Re: [Tagging] Tagging estuaries: estuary=yes or river=estuary?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

"An estuary is a partially enclosed body of water, and its surrounding
coastal habitats, where saltwater from the ocean mixes with fresh
water from rivers or streams" -
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/estuaries01_whatis.html

Some tidal channels are part of an estuary, but others open directly
onto the ocean and are not connected to a river at all. For example,
this is common in mud flats along the north sea, and in mangroves
along tropical islands, where the mangroves are completely in salt
water, and there is no mixing with fresh water. Some other tidal
channels are part of an estuary system.

While it would be nice to eventually have sub-tags like esturary=* for
the different types, we first need to define how to map the basic
feature.

My proposal is to map the inland, upper limit of the estuary at the
limit of the tidal area, for river estuaries that have a strong tidal
influence, or the limit of mixing of saline and fresh water. This
point should also be where the river level is at the same elevation as
the coastline (the mean high spring tide line). See also
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
- so the coastline would be placed there.

There is also a proposal to map the mean low spring tide line, the
lowest tide line along the coast:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Dmean_low_water_springs
- so the estuary could end at the point where this line meets the
mouth of the river.

This would usually be different than the political "baseline", which
is often further out to sea, though sometimes it would match.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 8:49 AM Clifford Snow  wrote:
>
> A friend, who works in this area of research, pointed me to an easy to read 
> article [1] on estuaries. According to the article there are five types of 
> estuaries based on their geology, coastal plain, bar-built, deltas, tectonic 
> and fjords. (Note I'm skipping the classification based on water circulation 
> as I'm not sure it's appropriate for OSM.)
>
> If we are going to tag estuaries then it makes sense to add in the geology 
> classification system.
>
> Based on how NOAA classifies estuaries We should add to waterway=riverbank + 
> riverbank=estuary + estuary=costal_plain|bar-built|delta|tectonic|fjord.
> The alternative would be to use waterway=estuary + 
> estuary_geology=costal_plain|bar-built|delta|tectonic|fjord.
>
> This would conflict with the wiki article on tide channels [2]. From my 
> reading of the definition of an estuary, it seems that the tide channel is 
> actually part of the estuary.
>
> [1] 
> https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/estuaries01_whatis.html
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dtidal_channel
>
> Best,
> Clifford
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 00:05, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> For the rare situation like a "kreisfreie Städte" which can be a
> "city" or a "county, it could make sense to use
> "border_type:de=, or "designation:de="?
>

I have an innate dislike of such countrification on a global map.  It's
better than
hijacking tags without adding a country code ("The rest of the world uses
X=Y to mean
Z but in my country X=Y means W"), but only marginally so.  The problem
comes when
we add X:de=* and then find it also applies to France, and Italy, so have
to then either
add X:fr and X:it which are synonyms of X:de or persuade mappers in France
and Italy
to use X:de.

>From a very brief examination of what kreisfreie Städte are they seem to
bear some
similarities to the UK's unitary authorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_authority
If the concepts are substantially the same, then we end up adding
border_type:uk or
using border_type:de in the UK.

I'd prefer a way of handling these that doesn't require country codes.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

For the rare situation like a "kreisfreie Städte" which can be a
"city" or a "county, it could make sense to use
"border_type:de=, or "designation:de="?

On 10/29/19, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> Il giorno 28 ott 2019, alle ore 10:00, Sarah Hoffmann 
>> ha scritto:
>>
>> It is one possibility to tag such administrational oddities
>> as German "kreisfreie Städte" where an admin_level=6 may be
>> a county or a city.
>
>
> thank you, this is indeed a case where it actually adds detail and is not
> simply replicating the meaning of the admin boundary tags. Looking at some
> data, there’s also de:place=city, likely to avoid conflicts with place=city
> areas seen as built up / settlement area, sadly the nature of many
> kreisfreie Städte is still only tagged in note and de:place:note tags.
>
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 28 ott 2019, alle ore 10:00, Sarah Hoffmann  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> It is one possibility to tag such administrational oddities
> as German "kreisfreie Städte" where an admin_level=6 may be
> a county or a city.


thank you, this is indeed a case where it actually adds detail and is not 
simply replicating the meaning of the admin boundary tags. Looking at some 
data, there’s also de:place=city, likely to avoid conflicts with place=city 
areas seen as built up / settlement area, sadly the nature of many kreisfreie 
Städte is still only tagged in note and de:place:note tags.


Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging estuaries: estuary=yes or river=estuary?

[Clifford Snow]

A friend, who works in this area of research, pointed me to an easy to read
article [1] on estuaries. According to the article there are five types of
estuaries based on their geology, coastal plain, bar-built, deltas,
tectonic and fjords. (Note I'm skipping the classification based on water
circulation as I'm not sure it's appropriate for OSM.)

If we are going to tag estuaries then it makes sense to add in the geology
classification system.

Based on how NOAA classifies estuaries We should add to waterway=riverbank
+ riverbank=estuary + estuary=costal_plain|bar-built|delta|tectonic|fjord.
The alternative would be to use waterway=estuary +
estuary_geology=costal_plain|bar-built|delta|tectonic|fjord.

This would conflict with the wiki article on tide channels [2]. From my
reading of the definition of an estuary, it seems that the tide channel is
actually part of the estuary.

[1]
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/estuaries01_whatis.html
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dtidal_channel

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Access Aisle

[Clifford Snow]

Thanks for all the comments.

SomeoneElse wrote on the proposal talk page: The page currently uses both
"handicap" and "disabled"; I'd suggest using "disabled" throughout (see
e.g. https://www.gov.uk/apply-blue-badge ) as that's the terminology used
in UK versions of English. I'm not exactly sure what a "handicap_van" is,
but I'm guessing that the nearest UK English term might be "wheelchair
accessible vehicle". SomeoneElse
 (talk
) 00:30, 25
October 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I should have used disabled. I'll revise the proposal to
substitute disabled for handicap. Wheelchair_accessible_vehicle is somewhat
long, I'd like to propose substituting accessIble_van instead.


Warin and Sebastian - Yes adding width is helpful, but providing data
consumers with specific places for parking, which already exist along with
pedestrian routing, especially for those with limited mobility is
strengthened by having dedicated tags for footways designed especially for
wheelchair users to access cars and vans.

marc wrote -
in the propal section, you said "access_aisle=handicap"
but them "add access_aisle=handicap_van"
handicap_van is not an handicap. it's the véhicule the user leave/reach.
I see two types of access_aisles, the first is an area next to a handicap
parking space. It's wide enough for a person with limited mobility to get
into an out of their vehicle. The other is specifically designed for van
equipped with a ramp for wheelchairs. A van with a ramp is limited to just
spaces specifically designed for vans while the regular handicap parking
can use either.
in the tagging section, you said
"footway=disabled_access_aisle" : what's the added value to glue and
duplicate wheelchair into another key=value ? wheelchair=yes already
exist to describe that this way is usable for a wheelchair user.
you also said  "If the disabled parking space is for vans add
disabled_access_aisle=van"
to witch object ? to the amenity=parking_space i hope.
if so, I'm the current pratice seems better wheelchair=yes
=designated

My wording was confusing - I tried to clean it up to not only reflect the
change from handicap to disabled but to make sure all segments use the same
format.

Check out the updated version of the proposal at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_aisle

Best,
Clifford

-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28 Oct 2019, 18:29 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 17:17, Kevin Kenny <> kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:54 AM Tom Pfeifer <>> t.pfei...@computer.org 
>> >> > wrote:
>>  > >>> type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital"
>>  > >>> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign 
>> 
>>  
>>  I concur with all those who said this is a horrible idea.
>>
>
> So far I've resisted the temptation to agree this is a horrible idea because 
> it so obviously is
> a horrible idea that I'd just be adding noise to the list.  I've seen nobody 
> say that it's not a
> horrible idea.  There's only one person who might disagree with changing the 
> wiki and the
> overwhelming consensus is against him/her.  So somebody please fix the wiki. 
>
This idea is removed from wiki, vote page was also fixed (it was misleadingly 
described as
approved in vote - based on a very creative vote counting).

Thanks to Polarbear - see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relation:destination_sign&diff=1917489&oldid=1797734
 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relations/Proposed/Destination_Signs&diff=1917486&oldid=437212
 


I also edited later metadata in proposal and on page to remove incorrect 
"approved" status.

Thanks to all comments.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of bicycle anti-features

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I though about it but it may be unclear in case of multiple features
- road itself (noexit:bicycle may happen in case of sudden bicycle=no on the 
main carriageway)
- track on one side may terminate suddenly and may continue on the other side

28 Oct 2019, 20:31 by vosc...@gmail.com:

> In the case of a separate cycleway:
> noexit:bicycle=yes 
>
> In case of cycleway=lane I would stop the. cycleway key at the last point you 
> can exit on the main-traffic lane
>
>
>
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2019, 20:04 Michael Reichert, <> osm...@michreichert.de 
> > > wrote:
>
>> Hi Tobias,
>>  
>>  Am 28.10.19 um 19:45 schrieb Tobias Zwick:
>>  > Most commonly, a cycleway that just ends without merging it back onto the 
>> street.
>>  
>>  Do you have images illustrating this?
>>  
>>  Best regards
>>  
>>  Michael
>>  
>>  ___
>>  Tagging mailing list
>>  >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
>> 
>>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of bicycle anti-features

[Volker Schmidt]

In the case of a separate cycleway:
noexit:bicycle=yes

In case of cycleway=lane I would stop the. cycleway key at the last point
you can exit on the main-traffic lane



On Mon, 28 Oct 2019, 20:04 Michael Reichert,  wrote:

> Hi Tobias,
>
> Am 28.10.19 um 19:45 schrieb Tobias Zwick:
> > Most commonly, a cycleway that just ends without merging it back onto
> the street.
>
> Do you have images illustrating this?
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

[Jorge Pinho]

A segunda, 28 de out de 2019, 08:46, Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com> escreveu:

> "sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged
> type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital"
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign
>
> For me it seems a horrible and unacceptable tagging - amenity=hospital
> should be on hospitals
> and nothing else.
>
+1

Jorge Pinho
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of bicycle anti-features

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28 Oct 2019, 19:45 by o...@westnordost.de:
> It would be interesting to tag also anti-features. Most commonly, a cycleway 
> that just ends  without merging it back onto the street. 
>
I tag it with noexit=yes at the end
of a highway=cycleway 
> How could this be tagged, for cycleways mapped on the road-way? Any 
> suggestions how a tag for this could be named?
>
I would probably tag end node.cycleway:left:noexit=yes ???

cycleway:left:teleportation_point=yes
(This term appears in Poland to
describe this kind of situation,
though it's probably a poor tag)

cycleway:left:terminates_without_merging
?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Approved - Utility markers

[Michael Brandtner via Tagging]

Hi,
should position=* be kept when retagging pipeline markers to the new scheme? If 
yes, then this tag should be added to the wiki documentation.
Michael  
 
  Am So., Okt. 27, 2019 at 18:35 schrieb François 
Lacombe:   Hi all,
Voting of Utility markers proposal is now over and it was approved with 46 yes 
out of 47 votes.This is a great participation level for such kind of topic.
Thank you to anyone who spent time to improve this proposal and finally gives 
his vote.
Cleanup has already began, wiki will be up to date in a couple of 
days.https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:markerhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:utility
Feel free to add examples or raise concerns about particular situations in 
appropriate Talk pagesHope this will also help further milestone, 
highway/railway markers mapping and development.

All the best
François Lacombe___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
  
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of bicycle anti-features

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Tobias,

Am 28.10.19 um 19:45 schrieb Tobias Zwick:
> Most commonly, a cycleway that just ends without merging it back onto the 
> street.

Do you have images illustrating this?

Best regards

Michael



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Tagging of bicycle anti-features

[Tobias Zwick]

We know how to tag certain bicycle features such as the "advanced stop line" [1]

It would be interesting to tag also anti-features. Most commonly, a cycleway 
that just ends  without merging it back onto the street. Currently, such a 
situation would be tagged the same as a track that is merged correctly onto the 
road. This situation is especially hindering if combined with cars parking 
closely to each other on the sides of the road.

How could this be tagged, for cycleways mapped on the road-way? Any suggestions 
how a tag for this could be named?

Greetings
Tobias

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dasl

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

[Simon Poole]

Am 28.10.2019 um 11:11 schrieb marc marc:
> Le 28.10.19 à 09:44, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
>> "sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged 
>> type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital"
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign
> Yes it's horrible
>
> the next line said destination:symbol=hospital
> it's better.

And using it would be consistent with using destinations on lanes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Destination_details#destination:symbol


> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 17:17, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:54 AM Tom Pfeifer 
> wrote:
> > >>> type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital"
> > >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign
>
> I concur with all those who said this is a horrible idea.
>

So far I've resisted the temptation to agree this is a horrible idea
because it so obviously is
a horrible idea that I'd just be adding noise to the list.  I've seen
nobody say that it's not a
horrible idea.  There's only one person who might disagree with changing
the wiki and the
overwhelming consensus is against him/her.  So somebody please fix the
wiki.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:54 AM Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> >>> type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital"
> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign

I concur with all those who said this is a horrible idea.

> I had a look at the original proposal, and it does not contain the word 
> 'amenity'.
> Thus I conclude it had been later fiddled into the wiki page.
>
> Anyway looking into the voting results the whole proposal looks fiddled,
> the proposer counts some of the No votes as approvals :-o

https://tinyurl.com/y2rptqrd

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

[Simon Poole]

There are some other "weird" things, for example using "intersection"
instead of "via" for the via role, which means that the handling needs
to be special cased relative to turn restrictions and similar relations.

Am 28.10.2019 um 15:51 schrieb Tom Pfeifer:
 type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital"
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign
>
> I had a look at the original proposal, and it does not contain the
> word 'amenity'.
> Thus I conclude it had been later fiddled into the wiki page.
>
> Anyway looking into the voting results the whole proposal looks fiddled,
> the proposer counts some of the No votes as approvals :-o
>
> tom
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

[François Lacombe]

Le lun. 28 oct. 2019 à 09:46, Mateusz Konieczny  a
écrit :

> For me it seems a horrible and unacceptable tagging - amenity=hospital
> should be on hospitals
> and nothing else.
>

+1

Same kind of directions are given for marker=* key
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:marker#How_to_map
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

[Tom Pfeifer]

type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign


I had a look at the original proposal, and it does not contain the word 
'amenity'.
Thus I conclude it had been later fiddled into the wiki page.

Anyway looking into the voting results the whole proposal looks fiddled,
the proposer counts some of the No votes as approvals :-o

tom

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

[Rob Savoye]

On 10/28/19 2:59 AM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote:

>> +1, I have never understood why some people are double tagging 
>> administrative entities not only with admin_level and boundary but also with 
>> place tags.
> 
> It is one possibility to tag such administrational oddities
> as German "kreisfreie Städte" where an admin_level=6 may be
> a county or a city.

  I don't see much if any of this double tagging, but place=* seems more
accurate, which is why I asked. I do see border_type used as well.
Anyway, I can now fix this appropriately when I find it.

- rob -

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

[Andrew Harvey]

+1 I'd support updated the wiki page to favour tagging the symbol and not
using amenity=hospital.

On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 21:13, marc marc  wrote:

> Le 28.10.19 à 09:44, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> > "sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged
> > type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital"
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign
>
> Yes it's horrible
>
> the next line said destination:symbol=hospital
> it's better.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

[Andy Townsend]

On 28/10/2019 10:11, marc marc wrote:

Le 28.10.19 à 09:44, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :

"sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged
type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign

Yes it's horrible

the next line said destination:symbol=hospital
it's better.


There are only 12 in the database (Germany / Italy / Denmark):

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Nuz

so removing the offending line from the wiki and changing the data 
shouldn't be too difficult to do manually.  There are 69 if you include 
other amenities such as "school".


Best Regards,




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 28/10/2019 09:42, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

On 10/28/19 03:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

"sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged
type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign

For me it seems a horrible and unacceptable tagging - amenity=hospital
should be on hospitals
and nothing else.

+1

Maybe destination:amenity=hospital instead?


+1

Mateusz, have you search for other similar signs? I'm sure it's not the 
first.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

[marc marc]

Le 28.10.19 à 09:44, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> "sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged 
> type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital"
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign

Yes it's horrible

the next line said destination:symbol=hospital
it's better.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 10/28/19 03:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> "sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged
> type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital"
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign
> 
> For me it seems a horrible and unacceptable tagging - amenity=hospital
> should be on hospitals
> and nothing else.

+1

Maybe destination:amenity=hospital instead?

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

[Sarah Hoffmann]

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 06:17:29AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > Il giorno 28 ott 2019, alle ore 02:56, Clifford Snow 
> >  ha scritto:
> > 
> > Counties in the US are tagged as admin_level=6 + boundary=administrative.
> 
> 
> +1, I have never understood why some people are double tagging administrative 
> entities not only with admin_level and boundary but also with place tags.

It is one possibility to tag such administrational oddities
as German "kreisfreie Städte" where an admin_level=6 may be
a county or a city.

Sarah

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

"sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged 
type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign

For me it seems a horrible and unacceptable tagging - amenity=hospital should 
be on hospitals
and nothing else.

Is it just me, or is this sentiment shared by others?

I encountered an editor issue caused by type=destination_sign relation
and at this moment I plan to consider it as a tagging issue, eliminate tag 
(railway=station in this case)
and add to wiki info that such tagging is at best proplematic.

But I want to check is my opinion shared by other - maybe anyone processing any 
data needs
to add type!=destination_sign checks.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

28 Oct 2019, 06:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> Il giorno 28 ott 2019, alle ore 02:56, Clifford Snow 
>>  ha scritto:
>>
>> Counties in the US are tagged as admin_level=6 + boundary=administrative.
>>
>
>
> +1, I have never understood why some people are double tagging administrative 
> entities not only with admin_level and boundary but also with place tags.
>
+1___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging