Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 117, Issue 90, topic 1 & 4: Ban of Ulamm by Woodpeck

25 Jun 2019, 18:34 by ulamm.b...@t-online.de: > We must not publish scans of historical maps as our own work, that could > violate copyright. > But if we use the informations shown in historical maps for free hand > drawings, we do not violate the copyright for maps. > [citation needed] I

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

25 Jun 2019, 11:18 by f...@zz.de: > > Hi Ulrich, > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 10:16:18AM +0200, Ulrich Lamm wrote: > >> This way, my mapping of courses of water including the culvert >> sections does not violate the principles of OSM. And the ban is >> totally injust. >> > > It violates the

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

Note that you sure not obligated to follow all suggestions. Usually at least some suggestions are contradictory or without support or harmful. 23 cze 2019, 17:06 od tagging@openstreetmap.org: > I thought this was an easy case for my first proposal. Now I'm faced with > with comments in the

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair = hiking

It seems that for paths itself current wheelchair tags are sufficient. For relations it would be nice to distinguish routes specifically for people on wheelchairs and ones marked as passable by people on wheelchairs. 21 Jun 2019, 13:28 by andrea.lattm...@ga-2.it: > So, how should I tag these

[Tagging] paid ferry - fee or toll tag

Is there some reason to prefer one of this two keys for tagging whatever ferry is a paid one? I feel that toll tag is better as it is part of road structure. For recreational cruises fee may fit better but tagging it as route=ferry is tagging for renderer anyway. As far as popularity in data

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair = hiking

18 Jun 2019, 16:28 by andrea.lattm...@ga-2.it: > Hi everyone, > I don't know if it's the right mailing list. > It is the correct one for discussing tagging, especially new tags! Welcome! > I would like to propose a new tag (if it is not already there). The new tag > is wheelchair = hiking

Re: [Tagging] Marking legal BBQ locations

16 Jun 2019, 03:33 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 21:13, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> > wrote: > >> How to mark locations where grilling is legal, >> but one needs br

Re: [Tagging] Marking legal BBQ locations

15 Jun 2019, 14:10 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com: > Le 15.06.19 à 13:09, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > >> How to mark locations where grilling is legal, >> but one needs bring own grill? >> > > bbq=limited > >> bbq=designated >> > > as designate

[Tagging] Marking legal BBQ locations

How to mark locations where grilling is legal, but one needs bring own grill? amenity=bbq is not fitting, as it for tagging a permanently present grill In one specific case there is a permanent table, chairs, waste bin for ashes etc So this place qualifies as tourism=picnic_site, but I want to

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

14 Jun 2019, 13:04 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > 1. Allroads did not favour nolanes=yes because it is a double negative > I agree, this is a bit overcomplicated. > 2. lanes=no is not so good because there are people who estimate the lanes > value if no markings are present (see ael's message).

Re: [Tagging] Mismatched tag status

11 Jun 2019, 01:41 by pla16...@gmail.com: > Here's the thing.  In terms of OSM statuses, "de facto" means that the tag is > in use.  > "de facto" means rather "in wide use, considered as standard tagging scheme for this feature, widely accepted/used/supported where relevant" "in use" means

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

7 Jun 2019, 19:48 by ok...@johnfreed.com: > I believe the key phrase is "single-use" in the sentence you cite. That is, > for instance, if you have a building that is a café (tagged as building=yes) > with a node inside it with the details of the café (name=Rick's Cafe; > amenity=cafe),

Re: [Tagging] A modest proposal to increase the usefulness of the tagging list

2 Jun 2019, 12:10 by frede...@remote.org: > - propose tags only if you, personally, have solid demand for it (i.e. > you have already mapped, or intend to map, the feature intensively). > This puts a practical limit to idle tag fantasising. Everyone can think > of something that doesn't have a

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: usage=irrigation vs irrigation=yes [Was Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains]

4 Jun 2019, 02:16 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > waterway=canal / drain / ditch > navigation=yes/no > irrigation=yes/no > drainage=yes/no > Maybe also drainage=only/irrigation=only would make sense. If it is unwanted then explicit documentation of that solely boolean yes/no is acceptable would be

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: usage=irrigation vs irrigation=yes [Was Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains]

4 Jun 2019, 01:53 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > There are two possible replacements: > > 1) Usage=irrigation > (...) > 2) Irrigation=yes > (...) > Here's my draft proposal, still in user namespace, since the key is > not yet certain: > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

1 Jun 2019, 11:05 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com: > Le 01.06.19 à 08:29, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit : > >> It's not much use knowing that there's one in the museum, >> if you then have no idea where! >> > > EDIT: fix a wrong word > > in some places it is still very useful information to know

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

31 May 2019, 12:26 by pla16...@gmail.com: > Example of the horrors of using canal for a leat with current carto: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/609805692#map=16/52.0804/-4.6799 > > At z=19 it's actually close to the true

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

30 May 2019, 15:00 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com: > Why does aqueduct have to be above ground level? > Maybe because one of main meanings of this word is "bridge to convey water over an obstacle, such as a ravine or valley"? I was initially really confused by usage of aqueduct not referring to

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

For me all of the look equally fine. 29 May 2019, 15:24 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > Which of the ways of tagging "irrigation" should be used? > > "irrigation=yes" works ok, but it hasn't been very popular the last few years > "service=irrigation" is still most common, but the key is a

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Connectivity

27 May 2019, 18:43 by 354...@gmail.com: > Please provide any final feedback for this proposal either here on this > mailing list or on the talk page for the proposal.  > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Complex_lane_connectivity_Vejlands_All%C3%A9.png

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:golf=cartpath

27 May 2019, 01:42 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > The problem with using service=* is that some golf cart paths may > appear to be too narrow for full-size motor vehicles, so they are > mapped as highway=path instead. > Is there anything wrong with using service tag on highway=footway? We

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:golf=cartpath

26 May 2019, 14:08 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > I've created a complete proposal page for golf=cartpath > link? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

25 May 2019, 21:38 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > On 25. May 2019, at 20:57, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> > wrote: > >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1692862

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

25 May 2019, 20:40 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 19:34, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> > wrote: > > >> Modified to " >> Limit to physical activity only would exclude fo

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

25 May 2019, 00:20 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 02:10, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> > wrote: > >> This would exclude for example {{tag|sport|chess}} or {{tag|sport|climbing}} &g

Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

25 May 2019, 17:44 by f...@zz.de: > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:28:45AM +0200, Tobias Zwick wrote: > >> >> 1. Thesis: Mailing lists (and to a lesser degree, classical forums) promote >> a culture of dissent. >> > > I strongly disagree here. How can a technical form of communication > make a

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

24 May 2019, 22:25 by osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au: >> Does any of this change in a jurisdiction where there is an implied >> crossing at every intersection unless posted otherwise? >> > > Such purely implied crossings would be crossing=unmarked, and under the "do > not map local

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

25 May 2019, 00:36 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > I think it is way too soon to summarize a discussion that started less > than 1 week ago. > I am open to amending it. Can you propose some specific changes? (I am not fan of participating in discussions that end with noimpact whatsoever,

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

24 May 2019, 23:41 by nbol...@gmail.com: > > What sort of feature gets tagged crossing=no? Does one draw a line or node > > to represent the footway that isn't there? > > Personally, I've tagged crossing=no on ways either when it's illegal (there's > a sign saying no crossing) > I add also

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

24 May 2019, 23:43 by nbol...@gmail.com: > > AFAIK once traffic lights are present markings are not changing anything > > (and crossing with traffic lights without markings are really rare, I > > suspect that almost always result of worn-out > painting or recent surface reconstruction). > >

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

25 May 2019, 14:20 by pla16...@gmail.com: > I have yet to see anyone present a case where the presence or absence of road > markings at a > crossing controlled by traffic signals requires different behaviour by either > pedestrians or > traffic.  Perhaps such cases exist (Poland is a

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

24 May 2019, 22:16 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:09, <> osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au > > > wrote: > >> >> crossing=traffic_signals – there are explicit traffic signals that tell >> pedestrians when to stop. There are very

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

24 May 2019, 22:10 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:00, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> > wrote: > >> >> 24 May 2019, 21:52 by >> pla16...@gmail.com <mailto:pla16...@g

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

24 May 2019, 21:52 by pla16...@gmail.com: > Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes?  > This is a very popular situation in Poland. > Motorists have right of way if their signal is green; pedestrians have > absolute > right of way just by stepping on the crossing

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

24 May 2019, 18:44 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:10 PM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> For example any definition that limits "sport" to competitions or only >> psychical activity is not >> fitting OSM use. >> > >

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

24 May 2019, 18:56 by nbol...@gmail.com: > Each of these steps could be improved by having better systems in place for > communication and specification. For example: have wiki editing action items > at the end of most discussions  > What you mean by that? Edit wiki once it is useful, link back

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

24 May 2019, 17:20 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 15:55 Uhr schrieb Markus <> selfishseaho...@gmail.com > > >: > >> I personally like the definition by the European Sports Charter >> (article 2, paragraph 1a): >> >>    "Sport"

Re: [Tagging] Wiki for documentation, ML for discussion | Re: solving iD conflict

24 May 2019, 17:22 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > iD's > recommendations should reflect broadly accepted current practice, and > this mailing list is not a good place to discover what that is. > It may not be the best place to start such search but it is one of possible tools. It should not be

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

24 May 2019, 15:47 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > That's human nature too, really. Those who agree with the consensus > have little incentive to speak up, and those who disagree will be > highly motivated to seize the opportunity to argue for their ideas. > Nevertheless, that's why a forum that

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

24 May 2019, 14:48 by o...@imagico.de: > OSMF endorses > this as the default way of editing OSM online via the website giving it > an unfair advantage over any competing system of presets and > validation. > Is there some editor capable of working in-browser that can be considered as better

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

24 May 2019, 13:32 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > I continue listening carefully to this mailing list, toping to glean useful > information from it. IT SIMPLY NEVER HAPPENS. > Well, for me for example https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-March/043350.html

Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

24 May 2019, 02:24 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM marc marc wrote: > >> following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better >> yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use, >> if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look >> >

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

23 May 2019, 21:58 by nbol...@gmail.com: > in-person > Well, it is hard to beat in-person contact. > , personal emails, slack, etc. > My experience with both and mailing lists is very similar as far as quality of conversation goes. For: > - The same 8 or so people respond to posts out of a

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

23 May 2019, 18:32 by o...@westnordost.de: > reverse this development. > Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides and it would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was frankly stupid what I realized after sending the message). > I had to

Re: [Tagging] ID is not a king and final arbiter of OSM (was: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations)

Though repeated attempts by @bhousel and @quincylvania to declare themselves as final arbiters of OSM tagging and dismissing everybody else is certainly not helping. That is really not going to work, and it is a pity because plenty of work done of him is really great but it is tainted by

Re: [Tagging] iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

23 May 2019, 01:15 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > I find it strange/worrying he makes these far reaching decisions > unilaterally > Note that JOSM also is doing this but in cases of unwanted or broken validation it gets fixed/changed/rolled back. I think that main difference between JOSM

Re: [Tagging] iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

This is a change on the OSM website that updates iD version so all changes are bundled as one. For more gradual commits/issues see https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD 23 May 2019, 01:39 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 09:10, marc marc <> marc_marc_...@hotmail.com >

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

23 May 2019, 01:26 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > So there are various definitions. Which one should OSM use? > I would rather ask which one OSM is using now. >From mentioned following seems to fit quite well: 1. an activity pursued for exercise or pleasure, usually requiring some degree of

Re: [Tagging] iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

23 May 2019, 00:23 by osm...@michreichert.de: > (3) highway=footway is added to ways which are clearly tagged as area > using area=yes. Many routers route along the edges of areas but that's > more a bug and workaround than a good feature. A highway=footway area is > mapped as either

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a site with "Luxury Lodges"

22 May 2019, 16:45 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > I hesitate to raise my simple question in such an expertforum, but I want to > tag correctly and cannot find the guidance I need in the Wiki. > > Feel free to ask any questions how things should be tagged! > > How should I tag Willow Park in

Re: [Tagging] Navaid relation?

22 May 2019, 13:03 by f...@zz.de: > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:55:44PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> > - Baumstraße 43a, Gütersloh, Germany >> > It does not have a connection to Baumstraße but to >> > Hermann-Vogelsang-Straße. >> > >&g

Re: [Tagging] Navaid relation?

22 May 2019, 13:00 by f...@zz.de: > > Hi > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:42:45PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> 22 May 2019, 09:53 by f...@zz.de: >> > Hi Marc, >> > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:38:23PM +, marc marc wrote: >> >>

Re: [Tagging] Navaid relation?

22 May 2019, 12:49 by f...@zz.de: > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:37:21PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> > Again a footway between the house and a road will NOT help for >> > car navigation because for cars a footway is NOT a routable >> > part of the grap

Re: [Tagging] Navaid relation?

22 May 2019, 09:43 by f...@zz.de: > > Hola Mateusz, > > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:26:01AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> 21 May 2019, 23:46 by f...@zz.de: >> >> > - Houses which are routeable by road a but are near road b or vice >> > v

Re: [Tagging] Navaid relation?

22 May 2019, 09:53 by f...@zz.de: > > Hi Marc, > > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:38:23PM +, marc marc wrote: > >> > What is the expectation to get navigated to when selecting a park? >> >> there is no such thing as "a single point that makes everyone agree" >> > > Yes there is - there has to

Re: [Tagging] Navaid relation?

22 May 2019, 12:06 by f...@zz.de: > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 09:13:14AM +, marc marc wrote: > >> Le 22.05.19 à 09:43, Florian Lohoff a écrit : >> >> Can you give example of residential building with fully mapped roads, >> >> footways and obstacles where well written router will fail? >> >

Re: [Tagging] Navaid relation?

22 May 2019, 00:38 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com: > Le 22.05.19 à 00:16, Florian Lohoff a écrit : > >> >> Hi marc, >> >> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:02:53PM +, marc marc wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Le 21.05.19 à 23:46, Florian Lohoff a écrit : >>> Currently all Routing/Navigation

Re: [Tagging] Navaid relation?

22 May 2019, 00:16 by f...@zz.de: > Doesnt work - You are navigating by car but you only have a footway up > to hour house - Still the house is near road b - thus you get navigated > to the wrong street. > In this case router should be improved to route toward  house, not to road segment

Re: [Tagging] Navaid relation?

21 May 2019, 23:46 by f...@zz.de: > - Houses which are routeable by road a but are near road b or vice > versa. > > Adding more roads aka service/driveway does not necessary make it more > deterministic. > Can you give example of residential building with fully mapped roads, footways and

Re: [Tagging] tagging large farm complexes

20 May 2019, 02:05 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > to me the individual areas are obviously farmyards, and the other areas are > easily mappable - but what about the entire landuse? is it  commercial? > farmyard? > > I currently tagged as commercial, but I have the suspicion that is wrong -

Re: [Tagging] Wiki changes for police tag

18 May 2019, 22:07 by si...@poole.ch: > > > > Am 18.05.2019 um 11:44 schrieb Jan S: > >> Interesting point... I'd suggest that it is a top-level tag itself. >> Otherwise you'd have to tag buildings as building=* and police=*, which >> I find an unnecessary duplication that might

Re: [Tagging] Opening hours syntax for non Gregorian calendar

17 May 2019, 21:13 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Fri, 17 May 2019 at 19:42, Saeed Hubaishan <> hubais...@outlook.sa > > > wrote: > >> >> So opening_hours syntax must accept the other calendar systems. >> > > Opening_hours syntax is complicated enough, without

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

10 May 2019, 22:24 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: > On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 20:00, Paul Allen <> pla16...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> >> My natural inclination would be to put the name of the service, as displayed >> on the bus >> itself, in the name tag. But maybe

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

11 May 2019, 19:47 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: > On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 17:05, Johnparis <> ok...@johnfreed.com > > > wrote: > >> >> For bus routes, at least, there is an established convention for the name >> tag. I have mapped hundreds of such routes. It is

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

10 May 2019, 18:16 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: > as the editors display the route's > description in the relations list [3], i'll fix my mistakes. > > [3]: > https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Dialog/RelationList > > Is

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

Currently description of route is recommended to be mapped in name tag. It clearly should be placed in description tag, with name tag used for a name of the route. I plan on amending Wiki this way, despite that proposal recommended misuses of name tag. Please comment if such edit would not

Re: [Tagging] Marking temporary traffic organisation change

8 May 2019, 19:35 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com: > Le 08.05.19 à 17:00, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > >> sometimes change is applied for months >> >> How one may mark that such change is temporary? >> >> It would be useful for at least two reasons:

[Tagging] Marking temporary traffic organisation change

Sometimes traffic organization changes for some time - road becomes temporarily oneway, or oneway road becomes accessible in both direction. Obviously short term traffic organisation changes (for hours/days) are generally not worth mapping, though one may use oneway:conditional /

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - toll

8 May 2019, 15:50 by wiki_openstreetmap_org.5.k...@spamgourmet.com: > I would like to hear your thoughts and comments here: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/toll > >   > I see no good reason to turn simple

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals

8 May 2019, 01:30 by nbol...@gmail.com: > - Unmarked crossings are abstract "fictions" representing where an individual > might cross the street, marked crossings are identifiable from imagery. > - Because unmarked crossings are "fictions", they are only suggested places > to cross, according

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - tag:Police

Just wait for the end of voting schedule. 5 May 2019, 20:53 by bkil.hu...@gmail.com: > We're now at 20 unanimous approval votes. Do we still need more? > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 11:51 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick <> graemefi...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon,

Re: [Tagging] Whispering asphalt

2 May 2019, 21:55 by amilopow...@u-cloud.ch: > surface=whispering_asphalt or surface=silent_asphalt > Please avoid fragmenting surface tag. > Then I found on Overpass-Turbo someone that tagged "asphalt:type=porous". > Something like that would be preferable if it is mappable. In general,

Re: [Tagging] free_standing_emergency_department, amenity or clinic ?

2 May 2019, 04:37 by cosmic...@gmail.com: > My view is that we should focus on getting the schema, keys and > attributes correct, and worry less about the rendering. > I would strongly advocate not worrying about rendering too much. In general tags require some use before rendering is going to

Re: [Tagging] Handicap Parking Access Aisles

1 May 2019, 20:11 by cliff...@snowandsnow.us: > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 9:13 PM Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> >> highway=footway wheelchair=yes ... would be in keeping with present >> tagging of wheelchairs in OSM. ??? >> > > wheelchair=yes

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

30 Apr 2019, 20:18 by s8...@runbox.com: > - bidirectional=no > - signed_oneway=yes > - signed_direction=yes > - designated_direction=forward|both|backward > - signed=forward|backward|both|none > For me all work equally well, though with designated_direction=forward and similar I am not sure

Re: [Tagging] free_standing_emergency_department, amenity or clinic ?

30 Apr 2019, 13:51 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 05:40, Joseph Eisenberg <> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com > <mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > >> On 4/30/19, Mateusz Konieczny <>> matkoni...@tutanota.com >>

Re: [Tagging] free_standing_emergency_department, amenity or clinic ?

29 Apr 2019, 23:11 by pla16...@gmail.com: > Since healthcare=* is now rendered by standard carto, there's no reason to > include amenity=*. > Please, avoid basing tagging decision on one specific renderer. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Verifiability wiki page: "Geometry" section added

28 Apr 2019, 14:31 by o...@tobias-knerr.de: > So the world's houses and farms can be (somewhat simplistically) divided > into 3 sets: > A: Verifiably part of the hamlet. > B: Verifiably not part of the hamlet. > C: May or may not be part of the hamlet. > > In my opinion, verifiability is not a

Re: [Tagging] Verifiability wiki page: "Geometry" section added

28 Apr 2019, 13:38 by o...@tobias-knerr.de: > It also > doesn't make logical sense to me: If it were indeed impossible to > verifiably establish even an approximate boundary of the feature, how > can we verifiably establish the feature's center? > I think that examples given in this edit are

Re: [Tagging] Verifiability wiki page: "Geometry" section added

+1 28 Apr 2019, 12:25 by bkil.hu...@gmail.com: >  > > > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 11:44 AM Joseph Eisenberg <> > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> I've added a new section to the Verifiability wiki page about mapping >> features with ways or areas

Re: [Tagging] unused tags and properties

27 Apr 2019, 01:54 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > A few people continue to add unused tags and properties to feature > definitions, e.g. looking at the page for tourism=guesthouse, which is quite > long in the meantime, you can find "proposed" values with names like > "fridge" > "stove" >

Re: [Tagging] Why should we avoid overusage of amenity=* tag?

25 Apr 2019, 23:49 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > Communities have drawn together to keep a bank, a supermarket and a garage > going locally. They have also drawn together to keep a doctor. > They don't draw together for a church. > Depends on a community. The last one certainly is not true for

Re: [Tagging] Incorrectly tagging locks on rivers as canals

25 Apr 2019, 19:03 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com: > To me, current tagging is defined as follow: > waterway=river/stream => "natural" water course > waterway=canal => artificial water channel for a given purpose > waterway=drain => useless water evacuation (mainly rain) > I would use river/stream

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Connectivity

Apr 22, 2019, 5:55 PM by 354...@gmail.com: > https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Connectivity > > Thanks for proposal with examples! I almost never tag lanes, so my experience is limited but from what I have seen this proposal

Re: [Tagging] Walking Routes, how to tag alternatives/additions/shortcuts/approach tracks etc.

Apr 22, 2019, 11:47 PM by pelder...@gmail.com: > One solution just for rendering would be to optionally add "striped" to the > colour tag. Or dotted.  > Can you link photos how main route and alternative route is marked in terrain? Is sign actually different?

Re: [Tagging] 'track_detail' on railway lines - what does it represent?

Apr 21, 2019, 1:37 PM by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Hi > 'track_detail, used on railway tracks. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4414158 > > > 4700+ total worldwide  3900+ in the UK > > I can find nothing in the wiki > > Is track_detail meant

Re: [Tagging] Why should we avoid overusage of amenity=* tag?

Apr 21, 2019, 3:55 AM by yumean1...@gmail.com: > I think that our discussion about these tagging schemes is in very slow > progress. In my opinion, a proposal on a new tag like > amenity=educational_services  > is more effective rather than shifting to educational=* tagging schemes. > I

Re: [Tagging] junction=yes as a polygon. Who uses them?

Apr 19, 2019, 7:36 PM by o...@tobias-knerr.de: > On 19.04.19 18:35, Dave F via Tagging wrote: > >> Following a discussion on OSM-Carto, I'm curious what software uses >> junction=yes as a polygon. >> > > Polygons with junction=yes + area:highway=* are part of some variants of > street area

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

Apr 19, 2019, 1:59 AM by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 07:26, Christoph Hormann <> o...@imagico.de > > > wrote: > >> On Thursday 18 April 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> > > And how do you verifiably determine if two things are part of the >> > >

Re: [Tagging] diaper subkey for wheelchair toilets including a changing table

Apr 19, 2019, 11:57 AM by valin...@gmx.net: > So you suggest to change the wiki via proposal? Then we have a problem which > we should also be aware of. I quote myself: > > > Replacing the key `diaper` with `changing_table` [or some other key or by > > any other changings how to tag changing

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness

Apr 18, 2019, 12:12 AM by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 03:35, Michael Patrick <> geodes...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> our map would look like this :-)   >> http://bit.ly/2IGkgoj >> >> > > That's an amazing image,

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness

Apr 17, 2019, 7:34 PM by geodes...@gmail.com: > > ... As a rule of thumb i'd say something that can at least coarsely be > > surveyed on the ground by a single mapper during a single day is > > usually suitable to be mapped as a distinct named feature, provided it > > is otherwise

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

Apr 17, 2019, 11:29 AM by frede...@remote.org: > I think we all should stop seeking out one large-scale feature type > after the other that is "missing" from OSM and think about how to best > add them. In my view, the fact that these are underrepresented in OSM is > not an opportunity to

Re: [Tagging] documenting cycleway=crossing

Apr 17, 2019, 11:21 AM by pelder...@gmail.com: > So where a cycleway crosses a road with a dedicated crossing:  > > * the crossing section has nodes on each side indicating where the crossing > physically begins and ends; > * the crossing section is tagged highway=cycleway, crossing=yes > >

Re: [Tagging] documenting cycleway=crossing

Apr 16, 2019, 3:47 PM by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com: > Le 16.04.19 à 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > >> Apr 16, 2019, 2:50 PM by >> marc_marc_...@hotmail.com >> <mailto:marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>>> : >> >> > highway=path/high

Re: [Tagging] documenting cycleway=crossing

Apr 16, 2019, 2:50 PM by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com: > > highway=path/highway=footway that has bicycle=yes/bicycle=designated. > > highway=path + path=crossing + bicycle=yes|designate > or highway=footway + footway=crossing + bicycle=yes|designate > is not enought ? > It is enough, I rephrased

Re: [Tagging] documenting cycleway=crossing

Apr 16, 2019, 8:21 AM by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > there are ~12,000 uses of cycleway=crossing  on ways according to taginfo, > but no documentation for the tag.  > To reduce confusion in the future I turned https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:cycleway%3Dcrossing

Re: [Tagging] documenting cycleway=crossing

Apr 16, 2019, 12:22 PM by p...@trigpoint.me.uk: > > > On Tuesday, 16 April 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> >> Apr 16, 2019, 8:21 AM by >> tagging@openstreetmap.org >> <mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>> : >> >> >> high

Re: [Tagging] documenting cycleway=crossing

Apr 16, 2019, 8:21 AM by tagging@openstreetmap.org: >> highway=cycleway cycleway=crossing >> > > I have been mapping more and more cycleways here in Japan, and there is a > true need for cycleway=crossing.  > > Unlike some other countries where the cycleway is more akin to a road, > cycleways

Re: [Tagging] shelter_type=rock_shelter

Apr 14, 2019, 10:28 PM by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 14. Apr 2019, at 14:13, Andrew Harvey <>> andrew.harv...@gmail.com >> >> > wrote: >> >> The Australian community has indicated that amenity=shelter + >>

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >