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Maybe. I would be interested in specific proposals. 14 Jul 2020, 14:24 by vosc...@gmail.com: > I am not a land cover expert, but have come across a great number of > obviously wrong land cover tagging in OSM.  > Said this, why not try to use CORINE [1] definitions? > > [1] > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

I am not a land cover expert, but have come across a great number of obviously wrong land cover tagging in OSM. Said this, why not try to use CORINE [1] definitions? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_of_Information_on_the_Environment On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 11:52 Christoph Hormann,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

> Joseph Eisenberg hat am 13. Juli 2020 um 22:34 > geschrieben: > > https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrishunkeler/32097822997 > I think this is a great example why more specific tags are advisable to use in OSM than a generic bare ground tag. What this picture shows is commonly known as