Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

18 Sep 2019, 16:46 by o...@westnordost.de: > b) a subtag of landuse=orchard? Maybe orchard=meadow/plantation? > orchard=meadow_orchard (A bit of duplication but clear, just orchard=meadow looks like a mistake) Or orchard=mixed_with_meadow?___

Re: [Tagging] oneway street with two combined foot-cycle lanes

17 Sep 2019, 02:33 by thesw...@gmail.com: > On 17/9/19 05:29, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> How to tag a >> oneway street with a combined foot-cycle lanes on either side with oneway >> restrictions for bicycles. >> To understand my description you need to look at the photo: >> >>

Re: [Tagging] Roman roads - was Re: "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

15 Sep 2019, 20:20 by pla16...@gmail.com: > I think you could > perhaps use the abandoned: prefix where there is solid evidence of where a > Roman road > was but nothing is there now > OSM is not a place to map things that are gone and left no traces at that location > , but that would annoy

Re: [Tagging] building typology vs usage

13 Sep 2019, 21:37 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > On 13/09/2019 16:14, Wolfgang Zenker wrote: > > >> >> That would be kind of redundant, wouldn't it? We already use other tagsfor >> the current function of a building, >> > I'm repeating much of my of my previous comment, but no, the schema

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

13 Sep 2019, 20:28 by a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 13:41, Janko Mihelić wrote: > >> sri, 11. ruj 2019. u 14:34 Joseph Eisenberg >> napisao je: >> >>> >>> Doesn't this mean that it would be better to create separate Wikidata >>> items for each separate OSM feature,

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

12 Sep 2019, 11:43 by jan...@gmail.com: > One problem > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 06:53 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> > wrote: > >> >> I still see no benefit in using part:wikipedia >> or par

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

12 Sep 2019, 02:03 by jan...@gmail.com: > But I remember an artwork that was tagged somewhere, and it was consisted of > several murals spread around the city. Part:wikidata=* would be perfect for > that case. > Sounds like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wroc%C5%82aw%27s_dwarfs

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

11 Sep 2019, 21:48 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 19:43, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> > wrote: > >> >> It gets tricky where wikidata has a >> single object for

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

11 Sep 2019, 19:59 by pla16...@gmail.com: > Rule 3: If an object is a multipolygon relation containing several outers, > such as some > university campuses, then the relation itself gets the wikidata tag for that > university, > not the constituent polygons. > For object represented by single

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

can you give specific example of case where part:wikidata would be better than wikidata? 11 Sep 2019, 20:38 by jan...@gmail.com: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 19:31 Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdre...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> I am also against restricting wikidata

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

11 Sep 2019, 19:00 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > Am Mi., 11. Sept. 2019 um 17:56 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <> > matkoni...@tutanota.com <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> >: > >> 11 Sep 2019, 15:32 by >> joseph.eisenb...@gma

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

11 Sep 2019, 15:32 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > Doesn't this mean that it would be better to create separate Wikidata > items for each separate OSM feature, rather than creating a new OSM > tag? > impossible due to Wikidata rules. for example

Re: [Tagging] Tourist bus stop

what about bus stops used both by normal busses and tourism busses? I would expect highway=bus_stop as more important feature 10 Sep 2019, 21:07 by franci...@gmail.com: > Dear list, > > please find the proposal for the tag in subject: >

Re: [Tagging] Open Defecation Areas

11 Sep 2019, 01:54 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 23:41, Graeme Fitzpatrick <> graemefi...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> >> Would it need a multipolygon? My impression of the ODA is an open patch of >> ground in / beside a residential area. If

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

10 Sep 2019, 12:06 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk: > On Monday, 9 September 2019, marc marc wrote: > >> Le 09.09.19 à 16:18, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : >> > >> > >> > >> > 9 Sep 2019, 15:14 by pella.s...@gmail.com: >> > >>

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

9 Sep 2019, 11:46 by jan...@gmail.com: >> Monaco is a >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state >> >> > > I'm not convinced. If city-state is a city and a state in one, then why do we > have two objects in Openstreetmap? Then it should be one

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

9 Sep 2019, 15:14 by pella.s...@gmail.com: > Imho:    the real problem, why we have multiple objects for "name:*"   tags? > ( admin_centre, label, relation, ... )   > Label is an  attempt to manually specify optimal place for placement of a label. It is therefore not reflecting reality, but

Re: [Tagging] Open Defecation Areas

9 Sep 2019, 10:12 by jez.nichol...@gmail.com: > A 'watsan:' namespace appears unnecessary unless these are areas specifically > sponsored by Watsan. > Even in that case it would be unwanted, and something like operator or owner  or similar tag would be

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

I think that it is fine to repeat  Wikipedia link (so probably also its Wikidata equivalent) in some cases: - streets with Wikipedia article - structure that combines for example footway bridge and Weir- beach with Wikipedia article split into parts due to differing surfacesetc 8 Sep 2019,

Re: [Tagging] map of international institutions, such as EU institutions in Brussels

7 Sep 2019, 18:19 by rob...@riemann.cc: > However, I noticed that many buildings are not tagged accordingly, but > instead > have only a POI. > And this is correct and (IMHO) a better tagging. Note that building may have multiple  offices and that office name is typically not name is the

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Utility markers

7 Sep 2019, 01:36 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com: > Ok this one is really interesting. > Why not using marker=* to give its nature and another key utility=* with > values "gas", "power", "telecom", "water"... ? > Is it typical to map "it is marker of an unknown kind" like splitting shop and

Re: [Tagging] amenity=music_school vs amenity=college?

5 Sep 2019, 07:18 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > Are music schools a type of amenity=college or should they be their own tags? > At this moment there is no documented way of tagging that something is a music school using amenity=college. Is it simply missing from Wiki or is there no scheme

Re: [Tagging] Hill figures

4 Sep 2019, 09:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 4. Sep 2019, at 09:08, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> >> man_made=geoglyph (usage >700 in taginfo) >> Seems to be a reasonable tagging >> > > > +1 > +1, I added it to some of linked example that were missing it

Re: [Tagging] Agility park for dogs

Date: 3 Sep 2019, 09:13 From: luke.mar...@viacesi.fr To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Agility park for dogs > > > Sometimes there is an obstacle track for the dogs." > > Sure, but I think it's a loss not to be explicit about the presence of the > track. > If I were to

Re: [Tagging] How to tag flood prone points and areas?

2 Sep 2019, 23:20 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 16:38, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> > wrote: > >> This kind of data is not >> verifiable and not surveyable by an

Re: [Tagging] How to tag flood prone points and areas?

2 Sep 2019, 03:21 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 21:57, Paul Allen <> pla16...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> >> I'm fairly happy with flood_probability.  There's something nagging at the >> back of my >> mind saying I ought to be unhappy with

Re: [Tagging] New proposal draft to simplify the mapping of farm buildings (stables)

I disagree with proposal to replace building=sty with building=stable + animal=pig building=sty tagging seems clearly preferable to me And wildcard deprecations like "Deprecate building=sty, building=sty and any therelike" make me dislike this proposal even more. 27 Aug 2019, 22:37 by

Re: [Tagging] Agility park for dogs

26 Aug 2019, 23:55 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 01:53, MARLIN LUKE <> luke.mar...@viacesi.fr > > > wrote: > >> I'm going to map a small dog park where there are obstacles for agility >> training, and I'm not sure if I should use

Re: [Tagging] landcover dune or land form dune

26 Aug 2019, 12:31 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > On 26/08/19 20:22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> >> 26 Aug 2019, 05:51 by >> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com >> <mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>> : >> >>> This also brings up the que

Re: [Tagging] landcover dune or land form dune

26 Aug 2019, 05:51 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > This also brings up the question: is it appropriate to edit pages like > this to mention the more common tags at the top, e.g. natural=dune, > natural=sand? > Yes. Especially in cases of tags that are - duplicates of far more used tags -

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

23 Aug 2019, 09:07 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Could you/someone explain how you can search for objects that form such > spatial relationships? > Overpass API is good for start. Wiki has page with examples for Overpass API/Overpass turbo, including "X within N meters from Y, limited to Z

Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

24 Aug 2019, 18:39 by pla16...@gmail.com: > Editors won't (in general) > implement tags in presets unless they're widely used.  > This is not true. Barrier for support in editors is really low. Many tags that are not widely used are supported. For example man_made=obelisk  support was just

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

19 Aug 2019, 10:44 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > On 19/08/19 18:21, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > >> Interesting! >> >> I remembered a problem with "trade=*" - it's already been used almost >> 5000 times to specify the type of trade goods sold at a shop=trade - >> see

[Tagging] Is crop=yes tag completely and utterly useless?

Is there any situation where crop=yes should not be removed as utterly useless? 9326 of 9657 crop=yes is on landuse=farmland - it seems to me that it is not adding any information whatsoever. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/crop=yes#map

Re: [Tagging] How to distinguish public and private offices?

15 Aug 2019, 14:36 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: > > > On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 07:32, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> > wrote: > >> Unfortunately many office=* tags represent something that is accessibl

Re: [Tagging] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

15 Aug 2019, 15:48 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 15. Aug 2019, at 13:53, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> >> What is perfectly fine, as long as proposals were actually abandoned. >> > > > what is your definition of

Re: [Tagging] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

15 Aug 2019, 15:56 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 15. Aug 2019, at 13:53, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> >> For many popular tags there are abandoned proposals, tags itself are in >> active use. >> > > > „many popul

Re: [Tagging] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

15 Aug 2019, 13:33 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > On 15. Aug 2019, at 05:33, Joseph Eisenberg <> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >>> "The ideal of forcing a proposal ... does not fly with me due to the >>> probability of

[Tagging] insurance:health, staff_count:nurses, staff_count:doctors tags documented as a bad idea

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:doctors#Voting https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:staff_count:nurses#Voting

Re: [Tagging] Definition of a Beach

15 Aug 2019, 03:43 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > For context: yesterday Mateusz Konieczny edited the description of > natural=beach on the Landuse page and commented that "beach is not > always unvegetated and concrete along shore is not a beach", and then > I us

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

15 sie 2019, 04:18 od joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > Thoughts? > (You can also respond at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Any_tags_you_like > > ) > I would consider it as a great idea to document actually used tags.

Re: [Tagging] How to distinguish public and private offices?

14 Aug 2019, 23:11 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > >> There are some that can be assumed to be accessible like office=travel_agent. >> > > > depends what this is describing: a place where you go to book a tour / hotel > / flight or a business 2 business place (back office) where contracts / >

[Tagging] How to distinguish public and private offices?

There are some offices that can be assumed to be without access by general public like office=company. There are some that can be assumed to be accessible like office=travel_agent. But there are some like office=political_party, office=religion, office=government that are generally accessible

Re: [Tagging] tag templates in the wiki

13 Aug 2019, 07:52 by hufkrat...@gmail.com: >> Fortunately we can (and should) ignore it >> by filling parameters of the template. >> >> > > On the wiki pages you can ignore / overwrite most of the the valuesfrom > data items but in iD you always get the values from the dataitems. In

Re: [Tagging] tag templates in the wiki

12 Aug 2019, 20:24 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 12. Aug 2019, at 18:02, Andy Townsend wrote: >> >> I don't think it's unavoidable - presumably you can just ignore the wikidata >> stuff and carry on as before? >> > > > I had thought so as well, but then I saw the

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

7 Aug 2019, 21:36 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Hi, > > I wonder how I should tag bicycle shops that are not shops in the traditional > "buy our products" sense. > > A community-centre that is also offers bicycle repairs / is a bicycle repair > shop. > Map like usual repair point and add

Re: [Tagging] Fruit stands and shops selling fresh fruits?

10 Aug 2019, 02:48 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > Is there a more specific tag that should be recommended for a shop > which specializes in fruit? > There are quite similar objects in Poland - stalls on marketplace where people are selling seasonal fruits and vegetables. I use simply

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 119, Issue 55

12 Aug 2019, 18:13 by ulamm.b...@t-online.de : Please stop immediately any offtopic postings to TAGGING mailing list. Discussion of your misunderstanding of copyright that resulted in your justified ban are completely offtopic here. In case that you are

Re: [Tagging] tag templates in the wiki

12 Aug 2019, 01:05 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Is it now unavoidable that the info box content on tag definition pages in > the wiki comes from the database? > It is avoidable, just specify values in the template. I just reverted edit that for some unexplained reason damaged wiki page.

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

30 Jul 2019, 21:03 by pla16...@gmail.com: > However, if standard carto makes any rendering decisions based upon lanes=n > It is not used at all.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

30 Jul 2019, 16:26 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > I don't see it as redefining lanes > It is not changing that it would redefine meaning of this tag. So it would require survey of all  places tagged with lanes tag so it is not going to happen.___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

30 Jul 2019, 15:04 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > This is something that desperately needs to change.  > Maybe, but please do not attempt to redefine "lanes" tag (all_lanes=*?). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Jul 30, 2019, 9:54 AM by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 00:51 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <> > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com > >: > >> -1 to a site relation for an area with a defined outer boundary. >> > > >> >> Relation = boundary

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

29 Jul 2019, 18:34 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > Ok, it's clear that these tags are not deprecated. > > Are they "in use" then? > I would say that use is deprecated for things like shop=* and in use for things like quarries, buildings, adits, bunkers etc > > According to

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

ttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:denotation> >> > >> >So I have changed the wiki again . to simply direct 'special tree' >> >tagging to that page. >> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:denotation%3Dcluster >> <https://wiki.ope

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

To be more exact someone decided to delete content and document prefix on the same page instead of creating new one. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:disused:=878757=862845 29 Jul 2019, 08:45 by o...@westnordost.de: > Sounds to me that those pages were incorrectly

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

29 Jul 2019, 14:05 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 07:24, Joseph Eisenberg <> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> >> I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus >> disused=yes might be more sensible than

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

28 Jul 2019, 11:12 by o...@imagico.de: > On Saturday 27 July 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > >> Please take a minute to review the new page >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status >> >> Thanks for creating it and submitting it

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

28 Jul 2019, 18:33 by o...@imagico.de: > > IMO if those criteria are significant (which i don't doubt as far as > they can be objectively determined) it is much more useful to document > how far a tag meets these criteria individually than to determine an > aggregate score of some sort from

Re: [Tagging] Feature man_made=offshore_platform?

26 Jul 2019, 15:35 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > The feature man_made=offshore_platform was created as a wiki page and > then added to Map features, apparently without discussion, at some > point in the past. > > It didn't have a very complete wiki page, but it looks like this is > mainly

[Tagging] Tagging remain of extinct volcanoes

Is it OK to use natural=volcano for remains of volcanoes? There is volcano:status=extinct but I feel that tagging volcano-related rocks as volcanoes is a poor idea. See

Re: [Tagging] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

17 Jul 2019, 15:05 by marc.ge...@gmail.com: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:30 PM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> >> I recently edited some of this pages (primarily mentioning that competing >> tags >> are used 50 to 50 000 times more often). >> >> I

Re: [Tagging] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:waterway=sluice gate

I linked mentioned resources, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Awaterway%3Dsluice_gate=revision=1879862=1879574 Anyone with experience in mapping such structures is welcomed to further improve this page. 17 Jul 2019, 20:21 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com: > > Hi > > Le 

Re: [Tagging] Once more: the village_green - increase in misuse.

19 Jul 2019, 00:41 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > The key 'landuse' is big misused for land covers. > For various reasons meaning of word used as key is not strictly limiting values used with it. landuse=grass, amenity=prison, highway=path, natural=water for man made reservoirs, natural=wood

[Tagging] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery, Tag:waterway=sluice gate, Tag:landcover=water, Tag:landcover=shrubs, Tag:landcover=sand, Tag:waterway=slReviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=wa

I recently edited some of this pages (primarily mentioning that competing tags are used 50 to 50 000 times more often). I would welcome review of this pages (and edits where necessary). https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dgreenery

Re: [Tagging] Clashing access tags

14 Jul 2019, 21:03 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Route relations should be aware of tags on ways. access=no can be used in > part to indicate road works. > Just because a way may be inaccessible to bikes doesn't mean it's not still > officially regarded as a cycle route (the NCN ref won't be

Re: [Tagging] maxstay=0

15 Jul 2019, 13:33 by joost.schou...@gmail.com: > Hi, > > The most common value for maxstay=* is 0. There is no guidance on the wiki on > how to interpret this. However, the below is used to explain that you cannot > use the parking on Sunday and public holidays. > > maxstay:conditional=0 @

Re: [Tagging] Clashing access tags

14 lip 2019, 14:07 od rich...@systemed.net: > Occasionally I encounter tag combinations like this: > > bicycle=designated > highway=proposed > Based on tagging is it a not yet existing road that will have some part designated for use by cyclists (lane/cycleway?). Maybe it will be a cycleway.

Re: [Tagging] Clashing access tags

14 lip 2019, 14:07 od rich...@systemed.net: > Occasionally I encounter tag combinations like this: > > bicycle=designated > highway=proposed > Based on tagging is it a not yet existing road that will have some part designated for use by cyclists (lane/cycleway?). Maybe it will be a cycleway.

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

14 lip 2019, 15:26 od dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 14. Jul 2019, at 10:15, Peter Elderson wrote: >> >> From the air you commonly see rows of houses with strips of green in front >> and back, so it would make sense to tag the gardens different than the >>

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

moothness page.   None of them are > soft.   >    > I'll find some more photos.    Any photos I share are wide open toshare.  > Is there a license overlay that you need on them? > > > On 7/9/19 11:11 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> >>

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

9 Jul 2019, 20:07 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:12 PM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> Can you link image of track >> on rock/rocky surface where tagging >> it as grade1, grade2, grade3 would >> be misleading? >> > >

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

12 Jul 2019, 11:50 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > On 12/07/19 19:02, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> >> >> >> 12 Jul 2019, 10:11 by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com >> <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>>> : >> >>> On 12/07/19 17:25

Re: [Tagging] shop=window(s) incorrectly deprecated in favor of craft=window_construction ?

11 Jul 2019, 21:33 by geodes...@gmail.com: > > The obvious tag is > > shop=trade > >  and > >  trade= ???  ... > > The most obvious tagging scheme for a world wide database like OSM would be > to use the commercial classification system in effect in a particular > jurisdiction. > It is

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden for private front/back gardens

12 Jul 2019, 10:11 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > On 12/07/19 17:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> >> sent from a phone >> >>> On 12. Jul 2019, at 09:12, Marc Gemis wrote: >>> >>> Why would a private garden require a different key? Do we tag a >>> private wood / forest in a different way than

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

8 lip 2019, 03:22 od bradha...@fastmail.com: > wiki page Can you link image of track on rock/rocky surface where tagging  it as grade1, grade2, grade3 would be misleading? It at least should be documented at the tracktype wiki page. It would be nice to have image on an  open license to be able

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

9 lip 2019, 18:12 od rich...@systemed.net: > 80% of the time surface= is all you need. We could do with more and better > documented values for it, especially for clarity around gravel. I could see > some virtue in another tag to be used _only_ when surface= is also present, > documenting how

Re: [Tagging] Removing an ATM

9 lip 2019, 16:27 od pla16...@gmail.com: > Not really.  They don't get rendered (on standard carto).  So they don't help > anyone orient > themselves.  > OSM Carto is not a sole map style. > As with disused: and abandoned:, the only real purpose is to prevent mappers > re-instating the >

Re: [Tagging] Removing an ATM

9 lip 2019, 17:00 od pla16...@gmail.com: > I prefer landuse=quarry + disused=yes to disused:landuse=quarry.  A working > quarry observed > on a Sunday may be difficult to distinguish from a disused quarry.  Tagging > for the renderer > or choosing between valid alternative tagging schemes?  I

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

8 Jul 2019, 03:22 by bradha...@fastmail.com: > Do we have close to a consensus that tracktype is not globallyuseful? > Why it would be? So far I see need for better guide for using tracktype on rocky surfaces where "subtle on landscape" and "soft" is not the same.

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

7 lip 2019, 01:57 od bradha...@fastmail.com: > What wiki are you looking at?   At > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype,  grade5 says > "Soft. > Almost always an unimproved track lacking hard materials, same as surrounding > soil. " > > What if the surrounding soil is hard

Re: [Tagging] JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

7 lip 2019, 00:07 od matkoni...@tutanota.com: > 6 lip 2019, 23:52 od dieterdre...@gmail.com: > >> >> >> sent from a phone >> >>> On 6. Jul 2019, at 23:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >>> >>> It sounds like bicycle=yes, a

Re: [Tagging] JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

6 lip 2019, 23:52 od dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 6. Jul 2019, at 23:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> >> It sounds like bicycle=yes, at least that is >> how such objects are tagged in Poland. >> > > > at least i

Re: [Tagging] JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

6 lip 2019, 22:31 od vosc...@gmail.com: > In IT it is legally essentially a footway on which cyclists are tolerated, > but the pedestrians have always priority to the extend that if there are too > many pedestrians the cyclists have to dismount, and always have to ride at > moderate

Re: [Tagging] JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

6 lip 2019, 14:59 od tagging@openstreetmap.org: > >"Suspicious tag combination highway=cycleway together with foot=designated, > >use highway=path" > >     This is incorrect. A cycleway tag can be used on a shared path, one which > can have a designation for other >     transport modes, such

Re: [Tagging] New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

14 169 building=houseboat 6 lip 2019, 16:31 od joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: >> ... we could use something like building=boat, >> building=caravan or building=vehicle, but it is unfortunate that none >> of these can be understood to be buildings in any sense of the word. >> > >

Re: [Tagging] lit=yes/no threshold

6 Jul 2019, 14:07 by o...@westnordost.de: >> I am trying to make lit=yes/no definition more precise >> > > I think that your suggestions would make the definition actually less precise > because they add a fair level of subjectiveness: "necessary to bring your own > light" > > The least

Re: [Tagging] lit=yes/no threshold

6 Jul 2019, 12:35 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: > > What problem are you trying to fix here? Usually it is pretty obvious if a > street has artificial lighting or not. > > Unclear desired tagging for footways lit by spillover lighting. As I mentioned it is usually obvious but there are cases where

[Tagging] lit=yes/no threshold

Some cases of lit=yes are clear (direct lighting of street/footway by lamps) Some cases of lit=no are clear (no lighting whatsoever) But in cities there is also often strong or weak ambient light, for example: - carriageway is directly lit with so powerful light that spillover light makes

Re: [Tagging] New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

1 Jul 2019, 18:41 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > equivalent of a mobile shop, and I'm not even sure there is one. > > Mobile=yes|no has the problem of confusion with cell phones. > > BTW, there's a fast food outlet near me set up in a shipping container at the > side of a road. > Theoretically

Re: [Tagging] Maxweight wiki page changes

3 Jul 2019, 12:52 by o...@westnordost.de: > 1.1 At the examples: for max empty weight, I propose the key maxemptyweight. > It suggests itself. > Added, with link back to this post > 1.2 At the examples: Conditionals should maybe better be catch-all, so i.e. > axles>=3 instead of axles=3 >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=power_supply

3 Jul 2019, 22:18 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > I don't have enough interest and motivation to try to fit at least four > different kinds of power-providing devices into one tag > > Note that you are not obligated to follow all (or any) suggestions. If you prefer you may make

[Tagging] disclosing grant (was Re: Maxweight wiki page changes)

:hgv for a longer explanation. >> >> 3. Maxaxleload mentions that weight in USA must always be given in short >> tons while the maxweight article also mentions pounds. Same with the article >> about maxbogieweight. >> >> 4. Maxbogieweight in Romania: I'd say a

[Tagging] Maxweight wiki page changes

There were recently significant changes at OSM Wiki page about maxweight tag and related tags. Review is welcomed. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight - major changes included fixing mistakes in examples, adding additional

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

3 lip 2019, 03:10 od bradha...@fastmail.com: > 1) Change the wiki for highway so it mentions Smoothness=*, and > de-emphasize  tracktype=* > Mentioning also smoothness tag is perfectly fine and such edits can be fine without notification mail. Usually such mails are necessary only in cases

Re: [Tagging] New sections added to "Good Practice" page?

Do you have any idea for tag name that would overall be better? 1 lip 2019, 17:19 od pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 11:54, marc marc  > Doesn't really work for the restaurant on a boat near me.  It's not parked on > or by a street.  It's > accessed by a footpath, not a

Re: [Tagging] systematical mapping of waterways

28 Jun 2019, 10:52 by ulamm.b...@t-online.de: > In his explications of his ban against me > Please, stop offtopic posting on tagging mailing list. There is nothing about tagging here. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Which global OSM mailing list for the "community index"?

28 cze 2019, 08:15 od graemefi...@gmail.com: > change-over  > Note that shutdown of mailing lists is not planned and is not likely to happen.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hiking logbooks

26 Jun 2019, 10:54 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > Hi, > > On some hiking trail there are log books, usually at the start and end and > possibly other places for walkers to record there intentions and observations. > They can be used when someone is overdue by authorities to establish there >

Re: [Tagging] My ban by user Woodpeck = Frederik Ramm

26 Jun 2019, 00:01 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > in particular for non-commercial and scientific use > This are not relevant at all, OSM data is not restricted in how it can be used. > I don't know to what extent this is applicable for an international > project such as OSM, but there are

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   >