Aug 14, 2020, 16:04 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe outright recommending removal after trees are mapped would be even
>> better?
&
by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> So, should this contradiction be eliminated from the wiki or not?
>
>
>
> Às 09:32 de 26/05/2020, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging escreveu:
>
>> Based on my experience it is usually better to writesomething, even
&g
Aug 14, 2020, 20:49 by hi...@hiddewieringa.nl:
>
> My goal is to differentiate the two tags. Both tags allow tents, and
> both allow camper vans and caravans. Both tags may or may not provide
> facilities such as toilets, water, electricity, et cetera. In practice,
> the only
I strongly prefer up/top over head.
At least for me (not representative,
not a native speaker), head = up
is not clear.
14 Aug 2020, 17:05 by em...@daniel-korn.de:
> Am 14.08.2020 um 16:37 schrieb yvecai:
>
>
>>
>> I would propose, if you want to use altitude as a definition:
>>
>>
>>>
Aug 14, 2020, 14:35 by vosc...@gmail.com:
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, 13:41 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, <>
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> I feel that tree_lined=separate should be used if trees are separately mapped
>>
>
> This woul
Aug 14, 2020, 14:37 by em...@daniel-korn.de:
> Am 14.08.2020 um 14:29 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging:
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Aug 13, 2020, 15:01 by >> em...@daniel-korn.de>> :
>>
>>> Here's an example [1] where the name of the tun
Aug 13, 2020, 15:01 by em...@daniel-korn.de:
> Here's an example [1] where the name of the tunnel seems to be tagged as
> "name". I'm not sure what the roads name is (might be Schlossbergtunnel,
> Hegelstraße or Rheinlandstraße). Tagging it to tunnel:name would definitely
> clarify on this.
I feel that tree_lined=separate should be used if trees are separately mapped
Aug 14, 2020, 01:06 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
> I’ve set up an initial documentation page for the tree_lined attribute (used
> mainly in conjunction with highways and waterways) and welcome comments for
> it:
>
>
14 Aug 2020, 10:53 by y...@mailbox.org:
> On 14.08.20 10:40, dktue wrote:
>
>>> I would define it as:
>>>
>>> lower_station: station that has the lowest elevation (exact elevation is
>>> not necessary to know, it's obvious)
>>> upper_station: station that has the highest elevation
>>>
Aug 13, 2020, 01:33 by lisbe...@gmx.us:
> Isthere any situation where both should be expected, yet >
> healthcare> should have higher priority than > shop> ?
>
> Or is there another side I'm missing?
>
>
This is decision made by renderer/data user.
If more than one of
1) is bottom station always in valley?
(This should be fixable)
2) is there case of 2 and more middle
stations?
3) is there case of one station being both
top and bottom station at once?
Also, it uses single known tag, not
new discussion purpose ones.
Though, yes processing would be
much more
Aug 11, 2020, 20:49 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 11. Aug 2020, at 19:55, Clay Smalley wrote:
>>
>> We've pointed out concrete steps you can take to improve these
>> initially-mapped stop positions. If mapping stop positions accurately is
>> important to you,
Aug 11, 2020, 19:52 by claysmal...@gmail.com:
> What exactly is your point here? If nobody is responding to your complaints,
> perhaps they aren't worth responding to.
>
Or posted as an unreadable blue text.
> Repeating the same complaints to the same group of people won't change that.
>
>
The truth is that both shop and
amenity fit and both well have some
people unhappy
7 Aug 2020, 20:59 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> Hello
>
> Sorry for pause the bubble tea proposal for a month due to my personal reason.
>
> In the discussion in June and July some people think the tag for
Aug 8, 2020, 20:08 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 18:15, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>>
>> I need a tag that could be used where distinguishing between
>> "no parking allowed" and &qu
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane for
documented tagging
In some cases parallel parking is allowed on one side of the road,
only one but not specified which one (as there is enough space to
park a car parallel - without obstructing traffic, but next car will not fit).
As
And we have at least three amenity tags for parkings
amenity=parking
amenity=bicycle_parking
amenity=motorcycle_parking
Aug 8, 2020, 19:10 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
>> On 8. Aug 2020, at 17:58, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>> Which honestly makes me surprised we have two
For people unfamiliar with parking lane tagging see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane
I need a tag that could be used where distinguishing between
"no parking allowed" and "no stopping allowed" is not possible,
not wanted or extremely hard.
In many cases in Poland one may
At least one in Poland are described as parking, and at least in theory anyone
may
park an electric scooter there, including private one.
Aug 8, 2020, 03:01 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
> Just to open a different semantic can of worms concerning the spots these
> hire "scooters" are left ... :-)
ycle
sharing in my city
collapsed and all bicycle rental locations got reused as parking places.
So comments are welcome (and it is always possible to retag), but *something*
will be
used soon.
> On 07.08.20 10:27, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>> Electric scooter parkings s
Aug 7, 2020, 18:05 by ba...@ursamundi.org:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:27 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> amenity=parking + vehicle=no + electric_scooter=yes
>> seems like a terrible idea to me
&
Aug 7, 2020, 15:06 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> Maybe we need
> a different status to indicate "was not voted upon but is widely used and
> most people are happy with it" but we don't have that.
>
We have that, it is "de facto" status.
___
Tagging mailing
Electric scooter parkings started to appear in Poland.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ParkingHulajn%C3%B3g.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Parking_Hulajnogi.jpg
(text on traffic sign is "electric scooters")
How it should be tagged?
amenity=small_electric_vehicle_parking ?
Aug 7, 2020, 11:36 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
>
> On 2020-08-07 11:18, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>
>> That digital maps have - based on the precedent set by
>> Google - almost universally ignored this fact does not change it.
>>
>>
> You say Google have "ignored" this. What makes you think
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Customer_service
again
Main difference is witching to customer_service=yes/no
from amenity=customer_service
Thanks for all feedback and thanks for edits and comments.
Rationale:
Distinguishing closed office spaces and offices with client
Aug 6, 2020, 09:12 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
> OK, now you've all got me confused!
>
> I always thought that access=yes means that it is open to the general public,
> while access=no means that it's not open to the public?
>
Yes, and it may be overriden by more specific tags.
Note that
Aug 5, 2020, 22:58 by t...@fitchfamily.org:
> so I guess my reading of the wiki doesn’t match all data consumers
> implementations.
>
Yes, in many cases support is limited. Routers are usually dealing it with
fairly well,
but for example iD editor is missing support for example for vehicle tag,
Aug 5, 2020, 22:44 by miketh...@gmail.com:
> Hello,
>
> If:
> access=no
> foot=yes
>
> Does this mean that all access except foot travel is prohibited
>
yes
> , or is it an error?
>
No, it is a correct tagging - though usually there is a better way to achieve
this
(highway=footway
To be more clear:
in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Ground=2018441=2018440
I removed
"Any opposition vote without reason or suggestion will not be counted in the
voting process."as it is an undiscussed modification of a proposal voting and a
refusal to
I partially reverted
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Ground=prev=2014966
and followed
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting
Note that
"People should not just vote "oppose", they should give a reason for their
proposal, and/or
service=parking seems like a good idea
to me
2 Aug 2020, 02:40 by dd...@ieee.org:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm interested in proposing and/or documenting existing tagging approaches of
> the wiki to ensure that all highway=service ways can have a service=?
> associated tag. Having done, so I'm
30 Jul 2020, 14:33 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:
>
> On 2020-07-30 14:02, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 30.07.20 13:32, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>>> The EU is «composed-of» whole member states. It has all the attributes
>>> of a governmental administrative body - with the executive,
Jul 30, 2020, 09:44 by frede...@remote.org:
> in my view, the EU is not an administrative body with a border and many
> parts (countries), but instead the countries have made a contract to
> form the EU.
>
EU is in a weird state where it is sort of organization of countries
sort of
The problem is that someone actively mapping in a given area would be irritated
by completely
pointless checks and repeated checks of the same objects.
Jul 29, 2020, 12:34 by luke.mar...@viacesi.fr:
> Due to some concerns expressed in here (bloatness, discrepancies), I've been
> wondering...
Jul 29, 2020, 02:39 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
> & for one that IMHO is quite correctly tagged as a pier over it's full length:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/18776776#map=17/-27.93856/153.43009
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/10370420-3x2-700x467.jpg
>
+1
See also (open licensed
Jul 28, 2020, 22:09 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 20:44, Matthew Woehlke <> mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>
>> Please see >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/651244930>> . This is a pier
>> with a platform on land that extends into the water. Carto cuts off the
>>
28 Jul 2020, 09:15 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 28. Jul 2020, at 07:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>> wrote:
>>
>> As result, in initial stages something
>> used solely as a driveway to a single
>> house wi
28 Jul 2020, 06:47 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com:
> On 27/07/2020 17.59, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>> Jul 27, 2020, 21:55 by r...@senecass.com:
>>
>>> I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if
>>> it has a county name,
Jul 27, 2020, 21:55 by r...@senecass.com:
> On 7/27/20 1:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>> highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but maybe still correct
>>> if it is leading to only vacation huts)
>>> these would be highway=service not track.
>>>
>
> I assume if the highway has no
Date: Jul 27, 2020, 15:54
From: ba...@ursamundi.org
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:37 AM Rob Savoye <> r...@senecass.com> > wrote:
>
>> The question is how to tag the change in the road. Usually it
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Ground#Tagging
is listing multiple methods to map this, what is not a good idea.
I am confused a bit as mailing list message mentioned single value.
Maybe it is list of considered but rejected alternatives?
Jul 24, 2020, 09:52 by
Jul 23, 2020, 18:06 by o...@westnordost.de:
> 1. Use check_date:smoothness or smoothness:check_date?
>
Both have some benefits, I am perfectly fine with both variants.
One gets check_date tags out of the way, one keeps tag and its
check date close to each other. In case of tie second seems
Jul 23, 2020, 20:42 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com:
> I'm trying to tag a whole bunch of side-of-road parking, and I have two
> questions.
>
> First, what is the correct way to tag marked parking spaces? There is
> parking:lane:*=marked which would seem to apply, but then it isn't clear how
>
Jul 23, 2020, 23:26 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 21:00, Matthew Woehlke <> mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Interesting. By that criteria, I would think that
>> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/826561593>> has on-street parking,
>>
>
> Tough call. In
Jul 23, 2020, 23:30 by miketh...@gmail.com:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:34 PM Matthew Woehlke <> mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > ...but then your horse is a passenger in a vehicle. Otherwise that would
> > be like saying a human can't ride in a vehicle if foot=no.
>
; covered by the corresponding (and likely already in use) shop=* value?
>
> Am 23.07.2020 um 12:49 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging:
>
>> See >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Customer_service
>>
>> Feedback, complaints, edits to the page
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Customer_service
Feedback, complaints, edits to the page (especially concerning grammar, typos
and clarity)
are highly welcomed
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
22 Jul 2020, 14:24 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 13:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> bicycle=explicit_no sounds to me like "there is an explicit sign forbidding
>> this",
>>
bicycle=explicit_no sounds to me like "there is an explicit sign forbidding
this",
not "bicycle vehicle itself is prohibited, not just cycling".
Jul 21, 2020, 23:48 by allroadswo...@gmail.com:
> There lots of forest roads/path, where the bicycle/pushed carried is
> prohibited. Mostly, private
Jul 22, 2020, 11:33 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 22. Jul 2020, at 10:36, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> I would go with farmland, orchard, vineyard and not even consider indicating
>> any rotation of crops.
>>
>
>
> +1, these are also those that I distinguish,
It happens in some places, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:bicycle%3Ddismount
bicycle_pushed=no was suggested in previous discussion, see
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-November/thread.html#49056
Jul 22, 2020, 10:29 by oliversi...@gmail.com:
>
+1, this can be somehow tagged,
but there is no need to invent a new tag
I would also tag guidepost attached to
building as information=guidepost,
even if it would be supported by wall,
not a post
21 Jul 2020, 18:22 by jm...@gmx.com:
> On 7/21/2020 11:02 AM, Jan Michel wrote:
>
>> Hi Michal,
>>
sed
> in OSM. In this case it should say that two schemes exist, and, if we have
> good numbers for the relative use, we can add that.
> Putting an advice to prefer one or the other is not within the scope of the
> wiki in such a situation
>
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2020 at 14:17,
Jul 21, 2020, 15:21 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:
> 2020-07-21, an, 15:00 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė:
>
>>> It is totally NERDY.
>>>
>> What you mean by that?
>>
>
> There are two very different things:
> * IT
> * coding
>
>
Jul 21, 2020, 12:13 by em...@daniel-korn.de:
> Am 21.07.2020 um 10:55 schrieb Tomas Straupis:
>
>> 2020-07-21, an, 11:20 dktue rašė:
>>
>>> Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that
>>> waterway=riverbank is preferred?
>>>
>> There is an original OpenStreetMap water schema
Jul 21, 2020, 10:18 by em...@daniel-korn.de:
> Hi,
>
> the wiki [1] states for riverbanks that
>
> "These water areas should be tagged as either of waterway=riverbank OR
> natural=water + water=river."
>
> Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that
> waterway=riverbank is
Jul 21, 2020, 10:55 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:
> 2020-07-21, an, 11:20 dktue rašė:
>
>> Why do we need both variants and why don't we just say that
>> waterway=riverbank is preferred?
>>
>
> There is an original OpenStreetMap water schema with lakes as
> natural=water, reservoirs as
Jul 18, 2020, 19:52 by t...@fitchfamily.org:
> During this period of “social distancing” I’ve been trying to work down the
> number of errors that tools like Osmose have reported about my editing. I am
> getting close to starting on the warnings about waterways not connecting
> properly.
Jul 14, 2020, 17:48 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 14. Jul 2020, at 16:55, Lionel Giard wrote:
>>
>> That's a bit of a stretch of the multipolygon definition as there is no
>> inner ring.
>>
>
> sorry? The minimum requisite for a multipolygon is one outer ring.
>
Maybe. I would be interested in specific
proposals.
14 Jul 2020, 14:24 by vosc...@gmail.com:
> I am not a land cover expert, but have come across a great number of
> obviously wrong land cover tagging in OSM.
> Said this, why not try to use CORINE [1] definitions?
>
> [1] >
>
Jul 10, 2020, 15:57 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com:
> On 09/07/2020 17.34, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>> Jul 9, 2020, 20:38 by pla16...@gmail.com:
>>
>>> Maybe not ideal, but if you're looking for an immediate solution then
>>> access=custome
Jul 10, 2020, 15:04 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> I've just realized what prompted the back of my mind into writing the
> preceding paragraph. landcover=barren (or natural=barren) seems
> to handle things nicely without worrying about soil/clay/humus
> distinctions.
>
barren is horrible as it can
Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil?
Using "ground" and defining it as "soil, not all kinds of ground" will not go
well.
natural=bare_ground for me is clearly including also natural=bare_rock,
while natural=bare_soil would avoid this
Jul 10, 2020, 11:16 by
"meant any soil area (which can be organic or mineral" - what you mean by that?
Soil is mixture of mineral and organic material.
See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Landcover_Barren
It seems that this proposal avoid many mistakes of this very similar one, but
Jul 9, 2020, 23:58 by pla16...@gmail.com:
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 22:36, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jul 9, 2020, 20:38 by >> pla16...@gmail.com>> :
>>
>
Jul 9, 2020, 21:21 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 9. Jul 2020, at 19:27, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>> wrote:
>>
>> Both appear to be tagged as office=company, but it seems to me that
>> there is a clear need to dis
Jul 9, 2020, 20:38 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 18:27, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> Both appear to be tagged as office=company, but it seems to me that
>> there is a clear need to distinguish
Both appear to be tagged as office=company, but it seems to me that
there is a clear need to distinguish between
(a) company office where I can walk in
and buy service (or handle issues with an existing one)
(b) company office closed to outsiders, where workers are not
interacting with
Jul 8, 2020, 19:02 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com:
> On 08/07/2020 12.34, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>> BTW, is your project including something that can be tested already?
>>
>
> I don't understand the question?
>
I was referring to "traffic simula
8 Jul 2020, 16:44 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com:
> On 08/07/2020 10.36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>> On 8. Jul 2020, at 16:24, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> (On which note... knowing that a residence is *also* a shop is potentially
>>> important!)
>>>
>>
>> look for shop=* rather than building
8 Jul 2020, 16:35 by elga...@agol.dk:
>> Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Disclaimer: this is all US law. If you live in another country, YMMV.
>>
>
> Yes, facts are not copyrightable.
>
> In Europe we unfortunately have the Database Directive
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_Directive
>
>
Jul 8, 2020, 11:24 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 8. Jul 2020, at 11:03, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>> wrote:
>>
>> If someone wants it is OK to map office/craft as an area inside house
>>
>
>
> yes of co
Jul 8, 2020, 11:20 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> exceptional quality coffee, both farmed and brewed to a significantly higher
> than average standard.
> (...)
> Are suggestions?
>
Sounds like poorly defined marketing term or something that will quickly
degrade into it,
with Starbucks
Jul 8, 2020, 13:45 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 10:29, Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdre...@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> as nobody has replied to this, I’m asking again: is a house really only a
>> single dwelling building, or can there be a few more?
>>
>
> There are
Jul 8, 2020, 01:21 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 00:08, Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdre...@gmail.com> >
> wrote:
>
>
>> traditionally, people worked and slept in the same space (the helpers),
>> today these are typically shops and above dwelling/s. Are they „houses“,
>>
Jul 8, 2020, 01:40 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 07:45, Paul Allen <> pla16...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Building for the house, node for the workplace. Micromappers will be upset
>> unless you place the workplace node precisely, of course, but you probably
>>
It seems that "terrace buildings" is used to describe both collection of
individual buildings
and to large building, so maybe both tagging methods are applicable.
So far all cases that I found are better described as set of individual similar
buildings
Can you share/link photo with your case
Jul 7, 2020, 13:20 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
>> On 6. Jul 2020, at 22:42, Joseph Eisenberg
>> wrote:
>>
>> According to the wiki page about building=terrace, it is usually best
>> practice to map each house as a separate area (closed way) object.
>>
>> ">> A
Jul 6, 2020, 23:22 by o...@dead10ck.com:
>> I'm also, in a more general sense, raising a question about the
>> established conventions and whether it makes sense to be tagging the
>> individual units as "buildings", when they are not really buildings
>> in and of themselves, but sections of
Jul 7, 2020, 02:15 by ja...@piorkowski.ca:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 15:56, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
>> I guess that something similar to
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Crossing_with_a_designated_lane_for_bicycles
>> would fit.
>>
I guess that something similar to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Crossing_with_a_designated_lane_for_bicycles
would fit.
For example for road that has:
- tram-free lane
- lane with tram tracks
- lane with tram tracks in an opposite direction
- tram-free lane in an opposite direction
In use it is a bicycle parking stand, you
can attach a bicycle by frame,
frame is supported.
But it is not in a traditional reversed U
shape, but rather in O shape
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABicycle_parking_-_stand_in_ring_form.jpg
Jul 1, 2020, 23:30 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 22:10, Jarek Piórkowski <> ja...@piorkowski.ca> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah, but we're being told that British takeaways are very different
>> from other casual food places that have seating
>>
>
> A takeaway doesn't have seating.
>
Jul 1, 2020, 13:49 by ajt1...@gmail.com:
>
> On 30/06/2020 14:06, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>> We have 15000 addresses such as addr:housename=3 (
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/VBS )
>>
>> Is there some chance that any of them is valid? Becau
Jun 30, 2020, 15:18 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 13:37, Philip Barnes <> p...@trigpoint.me.uk> > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 12:52 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> However, taking another look at the wiki for fast food, I see it covers
>>> sit down as well as
We have 15000 addresses such as addr:housename=3 (
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/VBS )
Is there some chance that any of them is valid? Because it seems to me that
editors should complain about addr:housename with just numbers.
I want to check worldwide situation before proposing doing it in say
Jun 29, 2020, 02:08 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 08:59, Paul Allen <> pla16...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Harder, as somebody else pointed out, is a McDonalds with seats. It's
>> fast food, but it has seats. I'd map it as a cafe with takeaway=yes since
>> we
Please decide which edit you are proposing to run, you mentioned two
contradictory algorithms.
And then actually propose it.
For the record, I oppose deprecating wikimedia_commons and removing it with a
bot.
We would start to specify both commons_category and commons_file?
"Changesets will be
Jun 26, 2020, 20:09 by o...@tobias-knerr.de:
> * Deprecate wikimedia_commons=* (because it unhelpfully mixes links to
> categories, images, and other media types – I agree that's an issue)
> * Move category links to commons_category=*
> * Move image links to image=*
>
I strongly dislike idea
Jun 26, 2020, 18:41 by pla16...@gmail.com:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:28, Jarek Piórkowski <> ja...@piorkowski.ca> >
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:50, Paul Allen <>> pla16...@gmail.com>> > wrote:
>> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:31, 德泉 談 via Tagging <>>
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>>
Jun 26, 2020, 08:51 by pang...@riseup.net:
> Is there anything preventing us from running bots (with simple
> algorithms) on the database?
>
Nothing?
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct
See for example
Both versions seems fine to me.
Jun 25, 2020, 19:46 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:
> Since the proposal >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles>
> was approved, there needs to be a new documentation page for the roles
> "main",
Jun 26, 2020, 09:29 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 26. Jun 2020, at 01:45, Mike Thompson wrote:
>>
>> How would you recommend tagging a path or track that has many fallen trees
>> across it? There are too many to map each one with a node tagged barrier=log.
>>
>
>
Jun 24, 2020, 18:05 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
> On 24. Jun 2020, at 15:43, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
>> I have just found a situation with mandatory oneway for pedestrians (and
>> cyclists).
>> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/u7_0bEMY-iMrHiuafltvmg
>>
>
>
> what makes you believe this is
Jun 24, 2020, 00:31 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 23. Jun 2020, at 17:20, Joseph Eisenberg
>> wrote:
>>
>> In other countries, how are National Park and other protected_area
>> boundaries determined? If there are villages or towns within the boundary,
>> are
Jun 21, 2020, 09:05 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 21. Jun 2020, at 03:02, Joseph Guillaume
>> wrote:
>>
>> It would be like mapping every fountain as historic.
>>
>> They're often not considered of historic interest locally, let alone
>> nationally or
Jun 21, 2020, 09:50 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
>> On 21. Jun 2020, at 02:26, Joseph Eisenberg
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In case of a well, as the aquifer is below your starting point, I’d think
>> >you would need some kind of pump and not just gravity (at the beginning)?
Yes, I do no trust FB declarations at all, it FB still refuses to
attribute OSM properly and I hope that FB employees will not be elected into
OSMF board.
But in this case in FB self-interest is to keep this data available to OSM
and I expect that they will continue this.
Jun 19, 2020, 18:05
Jun 17, 2020, 08:13 by pelder...@gmail.com:
> Since it was neither key, value, nor relation, I am not sure if a new page
> has to be created, or maybe just do a textual clean-up and add links to
> relevant feature pages?
>
In theory someone may create pages/redirects for roles like
I edited also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stream
and created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:stream%3Dintermittent
(describing this imported tag as clearly deprecated).
Review whatever my interpretation of situation is correct is welcomed.
Jun 14, 2020, 22:20 by
401 - 500 of 1866 matches
Mail list logo
