Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 09:28 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel : > I don't really like the idea to introduce both 'electric_bicycle' as a > generic term and 'pedelec', 'speed_pedelec' as more narrow tags in case > we need to be specific. > if the vehicle class is treated exactly like another one (e.g.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

Thanks for the comments, Volker! On 10.11.19 22:09, Volker Schmidt wrote: Looked at the proposal. It's a spiny set of issues. I would discourage electrical_bicycle as this is form the start ambiguous in many jurisdictions: both pedelecs and S-pedelecs are electric bicycles and in many

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 01:10 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 23:51, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> > On 10. Nov 2019, at 21:57, Paul Allen wrote: >> > >> > I also see a clear parallel between amenity=bar and amenity=ice_cream: >> go in, sit down >> > and consume (there

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 07:27 Uhr schrieb John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > It seems I was (very) confused, possibly by misreading it several > different times. I have mapped 40km of levees wrong, with an improper lower > bounds line. I’ll have to fix it. > I now understand

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

I would definitely dispute the sentence that was now added to shop=ice_cream: "exact duplicate of amenity=ice_cream", as it describes only a part of what amenity=ice_cream can cover. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

I have stood in front of these large levees that prevent big rivers from flooding the surrounding country side many times her in Italy and did not find a suitable tagging for both the top and the bottom border lines of the object. We have a similar problem with extended stairs for which there is

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 03:19 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > [is there a] "consistent difference between shop=ice_cream and > amenity=ice_cream in real tagging by mappers", or not? > > It does not appear that these tags are consistently used in a > different way,

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

> I have not found non-shops tagged as shop=ice_cream, have you? The example photo on the shop=ice_cream wiki page shows an "ice cream parlour", which I would not call a shop. Previously it was claimed that a shop has to be in a building rather than in a booth, stand or van. However, I don't

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

Again, is there some difference in use by general population of mappers? I am not looking for differences in use wanted by specific mappers active here. I am not looking for how  "place selling ice cream" may be split into smaller groups. I am not looking for purely theoretical implications of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

On 11.11.19 01:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I generally agree with your remarks, just here I would like to point out that there aren’t any scooters in the “mofa”-class (AFAIK, not limited to Piaggio Vespas), (motorized) scooters begin in the moped class. Many of them can be ordered with a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel : > On 11.11.19 01:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I generally agree with your remarks, just here I would like to point out > > that there aren’t any scooters in the “mofa”-class (AFAIK, not limited > > to Piaggio Vespas), (motorized)

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 11:55 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > Again, is there some difference > in use by general population of mappers? > > I am not looking for differences in use > wanted by specific mappers active here. > > I am not looking for how > "place selling

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

On 11/11/2019 02:20, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: If this is about Openstreetmap-carto, there is now an open issue: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3968 - note that rendering area features in the "emergency=" key, like this, would require reloading the database on the

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 15:22 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > On 10/11/2019 16:53, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > > So I agree these tags should be kept separate. > > I'm struggling to comprehend how a question I deliberately kept simple > at just one sentence long can

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 14:22, Dave F via Tagging wrote: > > As emergency=ambulance_station appears to be a later invention, was > there a valid reason fire_station did follow suit? > Presumably because the icon looks like a firepit. Or maybe an eternal flame. Or maybe a flammable chemical

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 09:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Note I didn't write a bar cannot have seats, I wrote it isn't a strict > requirement, while it is for pubs I would say. > >From my experiences, seats are normally present in both, the difference between the two being the types of drinks

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

11 Nov 2019, 16:05 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com: > Le 11.11.19 à 15:44, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > >> decide which tags under `emergency=` should be treated as polygons >> when mapped as closed ways >> > > is this information not already present on the wiki pages? for example >

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

On 10/11/2019 16:53, Greg Troxel wrote: So I agree these tags should be kept separate. I'm struggling to comprehend how a question I deliberately kept simple at just one sentence long can cause so much misinterpretation. As for emergency= and amenity=, that's a historical artifact and

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

DaveF, reloading the database could be done more often, but it does take time and server resources, and everyone is a volunteer. People can help by donating money to the OSMF to help run the servers, or donating time to help improve the openstreetmap.org website infrastructure. At

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

Le 11.11.19 à 15:44, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > decide which tags under `emergency=` should be treated as polygons > when mapped as closed ways is this information not already present on the wiki pages? for example https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aemergency%3Dambulance_station

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

On 11.11.19 09:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: if the vehicle class is treated exactly like another one (e.g. pedelec like a bicycle), I agree there is no need to add an extra key for it, on the contrary you should not do it (don't tag your local legislation). If there are differences, we

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 11:55, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Is there some consistent difference how > this two tags are actually used? Unfortunately i can't answer your question (too little amenity=ice_cream and no shop=ice_cream around where i live), but i just discovered that 349, that's 15.2%,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

On 2019-11-11 09:47, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel : > >> On 11.11.19 01:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> I generally agree with your remarks, just here I would like to point out >>> that there aren't any scooters in the "mofa"-class

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:41 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 09:28 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel >: > >> I don't really like the idea to introduce both 'electric_bicycle' as a >> generic term and 'pedelec', 'speed_pedelec' as more narrow tags in case >> we need to be specific.

[Tagging] Proposed features, toll (3/5)

Copied from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/toll/mailing_list#2   May 8 15:45:29 UTC 2019, marc marc: - I see no need to specify that a country's roads are in that country. - I have always considered strange a vignette is considered as a toll. - the toll detail would

[Tagging] Proposed features, toll (1/5)

Hello tagging list! I agreed to move conversations from this list to the wiki and back so that the discussion can keep going here.   I hope that it works that I stack all replys behind each other. If it does not work, don't hesitate to help me out by telling me what I am doing wrong ;-) I am

[Tagging] Proposed features, toll (4/5)

Copied from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/toll/mailing_list#3   May 10 22:23:13 UTC 2019, Warin: No need to separate countries. toll:type... NO. the values of time and distance indicate the fee paid will be related to those quantities ... the time one? The slower

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

sent from a phone > On 11. Nov 2019, at 23:02, Markus wrote: > > Another difference is the width: in Switzerland, pedestrian lanes are > about 1.5 m wide and shoulders about 4.5 m. But in my opinion their > different purpose is reason enough to use different tags. +1, these are lanes, they

[Tagging] Proposed features, toll (2/5)

Copied from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/toll/mailing_list#1   May 8 14:50:34 UTC 2019, Mateusz Konieczny: > I would like to hear your thoughts and comments here: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/toll

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features, toll (3/5)

Le 11.11.19 à 23:13, Herbert Allmeier a écrit : > Country tags: There is no worldwide toll system. the same apply for parking : no the same-for-all-parking exist but we still avoid using a country code to said that all parking in this country use somethink specific to this country. the same

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

sent from a phone > On 11. Nov 2019, at 14:38, Paul Allen wrote: > > For better or worse, shop=cafe is documented as selling beverages AND light > meals, and this > is how it is understood in British English. from the description, light meals aren’t a hard requirement, or it could be seen

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

sent from a phone > On 11. Nov 2019, at 14:38, Paul Allen wrote: > > I think these are important distinctions: consume on the premises or off > the premises. They are different operating models and customers have > different > expectations. indeed, and you can buy alcohol in a lot of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

Hi Nick, Please excuse my late reply. :( On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 00:53, Nick Bolten wrote: > > ## Similarities to shoulders and an opportunity to figure out how to tag them. > > Would it be fair to say that the only differences between this feature and a > shoulder are (A) it has paint

[Tagging] Proposed features, toll (5/5)

Copied from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/toll/mailing_list#4   May 8 18:43:00 UTC 2019, Paul Allen: Only one person (that we know of) wants the new scheme. Others, like myself, haven't mapped a toll, may never map a toll, and comment on the proposal in order to try

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features, toll (1/5)

On 12/11/19 09:06, Herbert Allmeier wrote: Hello tagging list! I agreed to move conversations from this list to the wiki and back so that the discussion can keep going here. I hope that it works that I stack all replys behind each other. If it does not work, don't hesitate to help me out by

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 11, 2019, at 6:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > I agree we should have a way to map both limits, upper and lower, for all > kind of similar features, e.g. embankments, slopes, and similar. > On Nov 11, 2019, at 7:40 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I have stood in front of

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 12, 2019, at 10:26 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > If you are mapping an area, as in this case, just use a closed way or > multipolygon. How would a closed way (area polygon) denote “top” and “Bottom”? if embankments can be easily expressed as