There lots of forest roads/path, where the bicycle/pushed carried is
prohibited. Mostly, private owned land with a access_sign.
“the bicycle” “transportation vehicle” is prohibited.
Because, navigation programs do not us bicycle=no, as a hard no, there is the
need for a extra value.
I think the Why question comes first!
Best, Peter Elderson
Op di 21 jul. 2020 om 21:47 schreef Andy Townsend :
> On 21/07/2020 20:37, pangoSE wrote:
> >
> > Andy Townsend skrev: (21 juli 2020 13:31:45 CEST)
> >
> >> I've also been trying to add these (both guideposts and route markers)
> >>
On 21/07/2020 20:37, pangoSE wrote:
Andy Townsend skrev: (21 juli 2020 13:31:45 CEST)
I've also been trying to add these (both guideposts and route markers)
to the relevant hiking route relation.
That does not sound right to me. Why would you do that?
How would you indicate which relation
Andy Townsend skrev: (21 juli 2020 13:31:45 CEST)
>On 21/07/2020 12:04, Michal Fabík wrote:
>
>I've also been trying to add these (both guideposts and route markers)
>to the relevant hiking route relation.
That does not sound right to me. Why would you do that? A route relation is in
my
+1, this can be somehow tagged,
but there is no need to invent a new tag
I would also tag guidepost attached to
building as information=guidepost,
even if it would be supported by wall,
not a post
21 Jul 2020, 18:22 by jm...@gmx.com:
> On 7/21/2020 11:02 AM, Jan Michel wrote:
>
>> Hi Michal,
>>
On 7/21/2020 11:02 AM, Jan Michel wrote:
Hi Michal,
I would stay with information=guidepost for those.
They serve exactly the same purpose, so they should get the same major
tag. It's only the way the sign is made that is different. You can add
the common tags like "support", "material",
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 16:02, Jan Michel wrote:
>
> I would stay with information=guidepost for those.
>
That is fine if the only meaning you wish to convey is that there
is something which indicates the path of the route. But there
are those, like me, who think the physical appearance is
Thanks for the accuracy link
“you should mark the approximate accuracy of the given measurement as returned
by the instrument in the given instant.”
That is also better.
It is just, that you get a hint, source, accuracy, that the data is measured
in. Before you drag a
Dear all,
I wanted to check with you which is the best way to map farmlands subject to
rotation of crops. An example could be of a farmland used for general crop in
one part of the year and left it at rest for the remaining part of the year,
being actually used as a meadow for animals grazing
Hi Michal,
I would stay with information=guidepost for those.
They serve exactly the same purpose, so they should get the same major
tag. It's only the way the sign is made that is different. You can add
the common tags like "support", "material", "location" or "colour" to
give further details
Except cases where there is a clear agreement that some scheme is clearly
preferable,
but in such cases it is extremely rare for such scheme to gain comparable
popularity.
Jul 21, 2020, 15:25 by vosc...@gmail.com:
> Please let us not forget that the wiki is supposed to document what is used
Jul 21, 2020, 15:21 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:
> 2020-07-21, an, 15:00 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
>
>>> It is totally NERDY.
>>>
>> What you mean by that?
>>
>
> There are two very different things:
> * IT
> * coding
>
> IT considers wider/higher-level things like stability,
2020-07-21, an, 15:17 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
> Because despite claims mentioned above - there are also people preferring the
> second schema,
> it is not case of "iD developers vs community" like it is/was with some case.
Situation when there are no barriers to changing widely
> Tomas Straupis hat am 21. Juli 2020 um 15:21
> geschrieben:
>
> IT considers wider/higher-level things like stability, quality of
> the final product, documentation, usability etc. etc. IT expertise is
> gained by years of doing work on IT (coding is NOT IT expertise).
>
> Only
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 14:23, Tomas Straupis
wrote:
> 2020-07-21, an, 15:00 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
> >> It is totally NERDY.
> > What you mean by that?
>
> There are two very different things:
> * IT
> * coding
>
Such a simple world you live in. There is a third thing you
Please let us not forget that the wiki is supposed to document what is used
in OSM. In this case it should say that two schemes exist, and, if we have
good numbers for the relative use, we can add that.
Putting an advice to prefer one or the other is not within the scope of the
wiki in such a
On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 13:42, Michal Fabík wrote:
> On 7/21/20 1:31 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
> > I've used "tourism=information; information=route_marker" for these.
> > "trail_blaze" is also frequently used
>
> That doesn't sound right to me. If I understand the description on the
> Wiki[1]
2020-07-21, an, 15:00 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
>> It is totally NERDY.
> What you mean by that?
There are two very different things:
* IT
* coding
IT considers wider/higher-level things like stability, quality of
the final product, documentation, usability etc. etc. IT
I think it is a good idea to consider a threshold of vegetation present on the
ground in order not to confuse the proposed natural=bare_soil with other
landcover tags as natural=scrub or natural=grassland.
According to the CORINE landcover definitions we mentioned before, sparsely
vegetated
On 7/21/20 1:31 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
I've used "tourism=information; information=route_marker" for these.
"trail_blaze" is also frequently used
That doesn't sound right to me. If I understand the description on the
Wiki[1] correctly, what is tagged as "information=route_marker" or
Jul 21, 2020, 12:13 by em...@daniel-korn.de:
> Am 21.07.2020 um 10:55 schrieb Tomas Straupis:
>
>> 2020-07-21, an, 11:20 dktue rašė:
>>
>>> Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that
>>> waterway=riverbank is preferred?
>>>
>> There is an original OpenStreetMap water schema
Jul 21, 2020, 10:18 by em...@daniel-korn.de:
> Hi,
>
> the wiki [1] states for riverbanks that
>
> "These water areas should be tagged as either of waterway=riverbank OR
> natural=water + water=river."
>
> Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that
> waterway=riverbank is
Jul 21, 2020, 10:55 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:
> 2020-07-21, an, 11:20 dktue rašė:
>
>> Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that
>> waterway=riverbank is preferred?
>>
>
> There is an original OpenStreetMap water schema with lakes as
> natural=water, reservoirs as
On 21/07/2020 12:04, Michal Fabík wrote:
Hi,
in some parts of the world, it's common practice to paint guidepost
information (destinations, distances etc.) on rock faces, trees, walls
and similar existing surfaces, rather than use purpose-made plates
attached to a pole. (Example:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=accuracy
Yes, definitely. We used accuracy=* for this in the past, although I see it
is now a bit overloaded. accuracy:meters=* and location:accuracy=* both
seem to be widely used.
All of them should be interpreted as meters by default (i.e.,
There is no way to calculate the "opinnion" of the community and
authoritarian/dictator attitude of iD coders and lack of action ramped
up usage of nerdy schema close to original OSM one.
And there is nobody bold to solve this, as there is no governing
body/expert group.
Local
There is data, what is measured.
With RTK GNSS, there is 1cm accuracy possible.
Should we tag this mapped data, so that we know the accurancy level of this
data?
Greetings Allroads.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Hi,
in some parts of the world, it's common practice to paint guidepost
information (destinations, distances etc.) on rock faces, trees, walls
and similar existing surfaces, rather than use purpose-made plates
attached to a pole. (Example:
https://osm.fit.vutbr.cz/fody/files/21255.jpg)
Do
2020-07-21, an 13:15, dktue rašė:
>
> So why can't the wiki state: "If you tag, then please do so using
> waterway=riverbank" (as this is preferred by the *community*)?
>
There is no way to calculate the "opinnion" of the community and
authoritarian/dictator attitude of iD coders and lack of
Am 21.07.2020 um 10:55 schrieb Tomas Straupis:
2020-07-21, an, 11:20 dktue rašė:
Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that
waterway=riverbank is preferred?
There is an original OpenStreetMap water schema with lakes as
natural=water, reservoirs as landuse=reservoir,
2020-07-21, an, 11:20 dktue rašė:
> Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that
> waterway=riverbank is preferred?
There is an original OpenStreetMap water schema with lakes as
natural=water, reservoirs as landuse=reservoir, riverbanks as
waterway=riverbank etc. It is a
Hi,
the wiki [1] states for riverbanks that
"These water areas should be tagged as either of waterway=riverbank OR
natural=water + water=river."
Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that
waterway=riverbank is preferred?
Cheers
dktue
[1]
32 matches
Mail list logo
