[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (DEPRECATED building=funeral hall)

Dear list, Please comment on the following proposal: Tagging: building=funeral_hall Definition: DEPRECATED, use building=yes combined with amenity=funeral_hall instead (This is an offshoot from my recent proposal for amenity=funeral_hall, due to comments made there.) Proposal page:

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

> On Sep 17, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > On 17/09/2020 10.07, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: >> On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote: >>> It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. As >>> much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of mapping >>>

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 06:58, Paul Allen wrote: > > Maybe "zebra crossing" should be a region-specific editor > preset and generates a tag(s) indicating priority of the pedestrian > and under what circumstances: "crossing, indicated by surface > markings, pedestrian has priority after stepping

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 19:29, Peter Elderson wrote: > In Nederland, the zebra is a very clear and specific type of crossing with > legal rules including yield to pedestrians walking on or even toward the > zebra. > I think we may end up having to make a distinction between the pattern of the

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

Am Do., 17. Sept. 2020 um 18:32 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke < mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>: > > *Traffic* lights I can buy. I am more suspicious of the claim that you > can tell whether they have pedestrian crossing signals or not, usually pedestrian crossings are marked, and depending on the

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

Am Do., 17. Sept. 2020 um 02:45 Uhr schrieb Taskar Center : > 1) How is this shared space controlled? ... > > 2) How is the space demarcated? A crossing may be demarcated by a number > of different ground markers, > > 3) How can a pedestrian call up the signal ... > > 4) who is sharing the

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On 17/09/2020 15.50, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On 9/17/20 11:30, Matthew Woehlke wrote: *Maybe* if you get lucky and have a very clear shadow at the right angle, but if you try to tell me you can identify https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7695704414 (n.b. a yield sign) from a shadow in aerial

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (funeral hall=*)

Dear list, Please comment on the following proposal: A building or room for funeral ceremonies ancillary to a funeral directors shop or a crematorium (subtag) (This is an offshoot from my previous proposal, due to comments made there.) Proposal page:

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On 9/17/20 11:30, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 17/09/2020 10.07, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: >> On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote: >>> It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. >>> As much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of >>> mapping happens just from

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

In Nederland, the zebra is a very clear and specific type of crossing with legal rules including yield to pedestrians walking on or even toward the zebra. I think this will continue to be the case even after Europe leaves the British Union. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op do 17 sep. 2020 om 20:12

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On 17/09/2020 13.44, Tod Fitch wrote: On Sep 17, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 17/09/2020 10.07, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote: It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. As much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On 17/09/2020 10.07, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote: It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. As much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of mapping happens just from aerials, where crossings (both marked and, in some cases,

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 15:09, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > I agree that the current presets available in JOSM are a bit of a botch, > particularly "uncontrolled" for crossings technically controlled by a > sign. "Marked" may be better but we still have the issue of changing a > lot of previously

Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 10:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > emergency bays are quite common in Italy Italy: 622 ways 2020 nodes (not limited to motorways without emergency lanes - vedi esempio ) > and Germany when there isn’t an

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 7:08 AM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > I agree that the current presets available in JOSM are a bit of a botch, > particularly "uncontrolled" for crossings technically controlled by a > sign. "Marked" may be better but we still have the issue of changing a > lot of previously

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. As > much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of mapping > happens just from aerials, where crossings (both marked and, in some > cases, unmarked) can be seen, but signals

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On 16/09/2020 20.40, Taskar Center wrote: crossing has been a very poor tag because it seems to be the kitchen sink for all the questions pertaining to crossings... Many of the attributes that get values in "crossing" are potentially overlapping and not mutually exclusive, causing a lot of

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

+1. Explicit tagging indicates a level of confidence not generally associated with implicit tagging. While there's certainly an 'ad nauseum' level of doing so (e.g. adding surface=paved, motor_vehicle=yes to highway=motorway in the U.S. would be kinda silly, IMO), there are plenty of cases where

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

On 16/09/2020 18.32, Paul Johnson wrote: No, it's not wrong to add implied tags explicitly. It's actually encouraged in some cases where the implicit tag is not consumable by automated system (such as the "none" default for turn:lanes tends to be ambiguous between "you can't turn from this

Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

On 16/09/2020 17.07, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 18:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: emergency bays are quite common in Italy and Germany when there isn’t an emergency lane. Quite common on major highways out here as well. I'm not sure if I'd call them "common", but they

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

Am Do., 17. Sept. 2020 um 02:37 Uhr schrieb Taskar Center : > This is yet another example why "sticking" the sidewalks onto the highway > (as a tag) rather than mapping them as separate ways is appearing to be > less and less practical. > why should these be mutually exclusive alternatives

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020, 01:37 Taskar Center, wrote: > Hi, > > This is yet another example why "sticking" the sidewalks onto the highway > (as a tag) rather than mapping them as separate ways is appearing to be > less and less practical. Please see our sidewalk schema proposal >