On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:10 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> For your New York State park examples, protect_class=21 might be the best
> option, so go ahead and add this tagging, in addition to tagging any specific
> areas within that qualify as a leisure=park or nature_reserve
>
> But many State
Summary: I propose that the unifying feature of the typical State Park
is its protection status, and propose that one tag combination that
ought to appear on its boundary is `boundary=protected_area
protect_class=21`. I solicit community feedback before trying to
stitch this idea into the Wiki or o
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:38 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think they are at least close to the village, if not within it, in the UK
> and Australia.
I'm not sure, but I think Peter is talking about the case where the
village has grown to be a city, or been engulfed as a suburb of a
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:07 AM marc marc wrote:
>
> The only way to have a chance to get away with it is to depreciate
> this tag (at least outside uk but maybe also in uk) in favor of a tag
> by meaning instead of having a multi-meaning tag
landuse=grass is horrible, since it describes a landc
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 2:18 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
> Oh, and at the other end of the spectrum, this one is also a grade2
> (compacted mixed gravel and fines), two lanes wide and smooth as a
> baby's arse. I saw people riding racing bikes on it.
Some idiot didn't pa
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 2:07 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
> I'd have an easier time driving this grade5 (at least if that deadfall
> were cleared) https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14061129423
> (basically the natural surface, just brush clearance) or this grade4
> https://www.flickr
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:12 PM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> Can you link image of track
> on rock/rocky surface where tagging
> it as grade1, grade2, grade3 would
> be misleading?
I'd have an easier time driving this grade5 (at least if that deadfall
were cleared) https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9t
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:04 PM Paul Allen wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 16:44, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>>
>> I always thought that there is no norm for standard sizes of windows, so
>> every window is made to measure. (And in case of a larger construction
>> project, then 1000s of windows are m
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 7:48 AM althio wrote:
> For what it's worth, some previous related discussions:
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-September/030048.html
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/041817.html
tourism=register looks correct for
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 4:26 AM Mark Wagner wrote:
> After learning that the trail from the Old Faithful viewing area to
> Castle Geyser isn't considered wheelchair-accessible, I've given up on
> the idea that wheelchair-accessibility is something that mere mortals
> are capable of determining. T
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 4:28 PM Nita Rae Sanders wrote:
> Here is one possible example of what you seem to be describing … way 84255726
>
> Within Florida's Oleno State Part, the Santa Fe River vanishes into a
> sinkhole. It then reappears at River Rise Preserve State Park. the
> route, as depicted
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:08 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> The usage of the word "aqueduct" in American English is broader than
> the meaning of the word in British English.
Perhaps, but note that the Roman aqueducts were long projects of
tunnels, covered ditches, and inverted syphons as well as b
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:30 AM Nita Rae Sanders wrote:
> The few poles that have been mapped in my area (rural farming countryside)
> are the large cross-country grid feeders (generally 100Kv and up) and a few
> 9.6 Kv distribution lines. Having said that, it is my impression that 80%-90%
> o
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:10 PM wrote:
> And none of that matters for the broad classification that the crossing=* key
> does, which is:
>
> You can’t cross here
>
> You can cross here, but there is no special legal status to it
>
> You can cross here, and it is a designated crossing place with s
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 5:02 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> However, they still pose a problem for the blind. With macular degeneration
> you might be
> able to make out stripes but not see the signals. Which would mean that
> without OSM
> making a distinction they wouldn't know which type of crossin
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:22 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:11 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:00, Mateusz Konieczny
> > wrote:
> >> 24 May 2019, 21:52 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> >> Have you ever seen a crossing with li
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:11 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:00, Mateusz Konieczny
> wrote:
>> 24 May 2019, 21:52 by pla16...@gmail.com:
>> Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes?
>> This is a very popular situation in Poland.
> I knew there'd be at least on
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:09 PM wrote:
> The way I see it:
> crossing=no – crossing here is not legal/possible
> crossing=unmarked – there are no road markings (or traffic signals) that
> indicate this is a designated crossing, but based on other factors, it’s a
> location where pedestrians co
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> >
> > Unless you intend to produce further evidence (to which I would
> > listen), I consider the insinuation that the iD developers have a
> > financial confli
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:10 PM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> For example any definition that limits "sport" to competitions or only
> psychical activity is not
> fitting OSM use.
I think you meant, 'physical' activity, although it would be
interesting to see an event like competitive soothsaying!
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:20 AM Rory McCann wrote:
> Isn't this a case of using the wrong t̶o̶o̶l̶ community for the task?
> The mailing list are for discussion. We have help.openstreetmap.org for
> Q&A, and the wiki for documentation. "The ML makes a poor documentation"
> well yes of course it d
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 9:55 AM Markus wrote:
> I personally like the definition by the European Sports Charter
> (article 2, paragraph 1a):
>
>"Sport" means all forms of physical activity which, through casual
> or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical
> fitness and
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:49 AM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> You should not assume just because people articulate all kinds of
> strange views and opinions on these channels that are evidently flawed
> that the discourse on a whole is pointless.
I'm not asserting that it is pointless - I'm still he
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:16 AM Rory McCann wrote:
> On 24/05/2019 02:44, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > 'easter' suffices for the entirety of the Christian calendar
>
> Nope! 1,000 years ago the Christian church(s) had the "East West
> Schism", resulting in
On 5/24/19 6:04 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:
This is evidently something that is becoming more and more important as
OSM grows as a project and it becomes increasingly difficult for a
single person to be knowledgable about every aspect of it.
In the din of voices here, how does one assess who i
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:10 AM Simon Poole wrote:
> That is not really correct as written, OH has the concept of variable dates
> which are based on some external definition of when they exactly are,
> currently the only one defined is "easter". Typically you would use these to
> start/end d
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM marc marc wrote:
> following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
> yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
> if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look
I'm even fine with 'building=yes note=*'. A data consumer isn'
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 7:39 PM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> In general, our project isn't a top-down strictly managed project with a
> controlled decision-making process. This means that many things have to
> be discussed over and over, and the community generally doesn't speak
> with one voice. But th
This discussion is leaving me pretty bewildered.
Sometimes my bewilderment can be alleviated by considering concrete examples.
On my walk yesterday, other than the implied crossing at every
intersection (but see "don't map local law") I noted the following:
1. Combined foot/cycle crossing - a si
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:11 AM Markus wrote:
> I agree that the route description (from - to) is not its name. By the
> way, the same problem also affects hiking routes. I must admit that
> i've also misued the name=* tag this way.
Many of the hiking trails around here have formal names that loo
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 12:39 PM Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> Please note the statistics at the end of the post. I actually
> did bother to observe the state of affairs and I found that a
> majority of routes in fact _are_ already sorted. The numbers
> are from before waymarkedtrails stopped sorting rou
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 4:25 AM Nita Rae Sanders wrote:
> Please read the Wikipedia article again. While the name of an ED
> implies Emergency care, and they certainly do provide it, less than
> 20% result in inpatient admission. The vast majority are treat and
> release. In the majority of cases,
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 8:52 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> There is a reason it's called a saddle. It's because it's shaped like one.
> It is a low point between
> two high points but it is also a high point between the lower area
> encompassing the high points.
>
> Mathematics uses a similar definiti
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 2:19 PM s8evq wrote:
> Personally, I like signed_direction=yes. It's simple and avoids using the
> word oneway.
> Also, using the value forward|backward might not be necessary, as it's
> possible to deduce this from the order of ways in the relation.
The forward/backward
Using a British dictionary (Living Oxford Dictionary), the first
definition of 'park' is:
1 A large public garden or area of land used for recreation.
‘a walk round the park’
‘a country park’
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/park
The 'or public garden' implies that the area *may* be
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 5:16 PM Daniel Koć wrote:
> I think there is a quite universal problem with mixing verifiability
> with level of accuracy. You might not be able to show accurate borders,
> but you can clearly verify that this is an area and not the node, for
> example.
This is why I'm try
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 3:24 PM Colin Smale wrote:
> How about taking the maritime baseline (according to UNCLOS) as the location
> of the rivermouth? Then it becomes both credible and verifiable, as the
> baselines are deposited at the UN for the purposes of determining the limits
> of territo
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 7:39 AM Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Yes, it's often not possible to agree on a precise border for these
> features. But nevertheless, there are typically areas that are
> definitely part of them, and other areas there are definitely not part
> of them.
>
> The above is verifiable
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 3:44 AM Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> On some of the larger American river navigations the lock structures are
> built right within the main river channel - such as this new $3bn (!) lock
> on the Ohio River: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olmsted_Locks_and_Dam - so
> similar c
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:47 AM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> 25 Apr 2019, 23:49 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
>> Communities have drawn together to keep a bank, a supermarket and a garage
>> going locally. They have also drawn together to keep a doctor.
>> They don't draw together for a church.
>
> Dep
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 8:47 AM Valor Naram wrote:
> I need to clarify the access=* key for my proposal to pleace this discussion.
>
> changing_table:access=yes
> The changing table is accessible to the public. This means you can change the
> nappy of your baby without being a customer. This happ
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:39 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> > Col or gap (use saddle? And that is in OSM) = a col is the lowest point on a
> > mountain ridge between two peaks.
>
> Yes, "col" is the French word for saddle, a low point on a ridge.
>
> A gap is also usually a saddle (or sometimes a m
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 10:40 PM John Willis via Tagging
wrote:
Kevin Kenny:
> > The administrative boundaries do, of course give rise to corner cases.
> But when you have named places that have no residents (so not a village) but
> hold some local or greater meaning (such as the st
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 3:43 PM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Being accused of being radically intolerant and other things kind of
> limits my interest in this discussion with you.
I apologize for the unfortunate phrasing, and assure you that it was
intended to be a succinct characterization of your
On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 6:28 AM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> It is interesting that the idea that large size abstract concepts
> projected onto arbitrarily delineated parts of the physical geography
> by cultural convention like bays, peninsulas, linear rivers and
> plateaus might not be suitable fo
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 2:30 PM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> No, the concept of verifiability defines a clear path for resolving
> disagreement - you verify the information on the ground and if there is
> still disagreement it is by definition something that is not verifiable
> (because several mapp
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 3:49 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> How about natural=strait? For very large values of "strait." Or, if you
> don't like the idea
> of large values of strait, rewrite the wiki page changing
>
> A strait is a narrow area of water surrounded by land on two sides and by
> water on
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:09 PM Greg Troxel wrote:
> Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes:
> > If the name is still in present use then it belongs in OSM, even if
> > there is no physical presence on the ground people still use the name
> > to define the place.
>
> Agreed. Around me, my impressio
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:53 PM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> How should they determine that based on local knowledge? What if there
> is disagreement? Is
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/83015625
> the same river as
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4769426
> or
> https://www.openstreetmap.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 5:49 AM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> You apparently misunderstood what i said. My 'surveyable in a single
> day by a single mapper' rule of thumb refers to mapping something as a
> single feature. A river several thousand kilometers long for example.
> The river is locally
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 7:55 AM Christoph Hormann wrote:
> As a rule of thumb i'd say something that can at least coarsely be
> surveyed on the ground by a single mapper during a single day is
> usually suitable to be mapped as a distinct named feature, provided it
> is otherwise verifiable of cou
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:26 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> I apologize for being unnecessarily polemic by mentioning deprecation.
> I have no intention of investing time in such a proposal. I mainly
> wanted to suggest that the mappers on this mailing list think about
> using more specific tags, a
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 4:52 PM bkil wrote:
> Compared to marketplaces, I think stockyards would be interesting to a
> lot less map users (probably only to contracted partners who regularly
> bring in livestock).
Not to mention anyone who lives downwind!
_
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:49 PM Volker Schmidt wrote:
> A side remark. Triggered by comparing abandoned palces with abandoned
> railways (and smilar),
> a ghost town with (some) buidlings still standing should be abandoned: ...
> a ghost town without trace on the ground should be tagged with raz
There are named localities that have only the most tenuous of
identifiable features.
One example that I've visited is 'Sled Harbor'. It never had a
population. It was just a place where the woods were open enough that
loggers could store their sleds there in the summer. It's now right at
the bound
It mostly looks good, avoiding the over-namespacing of at least one of
the earlier proposals.
Should we consider clarifying that isolated sites that support only a
single party may/may not be tagged with camp_pitch? I'm comfortable
with either: in one interpretation, a camp_pitch is simply a plac
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 4:37 PM Dave F via Tagging
wrote:
>
> Hi
> https://snag.gy/3jSyt7.jpgSteps provided so that a rider can climb back on.
> Any ideas? Could find anything in Taginfo or wiki
> https://snag.gy/mwYNd6.jpghttps://snag.gy/mwYNd6.jpgamenity/leisure=horse_mount,
> maybe.
>
> http
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 2:58 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> To me "craft" suggests small-scale, probably handmade, so things like
> =basket_maker; beekeeper; blacksmith; cooper; embroiderer & so on all fit as
> they're (usually) small, often one person operations.
Around my workplace, the barga
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 7:45 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Am 25.03.2019 um 18:57 schrieb Kevin Kenny :
>
> A country_store is something I think of as usually being located
> outside a village because they need a lot more space. They'll offer
> feed, seed, fertilizer, garde
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:44 AM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> My conclusion is that this is an old shop type, currently getting rare but
> there are still some valid uses
> but many cases would benefit from retagging to more popular shop values
> (where shop=convenience/supermarket/country_store de
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:05 AM Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> The disadvantage of all these proposals is that it is impossible
> to figure out if a relation is a route or only part of a superroute
> without looking at the parent.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, mightn't this be an argument in
favo
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM marc marc wrote:
> no:landcover=trees ?
> or, as the previous landcover/imagery show tress, was:landcover=trees
However you want to spell it.
I just saw two replies to Lorenzo that were suggesting that his source
data were unmappable because they didn't support a
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:37 PM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> I would advise to tag just forest landcover is satellite images are unusable
> to tag
> other features properly and to not introduce incompatible tagging scheme just
> because
> you really want to vectorize this specific low quality data
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:33 PM Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I second Martin. No "oneway" key in this case.
However you want to spell it. Given that the circular route I had in
mind was subsequently signed in the opposite direction, I haven't got
a use case at the moment. (The nearest thing I've got is
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:39 AM Kevin Kenny wrote:
> The order of ways in the relation definitely determines the direction
> to which oneway=* refers. It oneway=yes or oneway=signed (or whatever
> we settle on) is present, the ways are traversed from the first
> relation me
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 6:45 AM Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> I was pointed to the discussion from the waymarkedtrails issue
> tracker. I haven't followed the whole discussion. Here's just my
> two cents as somebody how processes route data.
I know that you and I have pretty strong disagreements on the
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 3:04 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> > It's about loop-shaped walking/hiking/cycling routes, that should only by
> > done in one direction, because of way-marking and signposts. (Most of the
> > bicycle routes in this overpass query fall in that category
> > https://ove
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:03 AM Peter Elderson wrote:
> I can't answer the question for busrelations.
(neither can I)
> For long hiking routes and walking node networks, relations containing
> relations are very important.
> Without those, maintenance of long hiking routes becomes a p.i.t.b, so
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:47 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> Something may appear
> in the wiki for no reason other than the voices in somebody's head told that
> person to put it
> there.
Moreover, because we as a community usually try to respect the work of
other mappers (as much as we bicker on this
On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 7:06 PM Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> Sorry, I am getting confused here (I am listening in as I frequently map
> bìcycle routes).
> The "oneway" tag would only make sense on a loop-shaped route. And only if
> there are only ways and no nodes like signposts ecc, and if there
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:08 PM John Willis via Tagging
wrote:
>
> I understand about tunnel=building_passage for ways that pass through
> structures, but there are some objects that roads go "under", similar to
> bridges, but are not bridge-like items.
>
> In my local area, there are two large
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 3:15 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> Unsurprisingly, the English "Laboratory" also derives from the Latin. The
> Latin, as you stated,
> means a place where one labours or works. Somehow, in English, it appears
> only to ever have
> meant a place where one conducts scientific res
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:10 AM Adam Franco wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 8:04 PM Kevin Kenny wrote:
>>
>> Slightly off topic: vie ferrate are not a familiar thing in the
>> mountains near me.
>> Does
>> http://aspiringfortysixer.com/Upper_Lower_Wolfjaw,_
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 2:51 AM Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> ... and then there are big research centres that are called "laboratory".
> Like LLNL or Los Alamos National Laboratory.
The two near me (GE Global Research Center; Knolls Atomic Power
Laboratory) I've simply tagged 'landuse=industrial'. B
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 8:08 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I agree that imports are always distorting the tagging system, and pose a
> general threat to our bottom up system of community generated tagging, and
> "voting by using stuff".
Still, when there's no clear consensus, an importer has t
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:11 AM egil wrote:
>
> The 3 main goals of this proposal are:
>
> 1. the removal of the special tag highway=via_ferrata,
> 2. encouraging tagging of via ferratas as routes and
> 3. general improvement of the data about via ferratas in OSM via new keys.
Slightly off topic:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:35 PM Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> motorboat= is an access tag, so it represents whether a use class is
> permitted on that way, not whether it's possible.
>
> I'd think a variant on depth= would be most appropriate. Something like
> depth:summer=0.5-3.0 might indicate that
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:26 PM Tobias Zwick wrote:
>
> Is this now about the word "legal" or about the negation of the question?
> What difference does the latter make? Also, doesn't "probited" imply
> "legally" in common understanding?
>
> And of course, foot=no is tagged if a road is not acce
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:13 PM Tobias Wrede wrote:
> Still, they are the very minority of situations where a residential (or
> any other road) has no sidewalk.
Local cultural assumptions are in play here!
In my (suburban) township, few residential roads have sidewalks, so
the ones without sidew
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 8:55 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> usually you would try to go in a straight line though, unless there are other
> factors like scenic highlights or currents, that seem worth the detour.
> I’m not opposing marking these with additional tags, but I would not expect
> the
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:49 AM Dave Swarthout wrote:
>
> The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot see how
> anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or
> seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a
> response will
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:56 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> What concerns me a bit, is that there are 75+ OSM mappers, which is
> great! But it would seem that there are only ~50 (? - someone would know)
> members of "Tagging", with only ~20 of those being active (which I would call
> contri
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 3:29 PM Richard wrote:
> Please have look at the list of pages and raise your voice if there is
> anything
> that doesn't appear like a clear case for deletion for you.
Oh, please bring back amenity=bikeshed! I hadn't seen it before, and
it's hilarious!
(Unless we have a
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:20 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Indeed I believe we shouldn’t create feature pages for “in use” features
> until they become de-facto. In use means at least one occurrence.
>
> There is also “rejected” among the possible status values, I don’t think you
> suggest to c
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:03 PM François Lacombe
wrote:
> Past proposals are *always* useful knowledge, even if strong issues has been
> pointed during voting or RFC.
> I'm not in favor to delete anything, as to show a little respect to someone
> who took time to make things better.
At the very
I wonder whether we are arguing hypotheticals here.
Is there still highway signage, anywhere, with weight limits in long
tons? I don't know, but I'd have imagined that the UK would have gone
to metric signs a long time ago. (I imagine that there are still
historic bridges with the old placards on
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 5:20 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>> From that perspective, maple trees for syrup are a different problem.
>> Possibly still nice
>> to be able to map in some way,
>
>
> Would / could they be covered under =orchard:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dor
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:54 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The main OSM map renders grass, trees as solid colours, and residential areas
> too .. that is not good to me.
Another example of the landuse/landcover confusion. We could make an
argument that we need a landcover value for 'd
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:36 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> Way back in the thread you wrote:
>>
>> >>> OSM does not distinguish between the sizes of other thing other than by
>> >>> using the area or a closed way, or dimensional tags.
That was Mateusz, not me!
In any case, if the sole determinant for
>>> OSM does not distinguish between the sizes of other thing other than by
>>> using the area or a closed way, or dimensional tags.
>>
>>
>> place=islet vs place=island
>>
>>
>> OSM does not distinguish between the sizes of other thing other than by
>> using the area or a closed way,
>> or dimen
I don't like landuse=logging as the top-level tag, partly because I
live in an area where forests are indeed managed for other uses (for
example, a 'sugar bush' managed to grow maple trees for syrup and
sugar). There are also a number of forest parcels for which the
signage makes the fact of manage
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 2:39 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> I don't know if they have rejected this specific idea, or even if they were
> asked. It's just
> that they often require that a tag has been used sufficiently in the wild
> before they consider
> adding it.
A commoner objection is that it's
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 7:45 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> What if we suggest in the wiki that where trees are used for actual forestry
> people are
> encouraged to dual-tag with landuse=forestry + natural=wood on the basis that
> with
> enough usage the carto group will render landuse=forestry AND tha
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM David Marchal wrote:
> All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an area considered as a
> forest by authorities), I often encounter other landcovers, like scrubs in
> recently teared down parcels, or scree in the mountains. These area,
> although, cl
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:21 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 09:26, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> On Saturday 19 January 2019, Markus wrote:
>> > By the way, i measured a few dozen of
>> > points/capes/headlands/peninsulas of Brittany. Most either have an
>> > area of about 0.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 2:49 PM Markus wrote:
> Regarding areas with fuzzy boundaries, i could imagine a new kind of
> relation that contains one multipolygon relation for the part of area
> that certainly belongs to the area feature ('minimal area') and one
> multipolygon relation for the fuzzy a
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 5:54 AM Tobias Wrede wrote:
> > So I wonder whether we should map all trial x road junctions as
> > trailheads or limit them to places with more facilities (just to be
> > clear, locally, in Flanders). I don't know.
>
> I see your point. I had forgotten about node networks.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 5:29 PM Peter Elderson wrote:
> Most trailheads I have seen mapped have a name that contains the
> trail/track/route name. See
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:trailhead#Photos
That's the name of the route, not the name of the trailhead.
I recognize that your b
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 1:05 PM EthnicFood IsGreat
wrote:
> Then what would you call a natural waterway that is too small to be a
> stream?
The Wiki says that a stream is small enough to be stepped over, but
gives no lower bound.
I can't think of many permanent watercourses around here that are
Michael Patrick:
> What's a 'Horse Float' under RVs? https://i.gifer.com/SC79.gif
> Seriously, this term is a great example of a regional difference. In the
> U.S., it's equine dental / foot care.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 8:57 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In Australia a 'horse float' i
201 - 300 of 626 matches
Mail list logo
