sent from a phone
> On 23. May 2019, at 00:27, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> It’s advertised just like a normal residential area, and claims to have won a
> “Warick village of the year” award. So I would use landuse=residential for
> the area, and building=house for each structure.
the
2019年5月23日(木) 4:22 Jmapb :
>
> Hi! Just in case you missed it, we had brief and inconclusive
> discussions of these earlier this year:
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/042561.html
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/042983.html
>
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 09:10, marc marc wrote:
>
> I may have missed the last iD update announcement announcing this,
> what this transparent or discovered by chance?
>
This one, which includes heaps of changes!?
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/2231
Thanks
Graeme
Le 23.05.19 à 01:26, Warin a écrit :
> A) A physical competition played according to rules.
>
> B) As for A) but includes practising for the sport
>
> c) as for B) but includes non competitive physical activity.
>
> Thoughts?
i like C but without the "with rules" included via A :)
there is no
sumary :
imho, this thread is trying to solve all issues in one shoot,
and this nearly always fail.
it seems better to cut this into several parts from the simplest to the
most complicated (retag camp_site=* objects that have already a more
suitable tags such as toilets, depreciated one by one
From the talk here on juggling and private conversations with others
there are various 'definitions' of the key 'sport' in use by OSM mappers.
There are various definitions of the word sport in various dictionaries.
The Macquarie (Australian):
List some 20 various meanings/definitions .. e.g.
That explains why I saw highway=footway being added to a platform in a
changeset today...
If adding highway=footway is such a good idea then let's have a
discussion and get it added to every platform, rather than this fake
"upgrade" tag feature in iD.
Maybe routers should treat platforms as
That explains why I saw highway=footway being added to a platform in a
changeset today...
If adding highway=footway is such a good idea then let's have a
discussion and get it added to every platform, rather than this fake
"upgrade" tag feature in iD.
Maybe routers should treat platforms as
They've (just quincylvania?) got their logic backwards. A platform is,
by default, accessible by people. It's what they are designed for in the
real world.
I find it strange/worrying he makes these far reaching decisions
unilaterally (unless there's other hidden discussions not linked to in
Le 23.05.19 à 00:23, Michael Reichert a écrit :
> What is your opinion on this issue?
Thanks for the so documented message.
I didn't read all numbers but indeed, some plateform aren't
a footway
some are a path
some of indoor feature (more like a room=corridor)
it could be a good idea to improve
While “campsite” is confusing for Americans (like myself) and Aussie’s, it
is the correct British English term for what we call a “campground”, and a
(camping) “pitch” is what we call a “campsite” or “tent site”.
Hence the value should have include something like “pitch”.
I suppose this is fair
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 00:10, Simon Poole wrote:
> (I suppose there might be a use case for "RH", religious holidays, but
> lets don't add baggage before somebody actually asks for it :-)).
>
But what are Christmas & Easter if they're not religious holidays? :-)
Thanks
Graeme
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table
The present definition for the tag 'changing_table' is "A tag for
tagging changing tables".
This is a 'self referencing description'. One way of
testing/demonstrating this is to remove any words in the description
that
thanks, it look like fine.
Le 22.05.19 à 14:44, Valor Naram a écrit :
> I corrected the language issue and also moved the text in the "Tagging"
> section to the "Rationale" section as suggested by Marc
>
> Thank you both
>
> Best regards
>
> Sören alias Valor Naram
>
>
> Original
23 May 2019, 00:23 by osm...@michreichert.de:
> (3) highway=footway is added to ways which are clearly tagged as area
> using area=yes. Many routers route along the edges of areas but that's
> more a bug and workaround than a good feature. A highway=footway area is
> mapped as either
Looking at the website, it appears that you buy a plot of land from the
developer and then pick out a “manufactured home”, a house built in a Works
(factory) and then delivered to the site in 2 pieces. The “luxury” part is
very debatable, but I agree that these are a step up from a static_caravan:
Hi,
I discovered today that iD suggests to add highway=footway to
railway/public_transport=platform objects as part of its new validation
rules. On a GitHub ticket I found, Quincy Morgan explained it that way [1]:
> Features with these tags are expected to be part of the pedestrian network,
>
On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 14:12, Tod Fitch wrote:
> Please excuse possible Americanisms. What we’d call a “campground” is
> apparently called a “campsite” in British English and somehow turned into
> “camp site” in OSM. And what we’d call an individual place within a
> campground would be “camp
On 5/22/2019 3:03 PM, 石野貴之 wrote:
Hello.
I have wanted to organize tagging schemes of educational institutions
outside school. I conducted a very simple survey and uploaded the
result and my opinion in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/yumean1119/diary/364867
.
I would be glad if you give me
> crossing=traffic_signals
> crossing:markings=no
Ah, I see. Would you envision the only value for crossing:markings be "no",
or would it potentially have yes/no/{type}, where mappers use it at their
discretion - such as in this example?
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:49 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
> The core of the issue seems to be that there are two conflicting
mindsets: Mapping "types" of crossings versus having a "construction kit"
of several tags which each describe one facet of the crossing.
I agree, this is the central issue behind the tags being non-orthogonal:
crossing=* implies
Hello.
I have wanted to organize tagging schemes of educational institutions
outside school. I conducted a very simple survey and uploaded the result
and my opinion in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/yumean1119/diary/364867
.
I would be glad if you give me any comments.
Takayuki Ishino
sent from a phone
> On 22. May 2019, at 09:26, Pablo wrote:
>
> I don't know any spaces primarily used for juggling, bukers, scuba diving,
> slack line, or other sport that don't need peculiar infrastructures. (Even
> ski station are not primarily used for ski in summer). So why not use the
sent from a phone
> On 22. May 2019, at 01:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> These take place in certain spots regularly around me. The popularity of the
> spot might be related to the earnings.
> Are these jugglers accepting money for their 'performance'? If so it might be
> a
On 5/22/2019 4:30 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
For me, a sport means competition, rankings, trophies. Is this the
case here? Otherwise, I think leisure is better.
A pitch a place specially designed for a certain sport. I think this
is not the case here. It's just an open space, which can also serve
On 08.05.19 01:30, Nick Bolten wrote:
> Would it be fair to say you're suggesting something along the lines of
> crossing:marking=*, where * can be yes, no, or a marking type? You make
> a good point about the simplicity of avoiding a subtag for markings.
Yes, this is pretty much what I'm
On 22/05/2019 14:31, Paul Allen wrote:
The problem with that is the same problem as allowing every language
on the planet to use their own abbreviations for month names. Only
worse.
I'm not proposing that, I suggest we create a (short) list of accepted
calendar systems, and accepted
22 May 2019, 16:45 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
>
> I hesitate to raise my simple question in such an expertforum, but I want to
> tag correctly and cannot find the guidance I need in the Wiki.
>
>
Feel free to ask any questions how things should be tagged!
>
> How should I tag Willow Park in
I hesitate to raise my simple question in such an expertforum, but I want to
tag correctly and cannot find the guidance I need in the Wiki.
How should I tag Willow Park in Salford Priors, near Evesham(UK)?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135928544
Their website
On Mon, May 20, 2019, 21:57 Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
> 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.
On Mon, May 20, 2019, 02:53 Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> 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
Yes, right. Sry for this. I learnt that "floor" means "Flur" in german language. Seems to be incorrect. Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing tableFrom: Michael Brandtner via Tagging To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: Michael Brandtner
I
I think that this is a language issue and the hallway (German "Flur") is
meant, not the floor.
Am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2019, 03:11:32 MESZ hat marc marc
Folgendes geschrieben:
Hello,
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table
questions / minor suggestions
Le 22.05.19 à 12:06, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
>> you mean https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/273023376 ?
>> it's a good example of missing datas.
>> no entrance, no way between the entrance and the public network.
>> I feel that the relation type=navaids should be called type=missingway
>
> Again
Navigation software needs to move on. Instead of mapping a destination
POI to a single point in every case, it needs to handle a list of
points. Each point may have filters or qualifiers, such as opening hours
or mode of transport; this can lead to some of the points being
disqualified. The
22 May 2019, 13:03 by f...@zz.de:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:55:44PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>> > - Baumstraße 43a, Gütersloh, Germany
>> > It does not have a connection to Baumstraße but to
>> > Hermann-Vogelsang-Straße.
>> >
>> > It still will be routed through Baumstraße and
22 May 2019, 13:00 by f...@zz.de:
>
> Hi
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:42:45PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>> 22 May 2019, 09:53 by f...@zz.de:
>> > Hi Marc,
>> > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:38:23PM +, marc marc wrote:
>> >> > What is the expectation to get navigated to when
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 01:01:20PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> 22 May 2019, 12:49 by f...@zz.de:
>
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:37:21PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> >
> >> > Again a footway between the house and a road will NOT help for
> >> > car navigation because for cars a
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:55:44PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > - Baumstraße 43a, Gütersloh, Germany
> > It does not have a connection to Baumstraße but to
> > Hermann-Vogelsang-Straße.
> >
> > It still will be routed through Baumstraße and the driveway to
> > Baumstraße 45a
> >
> >
22 May 2019, 12:49 by f...@zz.de:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:37:21PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>> > Again a footway between the house and a road will NOT help for
>> > car navigation because for cars a footway is NOT a routable
>> > part of the graph.
>> >
>> Car navigation may use
Hi
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:42:45PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 22 May 2019, 09:53 by f...@zz.de:
> > Hi Marc,
> > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:38:23PM +, marc marc wrote:
> >> > What is the expectation to get navigated to when selecting a park?
> >> there is no such thing as "a single
22 May 2019, 09:43 by f...@zz.de:
>
> Hola Mateusz,
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:26:01AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>> 21 May 2019, 23:46 by f...@zz.de:
>>
>> > - Houses which are routeable by road a but are near road b or vice
>> > versa.
>> >
>> > Adding more roads aka
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:37:21PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > Again a footway between the house and a road will NOT help for
> > car navigation because for cars a footway is NOT a routable
> > part of the graph.
> >
> Car navigation may use footway data to select best dropoff point.
>
>
22 May 2019, 09:53 by f...@zz.de:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:38:23PM +, marc marc wrote:
>
>> > What is the expectation to get navigated to when selecting a park?
>>
>> there is no such thing as "a single point that makes everyone agree"
>>
>
> Yes there is - there has to
22 May 2019, 12:06 by f...@zz.de:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 09:13:14AM +, marc marc wrote:
>
>> Le 22.05.19 à 09:43, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
>> >> Can you give example of residential building with fully mapped roads,
>> >> footways and obstacles where well written router will fail?
>> >
On 22.05.2019 00:09, marc marc wrote:
I you think that juggling is a sport, sport tag exist,
just add sport=juggling
but we miss a main tag for sport that does not take place on a delimited
sports field, the same issue exist with outdoor sport=scuba_diving
maybe leisure=location or
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 09:13:14AM +, marc marc wrote:
> Le 22.05.19 à 09:43, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
> >> Can you give example of residential building with fully mapped roads,
> >> footways and obstacles where well written router will fail?
> >
> > - Baumstraße 43a, Gütersloh, Germany
>
>
Le 22.05.19 à 09:43, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
>> Can you give example of residential building with fully mapped roads,
>> footways and obstacles where well written router will fail?
>
> - Baumstraße 43a, Gütersloh, Germany
you mean https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/273023376 ?
it's a good
Le 22.05.19 à 10:36, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
> type navaid
> source (Multiple ones sharing the same transport
> destination)
> car
> bicyle
> foot
this info, for well mapped objet, already exist
polygon have several nodes
with entrance=yes and car/bicyle/foot=designated
Hi Peter,
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:15:57AM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Id imaging a relation which says
> > object A -> car -> Node B (on routable graph)
> > So whenever i tell my nav software to bring me to object A the node
> > selected on the routable graph as a destination will be
For me, a sport means competition, rankings, trophies. Is this the
case here? Otherwise, I think leisure is better.
A pitch a place specially designed for a certain sport. I think this
is not the case here. It's just an open space, which can also serve
other purposes.
I fear that a juggling spot
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 09:43:31AM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > Can you give example of residential building with fully mapped roads,
> > footways
> > and obstacles where well written router will fail?
>
> - Baumstraße 43a, Gütersloh, Germany
> It does not have a connection to
> Id imaging a relation which says
> object A -> car -> Node B (on routable graph)
> So whenever i tell my nav software to bring me to object A the node
> selected on the routable graph as a destination will be Node B.
One relation per mode of transport then? So a complex obejct a could have
Am Mi., 22. Mai 2019 um 06:12 Uhr schrieb Tod Fitch :
> it's an argument that makes sense.
> perhaps in this case, should we start by proposing to depreciate
> camp_site=pitch and camp_site=camp_pitch since these are the 2 most
> problematic in the logic of tag linking
>
>
+1
> >
> With
On 17/05/2019 21:13, Paul Allen wrote:
I think that you would have to come up with something like
opening_house:islamic or something like that to segregate the two
systems.
There are some downsides to using a new `opening_hours:islamic` key:
* What happens if there's an `opening_hours=*` and
sent from a phone
> On 20. May 2019, at 18:19, Markus wrote:
>
> I prefer the camp_site:part=camp_pitch because the :part suffix is
> already in use in building:part=* and could become a standard suffix
> for parts of other objects, such as named parts of forests or lakes,
> numbered grave
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 08:31:03AM +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 07:47, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > - Houses which are routeable by road a but are near road b or vice
> > versa.
>
> That could be a "problem" due to GPS (?) system being so accurate?
And map data
Hi Marc,
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:38:23PM +, marc marc wrote:
> > What is the expectation to get navigated to when selecting a park?
>
> there is no such thing as "a single point that makes everyone agree"
Yes there is - there has to be an explicit location you will ne navigated
to for a
Hola Mateusz,
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:26:01AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 21 May 2019, 23:46 by f...@zz.de:
>
> > - Houses which are routeable by road a but are near road b or vice
> > versa.
> >
> > Adding more roads aka service/driveway does not necessary make it more
> >
Thx for your answers :).
I m speaking of juggling as a sport and not as entertainment. These meetings
are not organised to earn money or to make shows, but to practice and meet each
other.
I don't know any spaces primarily used for juggling, bukers, scuba diving,
slack line, or other sport
Am 22. Mai 2019 00:44:51 MESZ schrieb Mateusz Konieczny
:
>
>22 May 2019, 00:38 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com:
>
>> Le 22.05.19 à 00:16, Florian Lohoff a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> Hi marc,
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:02:53PM +, marc marc wrote:
>>>
Hello,
Le 21.05.19 à 23:46,
61 matches
Mail list logo
