Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger

I would be willing to argue that there is a place for both keys actually. The man_made one to describe the physical thing. The amenity one to describe that this is a publicly accessible amenity.. The amenity key implies the man_made key, but not the other way around. > -Original

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:43:03 +1000 wrote: > I would be willing to argue that there is a place for both keys > actually. This is poor idea as standard case (public carpet hanger) requires adding two very similar tags. Standard solution (adding access=private

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

I have no strong feelings one way or the other. My "proposal" was merely to make a distinct difference between a dedicated area of public transport (landuse) compared to a dedicated point/position along a road (and thererfore proabably inside another landuse, like residential). I'm not saying

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

sent from a phone > On 10. Apr 2018, at 10:03, Wiklund Johan wrote: > > I’m going to be bold and say remove amenity=bus_station and replace it with > landuse=public_transport + public_transport=bus_station (and subsequently > public_transport=train and so on). in

[Tagging] isced:level

The proposal (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ISCED) for isced:level was marked as abandoned after 6 years of no real conclusion, but they key is used ~120,000 times so I created the page  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:isced:level and copied over the central

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

sent from a phone > On 10. Apr 2018, at 07:37, Marc Gemis wrote: > > Not all "flowerbeds" that are tourist attractions are human made. they are. A flowerbed is about something human made. What you have been posting is a forest. Maybe the term flower field could apply

[Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

I have worked on my proposal for tagging intelligence facilities and am asking for your comments. The key was changed from amenity to man_made because this allows for adding the tag to amenity=embassy sites. On the other hand, this move makes it incompatible with other man_made objects like

Re: [Tagging] isced:level

Well, I see some edits in the past year adding info for Australia and New Zealand. In a mail discussion this summer (I'm in a mobile so I can't search mail while writing) I think someone talked abou ISCED, but I'm not sure. I used it to tag the school where I work, also. I think ISCED is a nice

Re: [Tagging] isced:level

2018-04-10 16:44 GMT+02:00 Fredrik : > The proposal (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ISCED) > for isced:level was marked as abandoned after 6 years of no real > conclusion, but they key is used ~120,000 times so I created the page >

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

sent from a phone > On 10. Apr 2018, at 02:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > =-O Is it really a 'landuse'? Or better as a 'landcover'? IMHO it is neither. I would see those flowerbeds that are part of a road or square as landuse=highway. Those in a park are part of the park

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - hail and ride

Hi Michael, Am 10.04.2018 um 17:45 schrieb Michael Tsang: > The proposed feature "hail and ride" is open for voting: Could you please provide a link to the wiki page? Best regards Michael -- Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten ausgenommen) I prefer GPG

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - hail and ride

Dear all, The proposed feature "hail and ride" is open for voting: Quoted from Wikipedia: Hail and ride is boarding or alighting a mode of public transport by signalling the driver or conductor that one wishes to board or alight, rather than the more conventional system of using a designated

Re: [Tagging] Railways along streets

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 17:30 Albert Pundt wrote: > What's the best way to map a railway along a street, and how are the > street intersections to be mapped? For example, this street > in Lewistown, PA has a freight line > running along the

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:54 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > How could they be verified? > > The ordinary ones are hard enough to verify. The ones tagged intelligence_facility=secret are even harder. I'm not convinced this is a sensible idea. -- Paul

[Tagging] Railways along streets

What's the best way to map a railway along a street, and how are the street intersections to be mapped? For example, this street in Lewistown, PA has a freight line running along the middle. Should it be mapped as two overlapping ways, as that example is

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

I admit there is a less serious component in this proposal, in that every embassy, potentially, eventually, has to do with intelligence, and obviously, secret installations are not known, unless you know about them, usually for professional reasons, in which case you would put yourself under

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

On 11 April 2018 at 08:08, Paul Allen wrote: > > The ordinary ones are hard enough to verify. > > I suppose you could mark the publicly-known buildings, such as the MI6 Ziggurat in London, or the CIA at Langley etc, but pretty hard to use anywhere else? Thanks Graeme

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > I suppose you could mark the publicly-known buildings, such as the MI6 > Ziggurat in London, or the CIA at Langley etc, but pretty hard to use > anywhere else? > The ones I can think of in the UK with

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

On 11/04/18 00:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I have worked on my proposal for tagging intelligence facilities and am asking for your comments. They 'don't exist'.  No 'embassy' will admit to them. Grigory Logvinov  Russian Diplomat in Australia responding to questions about expulsions of

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

Yes Martin, same thing – but these are the big obvious ones. These are easy to say “that’s a bus station”, but what I’m trying to get at is that when you scale them down in size there is no clear line to be drawn when a bus station turns into a regular bus stop. When should the big icon become

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger

sent from a phone > On 10. Apr 2018, at 09:49, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > avoids the crowded amenity key. To me, both, man_made and amenity, would be ok, but I don’t understand the argument of the “crowded” amenity key. Is there a limit of values for a key? What are

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger

Especially as man_made also has huge amount of various values, with varied use. On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, 10:18 Martin Koppenhoefer, wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 10. Apr 2018, at 09:49, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > > > avoids the crowded amenity

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

Are they under the military or under the civilian government? How does OSM separate out other government/military departments? Use the same method for these. Why does an 'Intelligence facility' require different tagging? On 11/04/18 13:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On 11 April 2018 at

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

One should keep in mind some mappers don't care mapping public_transport in all its subtleties, however they can simply want to map a __ | | platform by the side of a road when they spot one, and | | bus_stop also. Yves Le 9 avril 2018 23:59:21 GMT+02:00, Michael Reichert

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger

Again I agree with Warin, man_made suits better since it is more specific and avoids the crowded amenity key. On 10.04.2018 09:03, Warin wrote: Don't be too hasty. There may be others who disagree. On 10/04/18 15:52, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: I see no meaningful difference between

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger

Don't be too hasty. There may be others who disagree. On 10/04/18 15:52, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: I see no meaningful difference between amenity=carpet_hanger and man_made=carpet_hanger so I changed proposal to man_made=carpet_hanger On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:57:55 +1000 Warin

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

On 11 April 2018 at 09:05, Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Have a look here for one of the most prominent examples: >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186025617 >> names in 7 languages, but