Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?

I must admit I have never seen none;slight_right in any of the lane tagging. None is only used in cases where there are no arrows on the ground for that particular lane. Furthermore empty is also not a valid value. Empty is only valid in e.g. maxspeed:lanes to indicate that the lane has the

Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?

Thanks James for the explanation, it does make sense now. I hope I wasn’t the only person confused to see that tag.. I appreciate all the work that you’ve put into adding lane details OSM. My goal is to make lane tagging easy for everyone. That said, I think you might be the only person

Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?

I haven’t seen “none;slight_right” as a value and am not sure how that should look different than “slight_right” by itself. However “none” is a value listed in the wiki [1] and I use it a lot as I find multiple vertical bars hard to manually count/edit but I can see and count things like

Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?

Hey James, (Disclaimer: I work for Mapbox, but I am not part of the team that is doing the lane tagging, and can’t speak for them). I do need to know more about your concern: Is `none` as part of a multiple turn lane option documented anywhere? I’m asking because we are adding turn lane

Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?

Hi Mike We are working in a big effort to add turnlanes in 30 cities in USA, https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/180, and fix the invalid turn lanes is part of this project. That was a mistake, it was made using the satellite image , but we know the local knowledge is more important, we've

Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?

I honestly think Mapbox needs to stop immediately editing ways that they think are invalid. I've seen several ways that I've work hard on, know are valid, and are being damaged by edits. The 'NONE' tag in turn lanes is COMPLETELY VALID

Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?

This is on the way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316565385 On 6/10/2016 5:18 PM, Rubén López Mendoza wrote: Hey Mikel, can you send the exact place where did you find the change? We are working fixing the invalid turn lanes. Thanks, Ruben 2016-06-10 16:00 GMT-05:00 Mike N

Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?

Hey Mikel, can you send the exact place where did you find the change? We are working fixing the invalid turn lanes. Thanks, Ruben 2016-06-10 16:00 GMT-05:00 Mike N : > > I'm seeing a number of turn lane tagging fixes referencing >

Re: [Tagging] Request for new tag "natural=upland" (as way) or enabling "way" for "place" tags

On 10/06/16 at 10:46am, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > > (This is just a longer note about non-admin-boundary settlements and why > they are particularly tricky in a lot of New England, sort of separate > From the node/line/way discussion.) > > >>

Re: [Tagging] Request for new tag "natural=upland" (as way) or enabling "way" for "place" tags

Martin Koppenhoefer writes: (This is just a longer note about non-admin-boundary settlements and why they are particularly tricky in a lot of New England, sort of separate From the node/line/way discussion.) >> Il giorno 09 giu 2016, alle ore 18:50, Christoph Hormann

Re: [Tagging] R: Request for new tag "natural=upland" (as way) orenabling "way" for "place" tags

On Thursday 09 June 2016, Amacri wrote: > > On a general note - when things are mapped as nodes this is > > frequently done with the implicit notion that this is a location > > with a certain tolerance margin. You might think of mapping > > something with a linear way as a method to specify an

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Extending kneipp_water_cure

sent from a phone > Il giorno 09 giu 2016, alle ore 21:53, JIDB > ha scritto: > > > Kneipp facilities (de) are popular in german speaking countries. But > currently it is only possible to tag single foot basins (using > amenity=kneipp_water_cure). > did

Re: [Tagging] R: Request for new tag "natural=upland" (as way) orenabling "way" for "place" tags

sent from a phone > Il giorno 09 giu 2016, alle ore 23:43, Amacri ha scritto: > > A polygon provides additional specifications than a line and implies > knowledge of surface information that an historical map could not document > itself and that a mapper shall not

Re: [Tagging] Request for new tag "natural=upland" (as way) or enabling "way" for "place" tags

sent from a phone > Il giorno 09 giu 2016, alle ore 18:50, Christoph Hormann > ha scritto: > > If you can verifiably map a settlement as a linear way you can also map > it as an area. Usually neither is the case so most populated places > are mapped as nodes. I

Re: [Tagging] Request for new tag "natural=upland" (as way) or enabling "way" for "place" tags

sent from a phone > Il giorno 09 giu 2016, alle ore 18:41, Greg Troxel ha > scritto: > > Perhaps there should be some more explicit tagging to denote > uncertainty. But drawing a polygon around the buildings that are part > of the settlement, and including areas that if a