Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

I see that despite this discussion, TomTom is proceeding with its quixotic quest to get mappers to tag surface tags on motorway, just now in other countries: https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/37540 Would you care to inform the community what it is that you're trying to accomplish here?

[Tagging] Proposed_features: emergency=air_rescue_service

Same for this one, if there are no further comments, I'll move it to voting in a couple of days. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/emergency%3Dair_rescue_service Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

[Tagging] Proposed_features: emergency=water_rescue

Getting back to this after a busy few weeks, if there are no further comments, I'll move it to voting in a couple of days. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/emergency%3Dwater_rescue Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

sent from a phone > On 2 Feb 2023, at 16:04, Marc_marc wrote: > > I thought there were only open-top tanks there are but they are called basin or reservoir, we also have landuse=reservoir as its own tag (although that’s landuse tagging, not countable features, effectively the tag is

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

On 2 February 2023 11:06:04 GMT, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Again sport=soccer implies a rectangular playing field with goals at either >end - that is physical infrastructure. Without the playing field and goals >there cannot be a game of soccer... > Jumpers for goalposts? To

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

Le 02.02.23 à 15:09, António Madeira a écrit : My problem with storage_tank=open is that it still has ambiguity. Open where? On the top, on the side? Which side? This is very important in the case of storage tanks destined to firefighters. I thought there were only open-top tanks, but if not

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

António Madeira : > IlMy problem with storage_tank=open is that it still has ambiguity. Open > where? On the top, on the side? Which side? This is very important in the > case of storage tanks destined to firefighters. > My question is: how to convey the critical information that a storage_tank >

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

The same in Canada… Sent from Mail for Windows From: stevea Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 03:15 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging the

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

I agree with you, Marc, when you say the use of covered=* is kind of a distortion of the tag. That's why I opened this discussion, because I also had that doubt. Às 14:02 de 12/01/2023, Marc_marc escreveu: roof=* is indeed maybe too specific. but closed or not tank and tank covered by another

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

чт, 2 февр. 2023 г., 14:51 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > > > Feb 2, 2023, 12:09 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > Again sport=soccer implies a rectangular playing field with goals at > either end - that is physical infrastructure. Without the playing field and >

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

Feb 2, 2023, 12:09 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > Again sport=soccer implies a rectangular playing field with goals at > either end - that is physical infrastructure. Without the playing field > and goals there cannot be a game of soccer... > > > The sport ping pong implies

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On 2 February 2023 09:34:08 GMT, Volker Schmidt wrote: >I do have a typical traversable roundabout close by. hgv=no is not correct, >there are commercial activities around that need hgv access. The roads are >adequate for that > >The angle between incoming roads is not a suitabla measure, as

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

On 31/1/23 23:34, Illia Marchenko wrote: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: What do you mean by 'a sport'? The sport soccer, for example, could be taken as referring to the physical infrastructure - goads at either end, a rectangular playing field. Similar can be said of many OSM

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

Well, the Highway Code says (Rule 188), "Avoid making U-turns at mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this." I assume that "avoid" is not quite as strong as "prohibited", especially as drivers are then warned to "Beware of others doing thís". Also, I know of at least one bus route near me

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

Yes, Phil, I overlooked your last point (and I have UK driving license). In Italy there are no separate rules or road signs for traversable roundabouts, hence no interdiction of U-turns. That needs addressing. Country-specific defaults? "My" traversable roundabout is in fact often used for

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On 2 February 2023 09:59:01 CET, Philip Barnes wrote: >A mini roundabout often doesn't usually have a diameter. Most are jus normal >junctions which have been made mini-roundabouts to set a priority. You mean they don't have a diameter because they are not even close to being circular? In

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

I do have a typical traversable roundabout close by. hgv=no is not correct, there are commercial activities around that need hgv access. The roads are adequate for that The angle between incoming roads is not a suitabla measure, as the traversable roundabout has a circular "belly", providing

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

A mini roundabout often doesn't usually have a diameter. Most are jus normal junctions which have been made mini-roundabouts to set a priority. So in terms of large vehicles it is the same problem as any other junctions, whether they can turn left or right. In the UK, U turns are prohibited

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 04:31 +0100, Matija Nalis wrote: > If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply > mark it as `hgv=no`? Besides being simple, it has the additional > advantage that routers will actually already use it and direct HGVs > somewhere where they can

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

And, I would add, exceptional transports of up to maybe 100 tons or more may get one time permissions to use the road, possibly involving removing street furniture to enable the manoeuvre. Changing the physical dimensions of the carriageway is a bit more difficult though. On 2 February 2023

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

sent from a phone > On 2 Feb 2023, at 04:34, Matija Nalis > wrote: > > If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply mark it > as > `hgv=no`? because hgv=no means forbidden to hgv (vehicles which may weight more than 2.8t). There are a lot of different sizes

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On Jan 29, 2023, at 5:31 AM, Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:12:06AM +, Philip Barnes wrote: >> >> When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did think these >> should be mini-roundabouts. > > Thats the main point. In Germany we have a solution of "last