Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

On 14/01/2018 13:47, Janko Mihelić wrote: So a fuzzy rule can be created, you can't have a man_made=lighthouse tag and seamark:xxx=yyy tags on the same object. That's instantly an error. Seamark tags are used for instruments that help navigation, and lighthouses are structures that can house

Re: [Tagging] Short-term parking zones

Hi, Am 14.01.2018 11:02 schrieb pbnoxious: On 2018-01-13 22:06, Matej Lieskovský wrote: I have a similar problem with the tagging of "Zone 30" and other such restrictions. I understand that having the tag on every road makes it easier for consumers. I think that when a restriction is

Re: [Tagging] Short-term parking zones

Greetings, if you group all the streets in a single relation, the relation is likely to be rather big. This can be hard on the server. If you create a single empty relation with the details of the parking zone rules, you can then tag every road with the id of the relation. It is basically a way

Re: [Tagging] Short-term parking zones

Am 14.01.2018 16:01 schrieb Matej Lieskovský: I am curious as to the recommended approach - we have a similar parking zone system here in Prague and I have no idea how to map it. A relation still sounds like a horrible solution due to the parking depending on the side of the road and due to the

Re: [Tagging] Short-term parking zones

Hello, On 2018-01-13 22:06, Matej Lieskovský wrote: I have a similar problem with the tagging of "Zone 30" and other such restrictions. I understand that having the tag on every road makes it easier for consumers. I think that when a restriction is conceptually an area, it should be marked as

Re: [Tagging] Short-term parking zones

Citation provided: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation#Size https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Size Notice that the border relation you linked is already version 790 (and borders change far less often than roads). Viewing the relation on osm.org already takes some time on

[Tagging] access=yes|permissive allow all transport modes

Hello, Osmose is giving an error at many places around the R50 trunk with reason "access=yes|permissive allow all transport modes" and additional info "Including ski, horse, moped, hazmat and so on, unless explicitly excluded". For example, this way [1] has the error [2]. The road is

[Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

A map with lighthouses was produced [1] that gained popularity because it was nicely rendered, but it showed how flawed OSM data was in this regard. Very often little beacons [2] are mapped as man_made=lighthouse, which is not right. Lighthouses are big structures that were built to have living

Re: [Tagging] Short-term parking zones

Hello, Am 14.01.2018 12:00 schrieb Matej Lieskovský: If those zones are not entire areas then I agree - don't use areas. If it is on a street-by-street basis we have no choice but to track individual streets. How about an empty relation? (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Empty_relations [1])

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

sent from a phone > On 13. Jan 2018, at 01:56, Cez jod wrote: > > Maybe in 10 years we will have 10 tags responsible for water (3 for > drinking water > and 7 for non-drinking water plus subtags, etc.) . that makes sense?" > It is possible that I approach meny problems

Re: [Tagging] Short-term parking zones

Greetings, If those zones are not entire areas then I agree - don't use areas. If it is on a street-by-street basis we have no choice but to track individual streets. How about an empty relation? ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Empty_relations) This would group the tags in one place,

Re: [Tagging] Short-term parking zones

Hello, I never thought about this before and it would open up a totally new way of tagging things. But I have some questions/comments: 1) How does this exactly work and do the usual applications expect this? E.g. would it work to add a tag to an otherwise untagged way that refers to a

Re: [Tagging] Short-term parking zones

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 12:32:02 +0100 Matej Lieskovský wrote: > if you group all the streets in a single relation, the relation is > likely to be rather big. > This can be hard on the server. [citatation needed] We have massive boundary relation (

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

Le 14. 01. 18 à 14:47, Janko Mihelić a écrit : > a lighthouse can be an area with a seamark node at the place where > the light is. theoretically the difference seems correct to me. but if someone just wants to map a lighthouse, he'll do it with a simple node. you cannot require that anyone who

Re: [Tagging] access=yes|permissive allow all transport modes

Le 14. 01. 18 à 19:09, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 17:41:36 +0100 > "OSMDoudou" <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote: > >> Should I remove the entire "access" tag ? yes remove it, it's enought to add forbiden access like bicycle no footno highway

Re: [Tagging] access=yes|permissive allow all transport modes

Please remove the access=yes it's not irrelevant, it's plain wrong. With the present tagging, e.g. horses appear to be allowed as they are not explicitly forbidden. > I also think that this type of errors is so unimportant that I also > > would not bother with fixing them and I would rather use

[Tagging] Surface value for portuguese pavement

Hello, I'm wondering about what would be the best description for a Portuguese pavement [1] in OSM. They are quite common in Portuguese-speaking countries' sidewalks and pedestrian streets. I believe that should be surface=cobblestone due to the irregular cut of the stones, perhaps with

Re: [Tagging] access=yes|permissive allow all transport modes

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 21:17:12 +0100 André Pirard wrote: > access=no motor_vehicle=yes make much sense if that's the > intention This seems a poor idea, it will break everything that is not parsing motor_vehicle (starting from a typical rendering).

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

Good point. Landcover seems to be the closest it can be. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access=yes|permissive allow all transport modes

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 17:41:36 +0100 "OSMDoudou" <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote: > Should I remove the entire "access" tag ? I am not convinced that access=yes adds anything on highway=trunk. I would not protest against removing it. I also think that this type of errors is

Re: [Tagging] access=yes|permissive allow all transport modes

On 2018-01-14 17:41, OSMDoudou wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Osmose is giving an error at many places around the R50 trunk with > reason "access=yes|permissive allow all transport modes" and > additional info "Including ski, horse, moped, hazmat and so on, unless > explicitly excluded". For example,

Re: [Tagging] Surface value for portuguese pavement

On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:21:52 -0200 Fernando Trebien wrote: > surface=cobblestone Rather surface=sett as stones at least look like flattened ones. Though adding smoothness is a a good idea given that surface=sett/cobblestone tagging is hopelessly messed up.

Re: [Tagging] Surface value for portuguese pavement

I think they are much more flat, smooth than regular sett. I guess surface=paving_stones is a good option. -- althio On 14 January 2018 at 22:26, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:21:52 -0200 > Fernando Trebien wrote: > >>

Re: [Tagging] access=yes|permissive allow all transport modes

On 2018-01-14 22:28, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jan 2018 21:17:12 +0100 > André Pirard wrote: > >> access=no motor_vehicle=yes make much sense if that's the >> intention > This seems a poor idea, it will break everything that is not parsing > motor_vehicle

Re: [Tagging] Surface value for portuguese pavement

I'm not sure about 'paving_stones'. This is rather for stones which are made of concrete. Maybe I missed some information, but those stones look very natural, what would make them a 'sett'. Am 15.01.2018 02:08 schrieb "Cez jod" : > Hi. > > I think that pawing stone will be ok.

Re: [Tagging] Surface value for portuguese pavement

Hi. I think that pawing stone will be ok. surface=paving_stone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeable_paving#/media/File: Santarem_carfree.JPG Regars Slavo ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Short-term parking zones

Upon further analysis of empty relations, I suspect they will be far more problematic than I expected. While it is on the wiki since 2010 and feels like a powerful tool, it does not seem to be used (let alone supported by consumers). My bad, I should not recommend things that I have not used

Re: [Tagging] Surface value for portuguese pavement

It would be a pity to not do justice to the artwork element in this sort of pavement. Not sure what to suggest however, but maybe something with artwork_type=mosaic ? [1] [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/artwork_type=mosaic -Original Message- From: Fernando Trebien