Re: [Tagging] ****SPAM:6.1**** Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation

On 29/11/2022 10:01, Minh Nguyen wrote: Vào lúc 23:01 2022-11-28, Martin Koppenhoefer đã viết: On 29 Nov 2022, at 00:52, Minh Nguyen wrote: Even if it weren't for iD's long-gone preset, I don't think an ostensibly global tag should be defined based on the narrow provisions of a specific

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Street parking revision

Thanks, that should make mapping street parking in my local area much easier and more consistent. Where parking=on_kerb or parking=half_on_kerb are used alongside a separately mapped sidewalk or cycle track, should there be a tag on that way as well? It could be useful to routers concerned

Re: [Tagging] Use of crossing:island where crossings and islands are mapped separately

ta to what appears to be an undiscussed and potentially misguided personal project. On 27/09/2022 07:42, Robert Skedgell wrote: Where there is a crossing with traffic islands, but the highways forming the crossings and crossing the islands are mapped separately, my assumption has been that cross

[Tagging] Use of crossing:island where crossings and islands are mapped separately

y|cycleway=traffic_island on the ways crossing the islands, possibly because JOSM and/or Osmose (incorrectly?) complain. Perhaps I should? -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.or

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Thank you all for the discussion around changing the tag man_made. After careful consideration I have decided to abandon this proposal - mostly because the fact that the man_made tag is clearly a hodgepodge of tags that probably should be redefined as separate items. Thanks for all your input,

Re: [Tagging] religous bias - Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)

All of these would be acceptable to me - Preference from highest to lowest: amenity=deceased_viewing amenity=viewing_arrangements amenity=place_of_mourning amenity=mourning_room amenity=mourning Rob On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 19:45, wrote: > Thanks for all the interventions. > > To avoid that the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

I like the new options. In Australia it would be beneficial to note which addresses don't have power, rather than those that do so this would work well. For remote communities in Australia, the off grid option would be good. Many homes also have solar panels connected and this would be great

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

I'm not sure what you're referring to but I'll put some options here to discuss: Fire districts: used for declaring total for bans in Australia https://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/warnings-restrictions/find-your-fire-district Neighbourhood safer places in Victoria - where you can go as a last resort in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

I'll do some more research before the vote goes ahead. I've read quite a bit of research around gendered language since first mentioning this idea. I'll be sure to list them in the proposal but feel free to send through any sources that are both for and against the arguments I have raised. I'm

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is free. There is some more information available here: https://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/city/parking/smarter-parking-ballarat#:~:text=Your%20first%20hour%20of%20parking,the%20Central%20Square%20car%20park%20 . Regards, Rob On

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

'her generic man' has been fixed - it was a typo. now reads: "confirmed that when people read or hear the generic version of 'man', people form mental pictures of males" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

*Link to proposal page:* https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/artificial *Definition*: A tag for identifying human-made (artificial) structures added to the landscape. Please discuss this proposal on the discussion page for the proposal. Kind Regards, Robert Delmenico rtbk

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Nope, not trolling - I have a genuine interest in what the OSM community thinks about the proposal. I for one though do think there is a bias - and I am entitled to hold that view. There are others that support my view so therefore it exists. A proposal will still be put forward as planned.

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

But you could count the bridge=yes (areas) for number of bridges, and bridge=yes (ways) for number of bridges with roads crossing them. Rob On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 5:52 pm Andrew Harvey, wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 5:34 pm Robert Delmenico, wrote: > >> They mean the

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

How they differ has already been > mentioned 2 or 3 times in this thread. > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 06:59 Robert Delmenico wrote: > >> Essentially though, they mean the same thing: >> man_made=bridge is for areas >> bridge=yes is for ways >> >> Both refer to t

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

=bridge is the same as bridge=yes > > Are you aware that we have bridge=yes > and man_made=bridge used with a > different meaning? > > > Perhaps all of the existing man_made=[value] tags should be changed to > [value]=yes > > > Rob > > On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:4

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

machine-made, >> and constructed" as options instead of man-made. > > > Out of those options, I personally think either "MANufactured" :-), or > "constructed" would be good choices. > > Of course, as mentioned, what do we do with beaver dams & wasp

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

I like that! On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:59 am Walker Bradley, wrote: > I certainly support Rob’s view on *=yes > > Or if we want something similar to man_made=*, we have natural= we could > also have unnatural= > > On Oct 19, 2020, at 22:55, Robert Delmenico wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Perhaps the use of man_made could be dropped all together as it is somewhat superfluous. Ie. man_made=bridge is the same as bridge=yes Perhaps all of the existing man_made=[value] tags should be changed to [value]=yes Rob On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 9:46 am Robert Delmenico, wrote: > Please r

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

in another email, we do use terms such as midwife.' Midwife actually translates as 'with woman'. The wife part relates to the person giving birth. On Tue, 20 Oct 2020, 8:44 am Niels Elgaard Larsen, wrote: > Robert Delmenico: > > > > I originally put the call out really to gauge i

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Robert Delmenico, wrote: > > I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much interest > in changing the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was > interested in hearing the thoughts from other mappers as really this > proposal isn't just mine. If there was no i

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

I originally put the call out really to gauge if there was much interest in changing the term man_made because of its use of 'man', and was interested in hearing the thoughts from other mappers as really this proposal isn't just mine. If there was no interest I would just abandon it and move on -

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Nice investigating Nathan, I would be open to using artificial instead of human_made. Would it be best to change the proposal or start a second proposal? Change man_made= to artificial= Rob On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 at 21:14, nathan case wrote: > Pros and cons aside, “human-made” is not a term

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Some great points here. Good to hear the points of views of all of you. Look forward to hearing more feedback. Kind regards, Rob On Mon, 19 Oct 2020, 9:19 am Graeme Fitzpatrick, wrote: > > Thanks everyone - all makes sense! > > Graeme > > > > ___ >

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

m a phone > > > On 15. Oct 2020, at 02:57, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > > > I also understand that generally speaking the use of man_made is > commonly accepted as a gender neutral term, but in reality it has been > adapted that way due to past practices of gender bias. &g

[Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

term, but in reality it has been adapted that way due to past practices of gender bias. Regardless of the outcome of this proposal, this is a worthy discussion to be had in my mind. Looking forward to your feedback Yours, Robert Delmenico rtbk

Re: [Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

//wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions ? If ohv=* is understood as an access tag (though it doesn't appear at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access ), then you could e.g. do something like ohv = no + ohv:conditional = yes @ (width > 50") to all

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On 12/07/2020 22:50, Mike Thompson wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:49 AM Robert Skedgell <mailto:r...@hubris.org.uk>> wrote: > >> >> The very short NCN route 425 in south-east London is network=ncn because >> it's a Sustrans route. THe scope of th

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On 12/07/2020 15:48, Mike Thompson wrote: > Hello, > > According to the wiki[0], it seems that the network tag has different > meanings and possible values based upon if it is applied to a route > relation where route=road vs. route=bicycle/mtb/foot/etc. > > If I am understanding this correctly,

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

riction, where there is a usable lane at the times when parking is prohibited, but effectively no cycle lane when parking is permitted (sometimes with a doorzone risk on the carriageway). -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Points vs Polygons

Hi Everyone, I'm new to OSM and have been I've been making some edits on Main Street of my hometown. All the buildings seem to have been mapped, but many of the businesses are not mapped or have incomplete information, so I've been adding in the business names that aren't there and editing the

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

scheme if at > all. Those would be my thoughts too. Robert -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

ul items for those in need, versus just help reduce waste versus. The balance is probably slightly different for each implementation.) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Tagging} no stopping, no parking

I am starting to tag parking:lane:*=* on a cycle route in London for which I have just uploaded Mapillary images. The potential risk of "dooring" and the hope that routing engines may in future be able to make use of this information. -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) On 10/02/2020 20:

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

https://www.enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/blended-cophenhagen-crossings/ -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

|backward as a useful combination, as it makes it unambiguous. -- Robert Skedgell (rskedgell) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Vegan "cheese" shops

On 18/12/2019 21:55, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 15:58, Robert Skedgell wrote: > >> I've just been to La Fauxmagerie in Shoreditch, London, a vegan "cheese" >> shop. > > shop=hipster > produce=bogus > It's in Shoreditch

Re: [Tagging] Vegan "cheese" shops

On 18/12/2019 16:24, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Wednesday, 18 December 2019, marc marc wrote: >> Le 18.12.19 à 16:58, Robert Skedgell a écrit : >>> I think creating shop=vegan_cheese might be excessively specialised. >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6776593885

[Tagging] Vegan "cheese" shops

but could possibly be problematic in France. For the moment, I'm going to use shop=deli + diet:vegan=only as it also sells biscuits, etc. and I think creating shop=vegan_cheese might be excessively specialised. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6776593885 -- Robert Skedgell

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

Rule 188 of the Highway Code has: "Mini-roundabouts. Approach these in the same way as normal roundabouts. All vehicles MUST pass round the central markings except large vehicles which are physically incapable of doing so. Remember, there is less space to manoeuvre and less time to signal. Avoid

Re: [Tagging] swimming=* access tag

aged and permitted swimming area in Victoria Dock, London in this way <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/698565113>. > -------- > *De :* Robert Skedgell > *Envoyé :* mercredi 23 octobre 2019 12:01 > *À :* tagging@ope

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

On 23/10/2019 11:14, Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:55:04AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: >> I would suggest it is not necessary to replace the simple node with a >> circular way. I think it is perfectly acceptable if it is considered >> as a simple turn instead of negotiating a

[Tagging] swimming=* access tag

streetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:access#swimming.3D.2A> It would be useful to note areas of open water where swimming is either allowed or prohibited and this can be clearly determined fom signage at the site etc. and recorded using values of yes, no, customers and permissive. -- Robert Ske

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

On 17/10/2019 11:03, Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 10:46, Vɑdɪm > wrote: > > > I think it's no more vague than some many other tags in OSM. > > For example have a look at > > leisure=fishing > > > For most rivers in the UK, there are

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

ind operator does not describe the relation very well. I wonder why there is no tag "organisation:wikidata=*" yet. Also a tag country:wikidata=* could be used, though this would be confusing to link to organisations that have no geographical link whatsovever. Best, Robert O

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

Cross, etc. buildings yet? Best, Robert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 16:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:41, Robert Skedgell wrote: >> >> An unmarked crossing may have no road markings or signs, but if there is >> tactile paving and/or a raised/lowered/flush kerb on the footway >> (sid

Re: [Tagging] unmarked crossing, tactile paving, lowered kerbs / was: 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 16:00, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 26.10.2018 16:41, Robert Skedgell wrote: >> On 26/10/18 11:44, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >>> Tagging "unmarked crossings" does not make sense for me. An unmarked >>> crossing is defined in OSM by a road and a footway

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 15:39, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 16:14, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> we generally do not map road markings, we don’t map the divider lines between lanes, we don’t map diagonally striped areas where traffic can’t go, we don’t map stop lines, we don’t map any

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 14:49, marc marc wrote: > Le 26. 10. 18 à 10:27, Robert Skedgell a écrit : >> Do you have any UK examples of zebra crossings with traffic signals? > > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/D8E > I dind't have any local knownledge of those but you can see that some > m

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

e I would need to set a node every meter on the road, tagging it > "unmarked crossing" because I can cross the road everywhere. > > And I hate it when the satnav announces a warning for the upcoming > crossing, and there comes nothing the requires extra attention. -- Robert Ske

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 10:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 11:21 Uhr schrieb Robert Skedgell > mailto:r...@hubris.org.uk>>: > > > I wonder if it's possible differentiate between a normal traffic signal > controlled crossing, an uncontrolled zeb

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 10:28 Uhr schrieb Robert Skedgell > mailto:r...@hubris.org.uk>>: > > At a zebra crossing, vehicles must give precedence to pedestrians on the > crossing. No traffic signals are necessary to

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 25/10/18 22:39, marc marc wrote: > Hello, > > I have a big issue with crossing=zebra. > it prevent to fill in the other value for crossing like > crossing=traffic_signals crossing=uncontrolled > the wiki [1] said that crossing=zebra is a shortchut for > crossing=uncontrolled +

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

=give_way is generally indicated by the transverse line marking (= = = =) on the carriageway, traffic_sign=GB:1003A. There is also the upright inverted red triangle traffic_sign=GB:602, which does not need to be present. Failure to comply with either is an offence. -- Robert Skedgell (

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

arkings painted on the > road. As far as the law is concerned, that is also a traffic sign, diagram 1003A in TSRGD 2016 (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made ). Failure to give way is a criminal offence contrary to s. 36 RTA 1988. > > Phil (trigpoint) >

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

> restaurants and pubs. However a modern invention is the "gastro-pub" > where they consider their food to be of a particularly high standard, > not just standard pub food. For a gastro-pub, perhaps amenity=pub + food=yes + cuisine=gastropub (where no more specific cuisine=* would be m

Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream

pun).  In general I go with the > Oxford Dictionary. Just to make things slightly more confusing, there are a fair number of (sometimes quite large) land drainage ditches in the east and south-east of England where "Sewer" is part of the name. They don't fit the grey water def

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

provided), * historic=flood_mark - with information about flood event (with date) So existence of date on such mark could be a good information for proper tag assignment. I'm not familiar with tides, so please correct me if this is not the case. regards Robert On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM Gr

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

=highwater_mark What would be the optimal tagging solution from OSM point of view? regards Robert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

/4381386160 https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4381386161 regards, Robert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

W dniu 26.07.2018 o 12:29, Andrew Davidson pisze: On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote: Question 2: Which tagging convention should we follow: a/ flood_mark=yes + historic=memorial + memorial:type=flood_mark b/ historic=flood_mark + flood_mark:type=(plaque, painted, ...) c/ historic

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

. It can be found in US, GB, AU and probably many other countries [1][2]. Big problem is very wide (misleading) meaning of "high water mark" [3]. regards, Robert [1] http://www.valuergeneral.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0

[Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

.) c/ historic=highwater_mark Not every flood mark is a memorial, so probably 2.a/ is not the optimal option. Short discussion about this can be found here [17]. Thank you for help, Robert References [1] http://floodlist.com/dealing-with-floods/flood-high-water-marks [2] https://theconversation.

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating of leisure=common and leisure=village_green

the legal status, physical condition and access rights. But I'm not sure about village_green, as there's a physical/utility aspect captured there that I think should be maintained, and I'm not sure that there's an alternative tagging available at the moment. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker __

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dfire_hydrant#Types On 2017-06-17 21:51, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Jun 17, 2017 2:30 PM, "Robert Koch" <robert.k...@loggia.at > <mailto:robert.k...@loggia.at>> wrote: > > Moreover how useful is "pillar" if there i

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

I changed the proposal at [1] to have "l/min" instead of "lpm". While "gpm" is often used, "lpm" isn't. Rationale: According to [2] "km/h" should be preferred over "kmph" (which is highly discouraged). Additionally I added "survey:date", which should be included as well. Regarding the count: I'm

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

eople to always use a unit value to avoid mistakes on this tag. On 2017-06-15 15:09, Richard Welty wrote: > 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: >>> >>>

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

ething that > a fireman cares about. There is not yet a tag for this. In Austria a typical wrench looks like this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/251745653405-0-1/s-l1000.jpg The left side is used to open the bolt at the top, while the right side can be used to open the cap of the hose couplings. Best regar

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

idn't know about using the semicolon to split values, but I like it more than the forward slash. Coming back to the Austrian "1A/2B" I would additionally allow using these characters instead of diameter values as well resulting in: "A;B;B" If the proposal is accepted I'd propose mig

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

Hi, in OsmHydrant [1] there is already fire_hydrant:coupling_type with various values from Storz to Barcelona (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fire_hydrant:coupling_type). Then there is fire_hydrant:couplings to complement that, describing the actual connectors:

Re: [Tagging] A place where letters & parcels are sent to be sorted so they can be delivered?

istribution Centre". The initial "post_" part mirrored existing "post_office" tag. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

if two paths have identical surface and width characteristics (which we can already tag), what difference does it make whether it's through a park or across more open countryside? Why would it matter to data consumers or renderers? Robert. -- Robert Whittaker __

Re: [Tagging] Tagging village sign

be recorded, and for that I've used name=*. I know that perhaps doesn't quite fit with the usual use of name=*, as here it's the name being shown, rather than the name of the sign, but I thought it was close enough. But if anyone has any better suggestions there... Robert. -- Robert Whittaker

Re: [Tagging] Change in rendering in Mapnik of Nature Reserves.

, a shading probably won't work very well over other landuse colours, so a repeating glyph is probably the best approach. NR probably isn't the best thing to use for an international audience, but I'm sure someone could come up with a pictographic symbol instead. Robert. On 23/07/2014 23:52, Matthijs

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

data. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

doesn't want to work out the precise details themselves.) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

, there's a convenient key to use for any automated changing / checking of the access tags that is desired. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

forbidden on all ways it would not be bad to have it on all ways as explicit tag (IMHO). That rather depends on whether bicycle=no is interpreted to mean no cycling or no bicycles -- which seems to be the key thing we need to agree on first. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

previously tagged bicycle=no to indicate case (d). Robert. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

no bicycle:pushed=* tag present). Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness

(e.g. there are some famous ones for tv). I'd often use man_made=mast for tall single pole or lattice framework structures. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Footway as painted lane in highway

I would do the same.  Met vriendelijke groeten Robert Elsenaar Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com schreef: Hi I have a country lane where on one side has a dashed white line about 1.5m from the road edge a walking person symbol painted on the surface. It has no adjacent raised kerb footpath

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC

of the proposed tagging scheme. thanks, ..robert Robert Stack trafficto...@gmail.com -- Hi, Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2012, 15:42:29 schrieb fly: * I still do not get one major point which was totally left out on the first** scheme. What actually belongs to a point and how are they tagged. *Especially

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:32:54 +0100, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Seth Golub s...@sethoscope.net wrote: Lowered was used in the original proposal, I'd actually prefer the term sloped. I think that makes quite a bit more sense than lowered. Opinions? I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 05:46:45 +0100, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:14 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: So: kerb=flush kerb=lowered kerb=rolled kerb=yes kerb=raised

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:22:55 +0100, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: One problem I see with these kinds of proposals is that they map very well to a particular jurisdiction or standard, but will be very hard to apply

Re: [Tagging] associatedStreet

Jo, This correct. Also the terrasser plugin makes relations like that. Robert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 4:19 PM To: winfi...@gmail.com ; Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] associatedStreet Hi Jo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Scuba diving (Shop or spot)

.) and scuba_diving:service=repair scuba_diving:service=course Note: All words singular Consider: operator=PADI = league=PADI. The operator should be the entrepreneur running this divespot or diveshop. The league is only the organisation of whom the shop is selling courses. -Robert

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Metropolis

Great idea to reactivate is again. New times, new ideas. I think capitals should be tagged to be Metropolis to also when they do not have enough inhibitans to be granted as one. -Robert- -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:11 PM

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Scuba diving (Shop or spot)

Citeren John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: On 19 January 2011 04:27, Robert Elsenaar rob...@elsenaar.info wrote: (scuba_diving is better then Dive_centre because also dive spots can have filling facilities without having a divecentre nearby.) My point before is that scuba is only one

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Metropolis

the adminstatative or the prominence rank to build up there map. -robert- Citeren Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:27 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The problem here is subject v objective tagging, in terms of airports this can be objective stated based

Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization

on fortification, but also on e.g. museum (wild guess). (And I think I already saw the sub tag came by: tree:type ?) -Robert- Citeren M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2011/1/13 rob...@elsenaar.info: Why: fortification_type=hill_fort Better is: fortification:type=hill_fort where do you

Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization

Certainly not like that. I will start a new thread to discuss this idea more in detail. I think there's nothing wrong when we try to standardize tags and have a moment of retagging when we have a 1:1 substitution. -Robert- -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: JohanJönsson Sent: Thursday

[Tagging] Main tags, values and sub tags

the right and left lane of the road. - Telling something about night and day time access rules. These are just two examples. By introducing Advanced Tagging more different element of the object is possible. Please who likes to reflect on this rough idea? -Robert

Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re: newkey civilization

historic:period can also be interprtated by historical periods in fine arts. -Robert- -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:40 PM To: j...@jfeldredge.com ; Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: [Tagging] RFC

Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re: new key civilization

There is always a border where usefull meets unusefull. When mapmakers do not support object information on their maps, every extra information is useless. I think the period of a historic place is within the usefull information tags to a object. -Robert- From: Pieren Sent: Wednesday, January

Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization

Why: fortification_type=hill_fort Better is: fortification:type=hill_fort -Robert- Citeren Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: Ulf Lamping ulf.lamping@... writes: In practice, lot's of sites have *several* different roots throughout the ages. A castle may be build in early medieval ages

Re: [Tagging] Equivalence relation (was: Re: Differences in cycleways)

It was also not my idea to use relations to combine different road objects to one road 'relation'. -Robert- Citeren Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com: On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:  On 11/01/2011 12:20 AM, Richard Mann wrote

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - winter_road/ice_road

the road has a certain tracktype. tracktype=2 tracktype:opening_hours=oct-apr. -robert- Citeren Gleb Smirnoff gleb...@glebius.int.ru: Hello! Previous voting showed that a minor number of interested in this feature mappers disagree with the surface= tag. In respect to them, the proposal

  1   2   >