Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

On 27/09/19 03:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Do., 26. Sept. 2019 um 19:03 Uhr schrieb Markus mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>>: BTW, i find it very strange that there is a separte highway=* tag for indoor "flat ways" (i.e. corridors), but not for steps. Any reasons for

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On 27/09/19 02:15, Paul Allen wrote: On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 16:49, Richard Fairhurst > wrote: Paul Allen wrote: > BTW, that's on national cycle route 82, so whether or not it really is > a pub would be of interest to some mappers. Oh, has that

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On 27/09/19 09:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 02:52, Kevin Kenny > wrote: I've also mapped things like 'disused:amenity=prison landuse=brownfield' for a now-closed prison that the state is trying to find a buyer to

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 02:52, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I've also mapped things like 'disused:amenity=prison > landuse=brownfield' for a now-closed prison that the state is trying > to find a buyer to redevelop. The buildings are still standing (and I > understand are for the most part structurally

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

Well indoors they become stairs. True at least in the parts of England/Wales I am from. I believe usage is different in Scotland. Phil (trigpoint) On Thursday, 26 September 2019, Markus wrote: > BTW, i find it very strange that there is a separte highway=* tag for > indoor "flat ways" (i.e.

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

I can think of at least two pubs in my stamping ground within The Shire which I have never set foot in as they closed before I moved there eight years ago. Both still look like pubs and display their name and look like pubs from a distance. Set to disused:amenity=pub.

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - footway=indoor

This proposal has been up for three weeks, so I'm changing it to Voting status. footway=indoor: indoor pedestrian route https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/footway%3Dindoor Thanks, Jeremiah Rose ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Barrier defaults

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:35:45AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > explicit access tagging for barriers is generally preferable because > it reduces the uncertainty. > > Still if there is a barrier and no access tags are set you will have > to figure out how to deal with it. > > For

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 19:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > One question is should they be rendered, and most > > people seem to agree that they should. Should the buildings be tagged > as disused? So > > the wiki implies. If they should be tagged (in some way) as disused, > then how? >

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

sent from a phone > On 26. Sep 2019, at 19:18, Paul Allen wrote: > > One question is should they be rendered, and most > people seem to agree that they should. Should the buildings be tagged as > disused? So > the wiki implies. If they should be tagged (in some way) as disused, then >

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 17:53, Markus wrote: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 18:43 Martin Koppenhoefer, > wrote: > >> an unused building remains a building, hence the building=* tag should be >> kept. >> > > All disused physical objects i can imagine remain physical objects. Are > you saying that we

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

Am Do., 26. Sept. 2019 um 19:03 Uhr schrieb Markus < selfishseaho...@gmail.com>: > BTW, i find it very strange that there is a separte highway=* tag for > indoor "flat ways" (i.e. corridors), but not for steps. Any reasons for > that? > > Not sure if we need a different tag (in both cases), but

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:53 PM Markus wrote: > All disused physical objects i can imagine remain physical objects. Are you > saying that we shouldn't use disused: for physical objects? It's a grey area. A disused building is still a building. An abandoned building may be a pile of debris

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

BTW, i find it very strange that there is a separte highway=* tag for indoor "flat ways" (i.e. corridors), but not for steps. Any reasons for that? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 18:43 Martin Koppenhoefer, wrote: > an unused building remains a building, hence the building=* tag should be > kept. > All disused physical objects i can imagine remain physical objects. Are you saying that we shouldn't use disused: for physical objects?

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 12:33 PM Paul Allen wrote: > Makes it explicit for somebody who goes to a pub guide website (there are > many), > spots this one then looks at OSM to find it. It's not a pub any more. > Otherwise it's possible > to conclude that somebody mapped the building outline but

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

Am Do., 26. Sept. 2019 um 18:37 Uhr schrieb Markus < selfishseaho...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 18:30 Andy Townsend, wrote: > >> On 26/09/2019 17:09, Markus wrote: >> > >> > Thus, those disused toilets could be tagged: >> > >> > disused:building=toilets >> > >> No, it's still a building.

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 18:30 Andy Townsend, wrote: > On 26/09/2019 17:09, Markus wrote: > > > > Thus, those disused toilets could be tagged: > > > > disused:building=toilets > > > No, it's still a building. Yes, it's still a building (a toilets hut), but it (currently) has no use.

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 17:14, Andy Townsend wrote: > > > https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=20=52.0802094=-4.660442 > > Works for me. That works. Makes it explicit for somebody who goes to a pub guide website (there are many), spots this one then looks at OSM to find it.

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

Am Do., 26. Sept. 2019 um 18:26 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > Tagging two main features on one object isn't good practice anyway (see >> wiki page One feature, one OSM element). >> >>> >> True. It's not good practice. But it happens. Postel's Law, aka the > Robustness Principle, ought > to apply:

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On 26/09/2019 17:09, Markus wrote: Thus, those disused toilets could be tagged: disused:building=toilets No, it's still a building.  "building=toilets" means that the type of the building was "toilets".  It doesn't say anything about whether it was a usable amenity or not. and separately

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 17:10, Markus wrote: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 15:19 Paul Allen, wrote: > >> Using disused=yes is correct and truthful. Using disused:foo=bar is ALSO >> correct and truthful. >> Both are documented as valid ways of tagging disused objects. >> > > Actually, the wiki page for

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 16:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Paul Allen wrote: > > BTW, that's on national cycle route 82, so whether or not it really is > > a pub would be of interest to some mappers. > > Oh, has that closed? Two or three years ago. The Eagle nearby it closed as well, but has

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 17:50 Paul Allen, wrote: > What is sad is that if renderers produce results that go against mappers' > expectations, > mappers will abuse tags to get the results they want and then the open > data that you > seem to feel is the most important part of the project becomes

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On 26/09/2019 16:48, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Paul Allen wrote: BTW, that's on national cycle route 82, so whether or not it really is a pub would be of interest to some mappers. Oh, has that closed? That's a shame. (I stayed in St Dogmaels a few years ago, thought the Castle Inn looked

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 15:19 Paul Allen, wrote: > Using disused=yes is correct and truthful. Using disused:foo=bar is ALSO > correct and truthful. > Both are documented as valid ways of tagging disused objects. > Actually, the wiki page for Key:disused: says: "Use of disused as a simple tag is

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 16:18, Simon Poole wrote: > OpenStreetMap is a project that produces open data. "open" implies > everybody being allowed to use the data in any way they see fit, including > rendering disused facilities in green with pink stripes. > Ah, Open Anarchic Map. Where anything

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

Paul Allen wrote: > BTW, that's on national cycle route 82, so whether or not it really is > a pub would be of interest to some mappers. Oh, has that closed? That's a shame. (I stayed in St Dogmaels a few years ago, thought the Castle Inn looked wonderfully old-fashioned, and was planning to go

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

OpenStreetMap is a project that produces open data. "open" implies everybody being allowed to use the data in any way they see fit, including rendering disused facilities in green with pink stripes. There is nothing "sad" about that. Am 26.09.2019 um 15:16 schrieb Paul Allen: > On Thu, 26 Sep

Re: [Tagging] [Key:phone] - Suggesting wiki page changing

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 01:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: In Australia most, if not all, landlines will not process SMS calls. They > may not take video calls, etc. > By default, the same is true of landlines in the UK. But BT (and possibly) others offer text services with landlines:

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 00:53, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: disused:*=* means it cannot presently be used for its intended purpose. > That does not mean it does not exist. > Correct. How renders chose to display that is up to them. > Also correct (sadly). But the tagging is correct and

Re: [Tagging] Bus Routes PTv2

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 13:58 Michal Fabík, wrote: > [...] JOSM was complaining but it's > working fine when I display the route in OsmAnd or use it in navigation. > IIRC it's just a warning, because it might be an error (e.g. with multipolygon relations).

Re: [Tagging] Bus Routes PTv2

I've been adding them twice, I just wanted to make sure I was doing the right thing before adding 200+ bus routes only to find out I was doing it wrong On Thu., Sep. 26, 2019, 8:00 a.m. Paul Johnson, wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 6:57 AM Michal Fabík > wrote: > >> >> >> على ٢٦‏/٩‏/٢٠١٩

Re: [Tagging] Bus Routes PTv2

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 6:57 AM Michal Fabík wrote: > > > على ٢٦‏/٩‏/٢٠١٩ ‫١:٣٦ م، كتب James: > > If you have a bus route that doubles back on itself, do you have to > > add the way twice to the relation or add it once and let the router > > figure out that it's already in the relation? > > I

Re: [Tagging] Bus Routes PTv2

على ٢٦‏/٩‏/٢٠١٩ ‫١:٣٦ م، كتب James: If you have a bus route that doubles back on itself, do you have to add the way twice to the relation or add it once and let the router figure out that it's already in the relation? I added it twice on a few occasions. JOSM was complaining but it's

Re: [Tagging] Bus Routes PTv2

Hi James, On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 13:38 James, wrote: > If you have a bus route that doubles back on itself, do you have to add > the way twice to the relation or add it once and let the router figure out > that it's already in the relation? > IMHO if the bus route uses a road section twice, that

Re: [Tagging] Bus Routes PTv2

I always add it twice. The idea is to produce a relation that can be traversed start to finish the same way the bus does. On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 13:37 James wrote: > If you have a bus route that doubles back on itself, do you have to add > the way twice to the relation or add it once and let the

[Tagging] Bus Routes PTv2

If you have a bus route that doubles back on itself, do you have to add the way twice to the relation or add it once and let the router figure out that it's already in the relation? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Barrier defaults

sent from a phone > On 26. Sep 2019, at 10:01, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > Now i discovery the contrary. Every data consumer has to make > a long list of every barrier possible and the default settings. > > Does that make sense? explicit access tagging for barriers is generally preferable

[Tagging] Barrier defaults

Hi, i stumbled upon a statement in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:barrier that barrier=bollard has implicit foot=yes bicycle=yes on it. I have been mapping only explicit restrictions for 10 years and the English page (where the German should be a translation from) does not mention