"Values would go from right to left / top to down of the pole while values in
each section
would be given from left to right in the direction of the way passing by the
support node."
What is section in "line_attachment=suspension;pin;suspension|suspension"?
First one
Mar 8, 2019, 1:47 AM by graemefi...@gmail.com:
> I've seen the same tracks marked for once-a-year car races on otherwise
> normal streets - they should also be deleted?
>
Is route marked on the ground or at least exactly the same every year?
If yes, then I am not sure. Currently unmarked on the
On 08/03/19 15:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Here's the one I was talking about
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9325885#map=16/-27.9868/153.4270
Only operates as a race track for 4 days a year - 1 practice, 1
qualifying & 2 race days. The rest of the year it's normal public roads.
Notice, one shouldn’t confuse “historical” (exists and is historic interest)
with “out of date” (doesn't exist anymore and cannot be verified on the ground)
and with “life cycle” (change of state or usage).
Definitions are mine and can be imperfect.
In fact, I want to allude to:
- Open
Here's the one I was talking about
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9325885#map=16/-27.9868/153.4270
Only operates as a race track for 4 days a year - 1 practice, 1 qualifying
& 2 race days. The rest of the year it's normal public roads.
(& I even get a mention for editing part of it, but
Specifying bolts May also be of interest for climbing:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Climbing.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 08/03/19 12:16, Sergio Manzi wrote:
On 2019-03-08 02:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin<61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
Here we should be getting the best tags
+1, I would rather have a
On 08/03/19 12:16, Sergio Manzi wrote:
On 2019-03-08 02:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin<61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
Here we should be getting the best tags
+1, I would rather have a
On 08/03/19 11:47, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
I've seen the same tracks marked for once-a-year car races on
otherwise normal streets - they should also be deleted?
I would first transfer them to something else. If they have historic
significance then OHM.
The bicycle routes are used by
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 20:16, Sergio Manzi wrote:
> Then why not bolts and nuts? I suppose there are many nuts of historical
> significance around.
Indeed, and if someone comes up with a good tagging proposal for them,
I'll support it, rather than disparage just because I personally don't
find
On 2019-03-08 02:08, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
>> Here we should be getting the best tags
> +1, I would rather have a well-specified tag that is rarely used
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
> Here we should be getting the best tags
+1, I would rather have a well-specified tag that is rarely used than
no tag at all.
--Jarek
On 2019-03-08 01:39, Warin wrote:
> On 08/03/19 10:40, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>> On 2019-03-08 00:35, François Lacombe wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments
>>> received all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.
>>>
I've seen the same tracks marked for once-a-year car races on otherwise
normal streets - they should also be deleted?
Thanks
Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 08/03/19 10:40, Sergio Manzi wrote:
On 2019-03-08 00:35, François Lacombe wrote:
Hi all
The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments received
all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps
+1!
On 2019-03-07 19:02, Richard Welty wrote:
> i think OSM should stick to mapping what is legal. first responders
> frequentlhy have permission to ignore the restrictions that apply
> to normal motorists, but they usually have relevant policies that
> probably don't belong in OSM proper and
On 2019-03-08 00:35, François Lacombe wrote:
> Hi all
>
> The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments received
> all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps
>
> It is not restricted to power
Hi all
The line attachments proposal has been updated according to comments
received all along past weeks. Thanks to TOGA and Nakaner mainly.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_clamps
It is not restricted to power nor telecom lines. Any line can be anchored
or held with
On 2019-03-07 23:31, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:
> How can I tag an hotel which features baby-sitting?
I think it should be something in the lines of "service:babysitting=yes" unless
we already have something different in use...
Cheers!
Sergio
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic
How can I tag an hotel which features baby-sitting?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Unfortunately dataset I'm manually importing has a boolean "pets" field.
I guess if go for "dogs" it will be 9/10 right, while a generic "pets"
99/100 (considering the alligator anomaly :-) The latter has less taginfo
popularity, but better fits source data.
Il gio 7 mar 2019, 14:09 seirra blake
On 07/03/19 20:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Do., 7. März 2019 um 09:57 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>:
It's good that radio telescopes have been mentioned. While considering
this issue, you should also take a look at towers with
On 08/03/19 00:07, seirra blake wrote:
while I can't see a problem with a tag for each pet, it may still make
more sense to have a pets tag and just namespace species/related
things under it similar to the access tag. use cases I can think of:
* pets=no | no matter what, no pets
*
On 3/7/19 12:49 PM, OSMDoudou wrote:
> I would expect the police would first re-organize the scene to revert
> circulation.
>
>
>
> If the house on fire is just a few meters in the opposite one-way
> direction, they might go directly, but technically they would break the
> law, if I read the
I would expect the police would first re-organize the scene to revert
circulation.
If the house on fire is just a few meters in the opposite one-way direction,
they might go directly, but technically they would break the law, if I read the
articles correctly.
So, we should map what it
On 3/7/2019 9:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Parking along street is a specific place for parking, in fact
it basically cannot be used for anything except as a place to park
vehicles.
at least as long as there are cars parked ;-)
There are already ~14k of usage of `dog=yes/no/...` so that's a good
start. You can add other animals if the venue allows others (e.g.
`cat=yes/no/...`).
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:dog
On 07/03/2019 11:40, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:
Hello ML!
how can I tag and hotel (or
On 3/7/2019 2:05 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
even though it would prevent a routing engine from actually being
able to arrive inside the parking amenity.
I wouldn't think that should be a problem, would it? Wouldn't a router
only work to take you to "that" particular individual space?
I
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 14:44, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> usually areas end at their actual borders in OSM, so unless you can park
> in the middle of the road, it should not be contained in the parking area.
>
If we usually mapped roads as areas, I'd agree with you 100%. The edge of
the area
sent from a phone
> On 7. Mar 2019, at 02:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> The question I have is whether the parking area should be mapped out to the
> middle of the road,
usually areas end at their actual borders in OSM, so unless you can park in the
middle of the road, it should not
sent from a phone
> On 6. Mar 2019, at 19:48, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Parking along street is a specific place for parking, in fact
> it basically cannot be used for anything except as a place to park vehicles.
at least as long as there are cars parked ;-)
Fire fighting foam needs to be mixed with water.
On 07/03/2019 14:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 7. Mar 2019, at 14:39, Richard Welty wrote:
there are other examples. for example, the Chief of the Port
Henry department in upstate NY oversees a district that
is adjacent
sent from a phone
> On 7. Mar 2019, at 14:39, Richard Welty wrote:
>
> there are other examples. for example, the Chief of the Port
> Henry department in upstate NY oversees a district that
> is adjacent to Lake Champlaign, so you would think he has
> a big enough water source. but the RR
sent from a phone
> On 7. Mar 2019, at 15:02, Phake Nick wrote:
>
> The route us currently operated by two different operators on coordinated
> timetable and each operator have their own ETA system. While they do not
> provide a GTFS feed for now, it can be expected that each of them will
sent from a phone
> On 7. Mar 2019, at 13:06, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> It's just that at one time the bus will have the
> livery of "Foo Brothers" and at another time it will have the livery of "Bar
> Buses." They're not variant
> routes but variant operators.
the basic options are different
Nope. For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3352395 The route
us currently operated by two different operators on coordinated timetable
and each operator have their own ETA system. While they do not provide a
GTFS feed for now, it can be expected that each of them will provide their
On 3/6/19 5:17 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 16:29, Richard Welty wrote:
>> i spent some time looking at a project to build OSM based
>> emergency maps. i concluded we needed to do layers of
>> information, some of which were appropriate to host in
>> OSM and others which
while I can't see a problem with a tag for each pet, it may still make
more sense to have a pets tag and just namespace species/related things
under it similar to the access tag. use cases I can think of:
* pets=no | no matter what, no pets
* pets=yes | open to all or at least most pets
On Thursday, 7 March 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Many shops and a few restaurants in my town display a sign somewhere saying
> that dogs
> are allowed.
>
Some pubs make dogs very welcome by providing biscuits and water bowls.
Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Sailfish device
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 12:05, wrote:
> Pets is probably a bit vague, many hotels will accept pet dogs, but are
> less likely to accept cats and extremely unlikely to my pet alligator (no
> I don't really own one).
>
Some holiday cottages accept dogs but place a limit on the number (only
one; a
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 06:33, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> > On 5. Mar 2019, at 21:33, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > Routes do exist with more than one operator.
>
> wouldn’t these simply be tagged as several relations?
>
I don't know. It's the same route, with the same service number, the same
Pets is probably a bit vague, many hotels will accept pet dogs, but are less
likely to accept cats and extremely unlikely to my pet alligator (no I don't
really own one).
Maybe search for dogs rather than pets.
Obviously dogs=no will only apply to pets, registered assistance dogs are
covered
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 02:18, Jmapb wrote:
Yo passepor wants to "draw exactly what space is occuping" so in that case
> putting the area to the side of the road probably makes more sense, even
> though it would prevent a routing engine from actually being able to arrive
> inside the parking
Hello ML!
how can I tag and hotel (or whatever) that allows pets? Besides, semi-OT,
if hotel offers babysitting, is childcare=yes ok?
I briefly googled in OSM wiki and couldn't find. If already answered,
please forgive me.
___
Tagging mailing list
>
> On 07/03/19 18:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> They could go into OHM on a year by year basis?
>
There is an old proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/historic_event
but it has not been approved.
I think this type of event-related track should go into any of the many
Am Do., 7. März 2019 um 09:57 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> It's good that radio telescopes have been mentioned. While considering
> this issue, you should also take a look at towers with
> tower:type=communication and tower:construction=dish
>
> I'm not sure if it
Is this course signed in terrain? Is it the same every year?
Given "traject of the 2014 edition" I suspect to second is no, but such data
can avoid deletion if it is marked on a ground.
Otherwise it should be deleted quickly, mostly because it may encourage
people to waste time adding more.
It's good that radio telescopes have been mentioned. While considering
this issue, you should also take a look at towers with
tower:type=communication and tower:construction=dish
I'm not sure if it is sensible to tag a large satellite dish as a
"tower" but that is currently an option that has
If a route is indicated/waymarked on the road not just for an event but as
a permanent route, adding it to OSM is ok. If it's not waymarked on the
road, or just for the event, it's non-OSM material. There are numerous
sites and apps for planning/publishing/recording/archiving such tracks on
all
On 07/03/19 18:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
They don’t belong in OSM for the reasons you state, and would be better
hosted independently on umap or similar.
They could go into OHM on a year by year basis?
Each year can have a different route...
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019, 08:57 Richard Fairhurst, wrote:
> They don’t belong in OSM for the reasons you state,
>
I strongly second this statement.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
51 matches
Mail list logo
