Re: [Tagging] unmarked crossing, tactile paving, lowered kerbs / was: 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

For me it is an unmarked cross . I think it is very common in the USA. May we have to ask ourselves in every land how the local administration deal with putting crossings in our streets. I think the way it is done in Europe and in the USA is different. yopaseopor On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 2:05 AM

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

If we want to split hairs, we can point out that "embassy" is technically an incorrect term for any building since an "embassy" consists solely of people assigned to conduct diplomatic relations with a foreign government, both resident and non-resident.  The "chancery"

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 10:28, Greg Troxel wrote: > > So where I think we are is: > > there is almost zero support for the notion that guy wires or not is > critical and therefore these must not be part of definitions. (Maybe > just Graeme.) > Sorry if I sound pedantic about it - I'm not

Re: [Tagging] Wastewater Plants

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 09:17, Clifford Snow wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:36 PM François Lacombe < > fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> That's a good idea, other components of wastewater treatement plants >> should be mapped the same way >> Nevertheless, man_made isn't

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018, 20:05 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/10/18 02:41, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer > > wrote: > >> On the other hand, speaking about “numbers”, those are probably facts > and not protectable by copyright > > If i'm

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > sent from a phone > >> On 26. Oct 2018, at 01:57, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> for all things which are not buildings and basically exist to support >> antennas, and avoid the tower/mast word choice, which is pretty clearly >> contentious and/or confusing. > > what

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

SelfishSeahorse writes: >> For an example of something used in communications (an American thing, >> but totally normal and other countries surely have equivalent things >> with the same characteristics): >> >> http://www.rohnnet.com/rohn-65g-tower >> >> which says right there can be up to

Re: [Tagging] unmarked crossing, tactile paving, lowered kerbs / was: 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 08:44, Peter Elderson wrote: > I would not tag that as a crossing for pedestrians at all. > Why not, Peter? It is designed for wheelchairs, people with prams etc to easily get from one footpath across to the next footpath, without having to get over a kerb. Thanks

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On 27/10/18 02:41, SelfishSeahorse wrote: On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On the other hand, speaking about “numbers”, those are probably facts and not protectable by copyright If i'm not mistaken, numbers aren't protected by copyright, but a compilation of numbers

Re: [Tagging] Standardizing Mapillary tags and keys

Hello, Le 27. 10. 18 à 00:33, Christopher Beddow a écrit : > 1. when the source for an OSM changeset is from street-level imagery = > `source=mapillary` (this is mostly standard already) I hope that you are talking about changeset tag and not filling all objects with a source tag like we did

Re: [Tagging] Standardizing Mapillary tags and keys

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:34 AM Christopher Beddow < christop...@mapillary.com> wrote: > Is there any critique of these ideas? > I think these tags are only appropriate as changeset tags and never as tags on actual map objects (nodes, ways, relations).

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 06:32, Daniel Koć wrote: > It matches nicely, indeed, but on the other hand this is probably not an > office: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:diplomatic%3Dambassadors_residence > I'd agree that the residence is probably not an office=. We've agreed that

Re: [Tagging] Wastewater Plants

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:36 PM François Lacombe wrote: > Hi > > That's a good idea, other components of wastewater treatement plants > should be mapped the same way > Nevertheless, man_made isn't appropriate for that. > > wastewater=* or at least water=* should be used for such values,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:32 AM Daniel Koć wrote: > W dniu 26.10.2018 o 22:08, Eugene Alvin Villar pisze: > > > On the other hand. diplomatic offices and services encompass a range that > is much too narrow such that I don't think having diplomatic=* as a primary > key seems appropriate. I would

Re: [Tagging] unmarked crossing, tactile paving, lowered kerbs / was: 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

I would not tag that as a crossing for pedestrians at all. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 27 okt. 2018 om 00:14 heeft Graeme Fitzpatrick het > volgende geschreven: > >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 01:01, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >> On 26.10.2018 16:41, Robert Skedgell wrote: >> > On 26/10/18 11:44, Tom

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Hi Here is my opinion about that If your query crossing in taginfo you may find 10 main values [1]: uncontrolled > 668.448 but with marks (generic). I think they might be zebra crossings. zebra > 541.412 traffic_signals > 520.238 with traffic lights unmarked > 146.241 without marks of any kind

[Tagging] Standardizing Mapillary tags and keys

Hello! I want to propose some new keys for the `mapillary=*` tag. I am looking for input on these, then would like to push for approving them (and update the Wiki). This will be helpful as some street-level imagery tools like Pic4Review automatically add tags. At State of the Map US there was a

Re: [Tagging] unmarked crossing, tactile paving, lowered kerbs / was: 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

> So how would you tag this situation: >

Re: [Tagging] lgbtq=primary ? Re: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 01:26, Rory McCann wrote: > What about lgbtq=primary (& lgbtq:*=primary) for "this venue is run > primary for people of the LGBTQ community, or is primarily frequented by > LGBTQ people"? > Yes, I think that would cover it. Maybe "primarily" would be a (slightly) better

Re: [Tagging] unmarked crossing, tactile paving, lowered kerbs / was: 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 01:01, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 26.10.2018 16:41, Robert Skedgell wrote: > > On 26/10/18 11:44, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > >> Tagging "unmarked crossings" does not make sense for me. An unmarked > >> crossing is defined in OSM by a road and a footway sharing a node, there > >> is

Re: [Tagging] Wastewater Plants

Hi That's a good idea, other components of wastewater treatement plants should be mapped the same way Nevertheless, man_made isn't appropriate for that. wastewater=* or at least water=* should be used for such values, shouldn't you? All the best François Le ven. 26 oct. 2018 à 19:23, Clifford

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

sent from a phone > On 26. Oct 2018, at 18:24, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > That's true and i agree, but how would you name a tag of a pedestrian > crossing where pedestrians have right of way (and that doesn't have > traffic lights) crossing=pedestrian_right_of_way? for me that’s a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

W dniu 26.10.2018 o 22:08, Eugene Alvin Villar pisze: > > On the other hand. diplomatic offices and services encompass a range > that is much too narrow such that I don't think having diplomatic=* as > a primary key seems appropriate. I would prefer if we just have the > office=diplomatic +

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

W dniu 26.10.2018 o 21:27, Allan Mustard pisze: > > Regarding the question of using office=* as the primary key or > diplomatic=* I note that the Key:diplomatic wiki article admonishes: > > Note > Do not use diplomatic=* without amenity=embassy since it is not > independently

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

office=government On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 2:53 AM Paul Allen wrote: > If you can come up with a better value than "diplomatic" then do so. If > you don't like it being under > the office key, maybe have diplomatic=* as the primary key rather than a > secondary key under > office (although that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:28 PM Allan Mustard wrote: > Regarding the question of using office=* as the primary key or > diplomatic=* I note that the Key:diplomatic wiki article admonishes: > > Note > Do not use diplomatic=* without amenity=embassy since it is not > independently recognised by

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Regarding the question of using office=* as the primary key or diplomatic=* I note that the Key:diplomatic wiki article admonishes: Note Do not use diplomatic=* without amenity=embassy since it is not independently recognised by renderers. How do we get around that (probably a naive

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

W dniu 26.10.2018 o 20:52, Paul Allen pisze: > > If you can come up with a better value than "diplomatic" then do so.  > If you don't like it being under > the office key, maybe have diplomatic=* as the primary key rather than > a secondary key under > office (although that may well contravene OSM

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:10 PM Allan Mustard wrote: a) consulates are not embassies; > Indeed. If they were the same thing they'd have the same name. :) b) embassies and consulates are government offices, but there is no > agreement that office=government is appropriate; > I suspect that

[Tagging] Martitime disputed borders - was "Add some tag to identify disputed borders ?"

On 26/10/2018 18:16, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: Another related issue -- maritime disputed borders. Indeed, that is a case where overlapping admin_level=2 boundaries may make sense. Another example is around Gibraltar, where both of the interested parties can claim to have some control over the

[Tagging] Wastewater Plants

I'd like to expand tagging of wastewater treatment plants by adding in clarifiers and digesters to the man_made=wastewater_plant wiki page. This came about as I was editing an area with a wastewater treatment facility. I didn't know what the various parts of the facility were called. A friend

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders ?

Another related issue -- maritime disputed borders. In the case of Crimea, the disputed border with Russia is over water, thus not showing clearly in many renderings, and over land with Ukraine, showing as a solid line - thus appearing to side with the Russian interpretation. A while ago Paul

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On 2018-10-26 18:41, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:27 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In OSM I would expect the term government not to be a foreign government but >> a resident one. > > Uniquely, Italy hosts its own embassy to the Holy See (aka Vatican

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Colin, et al, Thanks for this.  You have not misunderstood the doctrine at all, but you have not quite taken it to its full conclusion.  The examples you cite involve interaction between the embassy and the outside world (pizza delivery, lease contracts, employment contracts of local staff, radio

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:27 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > In OSM I would expect the term government not to be a foreign government > but a resident one. > Uniquely, Italy hosts its own embassy to the Holy See (aka Vatican City). So technically, you could use "government" for that

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 17:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:39, SelfishSeahorse > > wrote: > > > > Because road markings at crossings tell pedestrians if they have right > > of way or not. > > it depends on the jurisdiction which kind of markings have which

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 17:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:39, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > > > Yes, the (yellow) zebra crossings are called 'zebra stripes' > > (Zebrastreifen) -- or officially 'pedestrian stripes' > > (Fussgängerstreifen) -- independently if there are

[Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders ?

Hello, There seems to be no actual consensus on the way to map disputed borders. The statement from the Foundation recommend to map the border that "best meets realities on the ground" but it's not what is

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 01:58, Greg Troxel wrote: > > This reliance on guys does not align with engineering reality. guys are > needed depending on forces/loading, and there can be unguyed masts, that > are exactly like guyed masts but a bit shorter. I agree. > > A tower is a tall, slim

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On the other hand, speaking about “numbers”, those are probably facts and not > protectable by copyright If i'm not mistaken, numbers aren't protected by copyright, but a compilation of numbers (i.e. a database) can be protected; if

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 16:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:41, Robert Skedgell wrote: >> >> An unmarked crossing may have no road markings or signs, but if there is >> tactile paving and/or a raised/lowered/flush kerb on the footway >> (sidewalk), how else would one tag it? > > >

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:57:38 -0400 From: Greg Troxel To: Graeme Fitzpatrick Cc: OSM Tag Subject: Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again) Graeme Fitzpatrick writes: A mast is a tall, slim structure supported by guys, usually with external access only This reliance on

[Tagging] lgbtq=primary ? Re: Out of the bars and onto the map: An lgbtq:*=* tagging scheme?

What about lgbtq=primary (& lgbtq:*=primary) for "this venue is run primary for people of the LGBTQ community, or is primarily frequented by LGBTQ people"? lgbtq=majority doesn't cover the aspect of "this venue is run *for* LGBTQ people" implying it's just a numbers game, and could be applied at

Re: [Tagging] unmarked crossing, tactile paving, lowered kerbs / was: 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 16:00, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 26.10.2018 16:41, Robert Skedgell wrote: >> On 26/10/18 11:44, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >>> Tagging "unmarked crossings" does not make sense for me. An unmarked >>> crossing is defined in OSM by a road and a footway sharing a node, there >>> is no need for a

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

sent from a phone > On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:41, Robert Skedgell wrote: > > An unmarked crossing may have no road markings or signs, but if there is > tactile paving and/or a raised/lowered/flush kerb on the footway > (sidewalk), how else would one tag it? obstacle=trap Cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

sent from a phone > On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:39, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > Because road markings at crossings tell pedestrians if they have right > of way or not. it depends on the jurisdiction which kind of markings have which implications or meanings. We’re mostly interested in collecting

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

sent from a phone > On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:39, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > Yes, the (yellow) zebra crossings are called 'zebra stripes' > (Zebrastreifen) -- or officially 'pedestrian stripes' > (Fussgängerstreifen) -- independently if there are traffic lights or > not. is a sign required in

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 15:39, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 16:14, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> we generally do not map road markings, we don’t map the divider lines between lanes, we don’t map diagonally striped areas where traffic can’t go, we don’t map stop lines, we don’t map any

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

> > 26. Oct 2018 11:52 by daveswarth...@gmail.com: > > Thanks, That helps a lot. I don't work with routes (yet) but it when I'm > adding inners to riverbank multipolygons I always add them in the order > they would appear if you were traveling downstream. It just makes sense to > me although

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 14:49, marc marc wrote: > Le 26. 10. 18 à 10:27, Robert Skedgell a écrit : >> Do you have any UK examples of zebra crossings with traffic signals? > > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/D8E > I dind't have any local knownledge of those but you can see that some > mapper repport a zebra

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Le 26. 10. 18 à 14:57, SelfishSeahorse a écrit : > How would you tag the absence of traffic signals? crossing=no_traffic_signals? the most common is crossing=uncontrolled some mappers find it a bad value (and it is) but again, imho that need another propal to avoid an all-in-one

[Tagging] unmarked crossing, tactile paving, lowered kerbs / was: 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26.10.2018 16:41, Robert Skedgell wrote: On 26/10/18 11:44, Tom Pfeifer wrote: Tagging "unmarked crossings" does not make sense for me. An unmarked crossing is defined in OSM by a road and a footway sharing a node, there is no need for a tag here, as there is nothing special. An unmarked

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26.10.2018 11:11, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > In general crossing tag is attempting to tag several different things > at once - for example how I am supposed to tag crossing with island, > traffic lights and zebra markings in Poland? The presence of an island is quite commonly tagged as

[Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26.10.2018 16:24, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > Do you see the contradiction? If the crossing is unmarked, the ground > object already does not provide any guidance. As we map what's on the > ground, there is nothing to map. It's not uncommon for a crossing to be physically evident on the ground (e.g.

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Le 26. 10. 18 à 11:53, Max a écrit : > In Germany you have either zebra markings or traffic lights, NEVER both. so some tagging errors in Germany or that exist but you don't known it for ex https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2965700264 With the aerial imagery Ersi, I see the zebra and a pole...

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 11:44, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 26.10.2018 09:28, SelfishSeahorse wrote: >> What about tagging the presence or absence of traffic signals with a >> subkey, e.g. crossing:traffic_signals=yes/no? > > Why should we invent a new subtagging scheme when we already have one > with crossing=*

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 16:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > sent from a phone > > > On 26. Oct 2018, at 14:57, SelfishSeahorse > > wrote: > > > > And what about the absence of road markings? crossing_ref=unmarked? > > > we generally do not map road markings, we don’t map the divider lines

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > in Switzerland? In Italy they aren’t called zebra crossings (despite the > markings), they’re called traffic lights with pedestrian crossing. A zebra > crossing here means there aren’t traffic lights. Yes, the (yellow) zebra

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

sent from a phone > On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:22, Tobias Knerr wrote: > > There already is a perfectly fine value for marked crosswalks, which is > called "uncontrolled". it unfortunately isn’t perfectly fine, it is completely self contradicting, because markings are a kind of control. It is

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26.10.2018 15:37, Bryan Housel wrote: On Oct 26, 2018, at 6:44 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: Tagging "unmarked crossings" does not make sense for me. An unmarked crossing is defined in OSM by a road and a footway sharing a node, there is no need for a tag here, as there is nothing special.

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

sent from a phone > On 26. Oct 2018, at 15:37, Bryan Housel wrote: > > Try to imagine what crossing the street might be like for someone who can not > cross the road everywhere and could benefit from guidance to tell them where > it is possible or safe. how would this be verifiable? If

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26.10.2018 01:18, Bryan Housel wrote: > Oh! I don’t like `crossing=zebra` either. Not sure whether you caught the > end of that issue #4788, but anyway I've decided I'm tired of hearing people > complain about `crossing=zebra` so going forward iD will support these 2 > presets: > > -

Re: [Tagging] highway=crossing used on ways

On 2018-10-13 11:22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 12. Oct 2018 09:25 by gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com : In November 2015 I fix nearly all such ways, since then the number increased again to 488. I don't know about iD, but JOSM prints a warning

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

sent from a phone > On 26. Oct 2018, at 15:15, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > Because there are countries where pedestrian crossings with traffic > signals also have zebra markings and it's not obvious that > crossing=zebra excludes crossings with traffic signals (they are even > called zebra

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

sent from a phone > On 26. Oct 2018, at 14:57, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > And what about the absence of road markings? crossing_ref=unmarked? we generally do not map road markings, we don’t map the divider lines between lanes, we don’t map diagonally striped areas where traffic can’t go,

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

sent from a phone > On 26. Oct 2018, at 12:26, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Re: precedence of vertical signalling over horizontal signalling > I am not sure about this here in Italy and even less so in other countries. I’m not sure for Italy either but I’m sure for Germany, there is a

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 15:29, Bryan Housel wrote: > > `crossing=marked` and `crossing=unmarked` are not new. They’ve been in use > for years. > > They solve the problem in that they are unambiguous and beginner-friendly. Unfortunately crossing=marked doesn't make a difference compared to

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Le 26. 10. 18 à 10:27, Robert Skedgell a écrit : > Do you have any UK examples of zebra crossings with traffic signals? https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/D8E I dind't have any local knownledge of those but you can see that some mapper repport a zebra ground painting and a traffic light that apply to a

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

> On Oct 26, 2018, at 6:44 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > Tagging "unmarked crossings" does not make sense for me. An unmarked crossing > is defined in OSM by a road and a footway sharing a node, there is no need > for a tag here, as there is nothing special. > > Otherwise I would need to set a

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 12:53, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki wrote: > > On 26.10.2018 10.44, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > > There are some marked non-zebra crossings in Switzerland: > > > > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/zMqUsiFYNMiJ3_kA4ODHSQ > > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/OVsXNBwnJXFIAobJxFjUlQ > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

They end in gov.tm, and UK government domains end in gov.uk. UK embassy employees abroad have addresses ending in fco.gov.uk Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 26, 2018, at 11:11 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > > sent from a phone > >> On 26. Oct 2018, at 05:14, Allan Mustard wrote:

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

> On Oct 26, 2018, at 6:26 AM, marc marc wrote: > > Le 26. 10. 18 à 01:18, Bryan Housel a écrit : >> I don’t like `crossing=zebra` either.<...> iD will support these 2 presets: >> - `crossing=marked` which is labeled “Marked Crosswalk" >> - `crossing=unmarked` which is labeled “Unmarked

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 12:46, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > Why should we invent a new subtagging scheme when we already have one with > crossing=* + crossing_ref=* ? Because there are countries where pedestrian crossings with traffic signals also have zebra markings and it's not obvious that

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 12:37, marc marc wrote: > > Le 26. 10. 18 à 09:28, SelfishSeahorse a écrit : > > What about tagging the presence or absence of traffic signals with a > > subkey, e.g. crossing:traffic_signals=yes/no? > > it is indeed always possible to take out all the values to make > them

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Hi Lionel, Thank you for this clarification I agree on classification, let's talk about tagging Le ven. 26 oct. 2018 à 11:30, Lionel Giard a écrit : > > And as a sub-type (indicating type of construction) : we got the "lattice > pylon", "tubular pylon", "lattice mast", "tubular mast" or just

[Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26.10.2018 13.26, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Re: marking= zebra > Problem is that the zebra stripes can have different meaning in > different countries. In Italy it can mean, depending on the context: > "foot-only" or "foot-and-bicycle". In addition we also have additional > non-zebra signing for

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26.10.2018 10.44, SelfishSeahorse wrote: > There are some marked non-zebra crossings in Switzerland: > > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/zMqUsiFYNMiJ3_kA4ODHSQ > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/OVsXNBwnJXFIAobJxFjUlQ > > However, i'm unsure if vehicles have to stop there if pedestrians want

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Le 26. 10. 18 à 09:41, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > traffic light controlled crossings also have zebra markings. so a crossing with a zebra ground marking (as a armchair mapper may create) must not be mapped with crossing=zebra :) It's the need to move ground marking out of the crossing=* key

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26.10.2018 09:28, SelfishSeahorse wrote: What about tagging the presence or absence of traffic signals with a subkey, e.g. crossing:traffic_signals=yes/no? Why should we invent a new subtagging scheme when we already have one with crossing=* + crossing_ref=* ? On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Le 26. 10. 18 à 09:28, SelfishSeahorse a écrit : > What about tagging the presence or absence of traffic signals with a > subkey, e.g. crossing:traffic_signals=yes/no? it is indeed always possible to take out all the values to make them keys. but if iD only enters the marking in crossing_ref like

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Le 26. 10. 18 à 01:18, Bryan Housel a écrit : > I don’t like `crossing=zebra` either.<...> iD will support these 2 presets: > - `crossing=marked` which is labeled “Marked Crosswalk" > - `crossing=unmarked` which is labeled “Unmarked Crossing” thanks for understanding that a issue exist, the first

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Re: marking= zebra Problem is that the zebra stripes can have different meaning in different countries. In Italy it can mean, depending on the context: "foot-only" or "foot-and-bicycle". In addition we also have additional non-zebra signing for bicycles. It would be much better to distinguish

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 10:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 11:21 Uhr schrieb Robert Skedgell > mailto:r...@hubris.org.uk>>: > > > I wonder if it's possible differentiate between a normal traffic signal > controlled crossing, an uncontrolled zebra crossing and the type of

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:30, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Tagging way crossing=traffic_island and nodes crossing=traffic_signals is > deeply not obvious. +1. That's too complicated. Furthermore it doesn't work on one-carriageway roads like e.g. here:

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Yes. For example in Poland there are crossing markings that look > very similar and have the same name with different legal > implications. Is there more than one marked crossings type w/o traffic signals in Poland? That is, one where

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

Order of elements is saved in OSM database. 26. Oct 2018 11:52 by daveswarth...@gmail.com : > Thanks, That helps a lot. I don't work with routes (yet) but it when I'm > adding inners to riverbank multipolygons I always add them in the order they > would appear

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

Thanks for refocusing the discussion, Martin. I think the new tag should be amenity=diplomatic. A major reason is the instance where both an embassy and a consulate share a node. If the new tag is amenity=consulate, you would either need two nodes in the case where they share a space, which is

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26.10.18 11:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Often there are also other signs on traffic signal controlled intersections, like stop or give way signs, which only go into effect in the case of the traffic lights turned off (common situation in Germany). Just to clarify: In Germany you have

Re: [Tagging] Another multipolygon question

Thanks, That helps a lot. I don't work with routes (yet) but it when I'm adding inners to riverbank multipolygons I always add them in the order they would appear if you were traveling downstream. It just makes sense to me although there's probably no programmatic reason to do it. Do you know if

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 11:30 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 11:12 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < > matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > > In general crossing tag is attempting to tag several different things >> >> at once - for example how I am

Re: [Tagging] Radio telescopes

Yes, Arecibo message is not turning Arecibo Observatory into tower:communication And there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_astronomy "Radar astronomy differs from radio astronomy in that the latter is a passive observation and the former

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

At my work (a telecom company in Belgium), i see these types of mobile structure construction : - *Self-supported pylons* (the "*tower*", mostly looking like the power=tower in OSM, but also including the (older) self-supported tower in concrete) ; - *Guy-wired pylons* (the "*mast*" as described

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

> A traffic light controlled crossing is not a zebra crossing, even if it has > zebra markings (also here they do have zebra markings) And it may be root of problem. In Poland "zebra" is synonym of  "marked pedestrian crossing" - seehttps://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przej%C5%9Bcie_dla_pieszych

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 11:21 Uhr schrieb Robert Skedgell < r...@hubris.org.uk>: > > I wonder if it's possible differentiate between a normal traffic signal > controlled crossing, an uncontrolled zebra crossing and the type of > crossing you describe using appropriate values of traffic_sign=* ?

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 11:12 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > In general crossing tag is attempting to tag several different things > > at once - for example how I am supposed to tag crossing with island, > > traffic lights and zebra markings in Poland? > in the

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

On 26/10/18 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 10:28 Uhr schrieb Robert Skedgell > mailto:r...@hubris.org.uk>>: > > At a zebra crossing, vehicles must give precedence to pedestrians on the > crossing. No traffic signals are necessary to stop traffic in order

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

26. Oct 2018 03:26 by al...@mustard.net : > > Embassies andconsulates are definitely government facilities/offices.  > Underthe legal doctrine of extraterritoriality, the embassy or > consulate is considered to be located in the sending

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

25. Oct 2018 23:39 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com : > so my request is : how to avoid again a multi-meaning tag ? Create multiple tags and do not attempt to create shortcut again. In general crossing tag is attempting to tag several different things at

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

Untrue. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata#Importing_data A significant part of Wikidata data was harvested from Wikipedia, in which for example most coordinates are produced using/copied from products with licenses

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Am Fr., 26. Okt. 2018 um 10:28 Uhr schrieb Robert Skedgell < r...@hubris.org.uk>: > At a zebra crossing, vehicles must give precedence to pedestrians on the > crossing. No traffic signals are necessary to stop traffic in order for > pedestrians to cross. > > It may be the case that there are

  1   2   >