Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Apr 2019, at 15:00, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> What do you mean by "camp_pitch as a subtype of camp site"? Are you
> proposing something like this:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:camp_pitch


no, I was referring to key camp_site=* as key for subtypes of camp sites. 
“camp_pitch” could be seen as one of the subtypes of camp sites (a site 
consisting of one pitch)


Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

A few thoughts re some of the fine details

Surface - a grass site with a concrete slab is very common. Should that be
grass, concrete or grass;concrete?

Fire - it's also quite common for fires to only be allowed off the ground,
in braziers / fire pits - fire=off_ground?

Power, water, drain - often provided as a single post shared between 2 or 4
adjacent pitches, with separate power points & taps for each, but with a
common drain for grey water. Would the power, water & drain tags go on the
individual pitches, or on a common node?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Key:golf_cart - Deprecate golf=cartpath?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> is it sometime allowed on primary/secondary/tertiary road?

Yes.

Rarely it may be useful on highway=trunk as well.

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 5:22 AM marc marc  wrote:

> Le 23.04.19 à 14:36, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> > 2) Clarified that it is unnecessary tag explicit golf_cart=no on
> > highway=motorway
>
> is it sometime allowed on primary/secondary/tertiary road ?
>
> > Also, are you in favor of deprecating "golf=cartpath"
> > in favor of the usual highway=* + golf_cart=designated ?
>
> yes
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Key:golf_cart - Deprecate golf=cartpath?

[marc marc]

Le 23.04.19 à 14:36, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
> 2) Clarified that it is unnecessary tag explicit golf_cart=no on
> highway=motorway

is it sometime allowed on primary/secondary/tertiary road ?

> Also, are you in favor of deprecating "golf=cartpath" 
> in favor of the usual highway=* + golf_cart=designated ?

yes
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 'track_detail' on railway lines - what does it represent?

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Dave,

Am 21.04.19 um 13:37 schrieb Dave F via Tagging:
> 'track_detail, used on railway tracks.
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4414158
> 
> 4700+ total worldwide  3900+ in the UK
> 
> I can find nothing in the wiki
> 
> Is track_detail meant to indicate that all tracks have been mapped?
> Surely that can be noted just by looking at the map?

I don't know the meaning but I can point to a similar track
detail=track. It is used in Germany by a few mappers in a few regions
(mainly south-west) and if each track is mapped with an individual way.

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 'track_detail' on railway lines - what does it represent?

[Dave F via Tagging]

On 21/04/2019 21:52, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Apr 21, 2019, 1:37 PM by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

User is still active. Overall, I would ask in at least some changesets
before or together with asking on ml.


If I want to know why an individual contributor adds a tag I would ask 
on a changeset.


However that's not the same as finding out what the tag represents. So 
many tags are misinterpreted (Your time on OSM-Carto must indicate to 
you that that is true).


I will ask the most amount of people on the appropriate list in the 
mailing list.


DaveF

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Connectivity (Mateusz Konieczny)

[Leif Rasmussen]

Thanks for the feedback Mateusz!  I will add a section on way splitting,
and make the two-way road examples more obviously not oneways.

As for splitting, the relations could be handled in the exact same way as
turn restrictions are currently handled.  Any editor that knows how to not
break turn restrictions will need to add type=connectivity as another type
of relation that needs the same care.  No new special code will need to be
written.
Thanks,
Leif Rasmussen
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - tag:police

[Jan S]

Hey,

As the proposed tagging scheme for police facilities appeared to be too
complex to find approval by a majority of voters, I've stripped it down to
just defining a police tag.

I've set it up as a new proposal at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tag:Police.


I'm again looking forward to your comments.

Best, Jan
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Connectivity

[Leif Rasmussen]

Hi everyone!
I have recently been mapping a lot of turn:lanes information on highways in
my area, but ran into the issue that turn:lanes fails to store all of the
necessary information in many junctions.  Multi-lane roundabouts, single
point urban interchanges, 5 way intersections with divided roads, and other
cases are all too complex for turn:lanes to handle.

Because of this, I have created a proposal for a simple type of from-via-to
relation that would provide information about how lanes in the "from" way
connect to those in the "to" way at any point where it isn't clear.  These
relations are very similar to turn restrictions, and like turn
restrictions, wont be needed in most intersections.

The relation would also be able to store the same information as could have
been possible with transit:lanes, just without the many maintenance issues
that came that system.


https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Connectivity


All feedback on how to potentially improve the proposal would be highly
appreciated!

Thanks,
Leif Rasmussen
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Connectivity

[Simon Poole]

Be prepared for everybody to jump on you, because:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/transit

Am 22.04.2019 um 17:55 schrieb Leif Rasmussen:
> Hi everyone!
> I have recently been mapping a lot of turn:lanes information on
> highways in my area, but ran into the issue that turn:lanes fails to
> store all of the necessary information in many junctions.  Multi-lane
> roundabouts, single point urban interchanges, 5 way intersections with
> divided roads, and other cases are all too complex for turn:lanes to
> handle.
>
> Because of this, I have created a proposal for a simple type of
> from-via-to relation that would provide information about how lanes in
> the "from" way connect to those in the "to" way at any point where it
> isn't clear.  These relations are very similar to turn restrictions,
> and like turn restrictions, wont be needed in most intersections.  
>
> The relation would also be able to store the same information as could
> have been possible with transit:lanes, just without the many
> maintenance issues that came that system.
>
>
> https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Connectivity
>
>
> All feedback on how to potentially improve the proposal would be
> highly appreciated!
>
> Thanks, 
> Leif Rasmussen
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I'm made some minor updates to the proposal page in response to
comments here and one on the talk page.

1) More than 1 tent allowed:
A camp pitch can sometimes allow more than one tent. Often a family
can have separate tents for parents and kids, and there are also
"group site" which are reserved for a single party and have a single
reference number, but can hold dozens of people

2) I added comments about the reasons for going with
camp-site=camp_pitch instead of tourism=*

a) - Using the tourism key would make it not possible to tag a
tourism=camp_site and camp_site=camp_pitch on a single node, in the
case of very small campsites that only have one pitch.
b) - More importantly, it is thought that using a standard key like
"tourism" might imply that this is a stand-alone feature; it might be
used instead of tourism=camp_site rather than inside of a
tourism=camp_site area.
c) Most importantly, camp_site=camp_pitch is currently in use and
extensive retagging would be required to change the tag or key.

Martin, I don't understand this comment:
On 4/18/19, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> And you may eventually be able to keep the exact same tagging but with
> different intended semantics (and basically the same meaning for the people
> who use the map): camp_pitch as subtype of camp site, not as a pitch object
> like tourism=camp_pitch

What do you mean by "camp_pitch as a subtype of camp site"? Are you
proposing something like this:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:camp_pitch

Joseph

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Connectivity

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Apr 22, 2019, 5:55 PM by 354...@gmail.com:

> https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Connectivity 
> 
>
Thanks for proposal with examples! I almost never tag lanes, so my experience
is limited but from what I have seen this proposal makes sense.

(1) But all examples are oneway. Can you add an example with
bidirectional road where this tag is used?

It will require special handling from editors, but it is unlikely to be 
avoidable if
one wishes to add this data.

(2) Can you add "Splitting ways" section documenting how this tags should be
processed by editors as mappers splits way that has it? It may reveal some
hidden issues.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Key:golf_cart - Deprecate golf=cartpath?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

It's been almost 2 weeks since the RFC for the golf_cart access tagging.

The key "golf_cart" is already in use for golf cart access
restrictions. I've made a proposal to clarify that this access tagging
on highway=service or highway=path is the preferred way to tag golf
cart paths on golf courses and in neighborhoods.

There have been 2 comments on the talk page, and I've updated the
proposal with the suggestions:
1) This golf_cart=* access tag can be used on areas tagged
amenity=parking in addition to ways tagged as highway or nodes tagged
highway=crossing
2) Clarified that it is unnecessary tag explicit golf_cart=no on
highway=motorway

There was also a comment on this list from Martin K. that "I would
expect vehicles of this class becoming more popular (depending on
legislation), not sure if "golf" must be in the name."

This is a reasonable point, and there are other "neighborhood electric
vehicles". However, although I've seen this terminology in legislation
and advertising, I've only heard people talk about golf carts, and
these seem to still be the vast majority of vehicles in the class of
"NEVs".

Similarly, legislation often refers to bicycles as "pedal cycles" or
"human powered vehicles" because the legal restrictions usually
include tricycles and even 4-wheeled vehicles powered by pedals or
hand cranks etc. But people say "bicycle" or "bike." Similarly, "golf
cart" is the easiest term to understand.

Any other comments about this? Should we vote on it?

Also, are you in favor of deprecating "golf=cartpath" in favor of the
usual highway=* + golf_cart=designated ?

Please comment here or there:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:golf_cart

Thanks,
Joseph

(golf=cartpath for comparison:)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:golf=cartpath

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting results - Police facilites

[marc marc]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 11:22, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> several critical comments mentioned that the
> country specific tagging (eg police:FR=*) was not good.

there is something that often comes up in rejected proposals:
dispersing in too many subjects.
the goal was to add a police=* tag and we end up with your police:FR 
which is already in "in use", on how to use the tag operator, etc.
focusing on only one topic at a time would, in my opinion, increase
the probability of having an high positive vote rate
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Walking Routes, how to tag alternatives/additions/shortcuts/approach tracks etc.

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Apr 22, 2019, 11:47 PM by pelder...@gmail.com:

> One solution just for rendering would be to optionally add "striped" to the 
> colour tag. Or dotted. 
>
Can you link photos how main route and alternative route is marked in terrain?
Is sign actually different?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Walking Routes, how to tag alternatives/additions/shortcuts/approach tracks etc.

[Peter Elderson]

Rendering is one thing. The other purpose I consider is routing, where you
need to have one continuous route. Currently, OSM route relations are not
routed directly, so the concern is to be able to produce singe-route
gpx-exports.
I think a branch way or branch route relation with role excursion does not
fit in that scheme.
Currently I make main route relations consisting of either a single chain
of ways, or a single chain of segment routes, resulting at the lowest level
in a single chain of ways. No branches, no shortcuts, no alternatives, no
doggy/scenic/wheelchair/hightide/seasonal routes, no additionals, no single
nodes.
Beside that, I make a route relation containing all the variants (including
the main route). This is in fact more like a collection than a route. This
one is for rendering, not for routing. Here the member roles make sense to
me, to indicate main vs not-main. I think the reason why a member is not
main is not that important at this level.
Tagging a member segment to indicate purpose (seasonal, link, doggy) or an
attribute such as scenic, looks fine to me. When someone uses the segment
relation as a route in itself, the role is not there, but the functional
tag is.

If this makes sense for rendering as well as routing and single chain
exporting, I would like to agree on the values for a. role and b. the
route_segment key.
Where role should IMO not contain the reason for the segment, just how it
should be handled within the "superroute" relation, and route_segment
should indicate what is so special about this route relation.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 23 apr. 2019 om 09:47 schreef Sarah Hoffmann :

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:47:35PM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Long walking routes often have a main route and several additions of
> > various types. If these additions are not waymarked, they are not
> recorded
> > in OSM. Easy.
> >
> > But often, they are. On maps these are usually shown as a striped line,
> > while the main route is usually a continuous line.
>
> That´s actually quite similar to the problem of sections and superroutes
> we had previously. They are basically sections that serve a special
> purpose.
>
> > I would like to enable OSMrenderers and data users to render/process the
> > additions/alternatives differently than the main route.
> >
> > One solution just for rendering would be to optionally add "striped" to
> the
> > colour tag. Or dotted.
>
> Please don't tag what you want to see rendered. Tag the function
> and then let the renderer decide how to show it.
>
> > A more general solution would be something like alternative=yes,
> > additional=yes, approach=yes. A tag that covers all the variants, I can't
> > think of a suitable word.
> > the other way around: main_route=no?
>
> At the moment it is mostly done via the role. This has the advantage that
> you don't need to create extra relations for short sections. Simply add
> a role 'excursion' to a single way leading to that viewpoint that belongs
> to the route and that's it. If the alternative is longer then it is still
> possible to create an extra relation and add this with the appropriate
> role.
>
> For subrelations, I'd still like to see them tagged with their function
> as well, so that it is obvious that it is not a main route (and makes it
> easier to render routes differently. Preferably use one tag for all of
> them,
> e.g. route_segment=part/alternative/scenic.
>
> That leaves the actual functions. For hiking routes there is:
>
> alternative (1179 times)
> main (945)
> excursion (452)
> alternate (420)
> link (369)
> part (310)
> alternate_route (197)
> access (196)
> detour (150)
>
> and a couple of others with even less use. That obviously needs some
> sorting out.
>
> Sarah
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting results - Police facilites

[Johnparis]

Well, not sure how you define "police or military" force, but there is
NATO, which overlaps with the EU, and Frontex, which is the EU border
police.

https://frontex.europa.eu/

Also, the Frontex page mentions the European Fisheries Control Agency
(EFCA) and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). I don't know to what
extent, if any, they have policing powers, but Frontex surely does.


On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:47 AM Lionel Giard  wrote:

> There isn't any EU police or military force (that's still a political
> discussion but there is none at the moment). The only existing thing is the
> international cooperation that is increased between neighboring countries
> and some special rules allowing one police force to pursue a suspect in the
> other countries for some times (if they cross the border). Apart from that,
> it is as everywhere : police force(s) separated by country.
>
> For the proposal, the country specific tag could be just removed, as they
> don't need to be mentioned on the global proposal (they are approved by the
> local community in question (OSM France here), but they don't necessarily
> need to be approved by the global communities). We have lots of local
> tagging scheme in OSM, that are only defined in one country, and they work
> well for them.
>
> Thus, only voting for a proposal with the global tagging scheme would
> probably be better (and leave the local tagging to the local communities
> for the time being ?!).
>
> Le mar. 23 avr. 2019 à 09:05, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>> I too missed it. Lot going on.
>>
>> There is a web page that helps
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Proposals_with_%22Voting%22_status
>> Looked at once a week it should pick up any proposal in 'voting' provided
>> the status is set correctly..
>> I have not been using it of late ..  :(
>>
>>
>> On 23/04/19 12:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry to see that it missed out Jan :-(
>>
>> As Joseph suggests, maybe take out the country specific & try again?
>>
>> On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 11:22, Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It looks like several critical comments mentioned that the country
>>> specific tagging (eg police:FR=*) was not good.
>>>
>>
>> Just for interest's sake, in regard to that - is there any form of
>> "European Police" across the EU, or is all law-enforcement still strictly
>> under each countries control? There is an EU military force of some sort,
>> isn't there?
>>
>>
>> Crikey .. I hope not.
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Walking Routes, how to tag alternatives/additions/shortcuts/approach tracks etc.

[Peter Elderson]

There's this one:
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#route?id=3139325&map=8!52.8637!6.5232
It has approach tracks and alternatives, and the operator has also included
some daily roundtrips as loops attached to the main route (which I did not
include yet).

Many routes have shortcuts and alternatives for bird breeding season, for
highwater, for people with dogs, closure after dark,  and wheelchair
alternatives. Most of these were not usually waymarked and mapped, but the
operators are increasingly waymarking those so I want to map it.


Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 23 apr. 2019 om 00:05 schreef Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> Do you have a link to an example?
>
> I’m reminded of the Oregon Coast bicycle route, which has alternative
> section s that leave the main highway to follow a scenic but longer road
> through the hills or closer to the coast. There are also alternatives that
> follow a Main Street (high street) through a village.
>
> See pdf of route:
>
> https://www.oregon.gov/odot/programs/tdd%20documents/oregon-coast-bike-route-map.pdf
>
> My first thought is something like role=side_route for an
> alternative which leads the main route but then rejoins. This is similar
> to side_stream in waterway relations.
>
> Perhaps approach or entrance segments could be tagged role=link - echoing
> highways tagging? But that might imply a connection to another route.
>
> Joseph
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 6:49 AM Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
>
>> Long walking routes often have a main route and several additions of
>> various types. If these additions are not waymarked, they are not recorded
>> in OSM. Easy.
>>
>> But often, they are. On maps these are usually shown as a striped line,
>> while the main route is usually a continuous line.
>>
>> I would like to enable OSMrenderers and data users to render/process the
>> additions/alternatives differently than the main route.
>>
>> One solution just for rendering would be to optionally add "striped" to
>> the colour tag. Or dotted.
>>
>> A more general solution would be something like alternative=yes,
>> additional=yes, approach=yes. A tag that covers all the variants, I can't
>> think of a suitable word.
>> the other way around: main_route=no?
>>
>>
>>
>> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Walking Routes, how to tag alternatives/additions/shortcuts/approach tracks etc.

[Sarah Hoffmann]

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:47:35PM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Long walking routes often have a main route and several additions of
> various types. If these additions are not waymarked, they are not recorded
> in OSM. Easy.
> 
> But often, they are. On maps these are usually shown as a striped line,
> while the main route is usually a continuous line.

That´s actually quite similar to the problem of sections and superroutes
we had previously. They are basically sections that serve a special purpose.

> I would like to enable OSMrenderers and data users to render/process the
> additions/alternatives differently than the main route.
> 
> One solution just for rendering would be to optionally add "striped" to the
> colour tag. Or dotted.

Please don't tag what you want to see rendered. Tag the function
and then let the renderer decide how to show it.

> A more general solution would be something like alternative=yes,
> additional=yes, approach=yes. A tag that covers all the variants, I can't
> think of a suitable word.
> the other way around: main_route=no?

At the moment it is mostly done via the role. This has the advantage that
you don't need to create extra relations for short sections. Simply add
a role 'excursion' to a single way leading to that viewpoint that belongs
to the route and that's it. If the alternative is longer then it is still
possible to create an extra relation and add this with the appropriate role.

For subrelations, I'd still like to see them tagged with their function
as well, so that it is obvious that it is not a main route (and makes it
easier to render routes differently. Preferably use one tag for all of them,
e.g. route_segment=part/alternative/scenic.

That leaves the actual functions. For hiking routes there is:

alternative (1179 times)
main (945)
excursion (452)
alternate (420)
link (369)
part (310)
alternate_route (197)
access (196)
detour (150)

and a couple of others with even less use. That obviously needs some
sorting out.

Sarah

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting results - Police facilites

[Lionel Giard]

There isn't any EU police or military force (that's still a political
discussion but there is none at the moment). The only existing thing is the
international cooperation that is increased between neighboring countries
and some special rules allowing one police force to pursue a suspect in the
other countries for some times (if they cross the border). Apart from that,
it is as everywhere : police force(s) separated by country.

For the proposal, the country specific tag could be just removed, as they
don't need to be mentioned on the global proposal (they are approved by the
local community in question (OSM France here), but they don't necessarily
need to be approved by the global communities). We have lots of local
tagging scheme in OSM, that are only defined in one country, and they work
well for them.

Thus, only voting for a proposal with the global tagging scheme would
probably be better (and leave the local tagging to the local communities
for the time being ?!).

Le mar. 23 avr. 2019 à 09:05, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> I too missed it. Lot going on.
>
> There is a web page that helps
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Proposals_with_%22Voting%22_status
> Looked at once a week it should pick up any proposal in 'voting' provided
> the status is set correctly..
> I have not been using it of late ..  :(
>
>
> On 23/04/19 12:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
> Sorry to see that it missed out Jan :-(
>
> As Joseph suggests, maybe take out the country specific & try again?
>
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 11:22, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> It looks like several critical comments mentioned that the country
>> specific tagging (eg police:FR=*) was not good.
>>
>
> Just for interest's sake, in regard to that - is there any form of
> "European Police" across the EU, or is all law-enforcement still strictly
> under each countries control? There is an EU military force of some sort,
> isn't there?
>
>
> Crikey .. I hope not.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting results - Police facilites

[Warin]

I too missed it. Lot going on.

There is a web page that helps
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Proposals_with_%22Voting%22_status
Looked at once a week it should pick up any proposal in 'voting' 
provided the status is set correctly..

I have not been using it of late ..  :(


On 23/04/19 12:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



Sorry to see that it missed out Jan :-(

As Joseph suggests, maybe take out the country specific & try again?

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 at 11:22, Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote:


It looks like several critical comments mentioned that the country
specific tagging (eg police:FR=*) was not good.


Just for interest's sake, in regard to that - is there any form of 
"European Police" across the EU, or is all law-enforcement still 
strictly under each countries control? There is an EU military force 
of some sort, isn't there?


Crikey .. I hope not.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging