On 06-02-20 05:22, Marc Gemis wrote:
> My interpretation is the same as Paul's. Including the not thought
> through part, as I never needed that.
Mine too.
There is only a subset of barrier-tags where `area=yes` makes sense,
like hedge and (city-)wall.
On 6/2/20 5:13 pm, European Water Project wrote:
I see good arguments on both sides
but I tend to agree with Joseph and Marc about the need to put
substance over form.
Maybe the proposal just passes based on objective measurements (vote
ratio), but that if enough people post facto see
I see good arguments on both sides
but I tend to agree with Joseph and Marc about the need to put substance
over form.
Maybe the proposal just passes based on objective measurements (vote
ratio), but that if enough people post facto see enough flaws that it can
be temporarily suspended.
To
> On Feb 6, 2020, at 5:14 AM, Jeroen Hoek wrote:
>
> Keeping the rendering for `barrier=hedge` plus `area=yes` for the time
> being seems sensible and in keeping with the general use of those two
> tags in combination.
+1
Javbw___
Tagging mailing
> On Feb 3, 2020, at 10:09 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> It isn't wrong to use barrier=hedge, since it does provide a visual
> barrier
It also provides a physical barrier. Try riding a bike through one, or sleeping
on one, or taking a shortcut through one!
Hedges are physical barriers made of
Hi,
Some may remember I raised the issue of using damage:*=* as part of the
life cycle tagging system.
I have been informed that HOT uses the key damage=* ... most of them on
buildings.. and with values such as;
yes
no
minor
major
destroyed
complete
significant
minimal
On 2/5/20 17:15, Lionel Giard wrote:
> In my usage, i always thought that using a barrier=* + any other main
> tag was wrong and widely accepted (as i saw that it was separated in
> most examples when i started mapping). Thus my method has always been to
> map them separately (one way for the
> And please keep in mind that - as i mentioned - barrier=hedge is not the
> dominant tag for mapping hedges with polygons in the first place - as i
> have shown with various links earlier.
I only clicked on a few of your examples and had to figure out which
areas you meant. But they were outside
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 12:16 AM Lionel Giard wrote:
>
> In my usage, i always thought that using a barrier=* + any other main tag was
> wrong and widely accepted (as i saw that it was separated in most examples
> when i started mapping). Thus my method has always been to map them
> separately
My interpretation is the same as Paul's. Including the not thought
through part, as I never needed that.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:24 PM Paul Allen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 21:09, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>>
>>
>> closed way, barrier=fence
>
>
> Linear fence
>
>> closed way,
There are many things about the proposal process that seem a little odd and
we could spend a lot of time debating them. I'd rather just concentrate on
the question of parliamentary procedure.
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:11 AM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> But hypothetically, what if there were even
> In my usage, i always thought that using a barrier=* + any other main tag was
> wrong...
I agree that this usage is ambiguous. However, that usage is very
common, and is suggested on Key:fenced:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fenced - "Whether the outer
perimeter of something is
> ... put the tag "amenity=university" and all the information only 1 time for
> the whole university
> I would generally just use a multipolygon relation for this
+1 for the common multipolygon relation, not type=site.
___
Tagging mailing list
the proposals (I'm talking generally, not just about this one) have
often 2 flaws:
- often too big (not this one)
- often rfc too short, even active people still have remarks to make
that the vote is already open, so they are stuck to sink the proposal
(with the risk that its author gets
On 2/5/2020 6:21 PM, Lionel Giard wrote:
Site relation are more used to put the tag "amenity=university" and
all the information only 1 time for the whole university when it is
spread across a city or multiple sites. This site relation equal to
the amenity=university area under a campus that's
Ok, so we should consider it approved in this case.
(For context, both Mateusz Konieczny and myself have abstained, along
with 3 others, but had comments expressing concern about using
"give_box" instead of "free_box" or something easier to understand.)
But hypothetically, what if there were
On 2/5/2020 4:36 AM, Lionel Giard wrote:
Thus, it seems difficult to find "one" subdivision that will always
work worldwide ?! :-) Maybe that we should keep a generic word and
allow everything in it (like subdivision=* with the name of "School",
"Institute", "College",... if relevant) ?
I
Site relation are more used to put the tag "amenity=university" and all the
information only 1 time for the whole university when it is spread across a
city or multiple sites. This site relation equal to the amenity=university
area under a campus that's all grouped into one place. Otherwise, if
Your first point is correct and it applies here in Italy as well.
The default surface argument is weak. We do have unpaved official cycle and
foot-cycle paths.
The surface tag is mandatory in my view.
The same applies to sidewalks and minor roads.
And the "path" approach for foot-cycle-way is
In my usage, i always thought that using a barrier=* + any other main tag
was wrong and widely accepted (as i saw that it was separated in most
examples when i started mapping). Thus my method has always been to map
them separately (one way for the barrier and one way for the other main
tag, even
That is exactly my opinion on this matter.
Às 19:06 de 05/02/2020, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging escreveu:
5 Feb 2020, 21:06 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 00:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
amenity=drinking_water is used for;
streams
5 Feb 2020, 21:06 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 00:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> amenity=drinking_water is used for;
>>
>> streams that people drink from
>>
>> wells that people drink from
>>
>> taps that people drink from
>>
>> blubbers that people
You also have the problem of different Schools sharing the same building.
With the Uni I'm familiar with, in one case you have the Clinical Sciences
building 1, which holds 3 lecture theatres, plus the School of Nursing &
the School of Pharmacy.
It's currently mapped as "G16 - Clinical Science
Le 05.02.20 à 22:08, Christoph Hormann a écrit :
> (either 'invalid', '1d barrier' or '2d barrier'):
Here is my view AND I known that osm consensus is not that :
> closed way, barrier=fence
1d barrier
> closed way, barrier=fence, area=yes
2d barrier
> closed way, barrier=fence,
On 6/2/20 4:02 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
I see no good reason to count explicit "abstain but have comments"
exactly like "vote against".
+1
To abstain from voting is to not cast a vote. So there were 14 votes
with just under 93% approving.
On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> What would help make the data clearer (regardless of this
> discussion). For example, https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QqU is where
> the same object is used to represent both an amenity and a hedge in
> most of England and Wales. There are only
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 21:09, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> closed way, barrier=fence
>
Linear fence
closed way, barrier=fence, area=yes
>
Not sensible. Fences are linear structures. Tagging error.
closed way, barrier=fence, leisure=playground
>
Playground with a fence around it.
closed
On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> > disagreement about the meaning of certain tagging to in case of
> > doubt opt for not rendering something compared to rendering
> > something in a potentially misleading way. That would mean
> > following Paul's
>
> Ummm, wasn't me. I don't
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 20:55, Christoph Hormann wrote:
I am generally inclined to follow the principle in case there is
> disagreement about the meaning of certain tagging to in case of doubt
> opt for not rendering something compared to rendering something in a
> potentially misleading way.
Not replying to anyone in particular but it seems there is a lot of
dysfunctional communication here due to people focusing on something
very specific without making up their mind (or at least not
communicating their view) on the overall subject of the semantics of
barrier mapping.
Therefore
On 05/02/2020 19:17, Christoph Hormann wrote:
- in other words: Special casing exactly the situation in question to
be treated as an exception.
Hedges historically were treated as areas if appropriate, whereas other
barriers were not.
On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Jeroen Hoek wrote:
> > But that is not in any way sustainable and it would be highly
> > confusing for mappers because the conditions resulting in this
> > rendering would be unique and could not be derived from any general
> > principles.
>
> I understand the
On 05-02-20 20:17, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> But that is not in any way sustainable and it would be highly
> confusing for mappers because the conditions resulting in this
> rendering would be unique and could not be derived from any general
> principles.
I understand the reasoning, but what
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 00:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> amenity=drinking_water is used for;
>
> streams that people drink from
>
> wells that people drink from
>
> taps that people drink from
>
> blubbers that people drink from
>
> fountains that people drink from
>
>
> As such it
On Wednesday, 5 February 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Il giorno 5 feb 2020, alle ore 16:11, Paul Allen ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > 4) Where the only tags are barrier=hedge + area=yes then render
> > as before,
>
>
> +1, any object with area=yes should be
Hi,
I did some thing similar, too.
highway:lanes=cycleway|footway
surface:lanes=
width:lanes=
in addition to all the normal (fallback) tags.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27131742
Didn't use bicycle:lanes=designated|no or foot:lanes=no|designated though.
But I like it. I'm going to also
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 5 feb 2020, alle ore 16:11, Paul Allen ha
> scritto:
>
> 4) Where the only tags are barrier=hedge + area=yes then render
> as before,
+1, any object with area=yes should be considered an area.
> a hedge that has area. This would exclude the cases like
>
Le 05.02.20 à 18:41, Andy Townsend a écrit :
> On 05/02/2020 17:24, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> About the "removing tags where they may clash" point
> "if something is mapped as a brewery and also as
> tourist attraction, remove the tourist attraction tags
if osm-carto goal is to trying to give a
On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Andy Townsend wrote:
> [...]
>
> Basically it's saying "if something is mapped as a brewery and also
> as tourist attraction, remove the tourist attraction tags prior to
> rendering so the renderer renders it as a brewery, not a tourist
> attraction".
>
> Obviously a
On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 05:28:03PM +0100, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Jeroen Hoek wrote:
> > > the semantic ambiguity of the > 350k cases where barrier tags are
> > > currently used as a secondary tag on landuse/leisure/etc. polygons
> > > to incidate the polygon is
On 05/02/2020 17:24, Christoph Hormann wrote:
With "only feasible alternative" i means the only alternative that has
even a remote chance for consensus among the maintainers.
Ah! OK - that's much more understandable.
About the "removing tags where they may clash" point, here's an example:
On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Andy Townsend wrote:
> > As explained there the only feasible alternative would be to stop
> > rendering barrier tags on polygon features universally.
>
> No, it's not the only alternative - another would be "where there are
> conflicting tags, decide which one to
On 05/02/2020 14:46, Christoph Hormann wrote:
On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Andy Townsend wrote:
It doesn't sound like a tagging issue to me; I'd suggest that the
renderer that made this change did so in error. Is using a different
renderer an option until it is fixed (perhaps the
I see no good reason to count explicit "abstain but have comments"
exactly like "vote against".
Feb 5, 2020, 14:58 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:
> Well, if we count all of those, it is 68% (13/19) which is less than
> the 74% cut-off.
>
> I don't think this should be considered "approved".
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 16:29, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> > A hedge is not the same as bushes or trees.
>
> I never claimed it to be. What i did say is that what is mapped with
> barrier=hedge on polygons with a different meaning than 'this polygon
> is enclosed by a hedge' is elsewhere
On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Jeroen Hoek wrote:
> > the semantic ambiguity of the > 350k cases where barrier tags are
> > currently used as a secondary tag on landuse/leisure/etc. polygons
> > to incidate the polygon is enclosed by a linear barrier.
>
> The PR specifically removes the filled
+1
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 5 feb. 2020 om 16:37 heeft Jeroen Hoek het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> On 05-02-2020 16:10, Paul Allen wrote:
>> 4) Where the only tags are barrier=hedge + area=yes then render
>> as before, a hedge that has area.
>
> There are some additional tags that should be
Are there many correctly tagged features with the combi barrier=hedge &
area=yes where area=yes could be meant to specify something else than the
hedge? Most polygon features are implicit areas, I think?
Peter Elderson
> Op 5 feb. 2020 om 16:22 heeft Jeroen Hoek het volgende
> geschreven:
>
On 05-02-2020 16:10, Paul Allen wrote:
> 4) Where the only tags are barrier=hedge + area=yes then render
> as before, a hedge that has area.
There are some additional tags that should be allowed for. Including
(mainly?) `height=*`.
> 5) Introduce, and render, landcover=hedge so we can tag an
On 2/5/2020 8:58 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Well, if we count all of those, it is 68% (13/19) which is less than
the 74% cut-off.
Is it normal to count abstentions as part of the vote total? The
proposal template text (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Proposed_feature_voting )
Some thoughts from cyclist perspective.
I personally not using the (highway=path + bicycle=designated +
foot=designated) combination for shared foot- and cycleways.
1) If I change a cycleway to path, I will unintentionally enable access
for equestrians on the highway (according to this table:
On 05-02-2020 15:46, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> the semantic ambiguity of the > 350k cases where barrier tags are currently
> used as a secondary tag on
> landuse/leisure/etc. polygons to incidate the polygon is enclosed by a
> linear barrier.
The PR specifically removes the filled rendering
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 14:48, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> 1) remove all rendering of barrier tags on polygons
> 2) mappers in a concerted effort resolving the semantic ambiguity of the
> >350k cases where barrier tags are currently used as a secondary tag on
> landuse/leisure/etc. polygons to
On Wednesday 05 February 2020, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> It doesn't sound like a tagging issue to me; I'd suggest that the
> renderer that made this change did so in error. Is using a different
> renderer an option until it is fixed (perhaps the Humanitarian tiles
> linked from openstreetmap.org)?
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 at 13:21, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> It doesn't sound like a tagging issue to me; I'd suggest that the
> renderer that made this change did so in error. Is using a different
> renderer an option until it is fixed (perhaps the Humanitarian tiles
> linked from openstreetmap.org)?
Well, if we count all of those, it is 68% (13/19) which is less than
the 74% cut-off.
I don't think this should be considered "approved". There were several
comments that "free box" or something else that is more common in
British English should be considered instead.
More important than the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dgive_box
A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in
the sense of free sharing and reuse.
Hi
Thanks for voting and for the inputs. Based on the result «13 votes for, 1 vote
against and 5 abstentions» I set the
sent from a phone
> Il giorno 5 feb 2020, alle ore 11:53, Volker Schmidt ha
> scritto:
>
> I have not looked into this in detail, but this seems to me a strong case for
> site relations.
I don’t see how site relations would solve the different levels of structure in
different
On 05/02/2020 13:02, Jeroen Hoek wrote:
This update has the unfortunate side-effect of breaking the rendering of
over 1 hedges in the Netherlands.
This means that hedges are often mapped as areas, using the documented
tag pair of `barrier=hedge` plus `area=yes`:
In this case sounds like
This update has the unfortunate side-effect of breaking the rendering of
over 1 hedges in the Netherlands. We have been very fortunate to
have access to highly detailed mapping sources via our government,
including both satellite images and tile-services for street-level
features, including
Il mer 5 feb 2020, 13:30 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> ha scritto:
> Are diapers actually recycled?
>
Well... I've read it's theoretically possible to do it.
> It sounds like waste collection point accepting this specific type of
> trash.
>
Sure. If you read
Are diapers actually recycled?
It sounds like waste collection point accepting this specific type of trash.
Feb 5, 2020, 13:22 by franci...@gmail.com:
> Dear List
>
>
> Can be the tag:
>
> recycling:diapers=yes/no
>
> Be accepted as allowed value and documented on wiki?
> It's already on use
Dear List
Can be the tag:
recycling:diapers=yes/no
Be accepted as allowed value and documented on wiki?
It's already on use according to taginfo.
Many thanks
Best regards
Francesco
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Apart from technicalities, there is another problem. Universities in
different countries are subdivide in dìfferent ways: faculties,
departments, institutes, colleges. Except for campus-type universities they
are often distributed over an entire city.
I have not looked into this in detail, but
Each country (and maybe university) have different subdivision, and
sometimes even inside one university there are multiple different
subdivision co-existing : for example in Belgium i know at least a few
universities that use two separate division at the same time :
- for the education part :
65 matches
Mail list logo
