Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

What are good reasons to change the direction of a way ? Oneway comes to mind, but is split way at stop sign, revert one arriving way, change the oneway tag of tag a realistic scenario ? So you end up with a oneway way that becomes a two-way road at the stop sign. Are there other reasons to revert

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

Am 27.03.2017 um 17:29 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2017-03-27 16:34 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis >: In the case you have added e.g. a stop sign on the way. A second mapper comes in, splits the way on the stop sign, reverts the direction of one of the spit part

Re: [Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

On 28-Mar-17 03:12 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: In a recent changeset discussion, we have concluded that the best thing might be asking here for opinions. This question is about toponyms. Usually these are tagged within the place-tags (some might be found in "natural" etc.). Someone wants to

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

(Sent again, this time without all the cc: which probably are the cause of the previous attempt being held in the listserv's spam filters... After eleven hours I guess it won't be delivered to the list so I resend) On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:08:13 +0100 yo paseopor wrote: > > I would start a "definit

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

El 27/03/17 a las 16:48, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana escribió: >>/It is a bay of the Tasman Sea/Pacific Ocean. Ecologically it is a fully /> maritime waterbody. > > What do you mean by "maritime waterbody"? A maritime waterbody are all those waters under the influence of the tides. You can rev

Re: [Tagging] Tagging town/village/hamlet - am I misunderstanding something?

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Brad Neuhauser wrote: > Two issues: > > 1) Recommended OSM tagging for place=* on smaller settlements is on the > wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Populated_ > settlements.2C_urban_and_rural You can see it's based mainly on > population and is

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

/It is a bay of the Tasman Sea/Pacific Ocean. Ecologically it is a fully /> maritime waterbody. What do you mean by "maritime waterbody"? A maritime waterbody are all those waters under the influence of the tides. You can review article for natural=coastline. The coastline should be placed i

Re: [Tagging] Tagging town/village/hamlet - am I misunderstanding something?

Two issues: 1) Recommended OSM tagging for place=* on smaller settlements is on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place#Populated_settlements.2C_urban_and_rural You can see it's based mainly on population and is not directly correlated to the form of government. Seems like admin_lev

Re: [Tagging] Tagging town/village/hamlet - am I misunderstanding something?

2017-03-27 18:33 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny : > Local convention in New York is to follow the legal definitions. Fort > Montgomery is legally a hamlet. New York has a few 'hamlets' that are > actually small cities. (Levittown, population about 52,000, is the largest > of these.) I understand that l

Re: [Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

It's unfortunate the wiki definition of place=neighbourhood defintion allows 'fluid borders' and 'well-defined legal and administrative borders' at the same time. Having a tag for informally named places would be a good idea, if the *informal* nature survives the wiki definition subsequent edi

Re: [Tagging] Tagging town/village/hamlet - am I misunderstanding something?

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > As a side note, your example Fort Montgomery, NY, to me doesn't look like > a hamlet, there's an elementary school, shops, a fire department, gas > station, hotel, cafe, sports grounds, and a significant amoun

[Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

In a recent changeset discussion, we have concluded that the best thing might be asking here for opinions. This question is about toponyms. Usually these are tagged within the place-tags (some might be found in "natural" etc.). Someone wants to map named spots in the city, although there are no si

Re: [Tagging] Tagging town/village/hamlet - am I misunderstanding something?

2017-03-27 16:38 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kenny : > But now I see that the places - for example, Fort Montgomery, NY > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/175462 - no longer have their names > rendered on the map. Are municipalities a special case, where the point tag > has to be retained to represent th

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

2017-03-27 16:34 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : > In the case you have added e.g. a stop sign on the way. A second > mapper comes in, splits the way on the stop sign, reverts the > direction of one of the spit parts. Now the node is at the end of 2 > ways with different direction and one cannot know what

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Kevin Kenny > wrote: > > I'm having a hard time picturing any case where this couldn't work. > > In the case you have added e.g. a stop sign on the way. A second > mapper comes in, splits the way on the stop s

[Tagging] Tagging town/village/hamlet - am I misunderstanding something?

Over the last year or two, I've imported or revised or conflated a lot of public recreational facilities (parks, recreation grounds, nature reserves, etc... ranging from urban sites of less than 1000 square metres up to massive wilderness areas of hundreds of square km). In many cases, I've found

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > I'm having a hard time picturing any case where this couldn't work. In the case you have added e.g. a stop sign on the way. A second mapper comes in, splits the way on the stop sign, reverts the direction of one of the spit parts. Now the node

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

I still think that for the overwhelming majority of STOP and YIELD (give_way) signs, the tagging scheme of a node either on the intersection or near the intersection on the approaching way makes sense. And in fact, I think that a fairly simple rule of interpretation actually answers those who comp

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

I don't think it does to be too fussy about what is 'river' and what is 'sea' and what is 'estuary'. Near where I live, a hydrologist would classify the Hudson River as 'estuary' as far as http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/90929525 because it has a measurable tide right up to that point. Neverthele

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

On Monday 27 March 2017, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > It is a bay of the Tasman Sea/Pacific Ocean. Ecologically it is a > > fully > > maritime waterbody. > > What do you mean by "maritime waterbody"? A waterbody where plant and animal life matches or is close to that of the sea rather to that of a r

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:08:55 +0200 Topographe Fou wrote: > > When you say direction=forward I assume it is forward/backward and > not other direction values. Yes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listin

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

> It is a bay of the Tasman Sea/Pacific Ocean. Ecologically it is a fully maritime waterbody. What do you mean by "maritime waterbody"? If you're in Botany Bay or the other bays there such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1333569, you're not at sea or in the sea, or in the ocean. If yo

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

On Monday 27 March 2017, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > What water body is Botany Bay > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botany_Bay part of? > > I don't think it's right too tag the inside of the bay as coastline. > "A coastline or a seashore is the area where land meets the sea or > ocean" the inside of th

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

On 27 March 2017 at 21:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > as there's the coastline as well, it shouldn't produce any problem to remove > natural=water from the bay. We generally don't add natural=water to the sea: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148455492#map=13/-33.9809/151.2086 > because they'

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

On Monday 27 March 2017, Andrew Harvey wrote: > The wiki for natural=bay says "Since bays are generally part of a > larger waterbody, either a lake or the ocean, they should not be > rendered in solid color indicating water themselves." > > This creates a conflict with a recent change to Botany Bay

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

2017-03-27 12:29 GMT+02:00 Andrew Harvey : > > What should we do to fix this? Change the wiki to note that it should > be rendered as water and fix renders? as there's the coastline as well, it shouldn't produce any problem to remove natural=water from the bay. We generally don't add natural=w

[Tagging] natural=bay on areas

The wiki for natural=bay says "Since bays are generally part of a larger waterbody, either a lake or the ocean, they should not be rendered in solid color indicating water themselves." This creates a conflict with a recent change to Botany Bay https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1214649 in http