Re: [Tagging] Multiple values in isced:level

Hi! so, after reading the different opinions, I understand that I can use the semicolon (;) or boolean values (yes/no), and both systems would be correct, is it? And, in any case, it should be documented in the wiki. And I understand too, that it was a war of editions about the use of semicolon l

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

I know how to fix these issues. The point is, as it is it's not good enough for data use besides rendering. you can't rely on route relations for anything but rendering, and you can't fix that with software. It's not a tagging issue, though. Gpx gaps in some software do show up as straight lines.

Re: [Tagging] key educational

On 8/16/2019 10:56 PM, Warin wrote: I think the key:educational maybe better used later for schools, colleges, cram schools etc. The (dormant) proposal for these was education=school|university|tutor|cram_school etc. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Altern

[Tagging] key educational

On 17/08/19 11:58, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: It is better to document the meaning of a property tag at its own wiki page, so tools like Taginfo can make use of the description, but a tag used only a handful of times does not need to be added to major feature pages without discussion. I’ve made

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

It is better to document the meaning of a property tag at its own wiki page, so tools like Taginfo can make use of the description, but a tag used only a handful of times does not need to be added to major feature pages without discussion. I’ve made a page for key:educational now, so it will be d

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

My limited experience; Gaps on the gpx route tend to be straight lines, ok when they are contiguous but where they back track it gets confusing. Some initial thoughts on what I would do, and have done on some routes of interest to me ... On 16/08/19 21:31, Peter Elderson wrote: Looked at de

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

On 17/08/19 07:54, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 22:33, Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: The way I see it, we’re mapping the world, as it is. Not just places where the general public may have an interest in navigating to it. If you were to make

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

On 17/08/19 03:55, s8evq wrote: On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 20:37:56 +0900, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: The key "educational" has only been used 25 times, mainly "educational=yes", and does not have a wiki page, so it would be best to remove it from the route pages. That's OK for me. Anybody who's agai

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

On 8/16/2019 4:59 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: a long route may go through several colour changes but will be signed with its own marker at principal junctions. (Where I map, there are only a handful of long-distance routes affected by this: the Long Path, the Highlands Trail, the Finger Lakes Trail, a

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 22:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > The way I see it, we’re mapping the world, as it is. Not just places where > the general public may have an interest in navigating to it. If you were to > make an analysis about the functional structure of a city you would want to > kno

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

sent from a phone > On 16. Aug 2019, at 15:13, ael wrote: > > I could never see the point in tagging offices which are of no intrinsic > interest except perhaps to office equipment suppliers. The way I see it, we’re mapping the world, as it is. Not just places where the general public may h

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:20 PM Jmapb via Tagging wrote: > - Speaking of "yellow", the table specifies that colour should be a > hex triplet, but wiki page for the colour key indicates that named HTML > colours are also acceptable values. And I know many trails are tagged > this way. So probably

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

On 8/16/2019 2:40 PM, s8evq wrote: The table with the tagging scheme for the hiking/foot routes is getting there: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_scheme_hiking_walking Just a few more small things that need to be decided on. Hi s8evq, nice progress! Just gonna prattle about colour

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

I would like to see this software in operation! Could you give me the links of some applications that can reorder and use route relations with multiple gaps, duplicate ways, branches, loose loops, uncut roundabouts, pedestrian areas, nodes and nested relations? It's not about just unsorted, it's ab

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

If there is nothing to be found on the road, I think the route is not for OSM. If the route is "permanently" waymarked, even poorly waymarked but you can see it on the road, it's ok. If a permanent and known route consists of differently waymarked routes it uses those waymarks, so it's still waym

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

On 16/08/2019 20:00, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 19:43, s8evq > wrote: [1] [make it more clear that the walking route has to be signed in order to map it. As it is stated now, you could read it that a named hiking route is sufficient to be mappe

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

Peter Elderson wrote: > I think it's fair to say there is almost no software that does > anything with route relations except rendering and exporting > as a gpx. That's not true. Most bike routers based on OSM are aware of route relations and use them to influence routing. > Software needs a so

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 19:43, s8evq wrote: > > [1] [make it more clear that the walking route has to be signed in order > to map it. As it is stated now, you could read it that a named hiking route > is sufficient to be mapped] > Does it have to be signposted as a walking route? I know of sever

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

The table with the tagging scheme for the hiking/foot routes is getting there: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_scheme_hiking_walking Just a few more small things that need to be decided on. In the mean time, I have copy and pasted the sentences that surrounded the tagging scheme on

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:40 PM s8evq wrote: > Just to be clear: are you still talking about hiking/walking routes? Or > public transport? Because, as far as I know, there is no clear explanation in > the wiki why forward/backward should be used in hiking routes. I had one locally where the bla

Re: [Tagging] Route sorting

Thanks Paul ... On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 2:13 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 11:56, Johnparis wrote: > >> Hoping this is on topic or close ... >> > > Drifting away. But you can fix that by saying you will vote against > certain proposals for > route tagging because iD doesn't han

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 20:37:56 +0900, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The key "educational" has only been used 25 times, mainly > "educational=yes", and does not have a wiki page, so it would be best > to remove it from the route pages. > That's OK for me. Anybody who's againt removing it from the the

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:54:01 +0200, Jo wrote: > > By doing that, you're basically saying that alternatives can't have > forward/backward roles. To me that doesn't make sense. We are using those > forward/backward roles to indicate that there are 2 branches for each > direction of travel along the

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:02:14PM +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > We discussed this a few month ago with the possibility of introducing a new > tag of business= to show such things as (house) painters, plumbers "shed" & > so on for work premises that aren't "craft", which suggests handmade / >

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

> " it would probably be a lot of work to do this practically" That's never stopped me before! :-) > Take all tagging documentation from the wiki no matter where it is and remove > everything that is not strictly documenting the de facto meaning of tags in > the OSM database the result would be

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 12:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > IMHO what may be needed is “workshop” rather than business. > Artists will probably be upset by "workshop" and will insist they have studios (which is where we came in). Whilst it might be sensible to have something (whatever we call

Re: [Tagging] Route sorting

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 11:56, Johnparis wrote: > Hoping this is on topic or close ... > Drifting away. But you can fix that by saying you will vote against certain proposals for route tagging because iD doesn't handle route relations properly. :) > > 1) People have mentioned that iD can now ed

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

sent from a phone > On 16. Aug 2019, at 09:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > I've been intending to work on a proposal but haven't had a chance - > worthwhile? IMHO what may be needed is “workshop” rather than business. We are already tagging many kinds of businesses with the tags amenity,

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

Looked at de E2 relation in Yorkshire. It would require a lot of work to make it work for data users beside rendering, and to fit it into the E2 superroute as a whole. a. Nodes in the relation - not unheard of, but then with a role like start. Should be removed. b. 10 gaps. Needs investigating the

Re: [Tagging] Route sorting

Hoping this is on topic or close ... 1) People have mentioned that iD can now edit relations. How? I've searched for tutorials or documentation, and simply tried to drag elements up or down when opening the relation in iD's edit mode ... nothing. (I'm also glad to hear that it no longer ignores th

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

Op vr 16 aug. 2019 om 10:59 schreef Andy Townsend : > On 16/08/2019 08:50, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Josm of course. Is there another relation editor that can handle large > nested route relations spanning up to say 4000 Km? > > P2 can, at least. Other people seem to suggest that iD does a > reas

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

On 16/08/2019 08:50, Peter Elderson wrote: Josm of course. Is there another relation editor that can handle large nested route relations spanning up to say 4000 Km? P2 can, at least.  Other people seem to suggest that iD does a reasonable job now too. The more interesting question, though,

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

Both! If I enter a new route or alter it after survey, I often have to edit ways. Cutting a way into sections, mostly. After a painful process of making other people very unhappy, I finally know how to handle/repair all the broken relations that causes, before uploading. At the same time I notice

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

The problem about proposal pages is that they can be infinitely theoretical, non-verifiable or outright insane. So telling a mapper who is thinking about inventing a new tag to search the proposals if there is one that already covers what they want to do is not practicable. Because even if t

Re: [Tagging] Route sorting

Op vr 16 aug. 2019 om 01:16 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > I can hear it now "Enter roundabout" .. done proceeding ... "Enter > Roundabout" (for the second section) ... what??? what roundabout I'm > already in the roundabout.. Exit on the second exit" .. but I've gone past > the second e

Re: [Tagging] Route sorting

Op vr 16 aug. 2019 om 01:58 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > The wiki is not consistent, as the definition says the tag > junction=roundabout is describing > > “A road junction where the traffic goes around a non-traversable island > and has right of way. “ > > Hm. In Neder

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

Peter, I think Martin's question comes from a misunderstanding. You probably meant the route relations were broken by someone editing before you. Martin seems to have understood that you have to check all those route relations, after you edited them yourself. Jo On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:52 AM Pe

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:57 PM Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > Hi, > > (making this a new topic) > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:56:30AM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote: > > I strongly prefer to have one relation for the main route, and separate > relations for alternatives. Put those together in a relation

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

Josm of course. Is there another relation editor that can handle large nested route relations spanning up to say 4000 Km? In josm, before the edit I open all the relations that may be affected, check if they are correct as far as that section is concerned, then perform the edit, then apply the

Re: [Tagging] Route sorting

As far as I'm concerned junction=roundabout means that that OSM way is part of a roundabout. That's how it behaves. JOSM is perfectly capable of handling split or unsplit roundabouts, except for ad hoc rendering of the routes. With unsplit roundabouts, they all have 'bulges'. Hence my preference t

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

We discussed this a few month ago with the possibility of introducing a new tag of business= to show such things as (house) painters, plumbers "shed" & so on for work premises that aren't "craft", which suggests handmade / handicraft. I've been intending to work on a proposal but haven't had a cha