Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Let me just add a general note to this discussion. I continue to be interested in studying how to do better label rendering for elongated features such as certain seas (e.g. the Red Sea), gulfs (the Gulf of Bothnia or the Gulf of Aqaba), bays (Chesapeake Bay), peninsulas (Cape Cod), isthmuses,

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 1:28 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: (sorry, the headers are making me lose attribution here..) someone: > It would be nice to be able to store that info - it would allow search for > nearest shop > selling motorbike tyres that would be automatic and take less than second >

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:32 AM Andy Townsend wrote: > I'm not convinced that the things on that page > https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeristisch_Overstappunt really are > "trailheads" in any accepted English sense ("trailhead" is mostly an > American English concept rather than a British English

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 5:59 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > “You may find that a Mosque may not be happy if a non-Muslim walks in” > > I’m not aware of any mosques that prohibit non-Muslims, outside of the holy > cities (Mecca/Medina), though you would need to dress appropriately and act >

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 10:13 AM Bryan Housel wrote: > And on “the wiki”, I have basically given up on the OSM wiki because it > contains so much wrong information and opinion, and I’m tired of having my > edits reverted. That's kind of upsetting. Asking as a near-outsider, do you suspect that

Re: [Tagging] Trail register

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019, 20:26 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: > > The one near me is not a trail head ... probably because there would be > too much vandalism if it were on the commonly used areas, so it is at a > place where the trail walkers pass by but the normal public don't go. > > I do

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019, 20:25 Joseph Eisenberg > “We made up a sui generis admin_level=3 for New York City.” > > Ha! Not a bad idea for NY/NJ/Connecticut > > But I think you mean admin_level=5? ;-) > Yes, I miscounted. Oops! > ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Trail register

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 5:21 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have one near me. > Some are more of a 'route register' - you state your intended route as > there are several choices, if not here then later. Probably best to > include this in any definition. The ones here, too - the last

[Tagging] Trail register

Now that the dicussion of trailheads seems to be converging (whew!), I'd like to reopen a question that has been mentioned here a couple of times in the past, but that I don't recall a satisfactory resolution. In the area where I hike, there are many trail registers. Rather than simply being

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > I'm trying to go for the minimal tagging that supports the most of the use > cases. Which is a node tagged highway=trailhead. It's up to mappers / > communities if and how they will apply and embed that according to local, > regional or

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 6:22 AM Simon Poole wrote: > The weird thing is the mixing of place and administrative entities which > actually leads to the inversion issues, go back read your text and you > will find it difficult to determine when you are talking about one or > the other. You're right,

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 7:26 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > The minimum requirements here are: free parking space, some kind of landmark, > at least 2 bicycle routes and two walking routes, and an information board or > stand. And waymarks for route directions. None of the examples I posted meet

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:58 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > Designated starting point for multiple routes into a nature area. There is a > designed marking pole or stele, information boards, seats or benches, free > parking space nearby. > The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually represents > the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it is part of > the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a trailhead node >

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:39 AM Simon Poole wrote: > In any case, on your original question, I would tend towards a national > consensus that doesn't deviate too much from the population guidelines in the > wiki, if at all reasonable. The US-Hamlet usage is an oddity that, IMHO, > should not

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 7:11 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I have never understood why people wanted to add place tags to administrative > territorial entities like countries, states or municipalities. Aren’t these > thoroughly defined with boundary=administrative and the related admin_level?

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 6:46 PM Allan Mustard wrote: > > Looking for some guidance here from the tagging experts. Please see the > dispute section on the Turkmenistan wiki discussion page >

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 1:13 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > > Maybe I misinterpreted information I got from another source. I've checked > and found info like this: > https://www.nps.gov/search/?affiliate=nps=trailhead . I found several > sites listing named trailheads for specific parks with #

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On 21/12/2018 11:54, Peter Elderson wrote: I would like to revive the trailhead proposal, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/trailhead After discussions in the Dutch user community, a list of all Dutch trailheads was compiled and systematically entered as nodes tagged

Re: [Tagging] Bad mapping in Pointe Noire Africa?

On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 8:12 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > I came across a lot of sport=null .. and found it in Pointe Noire,some > 18,000? > > Looks like there are a few other *=null there too. 'null' usually indicates a botched import from a database that had fields with missing

Re: [Tagging] Can OSM become a geospatial database?

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 6:19 PM EthnicFood IsGreat wrote: > > Most probably you would not want to look for all "brooks", because > > "brook" is just one of multiple words that mean the same thing. There is > > no semantic difference between a "brook" and a "stream" in general > > nowadays. Its

Re: [Tagging] Can OSM become a geospacial database?

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:58 AM Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > Let's look into some other examples. > Settlements are supposed to be defined with > place=city/town/village/hamlet/isolated_dwelling tags. The value depends on > the size of the settlement. > But in Belarus for example we call our

Re: [Tagging] Can OSM become a geospacial database?

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:31 AM Sergio Manzi wrote: > That's what I'm often hearing, and not only from you, but have a look at > wiki page about the *craft *key [1 > ], as in there I can read: > > "*You are free to use values that match your needs as

Re: [Tagging] antenna use key to replace some of the antenna type

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 5:50 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Unfortunately mappers will map things as they see them. And some will want > to add more and more detail. > Keeping that detail in some order is what I am on about here. At present > it is all going into antenna:type, system,

Re: [Tagging] Neighborhood Gateway Signs?

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 5:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > That sort of works, but do we need something to say it's a big rock, or >> cement column? >> > The 'description' tag, perhaps? Things eventually get to the point where even the obsessive classifiers on this list might as well admit that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On 11/26/18 6:35 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: I can't speak for other countries so I'll limit my comments to the US. As Kevin Kenny commented, tribes in the US are recognized as domestic dependent nations.  But from there it gets messy. They can set their own sales tax separate from the state

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie wrote: > Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas? Or > should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and > instead use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24? >

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] identifier in ref:xOperatorx=y0yyyy to url=http://mijnlijn.be/y0yyyy

On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 11:16 AM André Pirard wrote: > Jakka's point is not that "url" is used but that it could be wanted and > that this usage would prevent it. > To prevent the "first jumping on it owns it" practice, the good move would > be to consider that anything:url is *officially* an

Re: [Tagging] Using multipolygons to map bays in Alaska

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:36 PM Paul Allen wrote: > You point out that neither a new polygon that shares nodes with coastline > ways nor a complex > relationship are going to play nicely with the toolchain. Being a bear of > little brain, and lazy to > boot, my first thought would be a crude

Re: [Tagging] Using multipolygons to map bays in Alaska

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 1:45 PM Christoph Hormann wrote: > As we say in German: Umgekehrt wird ein Schuh draus. We seem to be up against a cultural difference. English has proverbs like 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water,' and 'the perfect is the enemy of the good.'

Re: [Tagging] Using multipolygons to map bays in Alaska

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 6:29 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Another pet peeve of mine is a dislike of what I call "relation mania", > where we have land boundaries that can easily be part of 20 different > relations on different admin levels and other boundary types. It's bad > enough on land, and

Re: [Tagging] Using multipolygons to map bays in Alaska

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 10:23 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 11:29 AM Frederik Ramm > wrote: > >> I do agree that while we should not "map for the renderer" >> > > I would modify that a little. We shouldn't LIE for the renderer. Given > two, equally valid (documented, >

Re: [Tagging] Using multipolygons to map bays in Alaska

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 6:29 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: [longish observation blaming OSM Carto for the fact that people were coming to map bays as areas...] > So, long story short, a couple of "my" maps suddenly started to show > ugly dark-blue patches e.g. across the bay of Biscay, or the Gulf of

Re: [Tagging] Neighborhood Gateway Signs?

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:44 PM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please look at the examples in Indonesia. They are not sculptures or > artwork. And they are erected by the very local government at the > neighborhood level. The large sculptural signs in San Diego are

Re: [Tagging] Neighborhood Gateway Signs?

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:45 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:35 PM Kevin Kenny > wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:48 PM Joseph Eisenberg < >> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Here in Indonesia it is very common for

Re: [Tagging] Neighborhood Gateway Signs?

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:48 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Here in Indonesia it is very common for neighbors to build sign over > the main entrance to their neighborhood, with the name of the > neighborhood on top and some other info on the two columns supporting > the sign. > For all the

Re: [Tagging] Using multipolygons to map bays in Alaska

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:02 PM Christoph Hormann wrote: > > Even in that extreme example, having the spatial extent adds value. > > Data of subjective value for a specific application (like low quality > label rendering) - yes, obviously. Meaningful additional information > about the

Re: [Tagging] Using multipolygons to map bays in Alaska

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 12:16 PM Christoph Hormann wrote: > > I'm afraid that I'm not following this argument very well. What about > > a bay is 'completely non-verifiable?' > > The geometry. > > These geometries: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/544856564 >

Re: [Tagging] Using multipolygons to map bays in Alaska

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 10:03 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Long story short: My suggestion is and has always been to map bays with > > nodes in those cases where this - together with the coastline - > > perfectly documents the verifiable information available on the > > geometry of the bay. > >

Re: [Tagging] Using multipolygons to map bays in Alaska

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:11 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: > Mapping bays with polygons is always non-verifiable to a large extent. > Mapping bays with polygons as you describe it above is always > completely non-verifiable and amounts to pure (low quality) label > painting which should not be

Re: [Tagging] Estimated values for height

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:09 AM Sergio Manzi wrote: > Yeah, agreed. And I think in our context "*estimate*" should be more > taken as "*quesstimate*", i.e. "*a first rough approximation pending a > more accurate estimate, or it may be an educated guess at something for > which no better

Re: [Tagging] رد: رد: New rag to draw node name with rotate angle

On 11/10/18 8:52 AM, دار الآثار للنشر والتوزيع-صنعاء Dar Alathar-Yemen wrote: For OpenStreetMap rendrer: *https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?whereami=1=-1.406%2C0.220#map=3/-18.56/24.43* *Somalia, Madagasikara,Yemen **اليمن, Oman **عمانwill be best if they have a rotate angle* *India

Re: [Tagging] New rag to draw node name with rotate angle

‪On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 12:06 PM ‫دار الآثار للنشر والتوزيع-صنعاء Dar Alathar-Yemen‬‎ wrote:‬ > I suggest new tag to tell map render to draw the node name with a > specified rotate angle not horizontal. We need this for some seas like Red > Sea, and Suez Gulf in Egypt. > I have serious doubts

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:38 AM Dave Swarthout wrote: > Also agreed. > I'm not saying anything about the route tag. We're talking about tags > other than route or type, which actually set up the relation. The > additional tags that describe the route or multipolygon either go on the > relation or

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

On 11/7/18 2:27 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: I provided two examples from the Wiki and a part of a response earlier in this thread from Kevin Kenny to support my argument that state that individual ways in a multipolygon or relation should not be tagged unless their characteristics require

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

I probably should make a clarification about what I mean about "logically belonging" to the relation. On a road route, it wouldn't make sense to put 'lanes=2' or 'surface=concrete' on a road route, even if all the component ways happen to have that characteristic. There's nothing to keep the

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 9:45 AM Dave Swarthout wrote: > (*BOLD TEXT* is my addition) This is exactly what I've been saying*. > Member ways should be untagged unless they have a separate meaning on their > own. * > > There you have it. It's a logical system of tagging and makes perfect > sense

Re: [Tagging] Water collection points (in french "Borne de puisage")

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 10:25 AM Moritz wrote: > I would use > > man_made=standpipe > colour=green > water_source=main > If you use that tag, make sure that you wikify it and discuss disambiguation, since 'standpipe' has many different meanings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standpipe I don't

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:54 AM Dave Swarthout wrote: > Someone added the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to OSM but did not add a > bunch of inner areas that aren't part of the refuge. I have the inners in a > shapefile that end up in a separate layer when I import them into JOSM. I > would

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

On 10/29/18 2:48 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: But I'm still a bit confused about way:427547729. It's tagged as an outer in the Wilcox WF multipolygon but it's located inside of an enclosing way that's also an inner to the same relation. Does that mean the inner/outer roles alternate as you add

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 8:12 PM Dave Swarthout wrote: > Okay, next question. > > I added the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge to OSM yesterday . (I > don't do much mapping in Texas but that place is special because I once did > a water quality assessment there as a volunteer.) It's a

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 20:05 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/10/18 02:41, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer > > wrote: > >> On the other hand, speaking about “numbers”, those are probably facts > and not protectable by copyright > > If i'm

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

> > 26. Oct 2018 11:52 by daveswarth...@gmail.com: > > Thanks, That helps a lot. I don't work with routes (yet) but it when I'm > adding inners to riverbank multipolygons I always add them in the order > they would appear if you were traveling downstream. It just makes sense to > me although

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 10:40 PM Dave Swarthout wrote: > Thanks again, Adam. > > That was also helpful. It brings up a question about sorting. After > sorting, are the elements arranged according to their coordinates, that is > to say, spatially? Or nearest node at each end of a member way is

Re: [Tagging] Radio telescopes

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 4:46 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25/10/18 23:56, Paul Allen wrote: > > BTW, these days few radio telescopes are dishes. Most of them are phased > arrays and not on towers > or masts. > > > That depends on the frequency of operation. > > New dish

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:19 PM Allan Mustard wrote: > >> Please do continue to comment and to offer suggestions, and to pose >> questions. >> > This is pretty much based on gut feelings and may be partially or > completely wrong... > > I don't think "amenity" is a suitable tag for a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

The Holy See is sovereign, so its nunciatures are embassies by another name. On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:20 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Umm .. here is some sort of exception. > > "Apostolic Nunciature of The Holy See" ... :-) > > > Ok .. what is it (in OSM terms)? Presently in the

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM Adam Franco wrote: > Hi Dave, all, > > Based on this discussion I just recorded this short tutorial > of how I use JOSM and its Relation Toolbox > plugin to to add adjoining land-cover areas as multipolygons with shared > boundary

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 7:19 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > I used the OSM diary entry to do Public Transport. Might work for you . > People can make comments under it .. and you can edit the first entry you > made to correct errors and make changes. > See

Re: [Tagging] Power=cable for low voltage lines?

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 2:49 PM Paul Allen wrote: > We shouldn't be asking mappers to guess if it's a line, a minor_line or a > cable before they can map anything. Those distinctions are > refinements that can be added later if further information becomes > available. > Thank you for

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 7:34 AM bkil wrote: > It seems many would find a short video tutorial depicting these steps very > handy. Would you mind sharing on Bitchute or on some other video hosting > site? > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 9:00 AM Dave Swarthout wrote: > I was wishing that someone

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 6:46 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Err .. in some places .. 'leaves down' does not occur :) > Yes. However, the fact that "leaves down" images are needed in *those* particular places to distinguish forest from water strongly suggests that there isn't another

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

I'm somewhat familiar with a couple of places that Alaska Dave has mapped, and they're the sort of places where the shoreline must be mapped from winter, 'leaves down' aerials, because otherwise the shoreline is obscured by overhanging trees and matted aquatic vegetation. On Sun, Oct 21, 2018,

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

> > Works great, right up until you need to maintain it. So, you've got > your "natural=wood" multipolygon sharing a way with an adjoining > "natural=scrub". And then, some inconsiderate developer bulldozes his > way across the boundary and puts up a housing development. Now what do > you do?

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

It conflicts with natural=coastline On Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 10:36 marc marc wrote: > > create a single-member multipolygon from the coastline way > > and then tag the resultant relation with natural=wood > > I often put the natural=wood on the inner way itself > it's not working for some

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

Not only legitimate, but recommended! If you haven't stumbled on it yet, another useful procedure is to map areas of landuse use or landcover by drawing each border only once, and having each area be a multipolygon with the shared border way as a member. With that approach there's no need to

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

> > why not a multipolygon? I agree that you don’t need additional tags for a > group relation, just type=group, a name and the members, but for a site you > would need something that describes the site, a tag for a group of water > areas, so as long as all the members are areas (or parts), a

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

Group relations have been proposed ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Group_Relation) in the past. One has been used to group the Great Lakes: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1124369 I'm tempted to use type=group relations to group the Bisby Lakes,

Re: [Tagging] hydrants

On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 6:14 PM Rich wrote: > > Instead of > > fire_hydrant:opening=cw > > fire_hydrant:opening=ccw > > > > You need to type: > > fire_hydrant:opening:direction=clockwise > > fire_hydrant:opening:direction=anticlockwise > > > > Also, because the primary usage for `direction`

Re: [Tagging] Map a divide?

On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 6:26 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > A land form ridge too me is a long, narrow raised part of a high edge formed > by hill/mountains and there associated bits. > > A land form of a dividing range or continental divide does not have to be > narrow, > The

[Tagging] Map a divide?

In some maps that I render, I want to show the divide between a couple of major river basins. (I have a good DEM for the area in question and can derive the line readily.) In light of the recent thread on topographic prominence, I wonder if this is sufficiently interesting information at least to

Re: [Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:15 AM Paul Allen wrote: >> Why selecting buildings and tagging them to site relation is easier than >> selecting building and adding them to a multipolygon realation? > > > I can't even begin to comprehend how that would possibly work. > > Well, maybe I can. If we

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 4:31 AM Paul Norman wrote: > Could you provide a link to the osm2pgql issue tracker with the issue in > question? I don't recall it, but I've been away a lot and haven't kept up > with everything. I hadn't opened a fresh ticket, because there are existing tickets against

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 6:58 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > I'm still against using forward/backward on nodes, it really feels like a > hacky way to avoid using a relation (up there with using ref=* on ways to > describe routes), which would disambiguate things without being so brittle > just

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 108, Issue 162

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:38 AM Dave Swarthout wrote: > > The discussion about the definition of "reach" is interesting but IMO it's > slightly off topic. Perhaps, because of those differences in its > interpretation, we would be best served by not using the term at all. Except that I would

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

I don't actually mind 'natural=peak' for any named local maximum elevation. 'Peak' in one of its senses simply means the high or most important point of anything. You can speak of the peak of a hill, or of the peak elevation in a region, or talk of a mountain that has several peaks. I wouldn't

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:25 PM John Willis wrote: > it would be nice if there was a "caldera relation" to connect them all together, which would allow the rendering of the named, yet overall unimportant =peaks to be reduced. The idea of a relation that would link a peak to its key col and line

Re: [Tagging] Topographic Prominence for Peaks

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 9:29 PM Bill Ricker wrote: > This all seems like highly specialized, technical data that is not of > general interest, as no one but peak-baggers understand the technical > definition. Many map users seeing this prominence=999m factoid would > jump to the incorrect

Re: [Tagging] Topographic Prominence for Peaks

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 5:40 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Yes, “prominence” here is a technical term that has only a partially > connection to the subjective “importance” of a peak. > > In general, all peaks with high topographic prominence are considered > important by local people (if anyone

Re: [Tagging] Topographic Prominence for Peaks

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 9:34 AM Michael Reichert wrote: > (1) If you assume the earth to be a plane, just order the peaks by their > elevation. It's so simple that I don't give the necessary SQL query > here. If we used a prominence=* key, it would have to be the distance to > the next higher

Re: [Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:55 AM André Pirard wrote: > Belgium speaks 3 official languages and their very official borders *have > been* mapped. > This subject was presented several times on this list and "raised" a total > lack of interest. > Especially regarding the need to define a language

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:34 PM Tobias Zwick wrote: > 2. US interstate in Montana (US-MT): > highway=motorway + source:maxspeed=US-MT:interstate >vs > highway=motorway + maxspeed:signed=no + ref~^I >(maybe ref-starts-with-"I" is not necessary because all interstates > are

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

What appears to be practice here, although I have only a few mapped examples, is to have office=government appear on the (multi)polygon representing the grounds, and not just on the building. I concede that if you have a single large campus with offices of many agencies, the subtags don't work, so

Re: [Tagging] Watershed or Drainage Basin relation draft proposal

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:02 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > you’ll have to put the ridges to map the watersheds anyway, the catchment > basin is implicit with the waterways, coastlines and ridges. > > If there are names or other properties for the watersheds and catchment > basins in play,

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

[Off list, I've had my say on list] > In the past, it was decided that the coastline would represent the high tide line, and the first OSM mappers generally put the coastline up at the tidal limit of rivers (which were easy to verify for them, because there is usually a dam or weir at that

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 14:36 SelfishSeahorse wrote: >> >> I wasn't aware that it is allowed to cross a single solid line in the >> USA. Hence forget the overtaking:lanes:=* tags in >> the example in my last message. On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:48 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > It's a recentish (late

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:38 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > I see it as a variation on no turn on red/turn after stop OK on red > dichotomy. Not really significant enough to bring up in the map data > specifically, so long as the signal itself is mapped. And the single white > line seems to not

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

It seems to me that the key attribute of the 'climbing lane' situation that Dave mentions is that it's an additional lane. It's provided for slow-moving vehicles, sure, but that's really a special case of the near-universal convention that slow-moving traffic gives way to overtaking traffic by

Re: [Tagging] Is waterway=riverbank an 'Old scheme' ?

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:16 PM François Lacombe wrote: > Le ven. 7 sept. 2018 à 21:40, Richard a écrit : >> > The idea that waterway=* must be routable is, frankly, a new one to >> > me. >> that idea is nonsense.. there was never the assertion that >> waterway=ditch,stream >> be navigable. >

Re: [Tagging] Is waterway=riverbank an 'Old scheme' ?

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 6:38 PM François Lacombe wrote: > To me, waterway=* should only get values to map linear water courses for the > routable hydrographic network. > Newer tagging with natural=water sounds ok, except for artificial water > features. > I'm not so keen of natural=water over a

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

n Monday 03 September 2018, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Imagico's proposal is perhaps objective, but surely doesn't match > > perception in my part of the world. It seems odd that the 'coastline' > > must extend upward to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/90929525 - > > but that is,

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

Imagico's proposal is perhaps objective, but surely doesn't match perception in my part of the world. It seems odd that the 'coastline' must extend upward to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/90929525 - but that is, according to Imagico's definitions, simultaneously the lowest and highest

Re: [Tagging] why do we discourage leisure=skatepark/skate_park?

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 3:11 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> Once again I stumbled across a warning which discourages these >> leisure=skate_park and skatepark on the sport skateboard page because of low >> usage, but with the only

Re: [Tagging] horse mounting/dismounting steps

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 9:55 AM Philip Barnes wrote: > They are not beside bridleways, they are typically part of the front > structure of buildings of an age that means they are automatically grade II > listed buildings. Standalone ones are also of an age that they will be > protected. They

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 4:11 PM Dave Swarthout wrote: > >We also have the occasional spot like > >https://orthos.dhses.ny.gov/?Extent=-8283718.624472891,5242597.149663145,-8283317.927238801,5242833.029555047=2017_cache,2016_cache,2015_cache,2014_cache,2013_cache > >There, we have an extra lane on

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 8:18 PM Dave Swarthout wrote: > > I've been trying to decide tagging for slow-vehicle turnouts consisting of a > lane added to the right side (in the U.S.) of the road so that slow moving > vehicles can pull aside to allow following vehicles to pass. The best I can >

Re: [Tagging] use of points even when it clearly defines a building?

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 6:40 PM seirra wrote: > oh! before i go to bed just one last one, when correcting some typos or > wrong use of tagging i've noticed a few locations that used points > rather than directly applying the feature to the building (as in no > buildings having features at all as

Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 7:22 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > On 16. Aug 2018, at 00:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >> E.g. km 15,350 is not an addr:housenumber either (used a lot in rural areas >> around here) > >> Why wouldn't that be a housenumber? > > because it is an approximate distance,

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a residential bridge building

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 9:54 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > The negative building levels are correct. The floor numbering attempts > to be continuous among the connected buildings, and the ones to the > east were built later without renumbering floors; their levels are > lettered A-G. E a

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 6:01 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On 14 August 2018 at 07:24, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> maybe the way wasn’t impassable before and now it is, I don’t see why it >> would be nonsense to state it. Maybe the way is still passable, but you‘ll >> die of nuclear

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >