Re: [Tagging] date not in YYYY-MM.DD format should go into a sufix edtf ?

On 6/5/23 8:12 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote: Having tried to use both formats in both projects, I do think EDTF is the better format overall, and I wouldn't mind seeing it used in OSM. However, the ad-hoc format does have one advantage in being able to express dates in the Julian calendar directly,

[Tagging] relation proposals

it's not obvious from reading the wiki where proposals for relations or modifications to existing relations should go. the long stalled proposal for circuits (race courses) is supposedly in the wrong place, but i have no idea what the right place is. i don't plan to try to revive that proposal,

Re: [Tagging] tagging for fairgrounds

On 8/27/20 12:35 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > > As is fair.  Without further qualification, I'd interpret "fair" as a > (temporary, mobile) funfair: an annual event with fairground rides, > stalls, etc. I think American usage may tend more towards trade fairs. > > As for mapping the temporary funfair

[Tagging] tagging for fairgrounds

i've had a little discussion of this over on the slack tagging channel. i'm currently working on some historic World's Fair/Exhibition sites, and also have reviewed a number of fair grounds in the US. we really don't have any tagging specific to these sorts of structured park-like areas that

[Tagging] route=raceway?

there is a long stalled proposal for a relation type of circuit for handling motor racing tracks. i suspect it will never be approved, the last time i brought it up there was a general lack of response. but it seems to me that a new relation type is not necessary anyway. probably adding a new

Re: [Tagging] relation types: circuit proposal and an alternative

On 1/7/20 4:18 PM, marc marc wrote: > Le 07.01.20 à 20:58, Richard Welty a écrit : >> a profound lack of interest >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relations/Proposed/Circuit > > maybe it's due to the funny url for a propal > moving it at the right place ma

[Tagging] relation types: circuit proposal and an alternative

a couple of months ago, i brought up the circuit proposal again, to a profound lack of interest. it is being used, by myself and others, because it does serve a need. as a reminder the original proposal is here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relations/Proposed/Circuit but in the past

Re: [Tagging] What sport=* for automobile racing?

On 9/1/19 8:20 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 9/1/19 12:12 AM, Warin wrote: >> >> On 31/8/19 9:49 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >>> There's also some uses of >>> sport=speedway which is also unclear. >> >> Speedway is a oval dirt course that is usuall

Re: [Tagging] What sport=* for automobile racing?

On 9/1/19 12:12 AM, Warin wrote: > > On 31/8/19 9:49 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >> With highway=raceway, the most common tags are sport=motor, >> sport=motocross and sport=karting (and even some sport=rc_car for >> remote controlled model cars). These are specific types of motorsport, >> except

Re: [Tagging] What sport=* for automobile racing?

On 8/30/19 7:49 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > There are 5 uses of sport=autocross, 2 of sport=auto, 1 of sport="auto > racing" (with a space). > > It would be useful to have a specific tag since automobile racing, > motocross and karting use rather different raceways in most cases. > > Perhaps

[Tagging] Relations/proposed/circuit

i would like to get a discussion of this proposal started again: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Circuit it fills a need i have and i've been using it in both OSM and OHM. i have made a couple of new comments on the Talk page. right this instant i'm looking at mapping

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On 5/24/19 11:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 15:55 Uhr schrieb Markus > mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>>: > > I personally like the definition by the European Sports Charter > (article 2, paragraph 1a): > >    "Sport" means all forms of physical

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Grain Storage Centre

On 4/5/19 11:19 AM, Cédric Mélac wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Grain_Storage_Centre > Defintion: A large site with many silos and barns which concentrates > crops from farms around before selling at best prices. these are commonly called Elevators in the US. i

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

On 3/7/19 12:49 PM, OSMDoudou wrote: > I would expect the police would first re-organize the scene to revert > circulation. > >   > > If the house on fire is just a few meters in the opposite one-way > direction, they might go directly, but technically they would break the > law, if I read the

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

On 3/6/19 5:17 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 16:29, Richard Welty wrote: >> i spent some time looking at a project to build OSM based >> emergency maps. i concluded we needed to do layers of >> information, some of which were appropriate to host in &g

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

> Am Mi., 6. März 2019 um 14:16 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis > mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com>>: > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 11:52 AM OSMDoudou > <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com > > wrote: > > If there was an explosion due

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

normalization into SI is the sort of thing that engineers and scientists go for, and speaking as a (computer) scientist it has some appeal. but practically it's probably not a good idea in mapping, where i think we should be using local units in an unambiguous manner. if i see maxspeed=40 on a

Re: [Tagging] åååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååå

On 6/27/18 9:52 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2018-06-27 15:38 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny >: > > Sometimes it makes sense to do not fully delete OSM elements > representing completely > destroyed objects. > > For example, completely destroyed

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

On 5/7/18 10:35 AM, Rory McCann wrote: > On 06/05/18 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have >> highway=unclassified >> with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check >> whatever my edit on >>

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

On 2/19/18 6:37 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 19. Feb 2018, at 22:28, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net > <mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net>> wrote: > >> i know of examples in both italy and the US. the italian ones >> i've seen are older and thus much

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

On 2/19/18 3:20 PM, Steve Doerr wrote: > On 19/02/2018 09:00, Philip Barnes wrote: > >> As a native English speaker I have never heard the term Hollow Way, >> however reading the description it seems that this proposal is >> describing what is called a Sunken Lane. > > Might need a bit more

Re: [Tagging] Feature request - nascar=*

On 11/19/17 7:07 PM, ralph.ayt...@ntlworld.com wrote: > > I also noticed that. In fact the example given in the proposal > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/25.45387/-80.40864 is the > Homestead-Miami Speedway which hosts not just Nascar but a whole range > of different events by different

Re: [Tagging] Fire_hydrant: check_date

On 9/12/17 6:44 PM, marc marc wrote: > Le 12. 09. 17 à 22:52, Viking a écrit : >> In the discussion page [0] someone says that check_date=* is a synonymous of >> survey:date=* in common usage. Is this correct? Should we use another tag >> functional_check=* ? But I don't like to introduce a new

Re: [Tagging] Elevation in Feet as part of Peak Names

On 9/8/17 9:34 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 9/8/17 7:08 AM, ael wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:31:37PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote: >>> User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset >>> 50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation

Re: [Tagging] Elevation in Feet as part of Peak Names

On 9/8/17 7:08 AM, ael wrote: > On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 03:31:37PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote: >> User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset >> 50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in feet) >> to the name tag. For example, he changed "Crown Point"

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 8/27/17 6:59 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I can respond to tell you what seems most familiar to me, a native > American English speaker: flow_rate in gallons/sec or per minute. Now, > that being said, I am all in favor of avoiding the archaic system we > still use in the U.S. and using a default

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 8/21/17 12:58 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > > IIRC a Dry Riser in the UK goes from ground level UP to the higher > floors, so AFTER the fire services's pump, and not from a water source > up to the pump. > > http://www.highrisefirefighting.co.uk/dr.html > i think this is correct, a dry riser is not

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 8/20/17 4:22 PM, Moritz wrote: > Just one more thing: > > Dry and wet barrel hydrants are both pillar type hydrants. > > What about tagging both as fire_hydrant:type=pillar > and something like > pillar:type=dry_barrel|wet_barrel > > So the people who are just interested in the type of hydrants

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 8/18/17 4:33 PM, Moritz wrote: > > Hi Richard >> in actual real world usage, however, they are called dry hydrants by >> their >> users (the fire departments). they are even signed as "dry hydrants" in >> many >> cases. there's such a sign not far from me, i can go take a picture of >> it. > I

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 8/17/17 10:25 AM, Eric Christensen wrote: > > That's not really what's being discussed here. A non-pressurized > hydrant wouldn't be attached to a tank at all. It would require a fire > engine to suck the water out. It does not look like a traditional fire > hydrant at all. there are always

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 8/17/17 10:30 AM, Moritz wrote: > > I would rely on the Collins English Dictionary in this point rather > then on wikipedia [1] > >> (General Engineering) an outlet from a water main, usually consisting >> of an upright pipe with a valve attached, from which water can be >> tapped for fighting

Re: [Tagging] service=access

not sure we need a tag at all, but i'd recommend a more general notion such as service=facility_access there are, after all, access roads for things like power lines, etc. On 8/11/17 8:34 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > I'm struggling to think of another use for any highway besides access. > Maybe a

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

in the section on the AWWA color scheme, i changed "tops" to "bonnet" as bonnet is the correct technical term for the "top" of a hydrant. do we want to add a definition that makes this clear? On 8/4/17 3:55 PM, François Lacombe wrote: > Hi Viking, > > I took some time to change a bit the proposal

Re: [Tagging] amenity spamming?

On 7/24/17 1:14 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 7/24/17 1:04 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >> >> I wonder what to do here. > you could contact him directly and ask him what he is trying to do, and > attempt to gently dissuade him. > > if he is not amenable to reason, well,

Re: [Tagging] amenity spamming?

On 7/24/17 1:04 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > There is a user creating a large amount of strange wiki pages for > "amenities" like > television, microwave, washing machine, stool, seat, plant, fridge, > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dstool > > or tiny perishable objects like

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

On 6/15/17 10:02 AM, Viking wrote: > About the wrench, Richard, we could create the subtag fire_hydrant:wrench. > In Italy we have standard pentagonal or square wrench. What would you insert > in this tag? Type and size of the wrench? Something like: > fire_hydrant:wrench=square30 > Or, like

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

On 6/15/17 8:38 AM, Robert Koch wrote: > Hello Richard, > > On 2017-06-15 01:32, Richard Welty wrote: >> an american usage note: >> >> the "standard" hydrant in the US has 2 x 2.5" hose connections >> and 1 x 4.5" pumper connection. other sizes

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

an american usage note: the "standard" hydrant in the US has 2 x 2.5" hose connections and 1 x 4.5" pumper connection. other sizes have existed in the past. the wrench required for the bolt at the top of a dry hydrant may vary, pentagonal bolts are most common but others have been used. this is

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

On 6/10/17 1:36 PM, Eric H. Christensen wrote: > On June 10, 2017 12:23:22 PM EDT, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> > wrote: >> >> in the US some localities paint their hydrants to reflect the diameter >> of the main. this is not standard so you need to che

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

On 6/9/17 5:18 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > o, I forgot to include the link to the picture. > BTW for fire hydrants of the pillar type, it can in indicated on them > as well, see [2] There is a BH100 on it, so the diameter of the > underground pipe is 100 in this case in the US some localities paint

Re: [Tagging] Mapping time zones as geometries (relations)

On 3/6/17 11:21 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Mar 5, 2017 18:30, "Frederik Ramm" > wrote: > > Hi, > >I would like to start a discussion about the mapping of time zones. > > > What do you think? > > > I'm generally opposed to mapping

Re: [Tagging] Mapping freeway stub ends?

On 3/1/17 6:54 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > The original example > https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8190845,-76.8530417,857m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en-US > > is now a set of ways that can be used as non-freeway highways.

Re: [Tagging] Potential proposal for more detail in old_ref=*?

On 2/27/17 4:58 PM, yo paseopor wrote: > > OK, with new tags, with new values, with new behaviour, but not > outside OSM data because if there would be another "accident" or > unafortunate facts the information will be inside OSM and other can > start another render with these information. > if

Re: [Tagging] Potential proposal for more detail in old_ref=*?

just to insure that the correct facts are out there: OHM was in a position where a new hosting arrangement needed to be worked out, when a major server crash occurred. so we were literally twisting in the wind until those issues were resolved. there is no real external support for the project so

Re: [Tagging] Potential proposal for more detail in old_ref=*?

On 2/27/17 2:46 PM, Albert Pundt wrote: > The old_ref=* key seems to be used a lot for any previous designation > of a road, even decades before. Often a road will have had different > designations over the years. For example, I-676 in Philadelphia was > initially designated I-80S from 1957 to

Re: [Tagging] Notary Office

On 2/7/17 2:21 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > > On 2017-02-07 18:56, Richard Welty wrote: > >> office=notary just seems wrong to me, they're >> rarely standalone in my experience. >> > Richard, in Europe they are almost always standalone, by definition. > They nee

Re: [Tagging] Notary Office

On 2/7/17 12:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > yes, I can understand your frustration because apparently the makers > of JOSM have hijacked the notaries and the numbers of "their" tag are > now growing quite fast, due to the prevalence of JOSM. ;-) > > Please, take a step back and look at both

Re: [Tagging] 'ongoing' U-turn restriction

On 12/8/16 9:34 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > Also, for what it's worth, in massachusetts.us, we have two kinds of > solid yellow (center) lines. One can pass with care give a single line, > but may not cross the line or pass if double. many states post explicit "no passing" signs at the beginning of

Re: [Tagging] railway=rail vs. railway=subway

On 11/23/16 9:09 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > One of the tricky things, as Bill Ricker points out downthread, is > Boston's Green line. This is fundamentally light rail. Sometimes it > runs in tunnels. Sometimes it runs in a fenced-off median but does > have level crossings. These are controlled by

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

On 11/5/16 10:58 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > interesting case, because it is an example that "official languages" > can be set on sub-country level as well (many states have defined > English as their official language). > It could also be argued that English is the defacto official

Re: [Tagging] test track tagging (vs highway=raceway)

On 11/2/16 2:34 AM, Tijmen Stam wrote: > > To add in, at we > have a nice collection of circuits, from northeast to southwest: > * The RDW (state office for road traffic) test track, marked mainly as > highway=service but some raceway > * A

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

On 10/25/16 2:44 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > sent from a phone > >> Il giorno 25 ott 2016, alle ore 17:02, Sven Geggus >> ha scritto: >> >> So I propose a correction of all country names to names into official >> langages of >> the respective countries only

[Tagging] test track tagging (vs highway=raceway)

i don't have a particular proposal in mind for this, just looking for input. there are various tracks in the world that are not used for racing, but for testing only. major auto manufacturers have their own tracks, and independent organizations do too (for example, the US publication Consumer

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for motor racetracks

On 10/17/16 4:04 PM, Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi wrote: > leisure=sports_centre is a feasible alternative, but motor sports are > not mentioned in its actual definition and I'm not sure that an > extension of its meaning would be appreciated by all. > The numbers also show that only about a quarter of

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for motor racetracks

On 10/17/16 2:09 PM, Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi wrote: > Il giorno lun, 17/10/2016 alle 14.39 +0200, althio ha scritto: >> Hi, >> >> I added a comment in the wiki discussion [Please see documented and >> already in use tag Tag:highway=raceway]. >> >> -- althio >> >> > Sorry but this comment makes me

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] non-temporary usage of highway=road

On 9/27/16 2:12 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Andy Townsend > wrote: > > I'd suggest talking to the users concerned - the easiest way is > via a changeset discussion comment. If they're unsure what road >

Re: [Tagging] Galleries versus art shops

On 2/8/16 8:39 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2016-02-09 0:20 GMT+01:00 Matthijs Melissen >: > > What do you think, would it make sense to try to keep both shop=art > and tourism=gallery? > > > > I'm for keeping both, but

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

On 11/11/15 9:51 AM, David Earl wrote: > > > On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 at 14:01 Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net > <mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net>> wrote: > > it's an inevitable consequence of serializing a complex data > structure. > we either

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

On 11/11/15 7:37 AM, David Earl wrote: > I can see the attraction of this, but I do always worry about gross > lack of backward compatibility being a huge barrier to adoption. If > you have to scramble to keep up with changes like this whenever they > happen, you aren't going to be keen to be a

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

On 11/11/15 12:01 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > > > > I would assume that there are many, many more consumers than producers... > > in terms of distinct applications, yes. in terms of network connections, there is a 1-to-1 relationship. the work is the same, it's a question of placement at the back

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

On 11/8/15 5:00 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > Sorry to keep working this side topic but I want to add this > information FYI. I just came across this interesting article that > talks about the difficulty of editing relations in JOSM. Even though > we're talking about routes in this thread I think

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

On 11/7/15 6:02 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > sent from a phone > >> Am 07.11.2015 um 22:31 schrieb Richard Fairhurst : >> >> To do it properly and >> lessen the chance of multiple relations being accidentally created for the >> same route (as continues to happen with

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in, favor of relations

On 11/6/15 5:01 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Stop rendering this key and instead render the relations >> > >> > Is there *any* map style that does this at the moment? >> > > I believe Toby had a working mapnik-based renderer doing this on osm.us at > one point, though i'm

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: Obligatory tagging of oneway on motorway_link

On 9/13/15 5:38 PM, Paul Norman wrote: > On 9/10/2015 5:20 AM, Joachim wrote: > >> Tools to help enforcing the obligatory usage: >> [...] >> - No routing over undefined oneways > The chances of anyone implementing this in their routing engine are > approximately zero. quite. there are sections of

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

On 8/26/15 8:55 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: On 26/08/2015 13:44, Dave F. wrote: On 25/08/2015 23:20, Paul Norman wrote: On 8/24/2015 3:35 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: That's not so bad in lua, but imagine writing ... and not disused=yes into every cartocss rule! Fortunately, we will not have to

Re: [Tagging] Describe explicitly that values of highway tag do not imply anything about road quality (except highway=motorway and highway=motorway_link)

On 8/12/15 8:35 AM, John Willis wrote: I agree that highway=* can't imply quality globally, but it is documented country by country how to tag certain types of roads, especially when there are enough types of roads to need all the definitions of highway=*. Japan's tagging page defines all

Re: [Tagging] landuse=military

On 7/24/15 4:07 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone Am 23.07.2015 um 23:50 schrieb Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net: i'm not at all persuaded that this is an appropriate use of landuse=military. I agree that landuse=military seems a bit strange for a holiday resort

Re: [Tagging] landuse=military

On 7/26/15 7:23 PM, Warin wrote: On 27/07/2015 4:04 AM, Richard Welty wrote: The word and above .. if applied logically would mean all of those things need to be present for the tag landuse=military to be correct. Substituting and/or would allow the mapper to use the tag for any, some

[Tagging] landuse=military

so this past week, i was at Disneyworld with my family. as it happens, my wife is a civilian employee of the department of defense, so we stayed at shades of green, a resort at Disney leased by the DoD for use by service members, retirees and civilian employees. for some reason, in OSM it has a

Re: [Tagging] Concrete kerbs in highway

On 6/25/15 11:52 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: but this would only work on a road with no crossings (or all crossing on both roads at the same spot)... Marin, I must be a

[Tagging] README tag with editor support

this is a summary of previous discussion on newbies talk-us we have an ongoing, persistent problem with armchair mappers correcting the map to match out of date aerial imagery. i just had to repair the map in Rensselaer, NY; the street named Broadway was reconfigured in late 2012, and bing

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (US:DMV)

On 6/9/15 5:48 PM, John Eldredge wrote: The department that issues drivers' licenses varies from state to state. The rules dividing regular drivers' licenses from specialized licenses, such as restricted licenses for minors, commercial licenses (needed to drive a vehicle for hire, and/or

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess

On 6/4/15 11:53 AM, AYTOUN RALPH wrote: The oneway=yes, oneway=no conundrum.. put yourself in the position where you are looking at a road ahead of you. It is only wide enough for one vehicle but has passing bays along it's length. It is not wide enough to be a conventional twoway road so

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

points is simply wrong. way wrong. richard On 29 May 2015 at 01:39, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 5/28/15 8:26 PM, pmailkeey . wrote: Postcodes don't have addresses! Where Google points, given that postcode, for a geographic

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

On 5/28/15 8:26 PM, pmailkeey . wrote: Postcodes don't have addresses! Where Google points, given that postcode, for a geographic address Bigstone Meadow Tutshill Nr Chepstow Gloucestershire England ummm, i think you have quite a bit to learn about geocoding. richard --

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

On 5/26/15 6:56 PM, pmailkeey . wrote: Building addresses shouldn't be on nodes. Named entrances can be - on ent/exit nodes. if building addresses shouldn't be on nodes, what are we to make of the address interpolation feature? richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking -

Re: [Tagging] Wiki: Key:level: proposed rewrite

On 5/25/15 1:20 PM, John Eldredge wrote: The level key is intended for OSM internal use, to tell routing and rendering software what connects to what. For indoor mapping, it would make sense to also have a way to name floors, which needs to allow for both numeric and non-numeric floor names. I

Re: [Tagging] relation type for raceways

On 3/18/15 2:20 PM, Werner Hoch wrote: There is type=circuit http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Circuit example (Monaco) http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/148194 It is used about 60 times in OSM. that's not bad. i'd probably want to add some other roles, perhaps

[Tagging] relation type for raceways

as i go forward mapping raceways in north america, one of the issues is modeling multi configuration courses such as Watkins Glen and Lime Rock. one solution is to use route relations, and add a new route type, route=raceway in this model, i would use forward and backward roles where necessary.

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways

On 3/9/15 4:58 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The broader point is intact. When making sense of abandoned bridges and oddly rounded buildings in various places, it is super helpful to see the context of the prior railroad grade. It helps in mapping from the air and on the ground. A given

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

On 2/3/15 6:14 AM, Colin Smale wrote: Same as for normal vehicles, but ignoring the access tag and any restrictions but you've declared that access=no applies both to obstructed routes (bollards, guardrails, etc) and unobstructed routes. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

On 2/3/15 4:36 AM, Colin Smale wrote: Then they are access=no (with foot=yes or whatever as appropriate) or barrier=boulder. The way is blocked both for emergency services and mere mortals. No need for access=emergency. then how do you create a routing engine for use by emergency vehicles?

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED

On 1/28/15 8:09 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: On 28/01/2015 13:05, Richard Welty wrote: i changed them to highway:unbuilt, rather than deleting them so that they would stop rendering and wouldn't get added back in later. I guess that that makes sense here in a fix the mapper kind of way (I've

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED

On 1/28/15 7:51 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: maybe fiction: and an explanation in the note tag. back in the 1960s, there were a bunch of proposals for motorways in the Albany, NY area that were never built (for good reason). a mapper added those as proposed maybe two years ago, which wasn't good

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, REMOVED

On 1/28/15 7:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I just stumbled over this in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix *removed:* * (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are commonly seen on other sources) I propose to remove the part or never

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

On 1/24/15 11:20 AM, Никита wrote: ltivalue tags, there easier way to avoid problem: avoid multiple values in /value /part of key=value. i suggest learning to deal with it. Are you an idiot? I mean really. ok, i'm done here. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

On 1/24/15 10:58 AM, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Никита acr...@gmail.com wrote: reduced cpu load for database because there no need to compute smart regexes You know that it's always a trade-off, right? While the CPU usage *could* be lowered, disk usage/IO

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

i've removed prior discussion so that this can stand on its own. i admit that the distinction between keys and values is a bit blurry; it would be a fallacy to claim that data goes only in values because that's obviously not completely true. however, i will assert that for key space to be

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

On 1/23/15 10:13 AM, jgpacker wrote: I don't understand the insistence in using regexes as some kind of argument against semicolon lists. A semicolon list is an extremely simple pattern. Such a pattern can be easily parsed even WITHOUT regexes. Me and other developers in this thread (Imagic,

[Tagging] correct access tagging for tourist attraction

we were using the old skobbler app to get us to the biltmore estate in Ashville, NC today, and an issue came up with access tagging. specifically, there are multiple roads that can access biltmore but only one official entrance. the current tagging in OSM labels all the roads as private, with

Re: [Tagging] custom road ref shields

On 11/28/14 2:26 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:11 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com mailto:jo...@mac.com wrote: That looks really good. Some graphic designers need to remake the shields for icon size (bigger lettering, details ignored), but the system of putting on the

Re: [Tagging] custom road ref shields

i think this has kind of wandered off topic for tagging, as no new tagging needs to be developed... On 11/28/14 6:39 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: Kind of thought this was settled already, even in the strange cases of states with multiple highway networks (Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, to name three).

Re: [Tagging] custom road ref shields

On 11/27/14 10:39 AM, Tod Fitch wrote: If I recall correctly from a discussion on the Talk-us list a while back, the preferred way in the US is now to specify the shield in a route relation. I did not follow the discussion fully but my impression is that the tagging allowed for custom

Re: [Tagging] custom road ref shields

On 11/27/14 6:48 PM, johnw wrote: I think having it on the relation is a great idea, especially since adding the tags to all the road segments sounds like an insane amount of tagging . Is this something that we should ask Phil to create a formal proposal page for the tags, so we can start

Re: [Tagging] path vs footway

On 11/4/14 5:33 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: A tag is not useless just because one particular renderer does not evaluate it. There might be other renderer and data consumer that are interested in this tag. +1 we are not tagging for one specific renderer, we are tagging for the potential suite of

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 62, Issue 14

On 11/4/14 5:19 PM, Warin wrote: I've not seen any rendering specfically for horses. Here in Australia there are a number of horse trails .. one over 5,000km long. Not enough demand for horse maps thus no rendering? there are limits to what you're going to see in the standard mapnik style

Re: [Tagging] Default maxspeed unit on waterways

On 10/29/14 10:47 AM, Malcolm Herring wrote: On 29/10/2014 14:12, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: I don't know about other countries, but here in Finland the water maxspeed signage is in km/h although knot is used for almost everything else. In UK waterways, both MPH and knots are used. Usually MPH on

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On 10/27/14 6:45 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd propose to tag the bridge way, this is not the case. I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes no explicit reference to the bridge itself, and can lose the

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On 10/27/14 6:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-10-27 11:04 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com mailto:molto...@gmail.com: The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which can be absent or even wrong). Tagging maxheight=none really makes no

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On 10/27/14 12:02 AM, Peter Miller wrote: Without a way of tagging the fact that we know that the bridge has regulation clearance and also knowing who surveyed it and when the data was added we can't know what we need to do to complete the mapping to allow the routing of high vehicles.

  1   2   3   4   >