Re: [Tagging] Runway area mapping?

On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I've seen a number of runways mapped only as areas. > > This seems like a bad idea, since it loses the information of the > runway centerline and length. Adding a width tag to a linear way > should be enough to clearly define most runways.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals

sent from a phone > On 20. May 2019, at 17:17, Nick Bolten wrote: > > > I would suggest to tag the exception, i.e. the absence of crossing markings > > where there is a pedestrian traffic light controlled crossing, with an > > additional property for the crossing node. > > I'm not

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals

On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 15:53, Nick Bolten wrote: > Hello everyone, this is a late addition to this thread (I'll start a new > one soon after I improve the proposal page), but I want to give an example > of a crossing that has lights but no markings that is traversed by > (guessing) thousands of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals

> If you scroll down a bit, you'll find a map that shows that Pine St between 4th & 5th Ave's is a "shared street without markings": https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2015/03/6-places-where-cars-bikes-and-pedestrians-all-share-the-road-as-equals/388351/ which I guess should possibly be tagged in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table

It is a 'property' tag .. like height etc and can only be used with some other feature so the definition should not be about the physical presence of a table. I'd go with a definition that says something along the lines of "indicates the provision for changing a nappy/diaper usually on a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table

Am Mo., 20. Mai 2019 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb Valor Naram : > > [...] so if you intend to replace this, yours would likely become a > property (only) as well > Ok. Does it matter? From what I understood so far most wiki pages describe > `properties` e.g.: Key `highway` the difference of a feature

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome classification

Let's separate the tagging from the rendering, like we are supposed to do. Firstly, the tagging: how do we model an aerodrome. There are so many ways of classifying aerodromes. From a pilot's perspective, there are at least the physical aspects (how long/wide is the runway?), the aviation

[Tagging] Aerodrome classification

How should we classify different types of aerodromes? We can already distinguish private aerodromes with the access tag "access=private" and military aerodromes with "military=airfield", and heliports have their own tag, but currently large international airports and tiny airstrips are not

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table

> [...] so if you intend to replace this, yours would likely become a property (only) as wellOk. Does it matter? From what I understood so far most wiki pages describe `properties` e.g.: Key `highway`CheerioValor Naram alias Sören Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature

Re: [Tagging] tagging large farm complexes

20 May 2019, 02:05 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > to me the individual areas are obviously farmyards, and the other areas are > easily mappable - but what about the entire landuse? is it  commercial? > farmyard? > > I currently tagged as commercial, but I have the suspicion that is wrong -

Re: [Tagging] tagging large farm complexes

Am Mo., 20. Mai 2019 um 12:59 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > > > > 20 May 2019, 02:05 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > to me the individual areas are obviously farmyards, and the other areas > are easily mappable - but what about the entire landuse? is it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals

On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 06:53, Nick Bolten wrote: > > This is topical, as crossing=traffic_signals is often claimed to imply > crossing=marked. > It is? I hadn't noticed. I take a very different view, that crossing=traffic_signals says that the crossing is controlled by traffic signals. There

Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

On 20/05/2019 06:20, Nick Bolten wrote: > if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping, then draw a way with no highway=* tag put crossing=no on it. Is this an established strategy? I'd be happy to promote it + update the wiki if it's communally supported. If it's not

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table

then it's a property Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing tableFrom: Martin Koppenhoefer To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: Am Mo., 20. Mai 2019 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb Valor Naram :> [...] so if you intend to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals

Am Mo., 20. Mai 2019 um 07:53 Uhr schrieb Nick Bolten : > Hello everyone, this is a late addition to this thread (I'll start a new > one soon after I improve the proposal page), but I want to give an example > of a crossing that has lights but no markings that is traversed by > (guessing)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table

Am Mo., 20. Mai 2019 um 07:07 Uhr schrieb Valor Naram : > What do you mean with "feature"? Do you mean the whole proposal? Do you > mean the "feature" subtag ( changing_table:features )? "feature" is referring to whatever thing you are intending the tag for, or "property" if it is intended as

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

It appears that the proposal for camp_site=camp_pitch will be rejected with 12 votes in opposition out of 26 votes total, for A couple of those who voted in opposition would prefer to use "tourism=camp_pitch" instead. There were also a couple of people who suggested "tourism=camp_site:part" and a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table

Am Mo., 20. Mai 2019 um 11:00 Uhr schrieb Valor Naram : > > From what I understand, the tag seems to be intended as a property only > (requires a "feature" to add to), right? > > It intends to deprecate the diaper key which is currently used for tagging > changing tables. To be precise, the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table

> From what I understand, the tag seems to be intended as a property only (requires a "feature" to add to), right?It intends to deprecate the diaper key which is currently used for tagging changing tables. I will deprecate the key for some reasons:- Key `diaper` is poor documented- Key `diaper`

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome classification

Am Mo., 20. Mai 2019 um 14:12 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > How should we classify different types of aerodromes? > > We can already distinguish private aerodromes with the access tag > "access=private" and military aerodromes with "military=airfield", and >

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome classification

> "number, size and surface of runways." This information can already be mapped, but it isn't very helpful for a person search for "closest airports to me" in an application. There are a number of large aerodromes that do not have public flights. Military airfields are a common example, but

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Le 20.05.19 à 17:36, Jan S a écrit : > I find camp_site:part=* somewhat complicated, too. Also, it wouldn't be > consistent with the use of camp_site=* to describe the type of camping > site, either. tourism=camp_site + camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe and if you cut the site in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals

> It is very common to see markings at traffic signal controlled crossings, but I would not see them as a requirement, and I do not think it is written anywhere that it should be. I agree, and this is one of the criticisms I list for this tag. Every time I have made this criticism - here or with

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Hi, I find camp_site:part=* somewhat complicated, too. Also, it wouldn't be consistent with the use of camp_site=* to describe the type of camping site, either. I'd prefer tourism=camp_pitch. This also has the advantage that this key can be used for isolated camping pitches that are not part

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome classification

Am 20. Mai 2019 16:30:30 MESZ schrieb Joseph Eisenberg : > >It seem to me that the presence of public passenger flights is the >basic idea of the word "airport" to the general public (pilots certain >have different ideas, but they have their own specialized databases), >and it would be good if

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals

> It is? I hadn't noticed. Yes. > I take a very different view, that crossing=traffic_signals says that the crossing is controlled by traffic signals. There may or may not be markings. Those markings may or may not be similar to markings at crossings without traffic signals but, if the lights

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome classification

On 2019-05-20 17:49, Jan S wrote: > Am 20. Mai 2019 16:30:30 MESZ schrieb Joseph Eisenberg > : > >> It seem to me that the presence of public passenger flights is the >> basic idea of the word "airport" to the general public (pilots certain >> have different ideas, but they have their own

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 11:41, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > So what's that best tag to try instead? > > I think "camp_site:part=*" is rather convoluted, and > "tourism=camp_pitch" has the benefit of using a well-known key, but > perhaps there are other suggestions? I prefer the

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome classification

On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 22:12, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > I believe we can make a reasonable distinction between major classes > of aerodromes: > > 1) Airstrips without buildings or any other developed features > > 2) Developed general aviation aerodromes which do not offer any > regularly

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome classification

> On May 20, 2019, at 9:10 PM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Some mappers have used > aeroway=airstrip for small airfields without buildings or any other > developed features I have mapped airstrips like this. The tag is important, beyond any decision to more granularly map =aerodrome

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table

On 20/05/19 22:20, Valor Naram wrote: then it's a property Yes. The tag highway=residential says that is a road here,  a physical presence. The tag surface=grass says that whatever is here has a grass surface, but does not say what the physical presence is. If there is a thing tagged with

Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 20:58, Andy Townsend wrote: > > Adding ways where people might think there ought to be ways (but there > aren't really) is certainly established. As an example, > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/691036735 is one that I did > yesterday. Historically I suspect that there

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome classification

On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 08:38, John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > http://vfrmap.com/?type=vfrc=32.956=-116.295=10 > Wow, John - you've got crowded air! :-) Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Runway area mapping?

On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The current wiki page suggests using "aeroway:area=runway" to map the > outline of the runway, and mapping the "aeroway=runway" as a line > along the center of the runway. > > Does everyone agree that aeroway:area is the right way to map

Re: [Tagging] Runway area mapping?

> On May 21, 2019, at 10:35 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > if this is considered necessary? Similar to riverbank, sometimes the shape (and it’s irregular outline, where it meets taxiways and aprons) is good to have for rendering at higher zoom levels where lines no longer show the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

Le 21.05.19 à 00:58, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging > standard to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch > and tourism=camp_pitch it's an argument that makes sense. perhaps in this case, should we start by proposing to

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome classification

> On May 21, 2019, at 8:12 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Wow, John - you've got crowded air! :-) Yes, taking flight training out of Gillespie (in east San Diego), you basically head southeast to avoid all the airspace restrictions around San Diego - but after that it is pretty easy.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table

Hello, > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table questions / minor suggestions : in changing_table:location=room what's the usecase of : "or the floor to the toilets" ? maybe just drop it. if someone wants to put their child on the floor, I don't see how we could

[Tagging] Runway area mapping?

I've seen a number of runways mapped only as areas. This seems like a bad idea, since it loses the information of the runway centerline and length. Adding a width tag to a linear way should be enough to clearly define most runways. The current wiki page suggests using "aeroway:area=runway" to

Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

That is an interesting case! Looking at mapillary, it looks like part of it is paved. I'm not sure whether that makes it a footway or not, but it looks incredibly dangerous to cross there:

Re: [Tagging] Runway area mapping?

I agree that “14/32” is a ref, not a name. Its similar to “I-80” for a motorway. (In the Openstreetmap-Carto style we render the runway ref, not the name, but only when it is mapped as a linear way) On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:58 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 11:36,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

I think “camp_site:part=camp_pitch” is too long. Also, remember that the existing tag is used for pitches within campgrounds and caravan sites. And, the British English term is “campsite”, without a space. The shortest option with a new key would be “camp=pitch”. But tourism=camp_pitch has

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

> On May 20, 2019, at 4:28 PM, marc marc wrote: > > Le 21.05.19 à 00:58, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : >> I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging >> standard to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch >> and tourism=camp_pitch > > it's an argument that makes