[Tagging] network tag on route relations

Hello, According to the wiki[0], it seems that the network tag has different meanings and possible values based upon if it is applied to a route relation where route=road vs. route=bicycle/mtb/foot/etc. If I am understanding this correctly, when route=road, network= the specific network that the

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:48 AM Robert Skedgell wrote: > On 12/07/2020 15:48, Mike Thompson wrote: > > Hello, > > > > According to the wiki[0], it seems that the network tag has different > > meanings and possible values based upon if it is applied to a route > > relation where route=road vs.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 19:36:10 +0200 mbranco2 wrote: > Maybe images was shot in a particular season, and the soil condition > is not always the same? > Well, if I check several imageries and in all of them I see a > "desertic land", I'm confident I can map that area with the tag we're > talking

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 17:51:29 +0200 Peter Elderson wrote: > Aren't Interstate and US evident from the geographic extent as well? > The US has two national highway networks: * The Interstate Highway System, major high-speed roads connecting major cities. * The United States Numbered Highway

[Tagging] site relations for city walls?

Someone has made a site relation for the Aurelian citywalls in Rome. Does this make sense to you? We‘re speaking of a generally linear object of many kilometers length, in parts fragmented / interrupted. Cheers Martin sent from a phone ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

sent from a phone > On 12. Jul 2020, at 20:32, Mark Wagner wrote: > > The US has two national highway networks: > > * The Interstate Highway System, major high-speed roads connecting > major cities. > * The United States Numbered Highway System (commonly referred to as > the "US

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

Why is the relation type on the Berlin Wall a “collection” rather than “boundary”? Thanks, Anat Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. > On Jul 12, 2020, at 11:52 AM, yo paseopor wrote: > > Big sense, nerver forget. > What about that? > >

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

Suppose XXn for recreational networks should go. What do I do with all the route relations neatly tagged as lwn, lcn, lhn, lpn, ..,and the r..n, n.n and i.n ? Removing the tags without a working alternative will clear a lot of charts and maps which present the routes to users for navigation,

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

Aren't Interstate and US evident from the geographic extent as well? If deducted from geographic extent, what would be the extent for local and regional? Would the US need an interstate tag? Would a hiking trail through a relatively small nature area crossing boundaries between countries, be

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 13:36, mbranco2 wrote: > ... > And I think that we could map such characteristic even with only imagery > (without direct survey), because it's a "macro" feature, as is a wood or a > scrub. > ... > Surely it could be useful if botanists and/or geologists could better

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

The link [2] to https://www.hq.nasa.gov/iwgsdi/Barren_Land.html has these categories: *1.2.2.2.1 Bare Exposed Rock*: Those ecosystems characterized by areas of bedrock exposure, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic material, rock glaciers, and other accumulations of rock without

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

I hope that this discussion and the related proposal wiki page will lead to a solution, because I found several times, mapping in Africa with HOT projects, "desertic lands" and I didn't find a tag for this. If we search the Internet for "barren soil", we can find a lot of ground-level related

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

Big sense, nerver forget. What about that? https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6651797#map=11/52.5183/13.2976 Health (more now than never) and maps yopaseopor On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 8:44 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Someone has made

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

sent from a phone > On 12. Jul 2020, at 20:53, yo paseopor wrote: > > Big sense, nerver forget. > What about that? > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6651797#map=11/52.5183/13.2976 it’s a type=collection though, not a site. And questionable in parts, as the Berlin wall is

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

sent from a phone > On 12. Jul 2020, at 21:14, Taskar Center wrote: > > Why is the relation type on the Berlin Wall a “collection” rather than > “boundary”? it’s a collection of remaining traces of a boundary (which btw was never a „line“ in the geometric sense, because there always was a

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On 12/07/2020 15:48, Mike Thompson wrote: > Hello, > > According to the wiki[0], it seems that the network tag has different > meanings and possible values based upon if it is applied to a route > relation where route=road vs. route=bicycle/mtb/foot/etc. > > If I am understanding this correctly,

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 3:08 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > I still don't understand why you tag "US" while it's obviously a bunch of > roads in the US. or Interstate when the road clearly crosses state lines. I > think that"s more redundant than tagging "we classify this route as a > regional

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

sent from a phone > On 13. Jul 2020, at 00:11, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I do consider a site relation a fitting approach for a city wall. its use would also go against the wiki definition which states: „ This relation is not to be used in cases where the element can be represented by one

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 9:53 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > Aren't Interstate and US evident from the geographic extent as well? > Yes, that is my point, or at least it is evident with the current mapping practice. Road routes are not tagged (at least not according to the wiki) with

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:49 AM Robert Skedgell wrote: > > The very short NCN route 425 in south-east London is network=ncn because > it's a Sustrans route. THe scope of the route is very local, but the > scope of the network is national. Without the network tag, how would a > renderer or

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

Well, recreational routes and networks simply are not that organized, and jurisdiction or authority doesn't apply to most of them. I guess that is why the values are more generic. I still don't understand why you tag "US" while it's obviously a bunch of roads in the US. or Interstate when the

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On 12/07/2020 22:50, Mike Thompson wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:49 AM Robert Skedgell > wrote: > >> >> The very short NCN route 425 in south-east London is network=ncn because >> it's a Sustrans route. THe scope of the route is very local, but the >> scope

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 4:53 PM Robert Skedgell wrote: > > > Starting with UK presents another problem for consistency, as it's not > an ISO 3166-1-alpha-2 country code, just the abbreviated name of the > country. My mistake, should have been "GB" ___

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 4:08 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > > Well, recreational routes and networks simply are not that organized, and jurisdiction or authority doesn't apply to most of them. I guess that is why the values are more generic. In the US a significant percentage of the trails are

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 4:18 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > Disambiguation. US:FS:Hood and US:FS:Ozark are two different national forest service networks with entirely different numbering schemes. Plus network=CA by itself would be Canada, not California, which is US:CA... Paul, do you have a list

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

On 12/07/2020 20:13, Taskar Center wrote: Why is the relation type on the Berlin Wall a “collection” rather than “boundary”? Over its history as an object in OSM it's had a whole variety of tags.  Different people have said "This is important!  We should render it!" and have sometimes

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

I do consider a site relation a fitting approach for a city wall. On Sun, 12 Jul 2020, 22:35 Andy Townsend, wrote: > On 12/07/2020 20:13, Taskar Center wrote: > > > > Why is the relation type on the Berlin Wall a “collection” rather than > > “boundary”? > > Over its history as an object in OSM

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

Disambiguation. US:FS:Hood and US:FS:Ozark are two different national forest service networks with entirely different numbering schemes. Plus network=CA by itself would be Canada, not California, which is US:CA... On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 5:07 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > Well, recreational

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

Maybe just tag network=nfn then? Can be applied in any country. Details see oprator and ref. How two distinguish two roads hundreds of miles away from each other? Hm... that is a hard question... Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 13 jul. 2020 om 00:33 heeft Clay Smalley het > volgende geschreven: >

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

@Martin, the quote from the wiki really looks like a multipolygon definition. Would those walls be mapped as a multipolygon instead? Why do you say "A site means things are concentrated around a point", sites relation helps to map disjoint elements, but I don't think I saw anything about their