Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

> On Aug 14, 2020, at 6:23 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 00:57, Paul Allen > wrote: > > I'm not saying that OS is right to make those distinctions. I'm not saying > we should automatically do what they do. But I do think we ought to

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

I love tree-lined roads in the country side or in city settings. I would love a router that I could instruct to find them for me. For travelling by car and by bicycle. In past periods trees were part of the road. I like the idea of easily adding this feature to the map. But I also fear the

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

iD already adds oneway=yes automatically, so no problem there. I don't know about JOSM, but that can be added as a warning/alert if there isn't one already. Às 22:04 de 14/08/2020, Graeme Fitzpatrick escreveu: On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 07:59, António Madeira via Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 00:57, Paul Allen wrote: > > I'm not saying that OS is right to make those distinctions. I'm not saying > we should automatically do what they do. But I do think we ought to > consider > what they've done and think about it before committing ourselves. > "Maybe" (as OSM

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 at 07:59, António Madeira via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > In this > > section, I suggest changing the text: > "These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with >

Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

But what do you do for a place, called a Camping Ground, that is a big area of grass, mostly without defined "pitches" & where you can camp anyway you like: sleep in your car; on the ground; in a tent / camper trailer / caravan / motorhome? Any period is acceptable, from one night only up to "by

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > IMHO a feature with highway=* and tunnel =yes is not a tunnel but a road > inside a tunnel. IMHO it's not either/or, it's both at the same time. But I don't think it really matters. In most cases, there is no practical difference between the road in a tunnel

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 00:36, Arne Johannessen wrote: > > However, name=* should always contain the primary name of a feature. For a > road tunnel, the primary name is typically the tunnel's name, as the tunnel > is usually a more prominent feature than the road is. IMHO

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

dktue wrote: > > Here's an example [1] where the name of the tunnel seems to be tagged as > "name". I'm not sure what the roads name is (might be Schlossbergtunnel, > Hegelstraße or Rheinlandstraße). It's not clear if the part of the road inside the tunnel is named at all (perhaps not, as it

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 14:33, Paul Allen via Tagging > mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org]> wrote: > Is there a serious need (other than, say, one person's dissertation) to > perform > database queries to find objects that are tree-lined?  I can see the need to > find the nearest car park with

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 23:56, Paul Allen wrote: > > I'd almost think you were talking of the landscaping feature of private > gardens known as an avenue yes, think of these, but also on public roads (although they’re an ornamental feature and not just functional),

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 21:28, Paul Allen wrote: > There are many types of clinic with different specialties. I would hope > that a user > would look to see what type of clinic it is rather than wander into a > clinic and hope > it happens to specialize in that user's problem. > & that can

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

In this section, I suggest changing the text: "These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with oneway=yes." to "These ways should all point direction of travel and imply oneway=yes (like

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 22:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 14. Aug 2020, at 22:50, Paul Allen wrote: > > Trees at > the side of the road are an incidental. Fields at the side of the road > are an > incidental. Quaint houses at the side of the road are an incidental. > > > > no, the trees

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 22:50, Paul Allen wrote: > > Trees at > the side of the road are an incidental. Fields at the side of the road are an > incidental. Quaint houses at the side of the road are an incidental. no, the trees we are looking at are not incidental, they are

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 14. Aug 2020, at 16:45, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > I wouldn't use this attribute on anything around here. > > > that’s fine. Apparently this attribute wasn’t created for an area like > yours. Apparently not. Nobody said you

Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 22:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> Both tags allow tents, and both allow camper vans and caravans. > > > interesting, I would have expected a caravan site to not permit tents by > default. actually the caravan site puts it a little differently

Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 22:09, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > - The tag tents=yes/no (only listed in the camp_site Wiki) would be a good > way to find a place to camp with a tent, but almost none of the caravan_site > have this tag. All camp_sites in OSM I have

Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 20:51, Hidde Wieringa wrote: > > Both tags allow tents, and both allow camper vans and caravans. interesting, I would have expected a caravan site to not permit tents by default. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

Aug 14, 2020, 16:04 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> Maybe outright recommending removal after trees are mapped would be even >> better? >> > > > vandalism > This is typically used for

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

It is nicer to avoid contradictions, but I am not planning to work on this specific case. If you want you may propose specific edit and post it here for review (or make it and discuss if someone disagrees). "Someone should write/expand it" is typically ignored. Aug 14, 2020, 20:35 by

Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

Aug 14, 2020, 20:49 by hi...@hiddewieringa.nl: > > My goal is to differentiate the two tags. Both tags allow tents, and > both allow camper vans and caravans. Both tags may or may not provide > facilities such as toilets, water, electricity, et cetera. In practice, > the only

[Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

Good day, I am having trouble with the tourism tags caravan_site and camp_site, specifically for the use case of finding a place to camp with a tent (so not a caravan or a camper van). My goal is to differentiate the two tags. Both tags allow tents, and both allow camper vans and caravans.

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

So, should this contradiction be eliminated from the wiki or not? Às 09:32 de 26/05/2020, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging escreveu: Based on my experience it is usually better to write something, even not ideal and ask for a review. "Someone should write/expand it" is typically ignored. May

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

I'm not a natural speaker, head like in where the aerialway is heading. I propose the second scheme because of the duplicate meaning with ele in the definition, and because the aim of an aerialway could be lower than mid. Yves Le 14 août 2020 17:32:08 GMT+02:00, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

I strongly prefer up/top over head. At least for me (not representative, not a native speaker), head = up is not clear. 14 Aug 2020, 17:05 by em...@daniel-korn.de: > Am 14.08.2020 um 16:37 schrieb yvecai: > > >> >> I would propose, if you want to use altitude as a definition: >> >> >>>

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

We really should avoid words like "usually. " If there exceptions to the elevation critérium, or if other factors are significant in working out the correct value, then this also needs documenting... On 14 August 2020 17:05:37 CEST, dktue wrote: >Am 14.08.2020 um 16:37 schrieb yvecai: >> >>

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

Am 14.08.2020 um 16:37 schrieb yvecai: I would propose, if you want to use altitude as a definition: bottom: the end station with the lower altitude up: the end station with the higher altitude mid: any station, not being a base or a head station, irrespective of the altitude

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Am 14.08.2020 um 16:21 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: If name of tunnel is also name of road then name tag should be fine. how would you know whether the name is for the road or the tunnel if there is only a name tag? What

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On 2020-08-14 10:48 a.m., Paul Allen wrote: > > > 3) That, one day, routers might preferentially route along tree-lined > roads > rather than non-tree-lined roads, in the same way they preferentially > route > along lit roads.  Do any route along lit roads?  I can see that a > router which >

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:42, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The “rise” where the stream comes back to the surface would usually be > mapped as natural=spring > Ordnance Survey makes the distinction between issues and springs. An issue is where a waterway reappears after a (natural, not a culvert)

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 16:45, Paul Allen wrote: > > I wouldn't use this attribute on anything around here. that’s fine. Apparently this attribute wasn’t created for an area like yours. Nobody said you should use it. There are other areas in the world where these are

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Maybe outright recommending removal after trees are mapped would be even > better? > > vandalism. It’s like suggesting removing

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 14:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > indeed I would not suggest to use this on polygons, rather for linear > features like roads and waterways. I’m specifically interested in roads > with associated, purposefully planted tree roads (shade, scenic effect). > Around here

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

The “rise” where the stream comes back to the surface would usually be mapped as natural=spring If there is also a cave entrance at the same spot where the watercourse exits a cave, then the tag natural=cave_entrance can be used - Joseph On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 6:21 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

I would propose, if you want to use altitude as a definition: bottom: the end station with the lower altitude up: the end station with the higher altitude mid: any station, not being a base or a head station, irrespective of the altitude Or, alternatively one that does not compete

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 14:21, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > The WIki picture of a sinkhole happens to be large, but in karst terrain > they come in all sizes. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5599524737 is > a sinkhole of quite a small stream. > It's been a long time since I've been near (never on)

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > If name of tunnel is also name of road then name tag should be fine. how would you know whether the name is for the road or the tunnel if there is only a name tag? What about setting both tags with

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Maybe outright recommending removal after trees are mapped would be even > better? vandalism. It’s like suggesting removing the lit tag after street lamps have been added. Or some landuse after

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 16:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > We are also mapping buildings and residential landuse and distinguishing > residential roads. or street lights and the lit property on roads. Cheers Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:37, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Apart from that I would not advocate "overlapping" mapping with three > different schemes: individual trees a separate nodes, tree lines as separate > ways, and the new proposal. > On any given object there should

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:35, Paul Allen wrote: > > I still do not see a purpose for the attribute except as a convenient way > of avoiding mapping tree rows. routing. While it is not impossible to find tree lined roads by analyzing the context, it is an expensive

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 13:13, Paul Allen wrote: > > What if the trees line only > three of four sides? Or there aresome sizable gaps for the entrances? indeed I would not suggest to use this on polygons, rather for linear features like roads and waterways. I’m

Re: [Tagging] PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

On 12/08/2020 01:37, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote: i have been to 11 stations in the last 3 weeks, the trains are not doing what the tags represent If you've done this, and care that stop positions are mapped in the correct place, then I'd suggest that you actually map these stop

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

Am 14.08.2020 um 14:51 schrieb Colin Smale: On 2020-08-14 13:55, dktue wrote: Am 14.08.2020 um 13:34 schrieb Colin Smale: On 2020-08-14 13:14, dktue wrote: Am 14.08.2020 um 13:11 schrieb Yves: Base / mid / head? I'm definitely open for that! :-) OK, two people agree

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 13:28, Paul Allen wrote: > >> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> Maybe it’s because I am not an English native speaker, but I would expect >> something more than a head lice removal treatment place or a speech >> therapist when I see

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 7:08 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 06:42, Mark Wagner wrote: > >> >> For a larger and far more dramatic example of this sort of situation, >> look at the area to the west of Death Valley Playa. It looks like >> someone stacked hundreds of river deltas on

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Maybe outright recommending removal after trees are mapped would be even > better? > Yes. But we all know that many people don't read the wiki, they just go by what the editor gives them. They

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

On 2020-08-14 13:55, dktue wrote: > Am 14.08.2020 um 13:34 schrieb Colin Smale: > > On 2020-08-14 13:14, dktue wrote: > Am 14.08.2020 um 13:11 schrieb Yves: Base / mid / head? I'm definitely open > for that! :-) OK, two people agree on the strings to use, but what are the semantics? What

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

Aug 14, 2020, 14:35 by vosc...@gmail.com: > > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, 13:41 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> I feel that tree_lined=separate should be used if trees are separately mapped >> > > This would make it worse because you would have to add

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Aug 14, 2020, 14:37 by em...@daniel-korn.de: > Am 14.08.2020 um 14:29 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging: > > >> >> >> >> Aug 13, 2020, 15:01 by >> em...@daniel-korn.de>> : >> >>> Here's an example [1] where the name of the tunnel seems to be >>> tagged as "name". I'm not sure

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 08:34, Paul Allen wrote: > I still do not see a purpose for the attribute That's not what the discussion is about though. The attribute has already been used 1000 times so the wiki page is documenting the fact that others saw a purpose for it.

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Am 14.08.2020 um 14:29 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging: Aug 13, 2020, 15:01 by em...@daniel-korn.de: Here's an example [1] where the name of the tunnel seems to be tagged as "name". I'm not sure what the roads name is (might be Schlossbergtunnel, Hegelstraße or

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, 13:41 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I feel that tree_lined=separate should be used if trees are separately > mapped > This would make it worse because you would have to add this to all objects with tree lines already tagged with

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I feel that tree_lined=separate should be used if trees are separately > mapped > What purpose does tree_lined=separate serve? Inspection of the map shows the object is tree-lined. I still do not

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Aug 13, 2020, 15:01 by em...@daniel-korn.de: > Here's an example [1] where the name of the tunnel seems to be tagged as > "name". I'm not sure what the roads name is (might be Schlossbergtunnel, > Hegelstraße or Rheinlandstraße). Tagging it to tunnel:name would definitely > clarify on this.

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

Am 14.08.2020 um 13:34 schrieb Colin Smale: On 2020-08-14 13:14, dktue wrote: Am 14.08.2020 um 13:11 schrieb Yves: Base / mid / head? I'm definitely open for that! :-) OK, two people agree on the strings to use, but what are the semantics? What sentence would go in the wiki to describe

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

I feel that tree_lined=separate should be used if trees are separately mapped Aug 14, 2020, 01:06 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > I’ve set up an initial documentation page for the tree_lined attribute (used > mainly in conjunction with highways and waterways) and welcome comments for > it: > >

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

On 2020-08-14 13:14, dktue wrote: > Am 14.08.2020 um 13:11 schrieb Yves: > >> Base / mid / head? > I'm definitely open for that! :-) OK, two people agree on the strings to use, but what are the semantics? What sentence would go in the wiki to describe a) when to use the value and b) what the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 12:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Maybe it’s because I am not an English native speaker, but I would expect > something more than a head lice removal treatment place or a speech > therapist when I see healthcare=clinic. It's stretching the case, perhaps, but not

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

Am 14.08.2020 um 13:11 schrieb Yves: Base / mid / head? I'm definitely open for that! :-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

Base / mid / head? Le 14 août 2020 10:59:11 GMT+02:00, dktue a écrit : > >Am 14.08.2020 um 10:53 schrieb yvecai: >> On 14.08.20 10:40, dktue wrote: I would define it as: lower_station: station that has the lowest elevation (exact elevation is not necessary to know, it's

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 11:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > as it is stated in the page, you should not do it. Having the individual > trees mapped does not change the property of the road as being tree lined. > Similarly, you can map individual trees within a tree row, but you do not > have

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 12:48, Paul Allen wrote: > > Some > values that are far more specific like speech_therapist seem to have > crept in that might be better as specialities. > > I'd say the facilities offering headlice removal and nothing else are as much > clinics as are

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 06:42, Mark Wagner wrote: > > For a larger and far more dramatic example of this sort of situation, > look at the area to the west of Death Valley Playa. It looks like > someone stacked hundreds of river deltas on top of one another, but > forgot to add the water. > As I

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 12:13, Jez Nicholson wrote: > > Q: if I mark a road as tree_lined=both and later map all the individual > trees, do I remove the tree_lined=both tag as I now have finer detail? as it is stated in the page, you should not do it. Having the individual

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 00:35, Lisbeth Salander wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 at 12:52, Paul Allen > wrote: > > healthcare:speciality=podiatrist and they remove corns and verrucas. Your > salons are removing unwanted stuff from the other end of the body. In fact, > your salons are removing

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

Q: if I mark a road as tree_lined=both and later map all the individual trees, do I remove the tree_lined=both tag as I now have finer detail? On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 8:45 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 14. Aug 2020, at 06:57, Peter Elderson wrote: > > > > I can

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

14 Aug 2020, 10:53 by y...@mailbox.org: > On 14.08.20 10:40, dktue wrote: > >>> I would define it as: >>> >>> lower_station: station that has the lowest elevation (exact elevation is >>> not necessary to know, it's obvious) >>> upper_station: station that has the highest elevation >>>

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

Am 14.08.2020 um 10:53 schrieb yvecai: On 14.08.20 10:40, dktue wrote: I would define it as: lower_station: station that has the lowest elevation (exact elevation is not necessary to know, it's obvious) upper_station: station that has the highest elevation mid_station: any other station I

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

On 14.08.20 10:40, dktue wrote: I would define it as: lower_station: station that has the lowest elevation (exact elevation is not necessary to know, it's obvious) upper_station: station that has the highest elevation mid_station: any other station I want to add: At least in Germany,

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

Am 14.08.2020 um 10:35 schrieb dktue: Am 14.08.2020 um 10:28 schrieb yvecai: On 14.08.20 10:00, dktue wrote: So why oppose to the suggested tagging of station=lower_station/mid_station/upper_station? What harm would this cause? There is concerns expressed by the tag value lower/upper

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

Am 14.08.2020 um 10:28 schrieb yvecai: On 14.08.20 10:00, dktue wrote: So why oppose to the suggested tagging of station=lower_station/mid_station/upper_station? What harm would this cause? There is concerns expressed by the tag value lower/upper that imply the elevation difference, do

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

On 14.08.20 10:00, dktue wrote: So why oppose to the suggested tagging of station=lower_station/mid_station/upper_station? What harm would this cause? There is concerns expressed by the tag value lower/upper that imply the elevation difference, do you want to tag this difference or

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

Am 13.08.2020 um 19:06 schrieb Colin Smale: On 2020-08-13 18:35, Werner.Haag@leitstelle.tirol wrote: Hi, in my opinion (i think dktue is right there) it should be easy for a user to distinguish or extract (overpass query) the upper, mid and lower stations. That´s not possible at the

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 06:57, Peter Elderson wrote: > > I can see how an area such as a parking, a churchyard or pedestrian area can > be tree lined. I can also see this, but I’m not sure we should use this tag for it. Placement on area (borders) will vary a lot, and it

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

Am 13.08.2020 um 19:06 schrieb Colin Smale: On 2020-08-13 18:35, Werner.Haag@leitstelle.tirol wrote: Hi, in my opinion (i think dktue is right there) it should be easy for a user to distinguish or extract (overpass query) the upper, mid and lower stations. That´s not possible at the