On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:56 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> if there is no footway, it shouldn't be tagged as such.
Agreed. But what is a footway? The dictionary says it's "a narrow
way or path for pedestrians". I don't see anything about grass being
disqualified.
But then, "footway" is no
I would not propose both generator:output=* and generator:output:*=yes. I
think it should be one or the other (probably the latter until we
rationally deal with, or drop, semi-colons).
Is there a plan to convert the existing data?
--
Alan Mintz
__
On 28 August 2010 11:12, Richard Welty wrote:
> given that the one i'm looking at calls itself "Diamond Eight Billiards" and
> lists the numbers and types of tables on its web site, i'd think they have
> the right to call themselves a pool hall.
I was trying to show that just because they may ser
On 8/27/10 8:28 PM, John Smith wrote:
On 28 August 2010 03:24, Richard Welty wrote:
it's a tradeoff. in the US, pool halls generally are a mix
of pub and pool/billiards. i could see this:
Just because a place has a pool table, does that make it a pool hall?
Most pubs here have at least one p
On 28 August 2010 03:31, Richard Welty wrote:
> i just found amenity=studio which will do, although i still
> thing office=broadcasting might be helpful to identify
> the business office side.
If you want to be picky, count the rooms... Is there more offices or
more studios in the building?
On 28 August 2010 03:24, Richard Welty wrote:
> it's a tradeoff. in the US, pool halls generally are a mix
> of pub and pool/billiards. i could see this:
Just because a place has a pool table, does that make it a pool hall?
Most pubs here have at least one pool table, same with night clubs but
t
On 27 August 2010 23:34, Peter Körner wrote:
> why exactly do you want to convert a widely used tag (amenity=sauna, ~1000
> uses)
I wouldn't exactly say 1000 uses is widely used... A handful of
mappers, or perhaps even a single mapper, is capable of doing more
than that...
__
>>> To pick a random example:
>>> http://osm.org/go/uG2Mh6iR
>>
>> Oops, sorry for spam, but nearby I spotted a convenient example of the
>> alternative approach: one way that serves as both administrative
>> boundary and river.
>
> Which was one of his points, what if the river isn't the boundary
On 8/27/10 1:22 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 8/27/10 1:18 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/8/27 Richard Welty:
??
office=broadcasting
any other suggestions?
it's not an office. Sorry that I am not helpful with a better
suggestion, but definitely not office IMHO. At least for the techni
Weight Watchers?
Dale Carnegie Training?
Arthur Murray Dance Studio?
some of these cases have been discussed recently w/o resolution, i know.
richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/taggi
Cartinus wrote:
> > Can we still have discussion about that and have it approved - even if it
> > is a bit late ?-)
>
> If it is in use by a significant number of mappers then it is approved, no
> matter what the wiki says.
Yes, but it would be fine for others that the significant number of
map
On 8/27/10 1:16 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/8/27 Richard Welty:
??
amenity=billiards
amenity=pool_hall
any suggestions?
sport? leisure?
it's a tradeoff. in the US, pool halls generally are a mix
of pub and pool/billiards. i could see this:
amenity=pub
sport=pool/billiards
or
l
On 8/27/10 1:18 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/8/27 Richard Welty:
??
office=broadcasting
any other suggestions?
it's not an office. Sorry that I am not helpful with a better
suggestion, but definitely not office IMHO. At least for the technical
part (studio).
generally, they're part
2010/8/27 Richard Welty :
> ??
>
> office=broadcasting
>
> any other suggestions?
it's not an office. Sorry that I am not helpful with a better
suggestion, but definitely not office IMHO. At least for the technical
part (studio).
cheers,
Martin
___
Ta
2010/8/27 Richard Welty :
> ??
>
> amenity=billiards
> amenity=pool_hall
>
> any suggestions?
sport? leisure?
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
??
office=broadcasting
any other suggestions?
richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
??
amenity=billiards
amenity=pool_hall
any suggestions?
richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
2010/8/27 Simone Saviolo :
> As to bikes, the restriction applies. The signal forbids transit to
> any vehicle, with or without an engine, so bycycles are included.
yes, I know, you have to dismount (that's why I wrote "push")
> As to pedestrians, I seem to understand there's a separate footway
OK so I try a short summary of the discussion:
-We are all free to choose tag:key combinations but want to use
representative models for our ideas.
-Long time ago the feature list was founded to collect the most common
ones as guide/reference. It has to be only a selection and can never
cover e
2010/8/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> 2010/8/27 Alberto Nogaro :
>> Not really. In Italy pedestrians are forbidden to walk on any road, when
>> paths (such as sidewalks) designated for pedestrians are available.
>
>
> btw.: there is also strange cases where it seems to me that the
> existing signage do
2010/8/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> 2010/8/27 Simone Saviolo :
>> As to bikes, the restriction applies. The signal forbids transit to
>> any vehicle, with or without an engine, so bycycles are included.
>
>
> yes, I know, you have to dismount (that's why I wrote "push")
>
>> As to pedestrians, I seem
Hi Kim, Hi Peter.
I agree to both of you.
I dislike the big pot "amenity" so it's a good turn to recategorize tags
to other tags fitting better, here I see that.
Nevertheless that should be mentioned in the proposal.
Two remarks to the proposal from me:
1) fee=yes|no should be added to the co
This one's right here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Intermittent_river
There were some discussions on it the past few days in context of
Pakistan mapping.
The usage is different from those tidal edges though.
Am 26.08.2010 23:03, schrieb Samat K Jain:
On Thursday, Au
2010/8/27 Alberto Nogaro :
>>-Original Message-
>>From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-
>>boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Simone Saviolo
>>Sent: venerdì 27 agosto 2010 9.41
>>To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>>Subject: Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
>>
>>20
2010/8/27 Alberto Nogaro :
> Not really. In Italy pedestrians are forbidden to walk on any road, when
> paths (such as sidewalks) designated for pedestrians are available.
btw.: there is also strange cases where it seems to me that the
existing signage doesn't represent the authorities will to re
2010/8/27 Alberto Nogaro :
>>-1. "no" is too strong: pedestrians are never forbidden to go on a
>>road (except for motorways, at least in Italy).
>
> Not really. In Italy pedestrians are forbidden to walk on any road, when
> paths (such as sidewalks) designated for pedestrians are available. They a
2010/8/27 Anthony :
> I'd like to know whether I can walk on a sidewalk, or walk on the
> grass in the right of way next to the road, or walk on the road, or
> not walk there at all. Each is a different situation which I'd be
> willing to do under different circumstances.
I agree on this, but it
>-Original Message-
>From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging-
>boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Simone Saviolo
>Sent: venerdì 27 agosto 2010 9.41
>To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] sidewalks
>
>2010/8/26 David ``Smith'' :
>> * If a
2010/8/27 Pieren :
> My proposal is to change the wiki to tunnel=culvert (then forget the
> bridge/ford).
+1, fine for me. Tag it on the waterway-way. If there is a bridge over
it, or a ford etc., tag this on the road as usual.
> At least, this would make live easier for data consumers which
>
I have also seen what is usually termed a low-water bridge, where you have a
concrete ford across a stream, with a culvert at the center. If the water is
low enough for the full flow to pass through the culvert, vehicles can cross
without getting their tires wet. At medium water levels, the cr
In construction zones, or if there is a steep embankment at the edge of the
road, it is not uncommon for the guardrail or other safety barrier to be at the
edge of the outermost driving lane, leaving nowhere for a pedestrian to walk
except in the driving lane itself. Also, for narrow ways such
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> It may be legal to walk on private property next to a road at least
>> when a car's approaching (I don't really know, what if there's a "no
>> trespassing" sign?). But it's not always ev
On 27.08.2010 13:13, Norbert Hoffmann wrote:
> M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> That's why we try to solve issues with two values in a
>> different way:
>> amenity=bank
>> amenity=atm
>
> Perhaps API v0.7 should allow this (again). This would spare so many
> dicussions about how to avoid this.
It
Hi Kim,
why exactly do you want to convert a widely used tag (amenity=sauna,
~1000 uses) to a very rarely used tag (leisure=sauna, ~13 uses).
The Proposal does not tell why this change is required.
Peter
Am 27.08.2010 14:31, schrieb Kim Slotte:
Hello,
There is plans to replace amenity=sau
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Anthony wrote:
> It may be legal to walk on private property next to a road at least
> when a car's approaching (I don't really know, what if there's a "no
> trespassing" sign?). But it's not always even possible to do so.
Roads are designed with a public "clear
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:17 AM, wrote:
> In a town which does not have underground storm water management, the
> gutters at the side of the roads have to cross one of the roads at an
> intersection so you have a half-elliptical shaped culvert which traffic
> crosses, making a little ford. The wi
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> What if you can walk on the road, but not next to it?
>
> Why does it matter (and how would you determine if it's legal)? (If
> there's no shoulder it's legal to walk next to it at least
>>
>> Sorry, I should have photographed one I passed this morning, complete
>> with
>> water.
>>
>
> I am sure there will be other opportunities to take that photo.
>
> Emilie Laffray
rain has been pretty rare in the last 10 years, so only twice since then
have I seen the water in the little culv
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:55 AM, wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Pieren wrote:
is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use
"tunnel=culvert" (and "ford=culvert" / "bridge=culvert") instead of
the
ambivalent "culvert=yes" ?
>>>
>>> I'd like to know
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
> What if you can walk on the road, but not next to it?
Why does it matter (and how would you determine if it's legal)? (If
there's no shoulder it's legal to walk next to it at least when a
car's approaching.)
__
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> One real problem with routing along
> sidewalks is that they sometimes don't have curb cuts at
> intersections, yet it's legal to cross there. Example:
> http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.457321,-81.45624&spn=0.000993,0.002575&t=k&z=20&lay
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:58 AM, SomeoneElse
wrote:
> I'd say, from a British-English perspective, that in each of these the thing
> called the culvert is the thing below the bridge.
I believe, from an engineering perspective, the culvert is the
structure itself. So the water goes through the cul
On 27 August 2010 13:55, wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Pieren wrote:
> >> is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use
> >> "tunnel=culvert" (and "ford=culvert" / "bridge=culvert") instead of the
> >> ambivalent "culvert=yes" ?
> >
> > I'd like to know what ford=culve
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> Then why map the sidewalks at all, if you're just going to put them
>> next to every road whether or not one exists?
>
> You can't legally walk next to every road.
That's what foot=no is for. Generally walking is only prohibited next
to motorways
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Simon Biber wrote:
>>
>> IMO it's not an incorrect footway, anywhere you can legally use as a sidewalk
>> should be mapped. Just put surface=grass if that's the case :-)
>>
>> For example, here I've tagged
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Simone Saviolo
wrote:
> 2010/8/26 David ``Smith'' :
>> * If a street has its sidewalks mapped separately, the street itself
>> should probably be tagged with foot=no.
>
> -1. "no" is too strong: pedestrians are never forbidden to go on a
> road (except for motorway
On 27/08/2010 13:42, Pieren wrote:
Again, I'm not a native english speaker but It seems that "culvert" is
also used to designate a bridge. Some quick searches on internet:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Culvert_2_%28PSF%29.png
http://www.rommesmo.com/steeltruss.htm
or tunnels:
http://w
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:55 AM, wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Pieren wrote:
>>> is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use
>>> "tunnel=culvert" (and "ford=culvert" / "bridge=culvert") instead of the
>>> ambivalent "culvert=yes" ?
>>
>> I'd like to know what ford=cul
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Martin Simon wrote:
> 2010/8/27 Nathan Edgars II :
>
>> In those cases that are similar to bridges the road surface may change
>> at the culvert.
>
> So just tag what's there: a different surface=* on the road.
(the other) Martin's statement was that "there is no
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Pieren wrote:
>> is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use
>> "tunnel=culvert" (and "ford=culvert" / "bridge=culvert") instead of the
>> ambivalent "culvert=yes" ?
>
> I'd like to know what ford=culvert means first.
>
> __
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Simon Biber wrote:
>
> IMO it's not an incorrect footway, anywhere you can legally use as a sidewalk
> should be mapped. Just put surface=grass if that's the case :-)
>
> For example, here I've tagged the sidewalks as surface=grass
>
> http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-3
2010/8/27 Nathan Edgars II :
> In those cases that are similar to bridges the road surface may change
> at the culvert.
So just tag what's there: a different surface=* on the road.
-Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://list
(sorry I replied on the wrong list)
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Cartinus wrote:
>
> The seventy people who used the tag did not have a problem with
> understanding
> what they did.
>
> bridge=culvert is nonsense: A culvert is not a bridge.
>
>
Again, I'm not a native english speaker but It
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:21 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/8/27 Nathan Edgars II :
>> Bridge=culvert would be the same as tunnel=culvert but applied to the
>> way going over rather than under. It treats a culvert as a kind of
>> bridge, like bridge=suspension or bridge=bascule.
>
> I see.
Hello,
There is plans to replace amenity=sauna with leisure=sauna. Also usage
access in combination is proposed.
Feel free to discuss about the map feature at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sauna
Br, Kim S
___
Tagging mailin
On Fri, 27 August, 2010 7:06:21 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> One real problem with routing along sidewalks is that they sometimes don't
> have
>curb cuts at intersections, yet it's legal to cross there. Example:
> http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=28.457321,-81.45624&spn=0.000993,0.002575&t=k&z=20
On 27.08.2010 11:37, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Tom Chance wrote:
I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not?
I have been contributing to OSM for five years and have never used
semicolons, so I am inclined to go with your proposal.
I
Hi.
On 27.08.2010 11:36, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
One would think that a router would be able to prefer a parallel
footway without a special tag.
+1
One real problem with routing along
sidewalks is that they sometimes don't have curb cuts at
intersections, yet it's legal to cross there. Exampl
2010/8/27 Nathan Edgars II :
> Bridge=culvert would be the same as tunnel=culvert but applied to the
> way going over rather than under. It treats a culvert as a kind of
> bridge, like bridge=suspension or bridge=bascule.
I see. I don't like it because it would mean tagging a property of the
wate
M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>That's why we try to solve issues with two values in a
>different way:
>amenity=bank
>amenity=atm
Perhaps API v0.7 should allow this (again). This would spare so many
dicussions about how to avoid this.
Norbert
___
Tagging
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 7:00 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I'd like to see an example for ford=culvert and one for bridge=culvert
> because I have no clue what this could be.
Bridge=culvert would be the same as tunnel=culvert but applied to the
way going over rather than under. It treats a cul
2010/8/27 Nathan Edgars II :
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Pieren wrote:
>> is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use
>> "tunnel=culvert" (and "ford=culvert" / "bridge=culvert") instead of the
>> ambivalent "culvert=yes" ?
>
> I'd like to know what ford=culvert means first.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Pieren wrote:
> is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use
> "tunnel=culvert" (and "ford=culvert" / "bridge=culvert") instead of the
> ambivalent "culvert=yes" ?
I'd like to know what ford=culvert means first.
_
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:03 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course this can also be an advantage and be solved by subtagging.
>
>
I'm forwarding the discussion on the next mailing list.
is that okay if I modify the wiki page and suggest to use
"tunney=culvert" (and
2010/8/27 Nathan Edgars II :
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:44 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> I'm still in favour of landuse=institutional with subtagging for
>> governments, NGOs, international organisations, religous institutions.
>
> We could slowly get rid of amenity=* by changing the keys t
On 27 August 2010 10:49, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I would not recommend to design a proposal where it is predictable
> that multiple values to one key will occur in this way. I was told
> that it is unlikely that multiple values will be taken into account
> because this is too cost intensive
At 2010-08-27 02:49, =?UTF-8?Q?M=E2=88=A1rtin_Koppenhoefer?= wrote:
2010/8/27 Tom Chance :
>> the suggested semicolon for combinations is never evaluated by any
>> application (AFAIK).
>>
>
> I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not?
we "use" semicolons in cases
2010/8/27 Tom Chance :
>> the suggested semicolon for combinations is never evaluated by any
>> application (AFAIK).
>>
>
> I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not?
we "use" semicolons in cases where 2 values have to be assigned to one
key, but it is not beeing ev
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Tom Chance wrote:
> I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not?
>
> I have been contributing to OSM for five years and have never used
> semicolons, so I am inclined to go with your proposal.
I've come across at least one situation whe
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Simone Saviolo
wrote:
> 2010/8/26 David ``Smith'' :
>> * If a street has its sidewalks mapped separately, the street itself
>> should probably be tagged with foot=no.
>
> -1. "no" is too strong: pedestrians are never forbidden to go on a
> road (except for motorway
On Friday 27 August 2010 07:48:47 lkyto...@cc.hut.fi wrote:
> Highway=path alone, with no access tags at all tells nothing
Yes it really tells nothing at all. highway=path alone is as useless a tag as
you can have, because it is used by different mappers for different things.
(Sorry for butcheri
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:44 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I'm still in favour of landuse=institutional with subtagging for
> governments, NGOs, international organisations, religous institutions.
We could slowly get rid of amenity=* by changing the keys to the
corresponding landuse value: ame
On Friday 27 August 2010 09:17:18 Peter Wendorff wrote:
> > It's not (only) a rendering issue. The name of the road is
> > "Foo street", but the sidewalk doesn't have a name of its
> > own; it shouldn't be named.
>
> As the sidewalk is defined as part of the street, not another way, it is
> named i
Martin,
Thank you for the feedback. One quick question for the list...
On 26 August 2010 18:22, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> the suggested semicolon for combinations is never evaluated by any
> application (AFAIK).
>
>
I have been told two different things, now. Do we use semicolons or not?
I
2010/8/27 Peter Wendorff :
> As the sidewalk is defined as part of the street, not another way, it is
> named in my interpretation.
> Your argument counts, if you say the same for the street itself.
> To be precise we would have to set no name to the street, too and add some
> kind of relation carr
pushing to tagging
2010/8/27 John Smith :
> On 27 August 2010 09:31, Stephen Hope wrote:
>> How about a church run unemployed support centre? (gives out food,
>
> This could border on the absurd...
+1
IMHO all those charity (or other) services run by religious
institutions should not be tagged
2010/8/26 David ``Smith'' :
> * If a street has its sidewalks mapped separately, the street itself
> should probably be tagged with foot=no.
-1. "no" is too strong: pedestrians are never forbidden to go on a
road (except for motorways, at least in Italy). Maybe something like
"not preferred", only
On 27.08.2010 08:06, lkyto...@cc.hut.fi wrote:
contra arguments:
- renderers possibly render more than one name for one street. To
solve that
It's not (only) a rendering issue. The name of the road is
"Foo street", but the sidewalk doesn't have a name of its
own; it shouldn't be named.
As the
78 matches
Mail list logo
