Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:39:14 +0200 (CEST) Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com: > > > > > > > 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com> > 寫道： > > > >> On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> > My main point is that out there are

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 10:52, Tod Fitch wrote: > On Jun 2, 2020, at 5:48 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren wrote: >>> Right. But is there another way? Can we tag dirt paths/wilderness >>> paths/forest paths/mountain paths with another main tag?

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > "this IS residential landuse." (Not COULD BE, but IS). Yes, this land might > be "natural" now, including being "treed," but I could still build a patio > and bbq there after perhaps cutting down some trees, it is my residential > land

Re: [Tagging] Overlapping naturals

Jun 2, 2020, 21:37 by f...@zz.de: > > Hi Rafael, > > On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 04:05:47PM +0200, Rafael Avila Coya wrote: > >> Hi, all: >> >> Let's say we have a natural=scrub for example. Inside it (a part of it) >> becomes seasonally wet, for example during the rainy (wet) season. How would >>

Re: [Tagging] Overlapping naturals

Hi Rafael, On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 04:05:47PM +0200, Rafael Avila Coya wrote: > Hi, all: > > Let's say we have a natural=scrub for example. Inside it (a part of it) > becomes seasonally wet, for example during the rainy (wet) season. How would > you better map this? Some possible approaches: >

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

> On Jun 2, 2020, at 5:48 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren > wrote: > I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag > according to function. A trail/path can have many users/functions, but

Re: [Tagging] Overlapping naturals

What sort of vegetation is found in the temporary wetland area? If it's bushes and shrubs which are identical to the surrounding area, then it's ok to map the whole area as natural=scrub, and then map the smaller natural=wetland area inside, with the addition of intermittent=yes or seasonal=yes

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 16:54, Tod Fitch wrote: > My translation of these two statements combined is roughy: “We can’t > change any tagging”. I don’t find that helpful. > I fear your translation is correct. At least for tags as heavily used as highway=path and highway=track. Deprecating anything

[Tagging] Overlapping naturals

Hi, all: Let's say we have a natural=scrub for example. Inside it (a part of it) becomes seasonally wet, for example during the rainy (wet) season. How would you better map this? Some possible approaches: 1. Having the area of all the scrub as natural=scrub, and the area that becomes wet in

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

On 02/06/2020 13:48, Volker Schmidt wrote: On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren > wrote: I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag according to function.   A trail/path can have many users/functions,

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 09:04, Daniel Westergren wrote: > I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag >> according to function. A trail/path can have many users/functions, but >> it's still a dirt path. >> > > Right. But is there another way? Can we tag dirt

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 12:23, Volker Schmidt wrote: Anyway the examples you find in OSM are few and in all cases I know the > completely erased bits are a tiny part of the overall ex-railway. > There are three ex-railways in my area (possibly more). Even though the rail part of those railways

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

Jun 2, 2020, 13:11 by g...@lexort.com: > First, I'm going to assume that polygons for landuse=residential do or > are intended to align with property boundaries. > I think that it is not a good assumption. One may have a property boundary that is partially landuse=residential and partially

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 05:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > How much time do you think I should spend searching for these people who > might know of it? And then once found how much time should I spend trying > to contact them? > > Think about what you are asking an unpaid mapper to do? >

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

stevea writes: > As I mentioned to Doug I exchanged a couple of emails with > user:jeisenberg (a principal contributor to Carto) about what was > going on with some examples of this, and Mr. Eisenberg explained to me > (in short) that it is a complicated ordering (or re-ordering) of > layers

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com: > > > 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com> > 寫道： > >> On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> > My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible >> > objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also

Re: [Tagging] Covered walkways?

Jun 2, 2020, 07:34 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > Doing some mapping around one of the local schools & wondering about the best > way to map covered walkways? > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-28.06022/153.42615 > > A lot of skinny roofs, with highway=footway + covered=yes drawn

Re: [Tagging] Covered walkways?

Simple mapping: covered=yes Elaborate mapping: building=roof; layer=1 (useful if the geometry matters, e.g. roof wider than footpath) Il mar 2 giu 2020, 07:36 Graeme Fitzpatrick ha scritto: > Doing some mapping around one of the local schools & wondering about the > best way to map covered

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

> > I think the reason that this is so messed up because of the desire to tag > according to function. A trail/path can have many users/functions, but > it's still a dirt path. > Right. But is there another way? Can we tag dirt paths/wilderness paths/forest paths/mountain paths with another