Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

28 Jul 2020, 09:15 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 28. Jul 2020, at 07:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> As result, in initial stages something
>> used solely as a driveway to a single
>> house will be already named with
>> it's own street name.
>>
>
>
> I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the property as 
> residential (eventually as service) and the part on private grounds as 
> service+driveway. Never use the driveway tag on public ways
>
Why? Driveway may be public both as in
"available to use by general public"
and "constructed on land owned by
government or other public entity" or
both at the same time.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 28. Juli 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

>
> I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the property as
> residential (eventually as service) and the part on private grounds as
> service+driveway. Never use the driveway tag on public ways
>
> Why? Driveway may be public both as in
> "available to use by general public"
> and "constructed on land owned by
> government or other public entity" or
> both at the same time.
>


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

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 5:52 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> Am Di., 28. Juli 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
>
>>
>> I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the property as
>> residential (eventually as service) and the part on private grounds as
>> service+driveway. Never use the driveway tag on public ways
>>
>> Why? Driveway may be public both as in
>> "available to use by general public"
>> and "constructed on land owned by
>> government or other public entity" or
>> both at the same time.
>>
>
>
> citation needed...
>

The turnaround on Larch Mountain Road, on Larch Mountain, Oregon.  Hood NF
15 becomes Hood NF 1500-021 for a moderately sized one-way trailhead
driveway.

Camp Baldwin Road, Camp Baldwin, Oregon.  I believe the main entrance is
Hood NF 4450 and the road has been impassable through the north side of
camp for decades due to an archery range being in the way.  Looks like Hood
National Forest recently renumbered things so where 4450 used to leave the
north end of the camp before it was built is now 4460-140
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] source=RTK_GNSS

[bkil]

So let me just repeat to see whether I understand you correctly. You
would like to see protection measures getting implemented in
OpenStreetMap editors (like JOSM, iD and Vespucci)?

Such protection would warn if any node or way is moved that has
accuracy < 1? And/or it would warn if the accumulated move is more
than the specified accuracy?

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 6:04 PM Allroads  wrote:
>
> Thanks for the accuracy link
>
> “you should mark the approximate accuracy of the given measurement as 
> returned by the instrument in the given instant.”
>
> That is also better.
>
>
> It is just, that you get a hint, source, accuracy, that the data is measured 
> in. Before you drag a node.
> ___
> 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] How to map "piers" on land?

[Allroads]

Could be a groundy path go over in a bridge=boardwalk, change material, change 
fixation to a pier, a pier could also be floating.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bridge%3Dboardwalk


From: Paul Allen 
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 10:09 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 20:44, Matthew Woehlke  wrote:

  Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/651244930. This is a pier 
  with a platform on land that extends into the water. Carto cuts off the 
  part that is on land.


There is no part of a pier on land.  Not according to the wiki: "A pier is a 
raised
walkway over water..." and "Lastly, connect the pier with other ways on land,
otherwise it will result in a "island" that can't be used for routing."  The 
wiki
then goes on to give a misleading or contradictory mention to connecting
to the last node of the pier on land.

Since your pier connects to a footpath, replace the bit of the pier on land
with a closed way tagged area=yes + highway=pedestrian, or similar
(I don't know if area=yes + highway=footway works).  Just because
the surface the person walks on is continuous doesn't make the bit
that's on land a pier.


-- 

Paul




___
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] How to map "piers" on land?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

& for one that IMHO is quite correctly tagged as a pier over it's full
length:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/18776776#map=17/-27.93856/153.43009

https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/10370420-3x2-700x467.jpg

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 16:10, Paul Allen  wrote:
> There is no part of a pier on land.  Not according to the wiki: "A pier is a 
> raised
> walkway over water..." and "Lastly, connect the pier with other ways on land,
> otherwise it will result in a "island" that can't be used for routing."  The 
> wiki
> then goes on to give a misleading or contradictory mention to connecting
> to the last node of the pier on land.
>
> Since your pier connects to a footpath, replace the bit of the pier on land
> with a closed way tagged area=yes + highway=pedestrian, or similar
> (I don't know if area=yes + highway=footway works).  Just because
> the surface the person walks on is continuous doesn't make the bit
> that's on land a pier.

This is not in line with current usage in OSM, e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172671466 or
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/30726754 or
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/626640755

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 21:57, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:

>
> This is not in line with current usage in OSM, e.g.
>

In which case the wiki page is unclear and misleading.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jul 28, 2020, 22:09 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 20:44, Matthew Woehlke <> mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com> > 
> wrote:
>
>> Please see >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/651244930>> . This is a pier 
>>  with a platform on land that extends into the water. Carto cuts off the 
>>  part that is on land.
>>
>
> There is no part of a pier on land.  Not according to the wiki
>
In such case likely wiki should be fixed. Pier may have also section over 
land.

> : "A pier is a raised
> walkway over water..." and "Lastly, connect the pier with other ways on land,
> otherwise it will result in a "island" that can't be used for routing." 
>
Or you overintepret it
"raised walkway over water" may be interpreted as "main part is over water"
or as "not even smallest part is over land".

Similarly "bridge over river" does not mean that only part directly above river
is a bridge, typical bridge has also parts over land.

The same with viaduct over road/railway.

"connect the pier with other ways on land" does not imply that pier 
has no section over land.

> Just because
> the surface the person walks on is continuous doesn't make the bit
> that's on land a pier.
>
In case of continued structure I would consider it as a part of pier.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 28 July 2020, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/651244930. This is a
> pier with a platform on land that extends into the water. Carto cuts
> off the part that is on land.
>
> Is this a carto bug or should the part that is on land be tagged
> differently? (I wonder about the current behavior, because pier
> structures almost never end exactly at the waterline...)

OSM-Carto renders piers before landuse=military.  That is why you don't 
see it in this case.  That is intentional.

There has been discussion to re-design the rendering of piers to be more 
distinct, possibly more like a footway bridge:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2652
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3459

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] Orange County, California Building and Address Import

[Tod Fitch]

I am beginning to thing you are correct that they intend to make the additional 
information available via RapiD and then assume various mappers will use to add 
data to OSM. I think he RapiD data can be accessed via the “MapWithAI: Download 
Data” mechanism within JOSM. In my part of southern Orange County that data has 
only the Microsoft/Bing at present and does not have address or height data.

If I get confirmation of that they are only preparing for use as additional 
layers within RapiD, then I will go ahead with my own import attempt with the 
next steps being creation of a wiki page and making the announcement here.

—Tod

> On Jul 28, 2020, at 12:11 PM, Alan Mackie  wrote:
> 
> I thought the thing ESRI recently announced was basically additional layers 
> within RapiD, but I may be conflating two separate things.
> 
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 15:53, Tod Fitch  > wrote:
> I became aware that Orange County, California has released building outline 
> and address data to public domain [1] and started prep work for import to 
> OSM. In reading through the import guidelines [2] it seemed the process was:
> 
> 1. Create a workflow (but don’t do any actual importing at this stage).
> 2. Document the workflow in both a dedicated wiki page and in the import 
> catalog [3]
> 3. Announce to the tagging list and the list for the area, in this case 
> talk-us, the proposed import.
> 4. Once comments on the proposed import have been addressed, commence the 
> import (documenting progress along the way).
> 
> To that end, I have reviewed the data. Processed sample portions to the point 
> just short of uploading to OSM to verify I think the workflow is okay.
> 
> This is where I am at present:
> 
> 1. I’ve reviewed the data and decided that a rather slow manual process is 
> needed because of the low quality of the building outlines.
> 2. I’ve created a workflow and tested to the point where I think it will 
> result in a good quality import.
> 3. I’ve created a GitHub project containing the description and scripts I am 
> using [4].
> 4. I started to create a wiki page containing the same description but found 
> an existing import page for the same data [5]
> 
> At this point I am paused and looking for guidance as there is another import 
> proposed for this data. I don’t see evidence that this other import has 
> actually started.
> 
> I have added a discussion item to that import page expressing my concern 
> about building footprint quality and the steps that will be needed to bring 
> it up to standard and given my GitHub project page link.
> 
> But I am confused.
> 
> I thought that imports needed to be added to the catalog. This import is not 
> in the table at present.
> 
> I thought that import specific user IDs were required. This import pages 
> states “The plan is for most OSM mappers to use their standard OSM accounts 
> if they are editing with RapiD and JOSM editors. . .”
> 
> I thought that imports needed to be announced in this import list. Looking 
> though the archives [6] for the last few months, I don’t see it.
> 
> So, do I continue with my import plan with the next step being creating a new 
> wiki page for it? Or do I wait for ERSI to do an import then verify the 
> quality? I don’t see a way to participate with ERSI listed in the import wiki 
> page they’ve created.
> 
> Thanks for the guidance!
> 
> Tod Fitch
> 
> [1] 
> https://data-ocpw.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/8db4b58e6bbf4f6cac676f477348be48_0
>  
> 
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines 
> 
> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue 
> 
> [4] https://github.com/n76/OSM_OC_Buildings 
> 
> [5] 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Orange_County,_California_Buildings
>  
> 
> [6] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/ 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 20:44, Matthew Woehlke 
wrote:

> Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/651244930. This is a pier
> with a platform on land that extends into the water. Carto cuts off the
> part that is on land.
>

There is no part of a pier on land.  Not according to the wiki: "A pier is
a raised
walkway over water..." and "Lastly, connect the pier with other ways on
land,
otherwise it will result in a "island" that can't be used for routing."
The wiki
then goes on to give a misleading or contradictory mention to connecting
to the last node of the pier on land.

Since your pier connects to a footpath, replace the bit of the pier on land
with a closed way tagged area=yes + highway=pedestrian, or similar
(I don't know if area=yes + highway=footway works).  Just because
the surface the person walks on is continuous doesn't make the bit
that's on land a pier.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 22:51, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Jul 28, 2020, 22:09 by pla16...@gmail.com:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 20:44, Matthew Woehlke 
> wrote:
>
> Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/651244930. This is a pier
> with a platform on land that extends into the water. Carto cuts off the
> part that is on land.
>
>
> There is no part of a pier on land.  Not according to the wiki
>
> In such case likely wiki should be fixed.
>

If we agree the wiki is wrong, it should be fixed.


> Pier may have also section over land.
>

If the section over land is raised on legs like the section over water,
yes.  Otherwise, maybe.  Or maybe not.  I've seen a pier where
the service road leading to it goes right to the land/water
boundary.  Floating pier.

> : "A pier is a raised
> walkway over water..." and "Lastly, connect the pier with other ways on
> land,
> otherwise it will result in a "island" that can't be used for routing."
>
> Or you overintepret it
>

Or maybe I've seen floating piers. :)

"raised walkway over water" may be interpreted as "main part is over water"
> or as "not even smallest part is over land".
>

I'm often overly-pedantic, but even when I switch off my pedantry I can't
get "main part is over water" from "raised walkway over water."  If it
had said "raised walkway partially over water" or "raised walkway mostly
over water" then I'd go with your interpretation.  As it stands, and taken
in conjunction with that first paragraph, a pier is only over water
(according to the wiki).

>
> Similarly "bridge over river" does not mean that only part directly above
> river
> is a bridge, typical bridge has also parts over land.
>

I'm almost persuaded.  But the wiki entry for bridge doesn't exclude part of
it being on land in the way that the wiki definition of pier does.

>
> "connect the pier with other ways on land" does not imply that pier
> has no section over land.
>

That sentence is ambiguous.  It is compatible with a node on the
land/water boundary that acts as the connection.

> Just because
> the surface the person walks on is continuous doesn't make the bit
> that's on land a pier.
>
> In case of continued structure I would consider it as a part of pier.
>

So would I, if the bit on land is on pillars.  That's not what the wiki
says,
though.  And not how the OP's example rendered.

So there's a carto problem and there's a wiki problem.  And I was right
to map floating piers the way I did. :)

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

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 28/07/2020 03.15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Never use the driveway tag on public ways


Uh... IIUC, "public" driveways are just fine. A driveway is a minor 
service road leading to a residential *or business* property. I've 
tagged plenty of things that aren't really "roads" (entrances to parking 
lots, especially) as service=driveway.


...OTOH they probably aren't technically *public* roads, even though 
there are generally open to the public.


For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/378672974.

--
Matthew

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

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 28. Jul 2020, at 19:26, Matthew Woehlke  wrote:
> 
> Uh... IIUC, "public" driveways are just fine. A driveway is a minor service 
> road leading to a residential *or business* property. I've tagged plenty of 
> things that aren't really "roads" (entrances to parking lots, especially) as 
> service=driveway.


IMHO these a highway=service without the driveway subtag


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

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 28. Jul 2020, at 19:54, Kevin Broderick  wrote:
> 
> The homeowner now maintains the driveway (or sometimes more than one 
> homeowner maintains a shared driveway), but the right-of-way remains open to 
> the public, even beyond the regularly maintained driveway.


if you add service=driveway for the avoidance of doubt I would add access=yes


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

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

[Kevin Broderick]

Re: the discussion of driveways that are public ways, there *are* a fair
number of such things in New England, particularly Vermont. I suspect there
may be other places with similar situations, but I'm not sure; Vermont has
a particular set of laws around town right-of-ways that have preserved
public access to a lot of ways that you wouldn't necessarily think are a
public roadway by looking at them.

In Vermont, the typical case is that a house was built on an old road. The
town then decided to stop maintaining said road, but didn't release the
right-of-way. The homeowner now maintains the driveway (or sometimes more
than one homeowner maintains a shared driveway), but the right-of-way
remains open to the public, even beyond the regularly maintained driveway.
One such example is Orchard Road / Town HIghway 17 in Lincoln, Vermont
(c.f. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/242164910); the legal right of way
continue from the driveway across the lawn and then into the woods, where
it becomes a typical woods road / Jeep trail. I'm not sure about the
history in this case, but the evidence on the ground is consistent with the
pattern (and it happens to show up pretty well on imagery). Where the ROW
dead-ends with the driveway, it's more likely that the town will go through
the steps to release the ROW back to the landowner (particularly if the
landowner is seeking to transfer the property).

In that case, I felt that it was most appropriate to tag the public ROW as
way=residential leading to the house and the continued way as
highway=track. IMO, I don't think service=driveway is appropriate for a
public right-of-way that allows access to other properties or roadways,
even if the *primary* usage is accessing a particular property.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:27 PM Matthew Woehlke 
wrote:

> On 28/07/2020 03.15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > Never use the driveway tag on public ways
>
> Uh... IIUC, "public" driveways are just fine. A driveway is a minor
> service road leading to a residential *or business* property. I've
> tagged plenty of things that aren't really "roads" (entrances to parking
> lots, especially) as service=driveway.
>
> ...OTOH they probably aren't technically *public* roads, even though
> there are generally open to the public.
>
> For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/378672974.
>
> --
> Matthew
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Kevin Broderick
k...@kevinbroderick.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Orange County, California Building and Address Import

[Tod Fitch]

I became aware that Orange County, California has released building outline and 
address data to public domain [1] and started prep work for import to OSM. In 
reading through the import guidelines [2] it seemed the process was:

1. Create a workflow (but don’t do any actual importing at this stage).
2. Document the workflow in both a dedicated wiki page and in the import 
catalog [3]
3. Announce to the tagging list and the list for the area, in this case 
talk-us, the proposed import.
4. Once comments on the proposed import have been addressed, commence the 
import (documenting progress along the way).

To that end, I have reviewed the data. Processed sample portions to the point 
just short of uploading to OSM to verify I think the workflow is okay.

This is where I am at present:

1. I’ve reviewed the data and decided that a rather slow manual process is 
needed because of the low quality of the building outlines.
2. I’ve created a workflow and tested to the point where I think it will result 
in a good quality import.
3. I’ve created a GitHub project containing the description and scripts I am 
using [4].
4. I started to create a wiki page containing the same description but found an 
existing import page for the same data [5]

At this point I am paused and looking for guidance as there is another import 
proposed for this data. I don’t see evidence that this other import has 
actually started.

I have added a discussion item to that import page expressing my concern about 
building footprint quality and the steps that will be needed to bring it up to 
standard and given my GitHub project page link.

But I am confused.

I thought that imports needed to be added to the catalog. This import is not in 
the table at present.

I thought that import specific user IDs were required. This import pages states 
“The plan is for most OSM mappers to use their standard OSM accounts if they 
are editing with RapiD and JOSM editors. . .”

I thought that imports needed to be announced in this import list. Looking 
though the archives [6] for the last few months, I don’t see it.

So, do I continue with my import plan with the next step being creating a new 
wiki page for it? Or do I wait for ERSI to do an import then verify the 
quality? I don’t see a way to participate with ERSI listed in the import wiki 
page they’ve created.

Thanks for the guidance!

Tod Fitch

[1] 
https://data-ocpw.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/8db4b58e6bbf4f6cac676f477348be48_0
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue
[4] https://github.com/n76/OSM_OC_Buildings
[5] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Orange_County,_California_Buildings
[6] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/



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

Re: [Tagging] Orange County, California Building and Address Import

[Tod Fitch]

Oops. Sent to wrong email list. Should have been imports. Please disregard.

—Tod

> On Jul 28, 2020, at 7:52 AM, Tod Fitch  wrote:



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

Re: [Tagging] Orange County, California Building and Address Import

[Alan Mackie]

I thought the thing ESRI recently announced was basically additional layers
within RapiD, but I may be conflating two separate things.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 15:53, Tod Fitch  wrote:

> I became aware that Orange County, California has released building
> outline and address data to public domain [1] and started prep work for
> import to OSM. In reading through the import guidelines [2] it seemed the
> process was:
>
> 1. Create a workflow (but don’t do any actual importing at this stage).
> 2. Document the workflow in both a dedicated wiki page and in the import
> catalog [3]
> 3. Announce to the tagging list and the list for the area, in this case
> talk-us, the proposed import.
> 4. Once comments on the proposed import have been addressed, commence the
> import (documenting progress along the way).
>
> To that end, I have reviewed the data. Processed sample portions to the
> point just short of uploading to OSM to verify I think the workflow is okay.
>
> This is where I am at present:
>
> 1. I’ve reviewed the data and decided that a rather slow manual process is
> needed because of the low quality of the building outlines.
> 2. I’ve created a workflow and tested to the point where I think it will
> result in a good quality import.
> 3. I’ve created a GitHub project containing the description and scripts I
> am using [4].
> 4. I started to create a wiki page containing the same description but
> found an existing import page for the same data [5]
>
> At this point I am paused and looking for guidance as there is another
> import proposed for this data. I don’t see evidence that this other import
> has actually started.
>
> I have added a discussion item to that import page expressing my concern
> about building footprint quality and the steps that will be needed to bring
> it up to standard and given my GitHub project page link.
>
> But I am confused.
>
> I thought that imports needed to be added to the catalog. This import is
> not in the table at present.
>
> I thought that import specific user IDs were required. This import pages
> states “The plan is for most OSM mappers to use their standard OSM
> accounts if they are editing with RapiD and JOSM editors. . .”
>
> I thought that imports needed to be announced in this import list. Looking
> though the archives [6] for the last few months, I don’t see it.
>
> So, do I continue with my import plan with the next step being creating a
> new wiki page for it? Or do I wait for ERSI to do an import then verify the
> quality? I don’t see a way to participate with ERSI listed in the import
> wiki page they’ve created.
>
> Thanks for the guidance!
>
> Tod Fitch
>
> [1]
> https://data-ocpw.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/8db4b58e6bbf4f6cac676f477348be48_0
> [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue
> [4] https://github.com/n76/OSM_OC_Buildings
> [5]
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Orange_County,_California_Buildings
> [6] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/
>
> ___
> 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] How to map "piers" on land?

[Matthew Woehlke]

Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/651244930. This is a pier 
with a platform on land that extends into the water. Carto cuts off the 
part that is on land.


Is this a carto bug or should the part that is on land be tagged 
differently? (I wonder about the current behavior, because pier 
structures almost never end exactly at the waterline...)


For that matter, how would something like this (a wood-surfaced raised 
observation deck) in the middle of a grass field be tagged? I've seen 
such things in some parks.


--
Matthew

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

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 28. Jul 2020, at 07:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> As result, in initial stages something
> used solely as a driveway to a single
> house will be already named with
> it's own street name.


I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the property as 
residential (eventually as service) and the part on private grounds as 
service+driveway. Never use the driveway tag on public ways


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