There's the documened natural=riverbed.
Yves
Le 8 septembre 2018 02:07:48 GMT+02:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>Humm
>I would tend to just mark the river .. not the bank at all. But..
>
>However the river bank would be seasonal?
>So possibly a seasonal tagging would suit?
>
>so one
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 6:20 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 08:26, Dave Swarthout
> wrote:
>
>> I'm still looking for a simple solution that allows me to tag
>> slow_vehicle_turnout lanes in such a way that makes them visible to drivers
>> using a GPS as they motor along
If the short 'passing_place' is tagged the same as a longer lane .. then
how is it distinguished?
You cannot count on the mapper to mark the length of it every time.
So a 100 meter one could have the same tagging as a 10 meter one. That
is not good.
I think the present tag of passing_place ne
On 08/09/18 09:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 8. Sep 2018, at 01:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
I'm also quite definitely not an expert Dave :-), but personally, I think that
your highway=service + service=turnout concept may be the easiest, least messy
or complicated w
Humm
I would tend to just mark the river .. not the bank at all. But..
However the river bank would be seasonal?
So possibly a seasonal tagging would suit?
so one area with seasonal=summer;autumn;winter (or dry_season)
and another area with seasonal=spring (or wet_season)
On 08/09/18 09:09, D
sent from a phone
> On 8. Sep 2018, at 01:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> I'm also quite definitely not an expert Dave :-), but personally, I think
> that your highway=service + service=turnout concept may be the easiest, least
> messy or complicated way of doing it?
if these are lanes i
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 08:26, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> I'm still looking for a simple solution that allows me to tag
> slow_vehicle_turnout lanes in such a way that makes them visible to drivers
> using a GPS as they motor along behind a sluggish truck or bus: "Turnout
> lane ahead in 1000 meters".
> What should we be marking as the "riverbank" - where the water is visible
"now", or the defined limits of where it spreads out to in the wet season?
This is an excellent question that applies to Alaska's braided rivers as
well. As they are without man-made flood controls or artificial
embankment
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 05:40, Richard wrote:
> everything can be handled with waterway=riverbanks at least as well.
>
Question regarding riverbanks & where they should be marked, thanks?
Was doing some HOT mapping a little while back in Nepal & the area I was
working on was surrounding a river -
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:16 PM François Lacombe
wrote:
> Le ven. 7 sept. 2018 à 21:40, Richard a écrit :
>> > The idea that waterway=* must be routable is, frankly, a new one to
>> > me.
>> that idea is nonsense.. there was never the assertion that
>> waterway=ditch,stream
>> be navigable.
> Th
The situation in the video is the one for which the tag passing_place was
invented. I think the name is misleading for the reasons I've stated
before. I agree that such places are perhaps best described by a node, as
demonstrated in the Wiki definition but this situation is, I think,
considerably
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 21:35, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> This only applies for the seaward continuation of a river, for a tidal
> channel without any significant freshwater inflow waterway=river would
> be wrong - like here:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/401730961
> https://www.openstree
sent from a phone
> On 7. Sep 2018, at 15:51, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> The idea that waterway=* must be routable is, frankly, a new one to
> me. How is a mapper supposed to tag a non-navigable river?
and which vessel should you choose for cruising in a ditch? There are
definitions for water
Would you favour a campaign like the one to update old style multipolygons then?
--
Andrew
From: Dave F
Sent: 06 September 2018 19:04:23
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Is waterway=riverbank an 'Old scheme' ?
Clarifying:
natural=water, water
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 11:14:40PM +0200, François Lacombe wrote:
> Le ven. 7 sept. 2018 à 21:40, Richard a écrit :
>
> >
> > > The idea that waterway=* must be routable is, frankly, a new one to
> > > me.
> >
> > that idea is nonsense.. there was never the assertion that
> > waterway=ditch,stre
Le ven. 7 sept. 2018 à 21:40, Richard a écrit :
>
> > The idea that waterway=* must be routable is, frankly, a new one to
> > me.
>
> that idea is nonsense.. there was never the assertion that
> waterway=ditch,stream
> be navigable.
>
That escalated quickly !
Routable doesn't mean navigable at
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 09:51:31AM -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 6:38 PM François Lacombe
> wrote:
> > To me, waterway=* should only get values to map linear water courses for
> > the routable hydrographic network.
> > Newer tagging with natural=water sounds ok, except for ar
On 06/09/2018 12:37, Steve Doerr wrote:
Note that in 'passing place', as commonly used in the UK at least, the
reference is usually to two vehicles going in opposite directions, so
it's not the same as overtaking (though 'passing' does mean that as
well, more often in fact).
Not strictly t
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 6:38 PM François Lacombe
wrote:
> To me, waterway=* should only get values to map linear water courses for the
> routable hydrographic network.
> Newer tagging with natural=water sounds ok, except for artificial water
> features.
> I'm not so keen of natural=water over a m
On Friday 07 September 2018, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> But I am uncertain what to do with the waterway=river in the case of
> tidal channels and the complex connections between rivers in these
> mangrove areas. A search of taginfo did not find an alternative tag,
> although river=tidal is in use. I
20 matches
Mail list logo