Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

On 28/04/2024 15:19, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote: A local Public Bridleway has a few (3, 4 or 5 from Aerial imagery) steps going down before it passes under a road bridge, and a similar number up again on the other side. How can I best tag this? According to the wiki, "highway=steps" seems

Re: [Tagging] Adding 'flood' as value to the key 'hazard' (to be used in combination with the tag boundary=hazard)

On 15/06/2023 20:47, Jez Nicholson wrote: Whilst it is a great idea to capture local knowledge about flooding, especially where it is currently not available, I am concerned that this doesn't have on-the-ground verification. I don't think that anyone has suggested that - at least not in this

Re: [Tagging] Adding 'flood' as value to the key 'hazard' (to be used in combination with the tag boundary=hazard)

On 15/06/2023 16:59, Cornelia Scholz via Tagging wrote: Dear all, I would like to propose to add*'flood'* as value to the *key 'hazard'* (to be used in combination with the tag*boundary=hazard*). ... What already exists is the key flood_prone

Re: [Tagging] Coach parking

On 09/06/2023 21:21, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Since these are all descriptive values in the name which we are not supposed to do, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Two things really - one was in case one of them was your "name=coach" that you thought that you've seen; the

Re: [Tagging] Coach parking

On 09/06/2023 10:52, Greg Troxel wrote: Anne- Karoline Distel writes: I came across a case where someone had added name=coach and name=car to amenity=parking, which is obviously not how we do things [snip] I can't find it either. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/name#values allows

Re: [Tagging] office=healthcare deprecated or bad documentation ?

On 12/05/2023 21:16, Marc_marc wrote: Hello, in 2020, the wiki was changed [|] for this tag (I don't remeber that we talk about it, no link in the comment of the change) [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:office%3Dhealthcare=prev=2062630 See also discussion at

[Tagging] Edits to "names" page following last year's discussion (was: Re: I am reverting an edit to the "Names" page on the Wiki)

Sorry to dredge this up again, but what seems to have happened is: Some edits to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Names by https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Bgo_eiu were reverted https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Names=revision=2368644=2351644 and there was discussion

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Approved - EV Charging Station Mapping

On 03/05/2023 08:28, Marc_marc wrote: I don't see how an algo will detect that 2 objects amenity=charging_station represent 2 sites on the same parking (and are therefore valid in the new schema) and not 2 charging stations on the same site (which would have to be changed to

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

On 18/04/2023 17:26, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Apr 18, 2023, 17:39 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk: I have come across a few cases where a mapper has has blindly answered no to a list of octane ratings that do not exist in the country they are mapping in. In the UK it is

Re: [Tagging] Status of clothes=motorcycle

On 06/04/2023 09:46, Illia Marchenko wrote: One of the wiki editors (Rtfm) insists that the clothes=motorcycle tag has been deprecated in favor of motorcycle:clothes=yes. For me it's not. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/2499835 See also

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - EV Charging Station Mapping

On 31/03/2023 07:10, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: I guess that in such cases it may be possible to tag it both as charging station and a charge point at the same time? That'd work - it makes it clear that this is a "new" amenity=charging_station (e.g. a "group of chargers", even if

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - EV Charging Station Mapping

On 31/03/2023 07:18, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: How you distinguish "marks group of chargers" and "marks single charger" within group of chargers" now? I don't, because currently it either marks "some chargers" (where there is no more detail) or "individual chargers" (where there

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - EV Charging Station Mapping

On 30/03/2023 18:13, NKA mapper wrote: tor. 30. mar. 2023 kl. 18:14 skrev Andy Townsend : How do I know if an "amenity=charging_station" in the OSM data is a "single charge point" or a "group of chargers"? The intention is to not have a difference. B

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - EV Charging Station Mapping

On 30/03/2023 09:25, NKA mapper wrote: The definition of amenity =charging_station  will change slightly and will represent both locations with a single charge point and

Re: [Tagging] Combining "locked=yes" with various access tags

On 21/02/2023 14:34, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Feb 21, 2023, 15:24 by zeev.stad...@gmail.com: 1. As far as non-emergency routing, the "locked" tag should be ignored. 2. A "locked=no" tag indicates that a legal access restriction is not enforced by a

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - landcover proposal V2

> By the way, I saw some changes leading to x10 contribution rates and be criticized as disrupting longstanding practices or established tagging. An actual example would be really useful here. > Establishment nor longstanding practices shouldn't be valid reasons on their own to justify

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

On 2/3/23 09:16, Walker Kosmidou-Bradley wrote: I use routing to measure accessibility to schools and health clinics here in west Africa. I have to make sure that my models also work in South Asia. Having the surface tag attributed makes processing infinitely easier because I don’t have to

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Replace `*:signed` suffix key with `signed:*` prefix key

On 01/02/2023 16:08, Marc_marc wrote: you can obviously just set unsigned=A;B I've got to admit, I didn't see that one coming! "unsigned=yes" is way ahead of all other "unsigned=" uses (see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/unsigned#values ). However, 24 people have used

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

On 31/01/2023 22:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: But iD, at least, when tagging basketball "pitches" asks for the number of hoops, with 1 as an option. Does that info then go anywhere downstream? Apparently: https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/way/4305950698 hoops

Re: [Tagging] caravans en-de inconsistency

On 18/01/2023 23:15, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: When I created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcaravan, I defined them as: "recreational vehicles such as towed caravans (a.k.a travel trailers, pop-tops, camper trailers, tent trailers, 5th wheelers etc); powered, self-propelled

Re: [Tagging] Change emergency=lifeboat-station to water-rescue

On 11/01/2023 23:10, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 6 Jan 2023 at 14:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: New proposal done: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/emergency%3Dwater_rescue Everything is quiet! :-) Does that mean that people are happy with how it

Re: [Tagging] Change emergency=lifeboat-station to water-rescue

On 04/01/2023 06:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: With Christmas over, & the start of a new month, thought it must be time to revisit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/emergency%3Dlifeboat_station ... Could I please ask for your feedback on the basic idea? I suspect that

Re: [Tagging] Private ambulance / patient transport service

On 03/01/2023 22:42, Illia Marchenko wrote: Graeme Fitzpatrick : A suggestion on the forum of amenity=training for the first-air training side of things + a description of everything else. Note that the proposal for  amenity =training was rejected.

Re: [Tagging] Homogenize diplomatic tags

On 17/12/2022 11:03, Georges Dutreix via Tagging wrote: Hello, As proposed, I continue here our discussion started on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117329397 Thanks You suggest to modify something in the wiki, I am ready to participate, but please I will need a guidance since I

Re: [Tagging] Homogenize diplomatic tags

On 16/12/2022 07:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: If this edit was in violation of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct then I would recommend notifying DWG (for the avoidance of any doubt) I am a member of the DWG, but this was not raised with the DWG as

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

On 16/12/2022 01:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 10:59, Andy Townsend wrote: doesn't explain why "amenity=lifeboat" is "deprecated".  Like it or not, this is used exactly how you'd expect: https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

On 15/12/2022 23:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: & it's also a shame that they couldn't have been mentioned as unresolved when I said twice that it was ready to go to voting! I think that any "reading of the room" yesterday (when it was moved to voting) would suggest that the issues raised

Re: [Tagging] Homogenize diplomatic tags

ia Tagging a écrit : Jan 28, 2022, 23:37 by graemefi...@gmail.com: On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 at 04:57, Andy Townsend wrote: * An OSMer with considerable experience of this area has written about this in the past: https://www.open

Re: [Tagging] plantation=yes?

On 10/12/2022 18:23, Mark Wagner wrote: As actually used on the map, "natural=wood" and "landuse=forest" are synonyms. Depends on the map - if there are no other tags https://map.atownsend.org.uk will show "landuse=forest" in a lighter green to "natural=wood" (to indicate "forestry"; it also

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

On 23/11/2022 22:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: But we're supposed to be tagging the base / buildings, not the boat itself. Why not both? Taking an example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8321217532 * amenity = lifeboat * emergency = marine_rescue * lifeboat = offshore *

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site

On 22/10/2022 11:44, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key from site_type to archaeological_type for reasons laid out under "Rationale":

Re: [Tagging] Window tinting?

On 20/10/2022 20:34, Illia Marchenko wrote: Maybe craft=window_construction? wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:craft=window_construction No, because it's not that. There are a few dozen examples in taginfo:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - man made=evaporation tower

On 20/10/2022 20:36, Illia Marchenko wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/man_made%3Devaporation_tower чт, 20 окт. 2022 г., 22:25 Illia Marchenko : Please give link :-) чт, 20 окт. 2022 г., 20:57 Kamil Kulawik : Hi! Voting has started for

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

On 12/10/2022 18:56, Evan Carroll wrote: But in some places, mappers have been more rigorous about respecting each building's architectural origins. This is all 100% new to me.  Where is it documented that a "shop" in a detached house should be mapped as a detached house, and not

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

On 11/10/2022 19:34, Evan Carroll wrote: Some examples of these nameless sections are, * w1101484647 by A_Prokopova_lyft That was added in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/127101982 , which was that user's first edit in OSM. I'd suggest asking them in the changeset about that edit,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

On 11/10/2022 14:54, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Obviously, I support this. It has its own preset scheme in the iD editor, its own icons etc. The following are missing (of the top of my head, because I proposed them) from the list and were approved already: creamery

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote: Hello, Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : who cares for "in use" or "approved" me :) approved that means that the subject has been discussed, that people have spent time on it, that there has been an opportunity to detect problems, to

Re: [Tagging] Fuzzy areas again: should we have them or not?

Hi all, I'll reply to this as me since the DWG's ticketing system was cc:ed on this mail and we can't reply from there because the messages will bounce. On 21/12/2020 15:42, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 8:01 AM Frederik Ramm > wrote:

Re: [Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

On 21/12/2020 07:39, Anders Torger wrote: Hello, I'm doing further mapping of Swedish national parks, now in the mountains, and I have noted that natural=fell (habitat over tree line) is not rendered. Looking into why it seems that OSM-Carto implementors want more specific landcover tags

Re: [Tagging] edit war related to tagging of a bus-only major road

On 09/12/2020 14:36, Michael Tsang wrote: Dear all, I'm working with some roads in Central area in Hong Kong. Des Voeux Road Central is considered one of the most important roads in the area which I tagged it as highway=secondary, however another editor has repeatedly changed it to

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 134, Issue 130 animal tracks ?

On 03/12/2020 10:47, ael via Tagging wrote: On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 11:08:55PM +, Paul Allen wrote: Which then goes back to the discussions we were having a while back about tagging the "dangerousness" of tracks. hazard=extreme surely? Actually,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

On 27/11/2020 04:25, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: Assuming that the boundary of that area is reasonably permanent, my first reaction is that this could be described by military=danger_area.  However, that tag requires landuse=military as the primary tag, which probably isn't correct here. On

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

ch cases the DWG often reverts to the "status quo ante", and we think that makes sense here too. Best Regards, Andy Townsend, on behalf of the Data Working Group On 18/11/2020 20:19, Eric H. Christensen via Tagging wrote: After a few days of much work, a recent collaborative projec

Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

On 25/11/2020 12:54, Phake Nick wrote: I don't think it is appropriate to add one-off temporary facilities into OSM. As soon as you do the sums it seems pretty unlikely that these will be "one-off temporary facilities". Governments and health authorities may be able to move to a more

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

On 02/10/2020 08:58, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On 10/1/20 14:46, Wieland Kestler wrote: Hi everyone! Due to the discussion in the german OSM-Telegram-group I made a proposal for tagging points where people can buy e.g. game (meat) directly from the forester. For more details see the

Re: [Tagging] Powerbank Sharing Systems

On 19/09/2020 12:47, Jake Edmonds via Tagging wrote: Maybe a proposal that needs voting on isn’t need but is it accepted to add things to the wiki without one? People certainly do do that (an example that comes to mind is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:verge ).  I don't see a

Re: [Tagging] Powerbank Sharing Systems

On 19/09/2020 11:59, Jake Edmonds via Tagging wrote: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Powerbank-sharing_systems_by_name https://heychimpy.com https://www.wecharge.me I can’t see any tagging related to powerbank sharing systems. You might be able to find some of them if you search

Re: [Tagging] Powerbank Sharing Systems

On 19/09/2020 11:59, Jake Edmonds via Tagging wrote: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Powerbank-sharing_systems_by_name https://heychimpy.com https://www.wecharge.me I can’t see any tagging related to powerbank sharing systems. Have you tried searching OSM data by name using

Re: [Tagging] tagging for fairgrounds

On 27/08/2020 17:04, Richard Welty wrote: so i'd like to propose one of these two "fairgrounds" is more of an American rather than a British English way of referring to these sorts of things, I think.  See https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-February/thread.html#24188 for

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

On 24/08/2020 01:12, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sun, 23 Aug 2020 at 23:45, Paul Allen > wrote: Theyargued that name should be the name of the road and bridge:name should be used for the name of the bridge.  Which did nothing to change all the

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

On 23/08/2020 21:22, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: The term "hostile architecture" is too vague. It is the normal British English (at least) description of this stuff. Best Regards, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

On 12/08/2020 01:37, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote: i have been to 11 stations in the last 3 weeks, the trains are not doing what the tags represent If you've done this, and care that stop positions are mapped in the correct place, then I'd suggest that you actually map these stop

[Tagging] PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

Hello, This is a question that actually arose out of a "how to tag" argument that's come to the attention of the DWG in the USA, but it's actually easy to describe in terms of data in the UK that I'm familiar with, so I'll do that. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12004813 is a

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

On 26/05/2020 00:20, Alan Mackie wrote: Has this edit war stabilised? Apparently it has been blocking coastline updates across the whole world for /months /now. https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/land-polygons.html

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

On 25/07/2020 17:21, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 25/07/2020 07.06, Andy Townsend wrote: Why do people in OSM map anything?  I can't see any reason why I'd want to add urban buildings, or comprehensive address data, or a whole bunch of other things that people think are _really important_. How

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

(re adding guideposts to route relations) On 21/07/2020 22:18, Peter Elderson wrote: I think the Why question comes first! Why do people in OSM map anything?  I can't see any reason why I'd want to add urban buildings, or comprehensive address data, or a whole bunch of other things that

Re: [Tagging] Finger- or guide-post text

On 17/07/2020 16:24, Jan Michel wrote: Hi Andy, we already have (not well documented) tags for this: Either you use destination_sign relations as Sarah pointed out. Or, if you prefer a more simple approach, there are eight defined keys to add the information with approximate directions:

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

On 22/07/2020 16:08, pangoSE wrote: I suggest you add the guidepost to a node on the path instead. Please don't do this.  If there's a gate on one side of the road you wouldn't add that gate to the road itself, would you? I really think it would be nice to be able to say query and list all

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

On 21/07/2020 20:37, pangoSE wrote: Andy Townsend skrev: (21 juli 2020 13:31:45 CEST) I've also been trying to add these (both guideposts and route markers) to the relevant hiking route relation. That does not sound right to me. Why would you do that? How would you indicate which relation

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

On 21/07/2020 12:04, Michal Fabík wrote: Hi, in some parts of the world, it's common practice to paint guidepost information (destinations, distances etc.) on rock faces, trees, walls and similar existing surfaces, rather than use purpose-made plates attached to a pole. (Example:

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On 18/07/2020 19:41, Alan Mackie wrote: On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 19:09, Paul Allen > wrote: On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 18:53, Tod Fitch mailto:t...@fitchfamily.org>> wrote: What I’d like is one or two tags to indicate that all visible indications of

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

On 12/07/2020 20:13, Taskar Center wrote: Why is the relation type on the Berlin Wall a “collection” rather than “boundary”? Over its history as an object in OSM it's had a whole variety of tags.  Different people have said "This is important!  We should render it!" and have sometimes

Re: [Tagging] Is there any case of valid numeric addr:housename - for example addr:housename?

On 30/06/2020 14:06, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: We have 15000 addresses such as addr:housename=3 ( http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/VBS ) Is there some chance that any of them is valid? Because it seems to me that editors should complain about addr:housename with just numbers. Any? 

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

On 06/06/2020 16:18, Phake Nick wrote: 在 2020年6月6日週六 11:03，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > 寫道： As a general tourist I would have no interest in traveling along a railway route here nothing remains of the railway. OSM is not *only* for general tourist.

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 22/05/2020 15:55, Daniel Westergren wrote: And there actually seems to be a pull request finally solving the paved/unpaved rendering that was opened 7 years ago?!? https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4137 If that makes it to the default map it will certainly help

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

On 21/05/2020 13:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: May 21, 2020, 14:17 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: It's still tricky. Around here, few trails are actually signposted; some don't have a sign anywhere! They're marked with paint blazes in the woods, guideposts in the fields,

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

On 21/05/2020 10:50, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Similarly anyone creating highway=footway + danger="you will be shot" + "access=no" + foot=yes" should probably switch to pickpocketing, telemarketing or other less harmful activity. While "danger" isn't a much used tag (and I'm

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On 15/05/2020 12:28, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 03:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: Any signed route may be mapped as a route relation. Depends how broadly or narrowly you define "signed route." And sometimes signed route

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

On 08/05/2020 14:04, s8evq wrote: And then some people in this very thread suggest to just ignore a rejection and start using it anyway. What's the use of the whole voting system then? Frankly, not much. Why even bother writing a proposal in the first place? I'll just do whatever. "I'll

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

On 03/05/2020 17:13, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: The deprecation was not discussed, and it was not done by anyone at OpenStreetMap Carto, BTW. Er - wasn't that https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3619 ? You commented in the discussion there... Best Regards, Andy

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-ml] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

On 03/05/2020 16:12, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: So, this discussion gravitates towards using landuse=common for those African urban freely accessible multipurpose open spaces, which I fully support. Just to be clear you've said "landuse=common" above but "leisure=common" below?

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

On 30/04/2020 19:09, Paul Allen wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 18:45, Andy Townsend via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: There are always going to be edge cases that aren't easy to categorise.  There's an area just up the road from where I am currently that s

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

On 30/04/2020 16:29, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > wetland area within a forest where trees are growing also within the wetland area That’s a “swamp”: natural=wetland + wetland=swamp https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wetland%3Dswamp ... or it might be seasonal or intermittent, depending

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

On 30/04/2020 12:10, Peter Elderson wrote: Seems to me that a "common" is an adequate word for such a place, so =common would be right. That makes sense to me as well. What key to use? I think it's a use of the land. Actual use can vary, may be leisure, may be commerce, may be parking,

Re: [Tagging] Implied default access tags for barrier=stile?

On 26/04/2020 22:15, Philip Barnes wrote: On Sunday, 26 April 2020, s8evq wrote: Hello everyone, Are any default access tags implied with barrier=stile? Similar to barrier=bollard (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dbollard mentions "By default access=no, foot=yes, and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Urgent Care

On 05/04/2020 16:36, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Can someone confirm if "urgent_care" makes sense in British English, rather than "walk-in" or something else? I'm English, and I would not know what "urgent_care" meant. After reading the wiki page, it is unclear whether refers to designated

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

On 31/03/2020 15:08, Gegorian Hauser via Tagging wrote: I also opened yesterday a issue on the github site from iD but this was closed imediatly because of "there is nothing written in the Wiki" https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/7491 I guess? If the consensus here is that the

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

On 28/03/2020 19:16, Cascafico Giovanni wrote: Well, if somebody takes care of rendering [1] OSM data structure, situation doesn't look so bad. [1] https://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=10!54.7983!-1.3075  Not really - that's just ignoring names on the main map and showing

Re: [Tagging] Number of route relation errors very much reduced

On 23/03/2020 10:38, Peter Elderson wrote: I am very happy to report that my current check finds very few integrity errors, and the few I see are not caused by using a specific editing tool. Compliments to the "ID-people", you have done it! Great! This does not mean ID is now a good

Re: [Tagging] Ponds are not observable on the ground

On 19/03/2020 13:15, pangoSE wrote: Hi IMO pond should not be mapped because it is not observable on the ground. How do you determine if it is "artificially created"/"man made"? Most ponds that I add are as a result of survey, so "should not be mapped because it is not observable on the

Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows

On 25/02/2020 22:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: But I have seen a few places on the map where a street motor race is held once a year, but they are mapped as a motor racing track, with a description "whatever race held the first weekend of October". The more normal mapping approach is like

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

On 25/02/2020 10:16, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 25.02.20 11:08, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: Since OSM is not the place for marketing, I would in these situations remove the whole POI, and not just the tracking parameters. ¿Que? You'd remove an entire hotel from the map

[Tagging] Service road surface edits in the UK (was: Re: implied surface values?)

On 12/02/2020 11:51, ael wrote: +1. Some of the Amazon people do seem to be adding unnecessary and unsurveyed surface=asphalt tags to many roads in the UK which I find quite irritating. If anyone's adding surface=asphalt when it isn't I'd definitely raise that via a changeset discussion

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

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.

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

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:

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

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

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

On 29/01/2020 20:47, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Wikidata already has the GVP property: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1886 So it's just a matter of ensuring that all volcanoes tracked by the GVP is present in Wikidata and has the correct P1886 value. To a regular human being

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

On 28/01/2020 22:44, Dave F via Tagging wrote: On 28/01/2020 21:23, Tomas Straupis wrote:    Yet for ten years ... I think your mistaken ... If it helps, someone on anther OSM list went through the previous times this has been discussed and came up with

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

On 27/01/2020 17:19, Dave F via Tagging wrote: On 27/01/2020 16:41, Mike Thompson wrote: I have never understood the use of tags like "cycleway", "bridleway", and "footway."  To me these mix two different concepts (physical form and legal access) in a single tag. These values do not

Re: [Tagging] Deleting template parameters copied to data items

On 15/01/2020 12:03, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 15 Jan 2020, 12:57 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com: I'm very unhappy with that. Please, please comment on the OSM Wiki if you want to comment. What would be useful is a separate discussion about what wiki "data items" are and why there are a

Re: [Tagging] How to revive a tag proposal?

On 14/01/2020 17:33, António Madeira via Tagging wrote: What can I do to revive this proposal and implement this tag? Just use the tag? You can see existing values for "man_made" at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/man_made#values , and you can search in there for "mill" or "olive".

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

On 09/01/2020 23:14, Peter Elderson wrote: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven I think; Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes. Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes. I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

On 08/01/2020 10:14, Volker Schmidt wrote: What about going back to the wiki and make use of the fact that amenity=parking_space can be used for this. Make separate parking space areas for different vehicle types. Add parking

Re: [Tagging] depreciate recycling:metal in favor of recycling:scrap_metal

On 31/12/2019 15:27, Volker Schmidt wrote: What's the difference between "metal" and "scrap metal". I would have thought any metal can be recycled (if the rightful owner is OK with that). What am I missing? It depends on the context I suspect.  If we're describing bins at the local tip, then

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary

On 21/12/2019 11:40, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 21 Dec 2019, 12:00 by wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org: I suggest to keep the road classification consistent at least within a country and try to solve the problem of roads in low-zoom maps at the rendering level, by modifying the list of

Re: [Tagging] pavement placed plaque

On 20/12/2019 20:41, ael wrote: On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 06:02:50PM +, Dave F via Tagging wrote: Hi I've a carved stone plaque(?) that's fixed flush into the pavement. it's to indicate the start/finish point of a long distance walk. https://whatsdavedoing.com/cotswold-way-guide/#start Two

Re: [Tagging] Public WLAN boxes

On 18/12/2019 15:22, Tod Fitch wrote: In the U.S. it would be called wifi or wi-fi rather than wlan. Anyone know what the British English is? In the UK it's also "wifi" or "wi-fi", but wlan is understood and has considerable establishment in OSM:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

> Cannot be legal for a pedestrian route, I think Statements like this suffer from an effect a bit like "Betteridge's law of headlines", in this case "any absolute statement that something that is true in one place is also true everywhere else in the world is false". I can certainly think of

  1   2   3   4   >