Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:04:57 +0100 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > > > On 3. Jan 2018, at 23:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I have moved some disused:railway=* from OSM to OHM as railway=* > > with start and end dates .. that records

Re: [Tagging] cycleway:both=no in StreetComplete

I agree that this deserves a separate topic, but I want to respond to some points you made. I don't like the highway_defaults idea. Default values should be assumed whenever they are not explicitly given. I don't think that a tag that states "most of those are probably going to be correct" is

[Tagging] Atmospheric railways: the aeromovel of Jarkarta and Porto Alegre

Air pressure powered trains [1] exist in Jakarta [2] and in Porto Alegre [3] and they are currently mapped as railway=light_rail. The wiki [4] defines light_rail as "a higher-standard tram system," but these systems are in some respects a lower standard than tram: tracks must always be quite short

Re: [Tagging] cycleway:both=no in StreetComplete

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Matej Lieskovský wrote: > 1) If we try to add every possible tag to every element, the DB will be > immense and the OWG will try to kill us. Imagine every road having access > tags. Should roads have tunnel=no? I will digress a bit, as

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 04-Jan-18 09:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 3. Jan 2018, at 23:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: I have moved some disused:railway=* from OSM to OHM as railway=* with start and end dates .. that records what was there then, not its present state ...

Re: [Tagging] Subway vs light rail

2018-01-04 13:32 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien : > Do you think we could clarify on > the wiki that there may exist subway systems that run entirely on the > surface? If you believe clarification is needed, then go ahead, ok by me, especially if you write subway

Re: [Tagging] Subway vs light rail

Look up the LRTA's list (it is the office that determines whether a rapid transit is a light rail or metro). All other rapid transit systems are considered subways. 04-01-2018 15:32 tarihinde Fernando Trebien yazdı: > A German mapper just changed the rail type of a line [1] in my area >

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

... also a dismantled (or razed) railway is often mostly still "there". Have a look at this relation and follow its course on satellite photos. You will see that it is nearly completely still "there", not as railway, obviously, but as

Re: [Tagging] cycleway:both=no in StreetComplete

On 4 January 2018 11:57:05 GMT+00:00, "Matej Lieskovský" wrote: >While considering the absence of a value to imply that it is unknown is >an >elegant solution theoretically, I think it has two major problems: >1) If we try to add every possible tag to every element,

[Tagging] Subway vs light rail

A German mapper just changed the rail type of a line [1] in my area (southern Brazil) from light_rail to subway. Here those trains run on the surface (contrary to most subways) and have no at-grade intersections with other traffic (contrary to most light rail systems). Also, metro systems like

Re: [Tagging] cycleway:both=no in StreetComplete

While considering the absence of a value to imply that it is unknown is an elegant solution theoretically, I think it has two major problems: 1) If we try to add every possible tag to every element, the DB will be immense and the OWG will try to kill us. Imagine every road having access tags.

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

sent from a phone > On 3. Jan 2018, at 23:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have moved some disused:railway=* from OSM to OHM as railway=* with start > and end dates .. that records what was there then, not its present state ... disused:railway is about something that is there

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

> Warin wrote: >> >> In which case I like marc tagging solution; >> >> building=school >> building:use=residential >> >> That tags 'what is on the ground'. Kevin Kenny wrote: > To me, it seems to presuppose an unrealistic amount of cleverness > on the part of the renderer, particularly since

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

sent from a phone > On 3. Jan 2018, at 21:17, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > for instance, a private home that was once a schoolhouse, > still bears the school's name on the lintel, looks for all the world like > an old schoolhouse, but is nevertheless a private home.

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 04/01/2018 02:52, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:27 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: building=school building:use=residential That tags 'what is on the ground'. To me, it seems to presuppose an unrealistic amount of

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-04 3:05 GMT+00:00 Kevin Kenny : > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Kevin Kenny > wrote: > >> By contrast, adding 'historic' and adjusting tagging to current use >> is already a common practice among those who fix repurposed >>