Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

[2016-01-27 09:40] Tod Fitch > > Or, following the example of turn lanes, use semicolon for unordered > and vertical bar for ordered. It seems to me that a comma might be too > common a character in real world values to have a special use. While > an escape mechanism needs

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

On 27 May 2015 at 09:48, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 27.05.2015 um 09:38 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org: Also, the address must be unique why? Otherwise they make bad routing targets /Markus ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

On 27 May 2015 at 10:48, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-05-27 10:38 GMT+02:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: On 27 May 2015 at 09:48, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 27.05.2015 um 09:38 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

difficult would it be to include in the wiki-page how many different mappers have actually used a specific tag. Perhaps via TagInfo. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

to create an explicit connection between the company and reception desk. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks

On 11 March 2015 at 23:52, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 11.03.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: reference to the definition found in Wikipedia and that's also how I've used the tag. and if someone changes the Wikipedia page

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks

On 11 March 2015 at 18:04, althio althio.fo...@gmail.com wrote: The trouble is there is no definition yet of city_block Not so. When I added it to osm wiki I also put there a reference to the definition found in Wikipedia and that's also how I've used the tag. /Markus

Re: [Tagging] Buildings blocks

On 11 March 2015 at 20:14, althio althio.fo...@gmail.com wrote: On Mar 11, 2015 7:44 PM, Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 March 2015 at 18:04, althio althio.fo...@gmail.com wrote: The trouble is there is no definition yet of city_block Not so. When I added it to osm

Re: [Tagging] Tram tracks running in a road

On 9 February 2015 at 12:58, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-02-09 8:29 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: The road isn't between the tracks. you could understand this by looking at the width of the road. Doesn't seem to be an ideal solution to draw

Re: [Tagging] Tram tracks running in a road

is such that the vehicles drive on top of the tracks, then the obvious solution is to have just one way with both highway and railway tags. At corners and otherwise where the track for the tram diverges from the road create a separate way for the tracks. /Markus

Re: [Tagging] Tram tracks running in a road

correspond to the truth on the ground. The road isn't between the tracks. In my opinion it's better to have two ways, one in each direction with highway and railway tags on both. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*

On 18 January 2015 at 22:11, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-01-18 20:52 GMT+00:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: On 17 January 2015 at 22:16, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: With the addrN schema, we need one object (a node tagged shop=* and addrN

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*

mapping scheme like addrN Have you had the time to look at the existing relation of type=provides_feature http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Provides_feature and how you can use it to associate multiple addresses to a building. /Markus

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*

/Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations convenience stores

right so it should also be a distinct element. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations convenience stores

On 5 December 2014 at 10:57, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-12-05 10:50 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: Also an address should be considered a feature in its own right so it should also be a distinct element. an address can be seen as a feature

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations convenience stores

addresses within such an element. You're not going to comma separate the different address values I hope. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations convenience stores

On 5 December 2014 at 14:15, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-12-05 12:40 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: In general it is not sustainable to place address tags on area/building elements as there can be many addresses within such an element

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations convenience stores

this before applying the other tags to the areas-that-make-up-the-building bits, but that's easy.) Please have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Provides_feature I think it addresses exactly your problem. Regards Markus

Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale

No, that's a bad idea. I believe there's a clear consensus that payment:bitcoin=yes is not a proper tag for a shop that doesn't accept bitcoin at its physical location. /Markus On 14 August 2014 12:53, Anita Andersson cc0c...@gmx.com wrote: Since payment:bitcoin=yes is a de facto and used tag

Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale

shops. But if a shop doesn't accept a certain payment method at its physical location then I don't think it should be tagged that way even if they have a website where that payment method is valid. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin ATM (amenity=atm | currency:XBT=yes)

similar for it to make sense to have two tags. Better to use the established amenity=atm also for bitcoin atms and qualify it with currencies accepted and dispensed. A qualification that traditional atms also would benefit from having. /Markus ___ Tagging

[Tagging] shop: area or way?

as possible especially for newbies. What is your idea how we could fix this issue? Cheers Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Religious Places that belongs to multiple Religion

religions, as in case of Pashupatinath. Similarly Soyambhunath is major place of worship for Buddhists but also is a place of worship for Hindus. One solution that comes to mind is to tag it with religion=dharmic /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are addresses features or attributes?

one can associate the same address node with multiple POIs. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements

and rendering because the same objects are used for both. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mismatched Level of Detail in highways vs. other elements

as two separate highways, placed on each side of the railways. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New relation type=provides_feature

On 14 December 2012 18:41, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote: Created a page on the wiki for this proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Provides_feature What purpose does the role

Re: [Tagging] New relation type=provides_feature

Created a page on the wiki for this proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Provides_feature /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New relation type=provides_feature

On 7 December 2012 10:27, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote: Created first example of provides_feature http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2623059 Your relation type name provides_feature is too vague

Re: [Tagging] New relation type=provides_feature

On 7 December 2012 11:05, Henning Scholland o...@aighes.de wrote: Am 06.12.2012 16:39, schrieb Markus Lindholm: Comments? Hi Markus, I think it's useful to have such a relation. But I would also include building-polygon, like: building entrance target address So the semantics

[Tagging] New relation type=provides_feature

be open-ended. Comments? /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New relation type=provides_feature

On 6 December 2012 23:10, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/12/6 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: Tags: type=provides_feature Members roles: target address entrance Comments? do you know the site relation? It might provide what you are after. Yes, I

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

On 5 December 2012 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2012/12/5 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: I just pointed out two practical problems with overloading addresses upon POIs. My main argument is that I see addresses as a separate map feature in their own

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

On 5 December 2012 14:23, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2012/12/5 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: 2012/12/5 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: I just pointed out two practical problems with overloading addresses upon POIs. My main argument is that I

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

. The first problem would be that it would make it impossible to render addresses and POIs at the same time. The second problem would be that there would be multiple instances of the same address. If there really is a need to bind address and POI together then create a relation for that. /Markus

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

On 4 December 2012 13:23, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: In my book addresses are features in their own right and should not be mixed in the same element as amenities or shops. The first problem would be that it would

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

On 4 December 2012 17:44, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: it would make it impossible to render addresses and POIs at the same time. this depends entirely on your rendering rules. How would you devise a rendering

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants

element. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

an area suitable for motor vehicles and that is free of physical obstacles. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

just a double line between the upper and lower two lanes. How would you tag this: a) One way with lanes=4 b) Two separate ways with lanes=2 each c) Tell me! The answer is b. But as I'm sure you've noticed there's some divided opinion about this. /Markus

Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

On 25 August 2012 01:25, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/8/20 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: I've been mostly mapping in large cities, hardly anything in the countryside. So I can only say that I've found it purposeful in the city to map with two highways

Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

On 20 August 2012 10:55, Gregory Williams greg...@gregorywilliams.me.uk wrote: -Original Message- From: Markus Lindholm [mailto:markus.lindh...@gmail.com] Sent: 19 August 2012 19:26 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider On 19

Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

On 20 August 2012 09:39, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-08-19 at 14:09:18 +0200, Markus Lindholm wrote: In my opinion it's best to treat legal separation (i.e. solid_line) the same way as physical separation, i.e. create two separate highways, one in each

Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

On 20 August 2012 12:57, Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 August 2012 09:39, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-08-19 at 14:09:18 +0200, Markus Lindholm wrote: In my opinion it's best to treat legal separation (i.e. solid_line) the same way

Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

of your route. /Markus Colin On 20/08/2012 13:10, Markus Lindholm wrote: On 20 August 2012 12:57, Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote: On 20 August 2012 09:39, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-08-19 at 14:09:18 +0200, Markus Lindholm wrote: In my

Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

On 20 August 2012 14:06, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 08/20/2012 12:57 PM, Markus Lindholm wrote: This doesn't correspond to reality: I believe that an emergency vehicle can cross a solid line, while of course they would have problems with a physically separated road

Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

On 20 August 2012 16:50, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/8/20 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com Yes, I understand why one would reassemble highway segments on a route that only differ on the maxspeed tag or other such minor issue. But why would one want to reassemble two

Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

? In my opinion it's best to treat legal separation (i.e. solid_line) the same way as physical separation, i.e. create two separate highways, one in each direction. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

to be traced when there is a physical division. That guideline says that a physical separation requires two highway objects, it doesn't say that one shouldn't do the same with legal separation. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

On 19 August 2012 15:04, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: On 19.08.2012 14:09, Markus Lindholm wrote: On 19 August 2012 11:44, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote: Indeed a Divider=solid_line proposal [3] was already presented . I'm would revamp such proposal. What

Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

On 19 August 2012 18:23, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: On 19.08.2012 15:09, Markus Lindholm wrote: On 19 August 2012 14:49, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote: This could be a solution but it is against the reality: this kind of road are indeed a single entity

Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider

On 19 August 2012 15:26, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 15:04 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 19.08.2012 14:09, Markus Lindholm wrote: On 19 August 2012 11:44, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote: Indeed a Divider=solid_line proposal [3

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

compared to overtaking. Lets tag directly what we mean, not overtaking=no if we want to say no u-turn. In my opinion the most straight forward is to treat legal separation (i.e. solid line) the same way as physical separation, that is to have two ways, one in each direction. /Markus

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

On 3 July 2012 15:20, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com: In my opinion the most straight forward is to treat legal separation (i.e. solid line) the same way as physical separation, that is to have two ways, one in each

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

On 3 July 2012 16:47, Eckhart Wörner ewoer...@kde.org wrote: Hi Markus, Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 15:38:57 schrieb Markus Lindholm: Physical separation doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to cross, it might be no more than a 20cm high curb that an emergency vehicle or a SUV easily

Re: [Tagging] Tagging u-turn restriction with continuous painted line

On 3 July 2012 17:02, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to drive from A to B in a legal way. Bank

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] POI for Hotel

would never use it as such. Somebody should start an OpenServicesDatabase-project, that would host information about hotels, restaurants, cafes, museums and parks with detailed description of amenities provided along with user reviews. /Markus ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping as two ways or one, u-turns

on the ground. Disclosure: I'm the one who mapped Hornsgatan as it is today. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)

key /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)

similar. The word designation can mean a lot of different things in different contexts so it sounds like poor idea to reserve it just for this. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)

On 1 March 2011 20:51, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Markus Lindholm wrote: If this tag designation is about formal status in the UK It isn't. It's about formal status, full stop. You could just as easily use it to record that a European waterway is UNECE Class Vb. Well

Re: [Tagging] Draft - Vegetarian/Vegan

? Aren't attributes like that more suitable to describe a person than a restaurant. I mean a person can follow a ovo-lacto diet, but find hard to think there would be a restaurant where every meal on the menu would be an ovo-lacto vegetarian meal. /Markus

Re: [Tagging] Tagging post-office in Sweden

if the question have a definitive answer, but for me at least it makes more sense with two nodes. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] game:patrizer2:* tags

as it is. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] game:patrizer2:* tags

Hi A question, what's the story behind the game:patrizer2:* tags? I just noticed that Stockholm got a bunch of these tags and I'm curious what they are? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/25929985 Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

Re: [Tagging] game:patrizer2:* tags

On 6 April 2010 11:21, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Markus Lindholm wrote: A question, what's the story behind the game:patrizer2:* tags? I just noticed that Stockholm got a bunch of these tags and I'm curious what they are? Patrizier 2 is a German trading simulation computer

<    1   2   3   4