Re: [Tagging] Hands Off !, respect my (our) space
Off list. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TAGGING LIST. Desist. On 25/8/20 12:50 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote: In ID, on your profile page is, Other nearby users, and the home location, map the point is other locals based on my (our) edits know where we (I) live, but come on don’t edit the building i (we) live in ! ___ 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] Village swings, for adults, in Eastern Europe and elsewhere?
There is a newly documented tag: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dvillage_swing "A village swing (Estonian: külakiik, Finnish: kyläkeinu) is a large swing that is designed to be ridden by multiple adults. They are typically made out of wood and are common on village recreational grounds in Estonia and Finland." The other, common tag for swings intended for children is playground=swing - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:playground#Motion_devices The key "playground=" suggests that these are usually intended for children, since they are usually inside of a leisure=playground feature which is defined as for children: "a children's playground, playpark, or play area. These are outdoor (sometimes indoor) areas specifically designed for children to play. " - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dplayground Traditional village swings in Estonia are different than the modern ones for children, but they are clearly the same sort of thing, though with a different audience. Should we suggest using playground=swing even for these traditional devices for adults, or is it better to have a totally new tag? -- Joseph Eisenberg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges
Hi Andrew Harvey skrev: (25 augusti 2020 00:39:55 CEST) >On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 06:27, pangoSE wrote: > >> The POI IMO cannot logically have an adress itself, its a human >symbol for >> designating something of interest within a feature like a building, >park or >> whatever. Adresses are specialized designations used by the state and >> postal service. You cannot apply for an address for a newsstand, a >> phonebooth or a park (In Sweden) >> > >By that logic (at least in Australia) the building cannot have an >address, >after all here land parcels hold the address not the building, but we >still >commonly tag the building or POI with an address since they "hold" the >address. Yeah, its probably the same here because you can have a land plot without a house but with a postbox and address anyway. It is a compromise to put it on the buildings where they exist because land plots is out of scope. What I mean is that its a bad idea to keep the exact same data in multiple places and thinking about it postal addresses follows land plots and legal boundaries and not POIs. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges
On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 06:27, pangoSE wrote: > The POI IMO cannot logically have an adress itself, its a human symbol for > designating something of interest within a feature like a building, park or > whatever. Adresses are specialized designations used by the state and > postal service. You cannot apply for an address for a newsstand, a > phonebooth or a park (In Sweden) > By that logic (at least in Australia) the building cannot have an address, after all here land parcels hold the address not the building, but we still commonly tag the building or POI with an address since they "hold" the address. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension
> > how could you change the definition of an undocumented tag? > Easy. It happens all the time, you just never hear about it. ___ > 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] Network-tag needs extension
sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 22:10, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > But if you want to change the definition how could you change the definition of an undocumented tag? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges
Hi Martin Martin Koppenhoefer skrev: (24 augusti 2020 02:16:27 CEST) > > >sent from a phone > >> On 23. Aug 2020, at 23:20, pangoSE wrote: >> >> This collides with one feature one element does it not? > > >it does not. An address is not (necessarily) a feature, it can also be >a property Hmm. I don't buy that argument. If that is a valid argument you could have copies of data in many places in OSM say all tags on a way could be added to each node as well for "stability". The problem is that it is a unnecessary burden IMO to maintain of. > > >> Can you give an example of what you mean by stable? > > >if you move the POI or the building geometry, the (surveyed) POI >address is still explicitly tagged. Why would anyone do that? > >Also useful when the POI is approximately placed (e.g. in a >neighbouring building, happens quite often, at least as long as most >POIs are not yet mapped) Really? Can you link to an example? I have never come across a POI that needed a special address. I would rather map to he entry in the that case and put the address there. The POI IMO cannot logically have an adress itself, its a human symbol for designating something of interest within a feature like a building, park or whatever. Adresses are specialized designations used by the state and postal service. You cannot apply for an address for a newsstand, a phonebooth or a park (In Sweden) In Sweden the postal system works only with physical places designated by Lantmäteriet as a legal piece of ground. You cannot assign an adress yourself to a random area in the forest for example no matter if it has a world famous POI or not. The Swedish community has decided that we add addresses to buildings and entries instead of having points (like in Denmark). When the Swedish geosurvey sometime soon release all public adresses for free we will have to merge them all with the buildings where possible. I hope they will give all their adress nodes unique, permanent IDs to help us synchronize in the future. Cheers ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension
Since the tag has already been used 20k times, it is ok to make a page which documents how the tag is currently being used by most mappers. But if you want to change the definition Or other wiki pa a, or recommended use of any tags, then you should use the proposal process. - Joseph Eisenbweg On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:58 AM Michael Schmidt via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > So, how to go on from here? My proposal stands. > > To substantiate this, I found on taginfo, that network:short is actually > in usage: 21k (btw. network:long: 34) > > I saw, that there are votes, but I'm totally New to the tagging mailing > list.. > > 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] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
Hi Cj Cj Malone skrev: (23 augusti 2020 23:56:33 CEST) >> Not exactly a very user-friendly system though, especially if you're >> only trying to review requested changes? >> >> & with somewhere between 300k - 600k changes sitting there to look >> at, I don't think the chances are all that high that somebody will >> spot any errors! > >On the face of it I agree, it's a non obvious system and and reviewing >changesets should be encouraged more. I would consider myself an >advanced mapper now, and I've never reviewed a changeset. I never even >knew how to. > >However as an anecdote, the current system seems to work, when I >requested a review of my first 3D building I not only got one, but it >got fixed. [1] [2] > >Cj > >[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70583513 >[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/70610688 Thanks for sharing. that's nice to hear. I think we should make it dead simple to monitor how many reviews are done. A checkbox titled "this a review" would be a very nice addition IMO if stored in a Boolean column in the database it could be easily counted how many cs have requested and gotten reviews. I'll try if I can get together with others here in Sweden to review more. Its always more fun to do stuff together. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension
sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 20:58, Michael Schmidt via Tagging > wrote: > > So, how to go on from here? My proposal stands. you should follow the proposal process as delineated in the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process i.e. set up a page in the proposal namespace of the wiki, ask for comments here (RFC), and 2 weeks later you can start voting. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension
So, how to go on from here? My proposal stands. To substantiate this, I found on taginfo, that network:short is actually in usage: 21k (btw. network:long: 34) I saw, that there are votes, but I'm totally New to the tagging mailing list.. Regards Michael___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture
RE: "Would something like hindrance:target = lying_down or hindrance:target
= sitting be more clear?"
While this is somewhat less ambiguous, it looks and sounds quite strange in
English, and it's quite long.
How about "lying_down=obstructed", "sitting=obstructed",
"skating=obstructed" or something like that?
I also think it would be a good idea to tag the physical obstructions, like
width=, length=, slope=, arm_rests=, spikes=, skatestoppers=, etc, as
others have mentioned.
– Joseph Eisenberg
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:46 AM Vucod via Tagging
wrote:
>
> Just to clarify an important point. The hostile_architecture key was
suggested as a main/category tag to go along with specific keys
(lying_hindrance, sitting_hindrance).
> Used alone, I agree that it would be very vague and could be difficult to
verify. I would say to only use it in combination with specific keys but I
don't know how this would be followed by mappers...
>
> On the specific tags:
>
> @Josepth Eisenberg(mail below):
>
> As others have said, no_* and *=prohibited loose the notion of hindrance
that is crucial if we want to map physical and visible things. Would
something like hindrance:target = lying_down or hindrance:target = sitting
be more clear? And yes, the goal is to make clear that {lying|sitting|...}
is physically obstructed (no relation to legal usage).
>
> @Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> "what about benches being completely removed (or never installed), it’s
equally hostile but not mappable. Or shops who are right away not built in
a way that you could sit down on their facade."
>
> With tags like lying_hindrance and sitting_hindrance, we don't look for
the intentions of the builders but we just look for these hindrances. So,
we would not map your examples.
>
> "quite common in Rome are inside corners of buildings filled with masonry
(typically up to 1,5m) so people do not urinate (not a recent feature, most
look as if they were hundreds of years old). And in this case, it’s also
probably more beneficial than hostile in the general perception. At least I
guess many of us would deny a right of public urination in the city?"
>
> Yes with the term "hostile", an opinion could be seen behind it but the
term "hostile architecture" refers to the enforcement/prevention of some
> behaviors whether it is good or not. In German and French, they use
defensive architecture/ defensive urban design where it is less opinionated.
>
> @Mateusz Konieczny : ""length was refused as an official key for bench"
Why? Is there some valid reason, or maybe it was part of proposal that
failed for other reasons."
>
> length and width keys on benches were refused because they judged that it
was going too much into details (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Attributes)
>
>
> On the generic tag:
>
> As info:
>
> - "Hostile architecture", a Wikipédia article, a subreddit and 150 000
google results
> - "Hostile design", 20 000 google results
>
> Vucod
>
> August 23, 2020 10:22:38 PM CEST Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The term "hostile architecture" is too vague. As an alternative
"anti-homeless" is also not precise enough. We are getting closer with the
initial suggestion that the feature is to prevent lying down, sleeping or
sitting.
>
> However, I think the tags "sitting_hindrance=" and "lying_hindrance" are
not clear enough in English. The term "lying" is ambiguous, since it can
refer to "telling lies" (falsehoods) as well. Also, in English syntax it
sounds strange to say something is a "lying hindrance", because this would
normally be an obstacle which is lying down, rather than a hindrance to a
person lying down.
>
> So it would be better to change the order of words in the tags, e.g.
"no_lying=" and "no_sitting=" , or just simplify to "sitting=prohibited"
and "lying_down=prohibited" or similar. But I admit that none of those
options are perfectly clear. Perhaps someone else has a better phrase?
>
>
> We want to make it clear that lying down or sitting down is not allowed
or physical obstructed, right?
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 10:38 AM Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 18:22, Oliver Simmons
wrote:
> >
> >> Someone else can probably think of a better suggestion
> >
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> ___
> 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] [Talk-us] Hands Off !, respect my (our) space
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:50 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > In ID, on your profile page is, Other nearby users, and the home location, > map > > the point is other locals based on my (our) edits know where we (I) live, > but come on > > don’t edit the building i (we) live in ! > That's not the way OSM works. Have you considered taking a break and unwinding for a while? There's already a steep learning curve for this project, it doesn't really need to be exacerbated by gatekeeping. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Hands Off !, respect my (our) space
In ID, on your profile page is, Other nearby users, and the home location, map the point is other locals based on my (our) edits know where we (I) live, but come on don’t edit the building i (we) live in !___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:34 AM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Does it really only use the changeset bounding box? That's good as a > first-pass culling test, but I would be somewhat annoyed if my ROI is > "Chicago, IL" and I get notified because someone changed Kansas City, MO > and Detroit, MI in the same changeset without changing anything near > Chicago. > I get annoyed in general when people do that. Grouping unrelated edits into the same changeset is very poor practice. (I do big changesets myself, but the data in any individual changeset are clustered, either in a dense geographic area or along a linear feature.) -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On 24/08/2020 00.47, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:22 PM Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 14:05, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
Andrew, how do you specify a polygon, always wanted to do that but I
thought OSMCha only supports a bbox?
[...] So at the top you should see a map with a button in the top right.
Click that button and trace your polygon on the map.
Thanks. I've always read the text next to the map ("Filter changesets whose
bbox intersect with a location boundary.") as meaning the map helps you
define a bbox. i.e. it wouldn't keep and filter using the polygon, just
uses it to work out a bbox to contain the polygon. Is that text misleading?
Does it really only use the changeset bounding box? That's good as a
first-pass culling test, but I would be somewhat annoyed if my ROI is
"Chicago, IL" and I get notified because someone changed Kansas City, MO
and Detroit, MI in the same changeset without changing anything near
Chicago.
--
Matthew
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 10:40 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > > > On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 15:27, Clifford Snow > wrote: > >> I watch flagged changesets in my state, all changesets in my county and >> all changesets by people I've flagged to watch. I review all edits of new >> mappers to offer them tips if needed. For flagged changesets in the state >> and all changesets in my county I review ones that seem interesting. If >> they request a review I try to review them. So far no one on my watch list >> has reappeared. Those are ones that vandalised OSM and were reported to DWG. >> >> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 9:06 PM Jonathon Rossi >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:10 PM Andrew Harvey >>> wrote: >>> In OSMCha you can create a Filter, and in the Filter creation screen set a polygon area you're interested in monitoring >>> >>> Andrew, how do you specify a polygon, always wanted to do that but I >>> thought OSMCha only supports a bbox? >>> >> >> You can specify a city, county, state or country as well as a bounding >> box when creating a filter. >> > > How were you able to view multiple filters at the same time (eg. watchlist > of users anywhere + all changesets within bounds)? Or do you have to > constantly need to switch filters? I can only handle one listing so > anything I can't fit into one filter I miss even though I'd prefer to see > it. > Harvey, I have three different osmcha saved filters with rss feeds. -- @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] Benches and hostile architecture
Just to clarify an important point. The hostile_architecture key was suggested
as a main/category tag to go along with specific keys (lying_hindrance,
sitting_hindrance).
Used alone, I agree that it would be very vague and could be difficult to
verify. I would say to only use it in combination with specific keys but I
don't know how this would be followed by mappers...
On the specific tags:
@Josepth Eisenberg(mail below):
As others have said, no_* and *=prohibited loose the notion of hindrance that
is crucial if we want to map physical and visible things. Would something like
hindrance:target = lying_down or hindrance:target = sitting be more clear? And
yes, the goal is to make clear that {lying|sitting|...} is physically
obstructed (no relation to legal usage).
@Martin Koppenhoefer :
"what about benches being completely removed (or never installed), it’s equally
hostile but not mappable. Or shops who are right away not built in a way that
you could sit down on their facade."
With tags like lying_hindrance and sitting_hindrance, we don't look for the
intentions of the builders but we just look for these hindrances. So, we would
not map your examples.
"quite common in Rome are inside corners of buildings filled with masonry
(typically up to 1,5m) so people do not urinate (not a recent feature, most
look as if they were hundreds of years old). And in this case, it’s also
probably more beneficial than hostile in the general perception. At least I
guess many of us would deny a right of public urination in the city?"
Yes with the term "hostile", an opinion could be seen behind it but the term
"hostile architecture" refers to the enforcement/prevention of some
behaviors whether it is good or not. In German and French, they use defensive
architecture/ defensive urban design where it is less opinionated.
@Mateusz Konieczny : ""length was refused as an official key for bench" Why? Is
there some valid reason, or maybe it was part of proposal that failed for other
reasons."
length and width keys on benches were refused because they judged that it was
going too much into details
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Attributes)
On the generic tag:
As info:
- "Hostile architecture", a Wikipédia article, a subreddit and 150 000 google
results
- "Hostile design", 20 000 google results
Vucod
August 23, 2020 10:22:38 PM CEST Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
The term "hostile architecture" is too vague. As an alternative "anti-homeless"
is also not precise enough. We are getting closer with the initial suggestion
that the feature is to prevent lying down, sleeping or sitting.
However, I think the tags "sitting_hindrance=" and "lying_hindrance" are not
clear enough in English. The term "lying" is ambiguous, since it can refer to
"telling lies" (falsehoods) as well. Also, in English syntax it sounds strange
to say something is a "lying hindrance", because this would normally be an
obstacle which is lying down, rather than a hindrance to a person lying down.
So it would be better to change the order of words in the tags, e.g.
"no_lying=" and "no_sitting=" , or just simplify to "sitting=prohibited" and
"lying_down=prohibited" or similar. But I admit that none of those options are
perfectly clear. Perhaps someone else has a better phrase?
We want to make it clear that lying down or sitting down is not allowed or
physical obstructed, right?
-- Joseph Eisenberg
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 10:38 AM Paul Allen wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 18:22, Oliver Simmons wrote:
>
>> Someone else can probably think of a better suggestion
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture
>
> --
> 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___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture
sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 15:46, Vucod via Tagging > wrote: > > length and width keys on benches were refused because they judged that it was > going too much into details I don’t know who “they” are, but “they” can well stick with this opinion and not map these properties just like you can use them without asking anyone for permission. With regard to the topic we are discussing here, length and width (maybe depth? Be sure to document which dimension is described with which key, because it doesn’t seem perfectly clear what width refers to) or more generally the dimensions seem quite relevant for the suitability of lying and comfort of sitting. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture
Hi Vucod via Tagging skrev: (24 augusti 2020 15:43:37 CEST) >Just to clarify an important point. The hostile_architecture key was >suggested as a main/category tag to go along with specific keys >(lying_hindrance, sitting_hindrance). >Used alone, I agree that it would be very vague and could be difficult >to verify. I would say to only use it in combination with specific keys >but I don't know how this would be followed by mappers... I think this is a bad idea. Someone wanting to list all examples of hostile architecture could do it using the other tags you mentioned. Hostile is biased and not verifyable and should be avoided IMO. /pangoSE ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture
Wouln't it be more osm to describe visible and verifiable attributes of features, rather than architectural design principles or supposed intentions? Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 24 aug. 2020 om 12:11 heeft Florian Lohoff het volgende > geschreven: > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 01:22:38PM -0700, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >> The term "hostile architecture" is too vague. As an alternative >> "anti-homeless" is also not precise enough. We are getting closer with the >> initial suggestion that the feature is to prevent lying down, sleeping or >> sitting. > > Its not just anti-homeless there are also features which are explicitly > anti-skateboard etc > > Flo > -- > Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de >UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away > ___ > 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] Benches and hostile architecture
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 01:22:38PM -0700, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The term "hostile architecture" is too vague. As an alternative > "anti-homeless" is also not precise enough. We are getting closer with the > initial suggestion that the feature is to prevent lying down, sleeping or > sitting. Its not just anti-homeless there are also features which are explicitly anti-skateboard etc Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture
Hi, On 24.08.20 02:46, Paul Allen wrote: > I'm not seriously suggesting we map them this way but speed bumps are > technically hostile architecture. :) As are cattle grids if you're a cow! Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture
On Mon, 24 Aug 2020, 01:48 Paul Allen, wrote: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 01:27, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> > On 24. Aug 2020, at 01:45, Paul Allen wrote: >> > >> > It's hostile to public urinators. >> >> agreed, but isn’t publicly urinating an offense anyway? > > > In most jurisdictions. So is sleeping on a public bench in many > jurisdictions. > Countermeasures are hostile to those who would otherwise commit > offences. Which is why the wikipedia article considers uncomfortable > benches and walls that discourage urination to be hostile architecture. > > Speed limits are also hostile to people who like to drive fast for example. >> > > I'm not seriously suggesting we map them this way but speed bumps are > technically hostile architecture. :) > Most I encounter are hostile to the speed you're meant to be going, not just to people exceeding that speed. Really quite annoying actually. > > -- > 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] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)
sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 04:12, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > You can tag the changeset in OSMCha as Good or Bad, but unfortunately no > middle ground of just "Reviewed". on the other hand, if you can’t tell whether it is good it probably isn’t reviewed either... Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name
Aug 24, 2020, 07:22 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > > > On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdre...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Draw the bridge outline and tag it with man_made=bridge name=* and you’ll >> see what I mean. >> > > Thanks Martin - yep, it works! > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-28.13129/153.48123 > > Have just fixed a few of them in the general area & found one slight issue. > > Even if you draw in a bridge area, & mark it as layer=1, any roads / footways > running across that bridge also have to be marked themselves as bridge=yes + > layer=1, otherwise they will clash with the river / road underneath, so the > map will show a bridge running across the area of a bridge. > > Does that sound right, or is it a hiccup of some sort? > Yes, you still need bridge and layer tags on roads/footways. (and to preempt next question - yes, bridge area is rendered below all roads, so objects covered by bridge are still visible on a map) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
