Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Phake Nick
>M (for mezzanine) is often in between G and 2, and often but not always has some notion of being less than a proper full floor Speaking of which many editors, users, editing software, tenderer and such seems to assume levels must be integer which is not necessary to be correct. For instance, I

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

2019-01-20 Thread Warin
On 21/01/19 16:47, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > “Once you combine the OSM keys and values of landuse=forest and compare it to natural=wood I think most will agree there is a difference,” I certainly do, but I’m a native speaker of English (though not the British variety). Many speakers of

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

2019-01-20 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
> “Once you combine the OSM keys and values of landuse=forest and compare it to natural=wood I think most will agree there is a difference,” I certainly do, but I’m a native speaker of English (though not the British variety). Many speakers of other languages just search for an English word in

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

2019-01-20 Thread Warin
On 21/01/19 10:17, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood. Until several years ago the “standard” style (Openstreetmap-Carto) did show a difference between landuse=forest and

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

2019-01-20 Thread Andy Townsend
On 20/01/2019 23:17, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood. Until several years ago the “standard” style (Openstreetmap-Carto) did show a difference between landuse=forest and

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Greg Troxel
Here's a perhaps-radical set of comments and suggestion: in any building, there is a set of names (which often but not always look like numbers) for levels. These are evident in the elevators (buttons inside, matching values outside) and in things painted on walls, on room numbers. etc

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
I've seen a similar issue with a shop in our area https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351561908#map=19/-28.08993/153.45070 The street address is 15 Park Avenue, but the only thing there is the car park, with staff entry, goods lift & customer stairs & lift, but that should (?) be level=0 as that

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

2019-01-20 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
> The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood. Until several years ago the “standard” style (Openstreetmap-Carto) did show a difference between landuse=forest and natural=wood. However, mappers used these two tags

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

2019-01-20 Thread Warin
On 21/01/19 05:52, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM David Marchal wrote: All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an area considered as a forest by authorities), I often encounter other landcovers, like scrubs in recently teared down parcels, or scree in the

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 at 16:58, Tobias Zwick wrote: > Well, all of which I mentioned is optional. But I can come up with two > use cases for wanting to know which level is the ground level: > > 1. Localization > > In an application, it is much nicer to be able to write > "ground floor" (en-GB),

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 20.01.19 19:37, Tobias Zwick wrote: > - a shop on level M with "level=M" > > - the mall building with "levels=P2,P1,G,M,1-12,14-99" (the order of the > levels). If levels is missing, a numerical order is assumed So essentially, one uses the local level reference in level=*, and provides a

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Richard
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 10:57:47PM +0100, Tobias Zwick wrote: > >> - also the building with "ground_level=G" to define which level is > >> the ground level. If ground_level is missing, 0 is assumed. > >> > > Do we really need a ground level? I think not. We need connections to > > outside ways

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

2019-01-20 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
> “an area considered as a forest by authorities” If this is a protected or administrative “forest”, you can use boundary=protected_area with the proper class But we usually try to map what is “real” and “current”. So if there is an area without formal protection, that people call “XXX Forest”,

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Tobias Zwick
>> - also the building with "ground_level=G" to define which level is >> the ground level. If ground_level is missing, 0 is assumed. >> > Do we really need a ground level? I think not. We need connections to > outside ways and entrances. Well, all of which I mentioned is optional. But I can

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Richard
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 07:37:23PM +0100, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > So from a SIT perspective, the problem isn't that the US (and other > > places) call the ground level "1". It's that the level below that is > > called "-1" rather than "0". You could still make it compatible with > > Simple Indoor

Re: [Tagging] Yay, new howto map for diabilities created in wiki

2019-01-20 Thread Richard
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 10:39:55AM +1100, Warin wrote: > On 20/01/19 09:00, Richard wrote: > >Hi, > > > >renamed it to > >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_to_map_for_the_needs_of_people_with_disabilities > > > >hope it is not too offensive for now and can be renamed later. > > > The map is

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Eugene Alvin Villar
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 2:38 AM Tobias Zwick 2. no calculating forth- and back between level "indices" and real names >for the levels (for neither the software nor the mapper) because this >effectively eliminates the concept of indices > I use level=* for the machine-readable zero-based

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Shawn K. Quinn
On 1/20/19 11:06, Roland Olbricht wrote: > we have here in Wuppertal, Germany at least three indoor-tagged > structures that have street level entrances at multiple levels, making > "street level" a not-at-all defined concept. In case of the university > e.g. the main entrance is on level 7, and

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

2019-01-20 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 1:33 PM David Marchal wrote: > All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an area considered as a > forest by authorities), I often encounter other landcovers, like scrubs in > recently teared down parcels, or scree in the mountains. These area, > although,

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

2019-01-20 Thread marc marc
Le 20.01.19 à 19:32, David Marchal a écrit : > The landcover tag? you may of course, despite it's not used by osm-carto (but we don't map for the render, isn't it ?) > Another? map with natural=wood for the area with treet map the scrub area as usual > boundary=forest_compartment? i dislike

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Tobias Zwick
> So from a SIT perspective, the problem isn't that the US (and other > places) call the ground level "1". It's that the level below that is > called "-1" rather than "0". You could still make it compatible with > Simple Indoor Tagging by adding a skipped_levels=0 tag to the building, > but this

[Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

2019-01-20 Thread David Marchal
Hello, there. All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an area considered as a forest by authorities), I often encounter other landcovers, like scrubs in recently teared down parcels, or scree in the mountains. These area, although, clearly and morphologically, not a forest, are

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Tobias Zwick
On 20/01/2019 18:06, Roland Olbricht wrote: > we have here in Wuppertal, Germany at least three indoor-tagged > structures that have street level entrances at multiple levels, making > "street level" a not-at-all defined concept. In case of the university > e.g. the main entrance is on level 7,

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 20.01.19 18:06, Roland Olbricht wrote: > I am also a bit surprised: a common interpretation of the text of > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging > (which is where https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:level > refers to) is that the level tag keeps the level numbering

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Roland Olbricht
Hi Tobias, we have here in Wuppertal, Germany at least three indoor-tagged structures that have street level entrances at multiple levels, making "street level" a not-at-all defined concept. In case of the university e.g. the main entrance is on level 7, and street level entrances range from

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Tobias Zwick
Maybe. My point though is that the (un)intuitiveness of this definition will be a constant source of error because as shops close and new shops open, the data is changing and thus the potential for error remains. (With incomplete software support.) Turns out, it is even a problem in countries

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 20.01.19 14:49, Tobias Zwick wrote: > 2. generally, tagging definitions that are not intuitive to use (in a > region) will not be used consistently (in that region), leading to > ambiguous data. I believe the high number of (potential) errors is temporary, resulting from the relative lack of

[Tagging] Last call Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)

2019-01-20 Thread Johnparis
I intend to put this to a vote starting next weekend, so please take a look at the proposal and discussion. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Eugene Alvin Villar
On Sun, Jan 20, 2019, 9:50 PM Tobias Zwick Region| likely zero-based | likely one-based > --|---|- > Washington, Philadelphia, NY | 3 |2 > Silicon valley, Los Angeles | 4

[Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Tobias Zwick
Hi there, In the wiki, the level tag is defined to be a 0-based-index so that level=0 is the ground floor, i.e. at the street level. In other words, a two-storey mall with no basement will have shops at level=0 and level=1. This is intuitive for (at least) Europeans, people from Commonwealth

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

2019-01-20 Thread Paul Allen
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 at 11:05, Axelos wrote: [footpath/bridleway fingerposts] > > I have already seen this type of symbols, but never added in OpenStreetMap. > There's no defined tag for them (or I can't find it). Which makes adding them to OSM difficult. Always on destination=*, there is the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

2019-01-20 Thread Axelos
Hello Paul, Paul Allen wrote > On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 at 10:38, Axelos > axelos@ > wrote: > > The direction signs are a real problem. An alternative solution is to >> exploit the destination key >> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=destination%3Abicycle >> > > However, it's an