Re: [Tagging] Hill figures

4 Sep 2019, 09:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 4. Sep 2019, at 09:08, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> >> man_made=geoglyph (usage >700 in taginfo) >> Seems to be a reasonable tagging >> > > > +1 > +1, I added it to some of linked example that were missing it

Re: [Tagging] Hill figures

The Uffington White Horse https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1618450 is mapped as man_made=geoglyph (usage >700 in taginfo) Seems to be a reasonable tagging Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: [Tagging] Hill figures

sent from a phone > On 4. Sep 2019, at 09:08, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > man_made=geoglyph (usage >700 in taginfo) > Seems to be a reasonable tagging +1 Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Hill figures

It could make sense in this context to mention the tag historic:civilization which is about the culture that created a feature. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic:civilization Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

Why don't you continue to use network=* ? Invent a new value for network= instead of introducing a new, but confusing tag called "network_type". I understand that using network_type would be easier. You just add the tag to the already tagged node networks that are currently using network=rwn.

Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

Peter Elderson wrote: > The network values identify transport mode and scope of routes, and > these "dimensions" also apply to node networks. We do not want to > add another dimension (configuration type) to the network=* > values of routes. > > Instead, we are thnking about just adding a tag

[Tagging] Hill Figures

+1, I added it to some of linked example that were missing it -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190904/eb9735bc/attachment-0001.html> +1   I have added the man

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

I think it's the best AND the easiest solution. Network configuration type is currently not tagged. Nederland, Belgium and Germany decided to use rcn exclusively for the cycle node networks. Later they copied that to rwn for the emerging walking node networks. We now want to correct that, but we

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Campsite properties

Hello, first of all, as the author of http://opencampingmap.org I basically support any approach to streamline the tagging of campsites! However, I would also like to point out, that the main problem we currently have with campsite mapping in OSM ist not _inaccurate_ tagging but _no_ additional

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:56:49 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote: > Tagging of regular cycle route relations is route=lcn for local routes, rcn > for regional routes, ncn for national routes, icn for international routes. You probably mean network=lcn instead of route=lcn > I hope this clears things

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:56:49 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote: > Op zo 1 sep. 2019 om 12:35 schreef Andy Townsend : > > > On 29/08/2019 15:52, Peter Elderson wrote: > > > LS > > > With the arrival of cycling node networks, the Dutch, German and > > > Belgian mappers decided to claim (hijack) the

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

Thanks for the illustrations! network=* gives geographical scope (local, regional, national, international) and transport mode (bicycle, foot, canoe, horse, mtb, ski, skate, ) network_type gives network configuration type (chain of ways; node_network=network of nodes) The network

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

Am 04.09.2019 um 15:59 schrieb Peter Elderson: > Thanks for the illustrations! > > network=* gives geographical scope (local, regional, national, > international) and transport mode (bicycle, foot, canoe, horse, mtb, > ski, skate, ) You know what I'm going to point out. The redundant coding

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 4 sep. 2019 om 16:30 heeft Simon Poole het volgende > geschreven: > > >> Am 04.09.2019 um 15:59 schrieb Peter Elderson: >> Thanks for the illustrations! >> >> network=* gives geographical scope (local, regional, national, >> international) and transport mode

Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

Richard Fairhurst : > Peter Elderson wrote: > > The network values identify transport mode and scope of routes, and > > these "dimensions" also apply to node networks. We do not want to > > add another dimension (configuration type) to the network=* > > values of routes. > > > > Instead, we are

Re: [Tagging] Hill figures

On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 18:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > It could make sense in this context to mention the tag > historic:civilization > which is about the culture that created a feature. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic:civilization > But would that really apply to these,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Campsite properties

sent from a phone > On 4. Sep 2019, at 21:00, Sven Geggus wrote: > > Is there a difference between a greywater_drain and a > sanitary_dump_station? greywater is wastewater without feces, e.g. from sinks and showers, while I would guess that a sanitary dump station is for sewage. Cheers

Re: [Tagging] Hill figures

sent from a phone > On 4. Sep 2019, at 23:45, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > But would that really apply to these, as most of them only range in age from > <100 to 200-300 years old? as long as you find a suitable value ;-) In general the civilization tags aim more at older sites while for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Campsite properties

Correct. And often there is a greywater drain at each individual camp pitch, but only one sanitary_dump_station where caravans and RVs can empty their sewage tank. On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:15 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 4. Sep 2019, at 21:00, Sven Geggus >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Campsite properties

Sven, Thank you for your comments, I appreciate having your involvement in this proposal. >> 2) Deprecate bbq=* (use barbecue_grill=* instead). > > Well, in practice according to taginfo there are zero campsites featuring an > additional bbq or barbecue_grill tag. Mainly this is used for

[Tagging] amenity=music_school vs amenity=college?

Are music schools a type of amenity=college or should they be their own tags? The tag amenity=college is used for any "institution of further education" which isn't a university; this includes junior colleges and adult education facilities in the USA, though the term "further education" is

Re: [Tagging] amenity=music_school vs amenity=college?

On 5/9/19 3:18 pm, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Are music schools a type of amenity=college or should they be their own tags? Education should have its own key. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative

Re: [Tagging] amenity=music_school vs amenity=college?

5 Sep 2019, 07:18 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > Are music schools a type of amenity=college or should they be their own tags? > At this moment there is no documented way of tagging that something is a music school using amenity=college. Is it simply missing from Wiki or is there no scheme

Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

On 5/9/19 2:42 am, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Peter Elderson wrote: The network values identify transport mode and scope of routes, and these "dimensions" also apply to node networks. We do not want to add another dimension (configuration type) to the network=* values of routes. Instead, we are

Re: [Tagging] Add amenity=childcare to Map Features?

There were 5 positive comments in favor, and none in opposition, so I've added amenity=childcare to map features as discussed. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:amenity I've added to the description: "Describes a place where children are looked after **which is not an