Re: [Tagging] nhd tags - documentation page review

pass directly >> into JOSM. >> >> Polyglot >> >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020, 23:29 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>> >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Jun 1

Re: [Tagging] nhd tags - documentation page review

Jun 14, 2020, 22:55 by vosc...@gmail.com: > Is it not possible to get people who were involved in the original import to > check these.things? > Good idea, any idea how to identify accounts that added this tags into OSM? Standard way to to this failed - loading all objects tagged with this

[Tagging] nhd tags - documentation page review

I created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:fcode https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:ftype https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:reach_code https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:nhd:com_id about tags added in imports. Review is welcomed, especially the first two

Re: [Tagging] bicycle_parking=? for stands where handlebar is used to hold bicycle in position

Jun 14, 2020, 20:51 by lukas.toggenbur...@fhgr.ch: > Do we need additional steps to make this value "official"? > You can go through a https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process but it is unlikely to add anything. You can try asking for support in editors (JOSM presets etc), but not

Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 14, 2020, 18:46 by elga...@agol.dk: > On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 15:20:56 +0100 > Paul Allen wrote: > > >> >> > >That is where the was: lifecycle prefix and notes are useful: to > >prevent armchair mappers resurrecting something from imagery on the > >internet. > > Yes. And I would not delete,

Re: [Tagging] bicycle_parking=? for stands where handlebar is used to hold bicycle in position

Wieringa > > > > On 13-06-2020 23:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> Can you take your own photo of such bicycle parking andupload it to >> Wikimedia Commons ( >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>> )? >> >> Giv

Re: [Tagging] bicycle_parking=? for stands where handlebar is used to hold bicycle in position

your > description/photo. > > > See some example locations here: > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/V2l > > > For completeness, these methods of parking your bicycle also exist in > The Netherlands. > > > Kind regards, > Hidde Wieringa > > > >

Re: [Tagging] bicycle_parking=? for stands where handlebar is used to hold bicycle in position

It probably needs a new value, maybe one not yet documented on that page. Looks like equivalent of bicycle_parking=ground_slots (0 security, but designated place to leave bicycle) but is something different. Jun 13, 2020, 20:52 by lukas.toggenbur...@fhgr.ch: > Hi all > > The kind of bicycle

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Jun 11, 2020, 01:10 by ja...@piorkowski.ca: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 14:27, Clifford Snow wrote: > >> To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) >> best describe your suggested way of mapping. >> >> ... >> 2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Jun 10, 2020, 23:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 10. Jun 2020, at 18:19, Clifford Snow wrote: >> >> Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your proposed >> change. >> > > > this sentence was only introduced recently, it is not backed by

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

Jun 10, 2020, 19:40 by t...@fitchfamily.org: > > > >> On Jun 10, 2020, at 12:31 AM, Volker Schmidt <>> vosc...@gmail.com>> > wrote: >> >> Two points to get this thread back on track: >> >> 1) The highway=track tag has always been wider than agriculture and >> forestry. There is an often

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Jun 10, 2020, 19:59 by jacknst...@sprynet.com: > > To be added to the wiki (from the approved proposal): > > > > > > When a highway=crossing node is present on the main road, a way connecting > the sidewalks on the two sides of the road should be mapped. This way should > be tagged as

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

Jun 10, 2020, 20:26 by cliff...@snowandsnow.us: > To help me understand, below are three schemes for crossings. Which one(s) > best describe your suggested way of mapping. > > 1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway. > > https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

Jun 10, 2020, 01:05 by miketh...@gmail.com: > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:13 PM Tod Fitch <> t...@fitchfamily.org> > wrote: > > > In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and > > their values to make a decision if a “path” or “footway” might be what I > > want to

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

Jun 9, 2020, 21:53 by bradha...@fastmail.com: > It already says this: > "Some > highway > => track> > are used for various leisure activities - hiking, cycling, or asjeep/ATV > trails." > on the track wiki.  >

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 9, 2020, 14:42 by ja...@piorkowski.ca: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 07:56, Paul Allen wrote: > >> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: >> >>> Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as >>> roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 9, 2020, 13:55 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 04:08, Jarek Piórkowski <> ja...@piorkowski.ca> > wrote: > >> >> Yet we wouldn't map Watling Street in OSM with a way tagged as >> roman_road=demolished nor roman_road=razed nor roman_road=abandoned >> > > Nope.  We'd map the

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 9, 2020, 10:46 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, map >> it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM >> > > > Warin,

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 16:11 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: >   > >> I added explicit "even if rails are gone". >> > > Thank you. > > >> "th

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

Jun 8, 2020, 15:05 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:32, brad <> bradha...@fastmail.com> > wrote: > >> I think it would be absurd to try to tag dangerous wildlife areas. It >> would just be an enormous region for rattlesnakes and mountain lions in >> the US.  Same for

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 15:02 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> Jun 8, 2020, 14:28 by >> pla16...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> On Mon, 8 Jun 20

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 14:57 by vosc...@gmail.com: > Warin, Jack, > > your comments are really off my main point. > We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different opinions on > whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in OSM. > This discussion appeared multiple times

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 14:45 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> I added explicit "Everyone agrees that overgrown railway rails remain >> mappable.", >

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 14:28 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> Jun 8, 2020, 13:18 by >> pla16...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> Have these objects left

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

ewritten on 07:17, 27 May 2020 by > Mateusz Konieczny > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mateusz_Konieczny> > In particular the wording > "Here railway is gone without any trace in terrain except possibly road > alignment. Its course is well documented, but s

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

Jun 6, 2020, 06:20 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > On 3/6/20 7:22 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> >> >> >> Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by >> stevea...@softworkers.com>> : >> >>> "this IS residential landuse." (Not COU

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 13:18 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 11:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> We are generally OK with mapping things where some traces remained. >> It is accepted that thing total

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

Jun 8, 2020, 13:14 by jan...@gmail.com: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 14:27 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> Wikimedia Commons has no notability requirements, see >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 12:50 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 12:28 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <> > matkoni...@tutanota.com> >: > >> >> Jun 8, 2020, 11:39 by >> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> Am Mo., 8.

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 11:39 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> >: > >> On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt <>> vosc...@gmail.com>> > wrote: >&g

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 7, 2020, 23:36 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> >> I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the >> razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been >> replaced by roads with the same

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

Following is more on topic than may be expected - OSM Wiki is illustrated by images from Wikimedia Commons, and thanks for all people who uploaded things there. Jun 5, 2020, 09:14 by jan...@gmail.com: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020, 16:48 European Water Project <> > europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> >

Re: [Tagging] Overlapping naturals

And you are missing (1) word "mainly" (2) "Note: Two values of landuse=* may be view as not strictly land use.    These are landuse=grass and landuse=forest. Please refer to the pages    of these for more information." present on this page. Jun 5, 2020, 10:49 by ravilac...@gmail.com: >

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

Jun 4, 2020, 16:00 by vinc...@bergeot.org: > Le 04/06/2020 à 15:49, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : > >> You have right to use your own images, AFAIK there is also a special >> permission >> for OSM mapping but otherwise images are owned by them. >> >

Re: [Tagging] Overlapping naturals

meadow in one only polygon ? > > > Cheers, > > > Rafael. > > O 04/06/20 ás 15:55, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging escribiu: > >> >> >> >> Jun 4, 2020, 10:50 by >> ravilac...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> >>> This

Re: [Tagging] Overlapping naturals

Jun 4, 2020, 10:50 by ravilac...@gmail.com: > > This is interesting. But what if the (for example) silvopasture would > occupy exactly the same area fo the landuse=forest and the > landuse=meadow? > > Exactly the same? Rare but it can be tagged. Create a closed way, and make a two

Re: [Tagging] Do we need more different tagging for telephone covers?

Jun 4, 2020, 14:51 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 12:35, Lukas via Tagging <> tagging@openstreetmap.org> > > wrote: > >>   >> 1. covered=booth for closed phone-boxes, but some mappers do not really like >> that. >> > > The author of iD is one of the mappers who doesn't like

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

Jun 4, 2020, 14:54 by jan...@gmail.com: > does this community think this would be ridiculous or not? > Mapillary has images geolocated anyway, so if someone wants to use Mapillary it seems unnecessary. > Would Mapillary be the right service to host the photos? > No. Note

Re: [Tagging] Overlapping naturals

Jun 4, 2020, 10:59 by f...@zz.de: > > Hi Mateusz, > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:19:10PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> You can have forested military base with wetland (real case). >> >> You can probably find military base (landus

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

Jun 4, 2020, 02:37 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 4. Jun 2020, at 02:29, Joseph Eisenberg >> wrote: >> >> The Map Features page is already quite long and unwieldy, so it is >> reasonable to limit how many more tags are added. >> > > > yes, it is already so long,

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 3, 2020, 07:03 by mark+...@carnildo.com: > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:39:14 +0200 (CEST) > Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com: >> >> > >> > >> > 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <> 61sundow...@gm

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > "this IS residential landuse." (Not COULD BE, but IS). Yes, this land might > be "natural" now, including being "treed," but I could still build a patio > and bbq there after perhaps cutting down some trees, it is my residential > land

Re: [Tagging] Overlapping naturals

Jun 2, 2020, 21:37 by f...@zz.de: > > Hi Rafael, > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 04:05:47PM +0200, Rafael Avila Coya wrote: > >> Hi, all: >> >> Let's say we have a natural=scrub for example. Inside it (a part of it) >> becomes seasonally wet, for example during the rainy (wet) season. How would >>

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

Jun 2, 2020, 13:11 by g...@lexort.com: > First, I'm going to assume that polygons for landuse=residential do or > are intended to align with property boundaries. > I think that it is not a good assumption. One may have a property boundary that is partially landuse=residential and partially

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com: > > > 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com> > 寫道： > >> On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> > My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible >> > objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also

Re: [Tagging] Covered walkways?

Jun 2, 2020, 07:34 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > Doing some mapping around one of the local schools & wondering about the best > way to map covered walkways? > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-28.06022/153.42615 > > A lot of skinny roofs, with highway=footway + covered=yes drawn

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Jun 1, 2020, 10:03 by pelder...@gmail.com: > > Just a reminder: in a few days voting will start (if I can figure out how to > do that...). > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting and a real example:

Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

May 31, 2020, 02:24 by aamac...@gmail.com: > Most tracktype=grade1 are probably highly suspicious. > Highly depends on a location. Not in Poland where asphalt forestry road are normal. (and misuse that is present is mostly using highway=track to mean surface=unpaved)

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

May 29, 2020, 08:29 by a...@thaw.de: >>> For example, here are a few images of "keep out" signs. Now think of >>> somebody making a package delivery. How are they supposed to determine >>> whether "implicit" permission exists in their individual case or not? Is it >>> different for some of

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

May 30, 2020, 15:46 by wes...@gmail.com: > Is highway=path a type of way (wilderness trail or whatever term we use) > or a way for non-specified/mixed use? > way for non-specified/mixed use, that due to its unfortunate name is sometimes used and interpreted as indicating a wilderness trail

Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines

May 29, 2020, 19:56 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com: > Hi > > Le ven. 29 mai 2020 à 00:03, Jack Armstrong <> jacknst...@sprynet.com> > a > écrit : > >> >> I think naming the same thing two times is not a best practice? >> >> > Indeed > I'd use name=* on rails only if rails actually have a

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

May 28, 2020, 22:05 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > So I return to, 'what's the minimalist set of attributes that we can > use to guide a data consumer, and conversely, the minimum set of tags > that a data consumer needs to recognize?' Specifying every attribute > in excruciating detail is fine

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

base and are deliberately malicious. Mapping razed railway where it is actually clearly recognizable is OK. Mapping razed railway where it is no longer recognizable and requires old map or memory to map it? Out of scope. > On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 06:12, Skyler Hawthorne <> o...@dead10

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

May 28, 2020, 23:54 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > "treed farmland" or "heavily wooded residential" prove slightly problematic > to OSM tagging. > Map tree-covered area (landuse=forest) and map farmland (landuse=farmland) or residential (landuse=residential). Yes, the same area may be tree

Re: [Tagging] line=* tag on railway lines

May 28, 2020, 20:36 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com: > Hi all, > > On the line=* wiki page, it is mentioned this key is used to give railway > lines names in combination with branch=* > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:line > > Shouldn't name=* be used instead? > Yes, name tag is for name

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

May 27, 2020, 20:31 by wes...@gmail.com: > Fine with JOSM messing up combined foot- and cycleways (I tried to look, but > couldn't find an issue tracker to discuss that misbehaviour with the JOSM > developers). > https://josm.openstreetmap.de/report available vie "view tickets" tabs at JOSM

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

May 27, 2020, 15:12 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > I went back to this edit [1] before the wiki was changed recently. > Back then, bicycle=no was simply defined as "where bicycles are not > permitted." If nothing else is said, then nobody can conclude that > "riding bicycles is not permitted

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

May 27, 2020, 18:36 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:22 AM Fernando Trebien <> > fernando.treb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > If there really is widespread agreement that bicycle=no should be > treated like bicycle=dismount (plus, perhaps, some treatment when >

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

May 27, 2020, 01:35 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:48 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > >> bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount are de facto equivalents >> > > How can you conclude that? > There are many places that require pe

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

May 27, 2020, 01:35 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:48 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > >> May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: >> >> Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding >> (bicycle=yes/

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

May 26, 2020, 20:50 by bradha...@fastmail.com: > Yes!  We have an overload of tags for trails, many poorly defined, many > rarely used.   KISS -  keep it simple stupid.  I think it would help if we > narrowed the focus for cycleway and footway. > How about this, as default: > cycleway -

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

May 26, 2020, 19:19 by f...@zz.de: > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: >> >> > Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding >> > (bicycle=y

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

May 26, 2020, 17:20 by f...@zz.de: > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:10:17AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> >> >> sent from a phone >> >> > On 25. May 2020, at 20:37, Florian Lohoff wrote: >> > >> > i'd expect OSM >> > offering me a conflict free (in legal and physical terms) route based

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

May 26, 2020, 18:04 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > Bikes may "pass" in two different ways: riding > (bicycle=yes/permissive/destination) or pushing (bicycle=dismount). > Bikes are only completely forbidden if bicycle=no/private. > bicycle=no does not mean that you cannot push bicycle

Re: [Tagging] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

May 26, 2020, 08:28 by a...@thaw.de: > Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> May 25, 2020, 02:45 by a...@thaw.de: >> >>> >>> [access=private driveways implicitly permitting delivieries to destination?] >>> >>> Not all deliveries

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

Based on my experience it is usually better to write something, even not ideal and ask for a review. "Someone should write/expand it" is typically ignored. May 26, 2020, 10:58 by vosc...@gmail.com: > Please come back to my original question: > I would like to eliminate the > contradiction in

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

May 26, 2020, 12:52 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > 26 maj 2020 kl. 11:33 skrev Volker Schmidt <> vosc...@gmail.com> >: > >> >> We have now been reviving the path discussion in 73 messages, and counting >> ... >> I still feel we are not understanding each other (or is it only me who is >>

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

May 25, 2020, 23:50 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > then it depends > on whether the former railway has significance in some other less > obvious way (e.g. being part of an administrative boundary) > This is going too far. Glaciers left clear marks in many countries, but mapping glaciers of

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

May 25, 2020, 20:34 by bradha...@fastmail.com: > 'm not sure anyone maps sidewalks. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.24167/21.01532=N https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/footway=sidewalk (only part of separately mapped sidewalks has it)

Re: [Tagging] any valid usage of admin_level=1 ?

May 25, 2020, 15:27 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: > > On 2020-05-25 14:58, Marc M. wrote: > > >> Hello, >> >> following a small thread on irc, I have review 20 usage of admin_level=1 >> all are mistakes, often by new mapper >> for ex >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/779838275 >> is there a

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

May 25, 2020, 14:53 by privatemaj...@gmail.com: > And this leaves no room for amenity=healthcare. Can't we just get a rendering > for amenity=health_post? > Depends on a renderer. Such discussions about features in specific renderers are offtopic here (though "is it possible to render it at

Re: [Tagging] Access tag abuse examples

May 25, 2020, 15:04 by ja...@piorkowski.ca: > On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 07:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > >> May 25, 2020, 11:06 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: >> >>> Is there a uniform definition of "motor_vehicle" in terms of its >>>

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Examples at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

Discussion moved from talk mailing list as it is clearly about tagging details. Relevant part is quoted so hopefully it is not too confusing. May 25, 2020, 02:45 by a...@thaw.de: > On 25 May 2020, at 01:45, Mateusz Konieczny via talk > wrote: > >> May 25, 2020, 00:36

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

May 25, 2020, 09:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 25. May 2020, at 08:54, Colin Smale wrote: >> >> >> 1. Live and let live - OSM has always been a broad church. It might not be >> your hobby, but it is their's. The bar to actively deleting other people's >>

Re: [Tagging] Access tag abuse examples

May 25, 2020, 11:06 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: > > Is there a uniform definition of "motor_vehicle" in terms of its constituent > vehicle classes? Do the constituent classes also have a uniform definition? A > problematic example is "psv" where its status is not simply a function of the >

[Tagging] Access tag abuse examples

moved from talk list as it become more suitable for tagging May 25, 2020, 00:36 by f...@zz.de: > > Hi, > > On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:16:14PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: > >> > - To use access restrictions as simple and minimal as possible. >> &g

Re: [Tagging] Change of wiki page Key:access

May 24, 2020, 23:42 by vosc...@gmail.com: > The strict wording introduced by Florian is simply not practically applicable > here. > My questions are: > Is Italy the only country with this problem? > Poland used to be similar, though police sometimes setup trap where they were fining

Re: [Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

Name of a route, if one exists. May 23, 2020, 18:17 by winfi...@gmail.com: > In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly? > > Polyglot > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Elderson <> pelder...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> I am trying to improve on the name-tag mess in the many

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

May 23, 2020, 20:41 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 4:31 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > >> It is extremely rare - if there is single access road to a private residence >> then it is a driveway no matter whatever it is paved asphalt

Re: [Tagging] How to tag parking area where it doesn't make sense to have a way go through it

May 22, 2020, 23:31 by o...@dead10ck.com: > There arecertain residential areas where there are designated parking > spots,either for individuals or guests, that are accessible from a road, > butare not necessarily a "parking lot" where it would make sense to have > aservice road go through

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Op vr 22 mei 2020 om 16:07 schreef Andrew Harvey <> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > >: > >> >> >> On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 22:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>> >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote: >> >>> >>> &g

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

May 22, 2020, 13:55 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: > > > On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 21:44, Daniel Westergren <> wes...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Yeah, I guess there's no way to force the user to add a surface tag when >> adding a highway=path. We could also use analyzing tools to look for recent >>

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

Now next step is to either get back to other mappers and explain why =dispensary would be likely confusing for others and just map using whatever tags seems best. Or go through a proposal process https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process if you want. I have seen some edits already,

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

For unpaved paths I would tag width of a path, not width of free space on sides of a path. Second may be tempting in dense forest where bushes and overgrowth may be important, but would result in weird cases where there is large amount of free space on sides.

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

May 22, 2020, 03:09 by miketh...@gmail.com: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:52 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <> > dieterdre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > If the driveway is too rough, it maybe isn’t a driveway any more, it will > > depend on the other driveways in the area what is acceptable as a

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

May 22, 2020, 00:50 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >>> On 21. May 2020, at 23:17, Mike Thompson wrote: >>> >> A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is >> highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is >> too

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

May 21, 2020, 23:15 by miketh...@gmail.com: > > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:35 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > May 21, 2020, 19:20 by > miketh...@gmail.com> : > >

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

May 21, 2020, 19:20 by miketh...@gmail.com: > So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some > similar value)? > Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy cycleway, or cycleway on curve, or cycleway on a slope may be noticeably larger. There is also an old problem

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

; > Op do 21 mei 2020 om 16:03 schreef Andrew Harvey <> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > >: > >> >> >> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:49, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>> >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote: >> >>> >>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

May 21, 2020, 16:00 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: > > > On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 22:49, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> May 21, 2020, 14:17 by >> kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>> :

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted; > some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in > the woods, guideposts in the fields, and cairns above the tree line. > Not a native speaker, but I

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

May 21, 2020, 13:18 by wes...@gmail.com: >>> Obviously we're not tagging for the renderer and the default OSM rendering >>> is discussed elsewhere. >>> >> Then why you mention it? >> > > I was trying to give a context. Sorry if it's not relevant everywhere. My > point is that the usage of

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

May 21, 2020, 11:42 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Routing someone over "access=no" is a really dumb idea. > Obviously,  except cases of overriding tags like foot=yes, Similarly anyone creating highway=footway + danger="you will be shot" + "access=no" + foot=yes" should probably switch to

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

May 21, 2020, 11:31 by frede...@remote.org: > If we map "highway=path" + "danger=you will be shot" and then someone > gets shot because their Android app only looked at highway=path, can we > *really* sit back and say "their fault, we don't map for the Android app"? > In that case access=no

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

May 21, 2020, 09:21 by wes...@gmail.com: > OSM is increasingly becoming more useful for forest trails than for car roads > (for which other sources are usually more up-to-date, to be honest). > Not really relevant and depends on a location. > But the default rendering doesn't differentiate

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

May 21, 2020, 04:34 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > On 20/5/20 10:49 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> Thanks for rescuing the useful content from that proposal. >> >> I reused images from older proposal, hopefully it is OK >> (but oif unwanted - feel

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Thanks for rescuing the useful content from that proposal. I reused images from older proposal, hopefully it is OK (but oif unwanted - feel free to revert) At least for me it is useful illustration of what the proposal is about and clearly demonstrate that it actually ahpepns (as such

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

May 20, 2020, 02:48 by claire.hall...@hotosm.org: > Therefore, if we keep the facility angle, "health_post" and > "community_care_site" values would make sense. Otherwise, based on the main > provider, we could use "nurse" and "community_relay" (if this literal > translation makes any sense

Re: [Tagging] Permanent ID/URI --- off topic email

May 19, 2020, 17:11 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > frankly, I expect people that will contribute to your project to also have > these accounts, because it's always the same kind of people ;-) ). > +1 > A low hurdle possibility for OSM would be the creation of notes > If you fall back onto it

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

Thanks for posting here! Hopefully feedback that you receive will be useful. May 19, 2020, 17:14 by claire.hall...@hotosm.org: > What are your thoughts about adding the value "dispensary" in the wiki to the > healthcare key to map these places? > Note that in USA "dispensary" seems to primarily

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >