Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

Agreed with Phake, any boundary that's used for administrative purposes could be included, that's what I understand from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative. That doesn't mean that each area needs to have it's own legal entity and administrator, nor need to be able to

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

In South Korea/Japan/China/Taiwan, the minimal administrative level are usually equivalent of neighborhoods, and have little to no substantial administrative functions. For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3987250 this is admin_level=9 in South Korea, https://www.openstreetmap.org/re

[Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

At the US talk mailing list and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_admin_level there has been discussion about whether or not certain features should be tagged as administrative boundaries in the States of Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts. While all these States have

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

Obvious, route relations covers the same type of objects that has different names, even in English. In other languages you will get even more names, but I will not start using type=szlak_turystyczny relation type. May 13, 2020, 18:17 by bradha...@fastmail.com: > It isn't a route, except in OSM,

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

I prefer a single member route relation than a way with type=route, route=whatever. The later lead to much more uncertainty in the tags meaning. Yves Le 13 mai 2020 18:17:37 GMT+02:00, brad a écrit : >It isn't a route, except in OSM, it's just a trail. > >On 5/13/20 9:09 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

May 13, 2020, 17:43 by jm...@gmx.com: > > On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > >> >> We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC.  It'stime to >> stop treating this basic primitive asentity-non-grata.  If tools >> >> still>>  can't deal withth

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

It isn't a route, except in OSM, it's just a trail. On 5/13/20 9:09 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:23 AM brad > wrote: It isn't part of a route, it's the whole route.  I think that's a difference without a distinction in this case.  Dat

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard

The hazard tagging has a problem, when you try to apply it. A dog hazard is a hazard to people by dogs or is a hazard to dogs by mountain lions or whatever. In a different thread we are discussing dooring hazard. I would love to see a more general approach to hazard and danger tagging, but do not

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:43 AM Jmapb wrote: > On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC. It's time to stop > treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata. If tools *still* can't > deal with this, this is on the tools and their develo

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC.  It's time to stop treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata.  If tools /still/ can't deal with this, this is on the tools and their developers now. Sure. Regarding the original question -- in

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:23 AM brad wrote: > It isn't part of a route, it's the whole route. I think that's a difference without a distinction in this case. Data consumers still need to know the route is there. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@open

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

It isn't part of a route, it's the whole route. On 5/12/20 8:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad > wrote: OK, but it seems redundant to me.   A trail/path get tagged as a path. There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagge

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:06 AM Jmapb wrote: > On 5/12/2020 10:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad wrote: > >> OK, but it seems redundant to me. A trail/path get tagged as a path. >> There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name. Why does >> it

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On 5/12/2020 10:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad mailto:bradha...@fastmail.com>> wrote: OK, but it seems redundant to me.   A trail/path get tagged as a path. There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name.   Why does it need to be

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:26:07PM -0700, Tod Fitch wrote: > dog=yes|no|leashed already exists for a totally different semantic (letting > dog owners know if their pet is allowed). > > If this goes forward I would prefer reversing thing and make it hazard=dog. > That would also allow other types

[Tagging] Tag:amenity=refugee_site

Hello everyone, The OSM tag proposal Amenity=refugee_site has been validated with 31 votes for and 2 votes against. ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refugee_Site_Location_2) I woul

Re: [Tagging] Quality and the Openstreetmap value chain

You might need to divide 'data user' into: 'data processors (?)' - those that extract, manipulate, and combine data ready to use/display. 'database users' - those that use/display the information with minimal preprocessing. Recent discussions appear to be a mismatch between the needs of the 2.

Re: [Tagging] Quality and the Openstreetmap value chain

On 5/13/20 03:31, Colin Smale wrote: > These are two distinct user types or personas, each with their own list > of requirements/expectations. Let's recognise that and treat them > separately in this discussion.   Okay, "map user" and "data user" then? Anything to get "consumer" out of the lexicon

Re: [Tagging] Quality and the Openstreetmap value chain

On 2020-05-13 10:20, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 5/12/20 17:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > >> I'd really like somebody to come up with simple definitions of >> >> mappers, >> >> data consumers / customers, >> >> users? > > I'd consider "user" and "data consumer" to be the same thing (but wou

Re: [Tagging] Quality and the Openstreetmap value chain

On 5/12/20 17:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > I'd really like somebody to come up with simple definitions of > > mappers, > > data consumers / customers, > > users? I'd consider "user" and "data consumer" to be the same thing (but would prefer "user" or even "data user" in light of the objectio

Re: [Tagging] Quality and the Openstreetmap value chain

Hello, Le 13.05.20 à 00:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit : > I'd really like somebody to come up with simple definitions of let's try :) > mappers, someone who adds data into osm > data consumers / customers, someone who get data from osm > I map, & I then also "use" OSMand for navigation purp

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

在 2020年5月13日週三 12:24，Mark Wagner 寫道： > On Tue, 12 May 2020 23:53:52 +0800 > Phake Nick wrote: > > > Except capacity is only one of many differences between common taxi > > and motorcycle taxi. > > Are there any differences that can't be explained by the fact that a > motorcycle taxi uses a motor

Re: [Tagging] Quality and the Openstreetmap value chain

On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 11:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Dirt road may be highway=trunk if it is the main road of national road > system. > Muddy road, not even surface=compacted is highway=primary in some region. > > is it mistagged as highway=track? The