Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

27. Lipiec 2018 03:38 od t...@fitchdesign.com : > > My take is to toss an idea/problem into the list and see if there is anything > that comes back in the first few days that alters your opinion on how to tag. > Sometimes there are good suggestions that can improve y

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

On 27/07/18 11:38, Tod Fitch wrote: On Jul 26, 2018, at 5:45 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: The only outcome of that thread - and several threads on the same subject that preceded it - was that there was no consensus. I’ve been following the talk and tagging lists for a couple of years now and don’t

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

> On Jul 26, 2018, at 5:45 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > The only outcome of that thread - and several threads on the same > subject that preceded it - was that there was no consensus. I’ve been following the talk and tagging lists for a couple of years now and don’t think I’ve seen consensus on

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

On 27/07/18 10:45, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 3:40 PM marc marc wrote: Le 26. 07. 18 à 19:39, Szem a écrit : did you read the previous (a few month ago) thread about this kind of issue ? imho *=licence is included in the current meaning of *=customers The only outcome of that t

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 3:40 PM marc marc wrote: > Le 26. 07. 18 à 19:39, Szem a écrit : > did you read the previous (a few month ago) thread about this kind of > issue ? > imho *=licence is included in the current meaning of *=customers The only outcome of that thread - and several threads on th

Re: [Tagging] RFC: property for the presence of pitch markings

On 26/07/18 23:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Please comment on this proposal for a property to denote the presence of pitch markings / field markings. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pitch_markings I would particularly be interested to learn from you, if there should be

Re: [Tagging] Mirror setting marks

It would be part of a highway - so can be a sub tag as Tom suggests. I don't know about the name .. there must be a better term. I'll try to think of one. On 27/07/18 07:04, Tom Pfeifer wrote: In order to shorten the tag, avoid the crowded amenity space, and be more descriptive what vehicles

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Line clamps

Hi all, This proposal intends to free tower:type from specific power values (suspension, anchor...) and introduces line_clamp key https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps It may be useful to extend the concept to other power supports, not only towers and other fields of

Re: [Tagging] Mirror setting marks

In order to shorten the tag, avoid the crowded amenity space, and be more descriptive what vehicles they are for, what about 'hgv=mirror_adjustments' ? On 26.07.2018 22:04, Tijmen Stam wrote: On 26-07-18 15:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I'm fine with your proposal, I just wondered if the name

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

I went and updated the wiki a little bit. I added details to the building=house and building=detached pages. I also made a page for the building=semidetached_house

Re: [Tagging] Mirror setting marks

On 26-07-18 15:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I'm fine with your proposal, I just wondered if the name is appropriate. Is access to these sites regulated / opening hours, etc., is it just a kind of "parking space" (where you might not be allowed to park), etc. An alternative could be mirror_adju

Re: [Tagging] power=line layer tag?

2018-07-26 21:32 GMT+02:00 marc marc : > > I don't think so. it's implicit that the road is under the aerial line. > I never see any issue with that. > +1 and location defaults to overhead. François ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org h

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

Le 26. 07. 18 à 19:39, Szem a écrit : > I'd like to draw your attention to a problem: did you read the previous (a few month ago) thread about this kind of issue ? imho *=licence is included in the current meaning of *=customers Regards, Marc ___ Taggi

Re: [Tagging] power=line layer tag?

Le 26. 07. 18 à 19:30, Sebastian a écrit : > just wondering as I add some maintenance roads under power lines. > Should the lines be tagged with layer=1? I don't think so. it's implicit that the road is under the aerial line. I never see any issue with that. _

[Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

Hi all, Yet another discussion about values with units in the database. In particular situations of keys implying particular units (like voltage=* with Volt), would it be good to improve tools, editors, websites or any other stuff dedicated to human reading to get voltage=40 displayed as volta

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

On 26 July 2018 19:47:11 CEST, Sebastian wrote: >Thanks for this explanation. Detached sounds very strange to me. >Terrace house evokes in me the feeling of rice terraces or something >with a >distinct height difference between them. Terrace is a very common term and housing style in the UK, wel

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

Thanks for this explanation. Detached sounds very strange to me. Terrace house evokes in me the feeling of rice terraces or something with a distinct height difference between them. In Australia houses that share one or more walls with the next house (can be one or both sides) are called town hous

[Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

Hi, I'd like to draw your attention to a problem: There are many special roads in Hungary only used for prior authorization / permission. The total length of these roads are hundreds of kilometers. The type of permit applies to pedestrian / bike access or only motor vehicle depending on the ro

[Tagging] power=line layer tag?

Hi all, just wondering as I add some maintenance roads under power lines. Should the lines be tagged with layer=1? They are definitely above ground and a path/track runs underneath. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstre

Re: [Tagging] Mirror setting marks

I'm fine with your proposal, I just wondered if the name is appropriate. Is access to these sites regulated / opening hours, etc., is it just a kind of "parking space" (where you might not be allowed to park), etc. An alternative could be mirror_adjustment_site but maybe this sounds too big? Cheer

[Tagging] RFC: property for the presence of pitch markings

Please comment on this proposal for a property to denote the presence of pitch markings / field markings. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pitch_markings I would particularly be interested to learn from you, if there should be suggestions for more detail (e.g. multiple overla

Re: [Tagging] Mirror setting marks

2018-07-26 15:18 GMT+02:00 Tijmen Stam : > > c: if not, I propose amenity=mirror_adjustment_marks and will make a > proposal on the wiki is it only about the marks, or could it be seen as a feature (the Dutch word has "place" in it) and the marks are part of it? Cheers, Martin ___

[Tagging] Mirror setting marks

In the Netherlands and Belgiums, many trucking agencies and some industrial lots have a "Mirror adjusting place" (litteral translation of Spiegelafstelplaats), a series of markings on the ground to check the proper adjusting of a truck or bus's mirrors. An example can be seen at http://transpo

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

On 26/07/18 20:29, Andrew Davidson wrote: On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote: Question 1: a/ flood_mark b/ high_water_mark c/ highwater_mark A. High water mark is the level that the water got to, so if you marked that it would be a high water mark marker Question 2: Which ta

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote: Question 1: a/ flood_mark b/ high_water_mark c/ highwater_mark A. High water mark is the level that the water got to, so if you marked that it would be a high water mark marker Question 2: Which tagging convention should we follow: a