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

building=livestock + livestock=* would be fine, especially if the building doesn't look specifically designed for one type of animal But for goats you might consider building=goat_barn or building=goat_shed, depending on how large and solidly it is constructed. In some climates goat's only need a

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

Dear Community, thank you for your comments. I would like to try to summarise the discussion so far: - one group went of into a discussion on the different forms of stables for pigs showing us the complexity of farm buildings and also the complexity of wording - commentators generally preferred

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

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:31:25 -0400 From: "Nita S." To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: Re: [Tagging] New proposal draft to simplify the mapping of farm buildings (stables) Around here those are called poll-barns. They are

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

Around here those are called poll-barns. They are usually constructed with utility poles ( or similar ) a roof truss system, and corrugated/galvanized metal sheets. They cover farm equipment, feed storage, and sometimes animals. On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:02 AM Paul Allen wrote: > > > On Wed, 28

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

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 01:02, Paul Allen wrote: > > more happy pigs to be found here (supposedly) >>> https://www.naturalpigfarming.com/low%20res%2060/IMG_1385.jpg >>> >> >> And that is a pig pen. But, according to some, also a pig

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

On 29/08/19 09:45, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Re: > "The best I could come up with was landuse=farmland + produce=live_animal + animal=chicken" It's more common to use landuse=farmyard for poultry farms, and if you use produce=* it's more common to specify eggs, meat or live_animal=* depending on

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

Re: > "The best I could come up with was landuse=farmland + produce=live_animal + animal=chicken" It's more common to use landuse=farmyard for poultry farms, and if you use produce=* it's more common to specify eggs, meat or live_animal=* depending on what is sold. To specify that the farmyard

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

sent from a phone > On 29. Aug 2019, at 00:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > The preferences range from free-range chickens >

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

On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 01:02, Paul Allen wrote: > > >> https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/pigs-are-seen-in-a-pigsty-at-a-farm-in-pluduno-western-france-on-2-picture-id465455096 >> > > As far as I can tell, that's classes as a piggery in British English. And > since it's far more common > than

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

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 15:37, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > With regard to pig sty referring to an outdoor enclosure: the dictionary > says it can mean both, a small building or outside area where pigs are > kept. This is similar to German where, AFAIK, the outdoor areas associated > with an

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

sent from a phone > On 28. Aug 2019, at 14:40, Paul Allen wrote: > > According to google translate, it's "pig flats," but I suspect it's being > literal rather > than giving the equivalent English term. I'd probably map it as > building=piggery + > levels=n. maybe there isn’t an English

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

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 13:05, Peter Elderson wrote: > Pig ark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb4wTc79jY8 > I wish you hadn't said that. It forced me to do some googling. Apparently, a pig sty isn't necessarily a building but is more usually an enclosure. Essentially it's a synonym for a

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

Pig ark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb4wTc79jY8 Nederland has "varkensflats" ie multi-storey "appartment buildings" for pigs. Wouldn't know a proper term for that in English though. I've seen it translated as "pig tower", but that term googles to https://images.app.goo.gl/WMeG3kychr7kokw7A

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

sent from a phone > On 28. Aug 2019, at 13:26, Paul Allen wrote: > > If he were to propose some other value (I can't think of one) for a generic > livestock-holding > building then I would have less reason to object to the proposal. But I > probably would still > object - we have 24,000

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

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 08:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 27. Aug 2019, at 23:00, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > Oh, and you say that a sty is for pigs (correct) and a sty is for cows > (incorrect) > > probably just a copy +paste problem, and should have been cowshed > Yeah, that was my

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

sent from a phone > On 27. Aug 2019, at 23:00, Paul Allen wrote: > > Oh, and you say that a sty is for pigs (correct) and a sty is for cows > (incorrect) probably just a copy +paste problem, and should have been cowshed > > Introduce a new value for building that means "building for

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

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 21:39, mr.moehritz--- via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I would like to propose a new tagging-scheme for stables that would be > more flexible. > More confused? Yes. Less precise? Yes. More flexible? A little, but not so flexible as just mapping all

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

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

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

Hi, I would like to propose a new tagging-scheme for stables that would be more flexible. Please find my first draft here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Improving_Stables I would be happy for any comments Mo ___ Tagging

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

2015-09-13 23:38 GMT+02:00 Paul Norman : > On 9/10/2015 5:20 AM, Joachim wrote: >> >> Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that oneway=* must >> also be tagged for every motorway_link. If not tagged, the oneway=* >> status of this way is undefined. > > Explicitly

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

2015-09-14 2:40 GMT+02:00 Richard Welty : > quite. there are sections of motorway_link highways along the taconic > parkway in NY which are two way and so lack oneway tags. now it's not that > hard > to go through and fix it, but i'm reasonably sure this is not the only

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

Richard Welty writes: > 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

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] New proposal: Obligatory tagging of oneway on motorway_link

On 9/10/2015 5:20 AM, Joachim wrote: Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that oneway=* must also be tagged for every motorway_link. If not tagged, the oneway=* status of this way is undefined. Explicitly tagging oneway on links is preferable for obvious reasons, but you need to

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

> Though I agree in principle with the idea of making tagging more > explicit, how big of a practical concern is this? i.e. how many times in > the real world is motorway_link a two-way road? This is quite common in some parts parts of Europe. Here an Overpass Turbo link which covers

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

Considering that most replies where not in favour of dropping routing over "undefined oneway" I changed the sentence about routers: "- For routing purposes no recommendation for ways with undefined oneway is made. A provider should decide on it's own considering the documentation history and

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

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:41 AM, moltonel wrote: > > If not tagged, the oneway=* > >status of this way is undefined. > > You wont gain anything by de-defining the "oneway=no" default value. > Consumers (routers, renderers, whatever) will not be swayed by a wiki page. > They

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

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:41:36 + moltonel wrote: > Consumers (routers, renderers, whatever) will not be swayed by a wiki > page. They might look at stats and decide themselves what the absence > of a oneway tag means, but a wiki proposal is never going to > influence that

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

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:20:43 +0200 Joachim wrote: > I drafted up a proposal about oneway=* for highway=motorway_link. > Please comment. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obligatory_oneway

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

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 14:20 +0200, Joachim wrote: > I drafted up a proposal about oneway=* for highway=motorway_link. > Please comment. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obligatory_oneway > > Proposal: > Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that

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

> Though I agree in principle with the idea of making tagging more > explicit, how big of a practical concern is this? i.e. how many times in > the real world is motorway_link a two-way road? While I agree such a case is rare, it is possible. See: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/68433570 --

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

On 10 September 2015 13:20:43 GMT+01:00, Joachim wrote: >Proposal: >Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that oneway=* must >also be tagged for every motorway_link. Sounds fair. > If not tagged, the oneway=* >status of this way is undefined. You wont gain

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

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Kieron Thwaites wrote: > > Though I agree in principle with the idea of making tagging more > > explicit, how big of a practical concern is this? i.e. how many times in > > the real world is motorway_link a two-way road? > > While I

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

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 14:20 +0200, Joachim wrote: > > I drafted up a proposal about oneway=* for highway=motorway_link. > > Please comment. > > >

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

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:40:21 -0500 Paul Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:41 AM, moltonel wrote: > > > > If not tagged, the oneway=* > > >status of this way is undefined. > > > > You wont gain anything by de-defining the "oneway=no" default

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

Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Documentation on wiki is one of main sources during development of > map style. You mean of the openstreetmap-carto style, which is just one of many. Richard -- View this message in context:

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

On 11/09/2015, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:41:36 + > moltonel wrote: > >> Consumers (routers, renderers, whatever) will not be swayed by a wiki >> page. They might look at stats and decide themselves what the absence >> of a

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

I drafted up a proposal about oneway=* for highway=motorway_link. Please comment. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obligatory_oneway Proposal: Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that oneway=* must also be tagged for every motorway_link. If not

Re: [Tagging] New Proposal

In my experience, routers say stay left in such a circumstance. News n...@pointdee.co.uk wrote: On 02/05/13 00:40, Dave F. wrote: On 01/05/2013 18:26, Philip Barnes wrote: That is just one example, this problem does not only exist with grade separate roads. Take this

Re: [Tagging] New Proposal

The first example should be resolved with tagging lanes, as seen in this link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Motorway The second one could use this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension I'm not sure if the two tagging schemes are

Re: [Tagging] New Proposal

On 02/05/13 17:34, Janko Mihelić wrote: The first example should be resolved with tagging lanes, as seen in this link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Motorway The second one could use this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension I'm

Re: [Tagging] New Proposal

On 29/04/2013 18:59, News wrote: I have created a proposal for a new tagging scheme at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_route From the wiki Example: If you are heading north on the A56 and want to continue on the A56 then you need to turn off the main carriageway

Re: [Tagging] New Proposal

Am 01.05.2013 12:53, schrieb Philip Barnes: The slip roads are straight ahead, whilst the through route curves to the right. The tag is need to tell the router that straight ahead is not stay on the same road. Hope that explains it. uhm, had you ever considered to tag both following ways

Re: [Tagging] New Proposal

On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 18:20 +0200, Georg Feddern wrote: Am 01.05.2013 12:53, schrieb Philip Barnes: The slip roads are straight ahead, whilst the through route curves to the right. The tag is need to tell the router that straight ahead is not stay on the same road. Hope that explains

Re: [Tagging] New Proposal

this example, http://osrm.at/36D To stay on the A511 no instruction to turn is given, That just looks like a bug in the osrm. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] New Proposal

I have created a proposal for a new tagging scheme at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_route Please review and comment as necessary. As this is the first proposal I've created please forgive me if I've jumped the gun anywhere or have missed anything Thanks Paul

Re: [Tagging] New Proposal

On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 18:59 +0100, News wrote: I have created a proposal for a new tagging scheme at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_route Please review and comment as necessary. As this is the first proposal I've created please forgive me if I've jumped the

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

Hi Nathan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_art http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7j8Kpp3vYU it might be helpfull, to map spots like that ;) --- Yes, it might be better to use separate tags. intermittent=yes (but I don´t like these yes-values, like: its a chair:yes etc. ) It looks

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

Hi! Since there were no comments for the last week, I've initiated a voting on the water=* proposal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details IZ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

Hi Ilya, very nice! About the keys: funny is reflecting pool: instead reflecting pool I would suggest something like land_art, because water is used primary as an architectural- or design feature and - the reflection is not always and for everyone obvious? And what I´m still missing is a

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

On 4/16/2011 3:53 PM, crom wrote: Hi Ilya, very nice! About the keys: funny is reflecting pool: instead reflecting pool I would suggest something like land_art, because water is used primary as an architectural- or design feature and - the reflection is not always and for everyone obvious? As

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

On 01/04/2011 16:04, Ilya Zverev wrote: It seems like I've messed up wording or just stated the purpose not clearly enough, since you are not the first to ask this question. Of course I'm aware of river mapping scheme. I do not propose to alter waterway=river/stream/anything. The main point of

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

Dave. F wrote: But also in this proposal I point out that waterway=riverbank does not differ much from natural=water, and suggest to map it with natural=water + water=river. This means you have multiple keys for river (water waterway). It also means your using river to describe two different

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

On 01/04/2011 05:30, Ilya Zverev wrote: Hi. At some point we've been fed up with fixing name=Pond and such, so I guess it's time to be more specific about what natural=water is. I suggest a new detail tag, water=*. It's pretty straightforward, but there are some deprecations (which at this

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

Dave F. wrote: Aren't most of these in use already? water=river A body of river, which is currently mapped as waterway=riverbank. You seem to be unaware of waterway=river. Please refer to his for a complete tagging guide: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

On 4/1/2011 11:35 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: (not sure if fountain applies to the kind of big flat water areas you can typically find in front of castles which are positioned there to reflect the castle?) Those are called reflecting pools. ___

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:35:37 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: what natural=water on an area means. Is this area a lake, a pond? We have no means to determine that now. could you expand what a pond is? I get several translations for this, ranging from natural to

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

2011/4/1 Ilya Zverev zve...@textual.ru On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:35:37 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: what natural=water on an area means. Is this area a lake, a pond? We have no means to determine that now. could you expand what a pond is? I get several

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:55:06 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: So looking at wikipedia also for lake I found that basically the main difference between the two is the size but also, how deep it is. If it were only the size this tag would not be needed, because unless you

[Tagging] New proposal: water=*

Hi. At some point we've been fed up with fixing name=Pond and such, so I guess it's time to be more specific about what natural=water is. I suggest a new detail tag, water=*. It's pretty straightforward, but there are some deprecations (which at this point can't deprecate anything because there