On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 7:06 PM Greg Troxel wrote:
> As someone not happy about the deprecation of mailinglists, a few brief
> comments here:
>
> First, I think this proposal is fine, as documenting widespread
> practice. Regardless of my further comments, I think it's solidly
> progress
On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 4:50 PM Andrew Hain
wrote:
> I have started a new proposal: that the name tag should be restricted to
> the same meaning for route relations that it has on other elements and that
> the description tag should be used otherwise.
>
The proposal is unclear and appears to
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 10:20 PM stevea wrote:
> I have mapped perhaps tens of thousands of miles of bike routes in OSM.
> Yes, really. I don't do this sort of "apply the name of the route to the
> element track/path." We shouldn't.
>
> Zeke's example is excellent and is a good reason for
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 3:51 PM Jmapb wrote:
> On 12/12/2022 2:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > Following a JOSM discussion I wanted to ask here, if someone else is
> > using building=entrance to tag entrance buildings.
> >
> > It is a term that seems well introduced and understandable, so
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 6:12 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> here is an example for a mountain situation where you should probably have
> the right shoes, and someone in sneakers of flip flops, or pushing (well,
> carrying at this point) a baby stroller would have a hard time, but it
> wouldn’t
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 2:53 PM Janko Mihelić wrote:
> čet, 15. ruj 2022. 19:57 Peter Elderson je napisao:
>
>> I know, but the scale does not indicate specific things you encounter,
>> just that somewhere along the way you will be challenged.
>>
>
> That isn't true. If you tag a relation with
On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 12:10 PM Sarah Hoffmann via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> To get this mess sorted out we should probably start with the discussion
> 'what is a hishway=path'. The current definition in the wiki is
> not helpful in any way. It basically says that anything
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 10:10 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> Yes, we already have fee and access which can cope with these things.
> What we didn't have was an understanding in the US that such tags
> were even applicable or that anyone might wish to map fishing
> features on rivers, especially pools
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:08 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 17:28, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 7:17 AM Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>> British anglers must be different from American ones. Most fishermen that
>> I know don't wan
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 3:38 PM Anders Torger wrote:
> I think it's more about that most OSMers are interested in urban areas,
> street routing and stuff like that, and outdoor maps haven't really been
> much of a thing other than for simple illustrative purposes.
>
Most OSM'ers are
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 2:15 PM ipswichmapper--- via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> What do you mean by this? You would have to tag with addr:range=no, as
> that is not a default value.
>
> However, don't see this as a downside. Currently, software such as OSMand
> interprets
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 1:56 PM Anders Torger wrote:
> Do you think there is a valid use for fuzzy areas in outdoor/rural areas,
> or would you rather see them not being used there either?
>
I've mentioned before that I, at least, have fuzzy administrative
boundaries to deal with.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 1:41 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 18:13, Brian M. Sperlongano
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Occasionally a river or stream will form a stream pool or plunge pool,
>> which are bodies of water that naturally occur along the course of the
>> waterway. These
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 1:24 PM Tomas Straupis
wrote:
> This might be correct. I guess it depends on direction you look at
> it: what is exception from the reservoir rule - hard shoreline or non
> hard. I was thinking of the ways to map fuzzy shore in OSM and had the
> same idea to tag fuzzy
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:58 PM Tomas Straupis
wrote:
> Why? Cayaking info is pretty rare - opposite of lake/reservoir data.
> Therefore it's fine to map what you need only:
> https://upes.openmap.lt/#17/56.296411/22.330154
Looks good, I think... but what is the tagging?
An example (with
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:27 PM Tomas Straupis
wrote:
> In other maps reservoirs (US?) could have black border.
The usual symbology on USGS and DMS maps is that the black border denotes
an 'artificial shoreline', where the shore is either stabilized with riprap
or concrete, or built up with
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:52 AM Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Re: "natural=water' wins. I can see that there's water there"
>
> You still have to distinguish marine water (outside of the
> natural=coastline) from inland waters, and distinguishing rivers from lakes
> is
My take on it:
Wearing my data consumer's hat:
For most purposes, I care about "this ground is covered with water".
'natural=water' is the main thing to look for, but I also have to look for
'landuse=reservoir' and several other things that I can't be bothered to
look up at the moment. I have to
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 8:50 PM Brian M. Sperlongano
wrote:
> I poked into the existing usages of hazard=landslide, and they seem to
> mostly be on hiking trails or at best track roads, rather than regular
> roads. I don't think anyone would quibble with tagging a landslide hazard
> on this [1]
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:54 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it where
> danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale
> rock slide.
>
> Personally I would prefer
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 9:23 AM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> The problem we have here is that of a widening gap between the goals and
> aspirations of the mapper community - which naturally grow as OSM grows in
> ambitions - and the abilities and engagement in the non-mapping part of the
>
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 2:57 PM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Now, you might smirk and say "let's fix the tools then", but until the
> tools are fixed - which might take years -, you've made life a hell of a
> lot harder for anyone editing or quality monitoring in the whole area.
>
> And all for what -
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 8:04 PM Brian M. Sperlongano
wrote:
> Therefore, a holistic solution is needed for large objects. Setting an
> api limit is good because it gives consumers a guarantee about the
> worst-case object they might have to handle. However, it must also be
> combined with a
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 9:20 PM Dave F via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Be careful. This is where many contributors get confused. The name of the
> *path* is often not the name of the *route*. A route relation can, & often
> does, go along paths with different names. Multiple
On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 6:22 PM Adam Franco wrote:
>
>- origination:natural=beavers
>
> Thanks for remembering this one. Around here, beavers are a significant
sculpting force on the landscape.
(And `man_made=dam` is the best tagging that we have for their water
control structures, which
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 3:46 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> On 13. Oct 2020, at 23:42, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a
> crossing node *and* a crossing way.
>
>
>
> I thought the standard was highway=crossing on the nodes
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 17:41 Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 22:16, Emvee via Tagging
> wrote:
>
I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a
> crossing node *and* a crossing way. This was described as an option on
> the highway=crossing wiki
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 8:07 AM OSM wrote:
>
> How to solve the issue with a single crossing node at highway=
> without a crossing highway= because of "sideway
> tagging by tags on highway" mapping?
>
I don't try to solve it. I put in a short way for the crossing.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 6:22 AM stevea wrote:
> I’m not positive that this is true for the entire perimeter, but
> bulldozer-cleared areas, hand-dug trenches many meters wide (to prevent a
> fire “jumping” from one side of the perimeter to the other) and usage of
> cutlines (for power cables /
It's not US English, it's just a misspelling yielding a wrong word. The
correct word is 'potable' on this side of the pond as well.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 8:14 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 7. Sep 2020, at 13:52, Peter Neale wrote:
> >
> > I'm not arguing
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:34 AM Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
> Does it really only use the changeset bounding box? That's good as a
> first-pass culling test, but I would be somewhat annoyed if my ROI is
> "Chicago, IL" and I get notified because someone changed Kansas City, MO
> and Detroit, MI in
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
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:16 PM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/4/20 18:28, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > In actual practice, in the estuaries of rivers, the 'coastline' is very
> > seldom tagged that far upstream.
>
> From my Chesapeake Bay example, in OSM, H
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:18 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> These rules would exclude the lower Rio De La Plata and the lower part of
> the mouth of the Saint Lawrence river, as well as other wide estuaries
> where winds and tides have more influence on surface water flow than does
> the
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:54 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> It's perfectly possible to make a physical definition of an estuary which
> allows the line of the natural=coastline to be placed across the lower
> Hudson, rather than at Troy or Albany, if we look at salinity and currents
> rather than
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:59 PM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> I am not saying that OSM should only record physical geography. I am
> saying that natural=coastline is a physical geography tag and should be
> defined based on physical geography criteria. If there is no consensus
> about this we can
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:24 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> This means that the line tagged with natural=coastline is on the inland
> side of all marine water, including mangroves, salt marshes, and tidal
> channels, as far as possible. It makes sense that in estuaries, the route
> of the ways
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 4:57 AM Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> Follow-up question on that: are all route relation names/refs mapped as
> route=highway in the US usable as an address part or is that restricted to
> certain routes and/or regions (for example, rural only)?
>
>
It's case-by-case. Near me,
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 6:42 PM Paul Norman via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Starting locally, the Fraser River has a strong tidal influence 25km
> upstream of the coastline/riverbank edge. Fishers report a tidal
> influence 90km upstream. Wikipedia says the Columbia has tidal
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 5:29 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:09 PM Clay Smalley wrote:
>
>> Chiming in as another settler. I really wish we had more Natives active
>> on OSM contributing their cultural knowledge. What could we be doing
>> different in the future to welcome and
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 2:25 PM Clifford Snow
wrote:
> After some digging, it appears that Saint Regis Mohawk Indian Territory is
> in OSM. Just across the border, on a Saint Lawrence River island, is the
> Akwesasne 59 First Nations tribe is also in OSM. According to Wikipedia [1]
> the Mohawk
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 4:28 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:16 PM Kevin Kenny
> wrote:
>
>> The reductio-ad-absurdum would be to argue that 42nd Street in Manhattan
>> should be `noname=yes ref=???` and participate in a route relation with
>> `ne
On 31. Jul 2020, at 18:25, Jmapb wrote:
>
> But most of the ways in the route have no valid name. Segments were
> imported from TIGER with name=State Highway 214 but that's been removed
> in favor of ref=NY 214.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 12:01 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> around here we keep
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 5:07 PM Alan Mackie wrote:
> Many if not most of the entities mentioned in this discussion as being
> candidates for "admin level above country" do have geographic reach
> encompassing multiple countries, but are also limited in scope, often
> severely. To tag such a
.On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 12:25 PM Jmapb wrote:
> Hi all, what's the best way to tag the addr:street of an address along a
> highway route?
>
> Example, I'm mapping houses and POIs along NY 212:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/411064
>
> Some segments of the route are tagged name=Main
For what it's worth, ordinarily I will map a stretch of road with parallel
or diagonal parking by drawing a parking area that shares nodes with the
road centre-line. The routers find it when asked to find parking, it
doesn't render badly, and I think it expresses the intention. If there is
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:59 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> Different cultural expectations. You're looking for information about a
> trail and don't care what form it takes.
>
I suppose that you therefore consider that the principal tag for these
objects, `tourism=information` is somewhat
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:23 AM Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Good question. But it more closely resembles a guidepost than a blaze.
> Whereas the things being shoe-horned into guidepost in this thread more
> closely resemble blazes. Elaborate blazes with text. Not that I'm
> arguing we should abuse
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 3:33 PM Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 07:24:25PM +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> > I am mapping a fingerpost, aka guidepost:
> >
> >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dguidepost
> >
> > I would like to add the inscription, for each of
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 1:34 PM Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
> > The car park in town, is that barren?
> If it's well maintained, hopefully it is. If it's crumbling, it might
> not be! My previous residence had a paved driveway that, strictly
> speaking, was not barren.
In a wet climate like the one I
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:19 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/20 9:30 pm, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, being
> a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter.
>
> To me it is hard to imagine an area as
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 4:21 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:
> I created
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:fcode
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:ftype
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:reach_code
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:com_id
>
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 12:47 PM Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote:
> Yes. And I would not delete, e.g., power lines that are visible
> on aerials.
> Also because I would not be sure that were really removed and not just
> unused.
I'd add a lifecycle prefix to make sure that someone else looking at
the
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:54 AM Andrew Davidson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:04 PM Jack Armstrong
> wrote:
>>
>> I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided
>> this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM wiki.
>> I assume
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:13 PM Tod Fitch wrote:
> The two major factions seem to be set in their ways: “It is only a track if
> it is used for agriculture or forestry” on one side. “It has the same
> physical characteristics as a track, so it is a track even if it is currently
> used for
On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:49 AM Colin Smale wrote:
> IIRC Indian Reservations can, and do, cross state boundaries, in which case
> they don't fit in this hierarchy. Or am I wrong here?
Some do. The only one of New York's that crosses the state line is
Akwesasne, which is not recognized as a
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 5:34 PM Martin Machyna wrote:
>
> Just to add to this. I agree that there needs to be a cut off. I would
> suggest that as long as the area has clearly defined boundaries (in
> accessible official documents) and it was defined or is actively used by
> country's
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:44 AM Alan Mackie wrote:
> I think part of the problem with the highway=track description is that even
> when you are there on the ground it isn't always clear what it's being used
> for. They are often two ruts in the ground disappearing of into the distance
> with
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 10:16 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:
> May 30, 2020, 15:46 by wes...@gmail.com:
>> Is highway=path a type of way (wilderness trail or whatever term we use)
>> or a way for non-specified/mixed use?
>
> way for non-specified/mixed use, that due to its unfortunate
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:03 AM Adam Franco wrote:
> Adjacent to Kevin's home state of New York, here in Vermont we have a
> slightly more open private-land access laws. While property owners may post
> no-trespassing signs (access=private) (statute), the default when unsigned is
>
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:32 AM Colin Smale wrote:
> In the UK (especially Scotland) land ownership is pretty absolute. Every bit
> of land is owned by someone, even if that owner is The Crown. The owner has
> an absolute right to determine who has right of access, except for certain
> cases,
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:56 PM Jack Armstrong wrote:
> I have wondered for a long time...
>
> If the rail is tagged name=* but the railway also has a relation with the
> same name, isn't this naming something twice? it seems to me the relation is
> sufficient and the rail itself should not be
My very first attempts at editing with JOSM, some years ago, were
adding hiking paths. I followed JOSM's templates, with
'Highways->Ways->Path' appearing to be a natural match, and got
`highway=path foot=designated etc.` for the constructed path.
I uploaded the result.
Another mapper gave me a
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 6:59 AM Andrew Harvey wrote:
> From what I can tell, the ask is a tag for a specific type of way which the
> person needs experience or preparedness before undertaking. But I'm lost and
> still not completely understanding what exactly this new tag would cover
> exactly
I took the liberty of revising the English translation in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale#Values to something
that I hope will be more helpful to English speakers. Some of the
phrases had obviously been machine-translated - the worst was most
likely 'single plainly climbing up to
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 8:01 PM John Willis via Tagging
wrote:
> Mapping “where the sidewalk ends” and the trails begin is vital to keep
> people from being routes where grandma could have a heart attack Climbing a
> difficult route or break her leg crossing a stream because we routed her on a
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:53 PM Volker Schmidt wrote:
> This proposal is not going to fly, unfortunately. As I said before the big
> issue, at least in central Europe, is the massiv use of highway=path (with
> the additional "designated" tags) for foot-cycleways. We will have to live
> with
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 5:42 AM Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 09:58:50PM -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> [Australian grading of hiking trails]
> > And all five of those grades are sac_scale=hiking, which is why I say
> > that's an impossible scale to use for
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:11 PM Tod Fitch wrote:
>
> Being a Sierra Club member in California, it seems to me that the Yosemite
> Decimal System (YDS) [1], originally created by the Sierra Club is made to
> order for this. Classes 1 through 3 are basically hiking, 4 is transitional
> and 5 is
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:42 PM John Willis via Tagging
wrote:
>
> =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely entrenched -
> I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag, similar to
> sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other “hiking” paths,
> For now, I just want an alternative for the section/segment/leg numbers or
> refs that are often in the name tag now.
> They are there to get neat ordered lists in tools and applications. That
> seems to work fine, but it abuses the name tag, which I am told is a problem
> for searching
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 4:31 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:
> It is extremely rare - if there is single access road to a private residence
> then it is a driveway no matter whatever it is paved asphalt road or
> something that requires tractor to pass.
>
> Maybe it would matter in case
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 1:46 PM Yves wrote:
> While the original question was about a good tag to record the section
> number, whick look like a reference, I would be tempted to answer Jo that to
> know which country you're in, you should look at Your OSM Database!
> Joke aside, such a cross
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:42 AM Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 12:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The exclusion of the black trail as a possible 'excursion' in the main
>> route is a judgment call. I'd be very careful about it.
>>
>> Why is one excluded where the other
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:55 AM Volker Schmidt wrote:
> There is at least one other scale: cai_scale which is similar in concept to
> sac_scale,but is applied to hiking relations. It's increasingly used in Italy.
The problem with both of these is that they're _alpinism_ scales, not
_hiking_
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:35 AM s8evq wrote:
> The network key used on hiking/foot/horse/... relations "(...)indicates the
> scope of the route."
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network#Bicycle.2C_hiking_and_other_recreational_routes),
> so international, national, regional or
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 9:22 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> Are those important in all instances or just the examples you gave? The
> footpaths and bridleways I deal with have references (in official records, not
> on signages) but are not part of a network.
Sorry, I was unclear. Network is important
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 7:31 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> I've encountered footpaths and bridleways that include farm service roads as
> part of their route. So far, I've mapped the footpaths as the bits that
> aren't
> service roads. That renders the functionality of the ways but doesn't
> encode
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:03 PM Peter Elderson wrote:
> My view is that a route should have an indication on the ground. A sign, a
> trailhead, something. No verifiable indication whatsoever, then it's not a
> route.
>
> The length or the number of ways in the route does not make a difference
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:59 AM stevea wrote:
> > We in the Massachusetts local community want to have admin_level 6
> > relations for these boundaries, and I personally consider deleting them
> > to be vandalism.
>
> Then let's hear from them and their rather precisely-described to-become
>
Waymarked Trails associates waymarks only with routes, and assumes
that any waymarked route, from local to international, will have a
route relation describing it.
Is there a reason that you see route relations for shorter routes as
being 'wrong'?
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:17 PM brad wrote:
>
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:06 AM Phake Nick wrote:
> Given the proportion of opposing comment being raised, I would say "more than
> what have been discussed", as barely anyone raised the point during the
> discussion. The only two remotely relevant mentions about it during the
> discussion
My thoughts - trying to be brief, I started writing a much longer
message, but it got disorganized fast:
1. ele=* should always be orthometric.
2. Datum may be supplied with ele:datum=*, defaulting to
'ele:datum=unknown'. Within the regions of the Earth where a datum is
valid, all the datums in
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 9:16 AM Greg Troxel wrote:
> It is a good guess that signs you see are in your
> national vertical datum. But some (most?) places have multiple datums,
> and it seems very likely that values people have known have been copied
> forward on signs for who knows how long, and
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 8:53 AM Greg Troxel wrote:
> I'll also say that this alternate datum notion is irregular, in that we
> expect horizontal positions to be transformed from national horizontal
> datums to WGS84, and that putting in a tag to say that coordinates were
> in some other datum
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:37 AM Andrew Davidson wrote:
>
> On 6/4/20 9:23 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > The only thing that the proposal page still needs is a couple more
> > detailed definitions for some of the tags.
>
> Maybe not. A quick read finds this statement:
>
> protect_class=2 will be
Does the current version look any better? Obviously, once we're
seriously stitching things into the Wiki, we'll need to make
individual pages with titles like 'Key:protection_class=recreation',
but of course it's easier to have it all in one place for now.
On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 7:24 PM Joseph
I suppose, now. It seems to be gaining some traction, at long last.
When I floated it, it was not nearly as popular, largely because of
the way it tied into the flood of words exchanged between Adamant(some
digits) and stevea in various media. The discussion at the time shed
more heat than light.
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 5:28 AM Florimond Berthoux
wrote:
> bicycle=yes is an access tag it says only that cyclist has a legal right to
> ride there.
> «Key:bicycle Legal restriction for bicycles. »
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle
> It doesn't say anything about it
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:12 PM brad wrote:
> The trouble with this is that very few trails are 'designated' for
> riding a bicycle. They are legal for bikes, hikers, and horses.
> Cycleway is a lousy tag for a multiuse trail. Fortunately most of the
> tagers where I ride, travel, and contribute
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:54 AM Greg Troxel wrote:
> However, around me there is a convention that any
> dirt/unimproved/in-the-woods sort of thing is path, and
> in-town/paved/manicured sorts of are highway=footway.
I started tagging trails as 'path' - and found that the locals
immediately
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 5:12 AM Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> If a highway is mtb:scale=2 it is definitely not a cycleway. It is a
> highway=path with mtb:scale=2
> If this were to encounter a "cycleway" with mtb:scale=2 , I would consider
> this an error and retag it as highway=path without
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:09 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> The thing is that squares often also serve as addresses and can be somehow
> seen very similar to streets, so the same as you can live in a street
> (meaning you live in a house on this street), you could also live on a square
> (a
Oh, just another random observation: extending the notion of 'square' to
the buildings that front upon it is not limited to New England. Moreover,
cursed Albion also has 'town squares' that are green space.
One example: Berkeley Square in London. In form, it's a public garden, but
even the
So is the key difference between a town square and a village green(*)
the fact that the square is usually paved?
(*) No, I don't abuse 'village green' for 'any green space in a
village'. A lot of the older villages in the eastern US are laid out
roughly on the plan of English villages, with a
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 7:17 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
>> I fully understand the difficulty with rendering only from route
>> relations. I maintain a renderer that does it. It still needs some
>> serious programming if it is to scale to handle minutely updates
>> against the planet. The project
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:57 PM Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Sure. NCN 4 is called "NCN 4" in the same sense that the M4 is called the
> "M4". That's fine - plenty of people refer to it that way. But OSM
> convention, dating back 15ish years, is that in situations like this, you
> put the number
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 1:46 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> In American English, especially in the west, the word “meadow” is used for
> areas in the high mountains which grow grasses, sedges, annual wildflowers
> etc in the summer months after the snow melts. They might occasionally be
> used
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 6:48 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> The tag man_made=goods_conveyor was proposed years ago for industrial
> conveyor belts and systems which move goods like mining ore. It is now
> documented as "in use" and used over 4000 times:
>
>
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 8:42 AM Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
> I've been surveying benchmarks for the past four months and I would like
> to propose an alternative to benchmark=yes for survey points:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/survey_point:benchmark
> The reason being
1 - 100 of 606 matches
Mail list logo
