Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

> we end up with most POIs [e.g. shops] added as nodes, as it appears to be > currently the best compromise in terms of mapping efficiency, accuracy, > complexity and editability. +1 > I know there are lots of building=yes with POI data added, but I would > discourage this because there

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

On 19.04.20 20:33, Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 19:29, Justin Tracey > wrote: > > Another major exceptions where mapping as an internal node is > better, IME, are notable (historical) buildings that currently house > a business. More

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

sent from a phone > On 19. Apr 2020, at 20:29, Justin Tracey wrote: > > Another major exceptions where mapping as an internal node is better, IME, > are notable (historical) buildings that currently house a business. More > generally, if the tags of the building and business would conflict

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

On 19.04.20 19:51, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > I have noticed an issue putting things like the address on large > buildings. Sometimes software that generates routings (OsmAnd) doesn't > handle it gracefully and routes you to the wrong place. My preferred way to handle this is to tag a node of the

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 19:29, Justin Tracey wrote: > Another major exceptions where mapping as an internal node is better, IME, > are notable (historical) buildings that currently house a business. More > generally, if the tags of the building and business would conflict (e.g., > name), then it

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 18:53, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: Other than that, I generally agree with putting info on smaller > one-tenant building outlines versus adding a separate node. > Disadvantage of node: you have to duplicate the address. You need the address on the business so Nominatim doesn't

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

Another major exceptions where mapping as an internal node is better, IME, are notable (historical) buildings that currently house a business. More generally, if the tags of the building and business would conflict (e.g., name), then it makes sense to keep them as separate features. - Justin

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

On 4/19/20 12:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Generally, polygons are superior to nodes and should not be "converted" > to nodes, while converting nodes to polygons seems [ad]vantageous. I have noticed an issue putting things like the address on large buildings. Sometimes software that generates

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

vantageous. advantageous I meant ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

Am So., 19. Apr. 2020 um 17:53 Uhr schrieb Robert Castle < castler...@gmail.com>: > I noticed that some businesses are polygons whereas others are points > within a polygon. I was wondering which way is correct. > both is correct, although they are not equal. With polygons, you also convey

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

Rob, First welcome to OSM. When adding businesses, I use the convention that if the building holds multiple businesses, then each business is a separate node. If the building only holds on business, then I typically add the business information to the building polygon. Like a McDonalds fast food

[Tagging] Points vs Polygons

Hi Everyone, I'm new to OSM and have been I've been making some edits on Main Street of my hometown. All the buildings seem to have been mapped, but many of the businesses are not mapped or have incomplete information, so I've been adding in the business names that aren't there and editing the

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Key:urgent_care

Voting has opened on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Urgent_care ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

Yes that's true, but then we need a clear definition of what is seen as "public_transport" and what's not, don't we? I think some mappers also use access=private already (I'm not sure whether that fits).   I think this proposal: 

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Key:locked

Voting has opened for the locked tag proposal at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:locked. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

I've started a proposal https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-April/052174.html / https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:path%3Dmtb which aims to take this discussion over to the next stage, if you everyone could take a look at the new proposal and if discussion

Re: [Tagging] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

I agree that a tag like "public_transportation=yes" would be a sensible tag to add to a aerialway=station which is used as public transit, and "public_transportation=no" could be useful for a "railway=station" or "highway=bus_stop" which is not used for public transit. -- Joseph Eisenberg

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:path=mtb

Please see the proposal for highway=path + path=mtb as way to map mountain bike tracks at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:path%3Dmtb This has come about after very extensive discussion on the tagging list at

Re: [Tagging] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

sent from a phone > On 19. Apr 2020, at 10:53, Jo wrote: > > It only makes sense if the teleférico can be used all year around and is > useful for the whole public. If it's only there to get skiers up a mountain, > I don't think it's part of the public transport network. I don’t agree

Re: [Tagging] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

It only makes sense if the teleférico can be used all year around and is useful for the whole public. If it's only there to get skiers up a mountain, I don't think it's part of the public transport network. Jo On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 10:43 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone

Re: [Tagging] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

sent from a phone > On 18. Apr 2020, at 23:13, Gegorian Hauser wrote: > > I know that in the aerialway=station wiki site is nothing written about > public_transport. > But there should be the description about when the public_transport tagging > is allowed and when not for all kinds of

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a warehouse or distribution centre?

sent from a phone > On 19. Apr 2020, at 01:37, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > and the landuse is > landuse=industrial (+ industrial=distributor or industrial=warehouse) > - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:industrial This page doesn’t seem to indicate that distribution and logistics

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a warehouse or distribution centre?

sent from a phone > On 19. Apr 2020, at 01:37, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Do we need another tag like man_made=distribution_centre, or is > landuse + building enough in this case? Why would it depend on the case? The building tag is about buildings and the landuse tag about landuse, so