Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - building:architecture:preromanesque

On 18/08/2017 10:22, José G Moya Y. wrote: In my country, this tag could be used to describe "mozarabic" buildings along with "visigothic" buildings. I hope this be useful to other european countries, too. Personally, I'd say that if you find a tag useful, just use it (and if it's not

[Tagging] Clothes subtags (was "Tagging Digest, Vol 96, Issue 3" and before that "shop=fashion")

On 02/09/2017 18:19, Thilo Haug wrote: Please consider there might be more useful subtags for shops, like : shop=clothes clothes:type=fashion/boutique/work/sport clothes:for=woman/men/children clothes:repair=yes clothes:rental=no shoes:sales=yes the "for" key is used here :

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

On 09/10/2017 12:47, Christoph Hormann wrote: Keep in mind that the mental image of an 'airport', 'aerodrome' or 'runway' or whatever translation the description of this tag is in your local language differs a lot from mapper to mapper. So the only really meaningful definition is something

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

On 12/10/2017 14:17, Philip Barnes wrote: Farm airstrips are a thing that has bugged me for some time. Proper airports appear at zoom 10 and then other airfields, including farm strips appear at zoom 11. Whilst there are significant private and military airfields that should be shown at

Re: [Tagging] Additional sub tags for survey mark

On 23/11/2017 08:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: you can, independently from tagging, create multiple objects for the same node, through relations, e.g. the node relation or AFAIR a provides relation. ... which no data consumer (and most mappers) won't understand. Can you give an example

Re: [Tagging] a tag for "really-really-freestores"

On 04/12/2017 17:17, thomas schwaerzler wrote: thats a half way acceptable solution for us. thank you for your proposals! but we would like to clearly distinguish from commercial shops. actually its a quite big categorical difference. some people refer to that kind of movement more as a zone

Re: [Tagging] passage only on low tide

On 04/11/2017 07:04, Max wrote: How to tag a way that is only passable for 3 hours during low tide? If it helps anyone, an example of the sort of object with this restriction is http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/177021004 .  I wouldn't take "name=Lindisfarne Causeway (Tidal Check times)" as a

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating of leisure=common and leisure=village_green

On 08/12/2017 13:05, Marc Zoutendijk wrote: This mapper: ... Before we get too far down the line of geographical guilt-by-association, think how much more tidying UK-based mappers will have had to do :) To be fair though, I certainly wouldn't have got around to trying to map the

[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag (was: Re: British term for municipal greenery?)

On 06/06/2018 11:48, Peter Elderson wrote: This issue has a long history... seems to me tagging awaits rendering, and rendering awaits tagging. In such cases, you need a commitment from both sides, with enough support to fuel trust. Then things can get rolling. Speaking as someone who both

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

On 10/06/2018 23:42, François Lacombe wrote: 2018-06-11 0:14 GMT+02:00 Graeme Fitzpatrick >: Thanks for that, but I'm afraid that the continual OSM worldwide translation problem is raising it's ugly head yet again. In Australia at least, "telephone

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 08/06/2018 16:03, Peter Elderson wrote: In this case, rendering is crucial so any documentation would need to address that. To echo what other people have suggested, you are entirely free to set up a rendering* of whatever OSM tags you want as however you want.  To do that for Belgium

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 07/06/18 23:00, Peter Elderson wrote: I think landuse=forest should remain intact, for cases where forestry is actually how the land is used. So the tag is not deprecated, it's just applicated more consistently. So you're proposing to change the meaning of a tag that has 3.5 million uses?

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 06/06/2018 16:38, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 6. Jun 2018 17:10 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com : Nothing really fits "This land is used for production of forest products" So be tag should be invented by someone who cares about it. I've used

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

On 19/06/2018 14:41, Bryan Housel wrote: Sounds good to me. We can leave the thread open a few more days to see if anyone cares that much about `covered=booth`. I think 5 days is plenty. I'd suggest that you'd wait longer than that, and also attempt to find out where the 5k current examples

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

On 19/06/2018 14:37, Bryan Housel wrote: Yes it was settled a week ago The migration is being discussed here: https://github.com/osmlab/osm-tagging/issues/1 This thread can end now :) Thanks, Bryan So as well as being lead developer on an OSM editor you reckon that you've not been getting

Re: [Tagging] Route members: ordered or not

On 03/05/2018 13:06, David Marchal wrote: I recently worked a bit on hiking routes, and noticed that some routes have unordered members. I wouldn't expect them to be ordered, to be honest - it'd be dependent on every OSM editor ordering the members (in some way) on save. It's also

Re: [Tagging] Outdoor deckchairs

On 30/04/2018 11:03, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: A “one person bench” doesn’t seem as rare as people seem to think… https://www.wayfair.com/furniture/pdp/wildon-home-elmore-one-seat-bench-ut2860.html That's clearly for someone whose "seat" is even wider than mine :)

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 04/01/2018 02:52, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:27 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: building=school building:use=residential That tags 'what is on the ground'. To me, it seems to presuppose an unrealistic amount of

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

On 10/01/2018 12:00, Georg Feddern wrote: I am quite sure that in _reality_ a stop _or_ a platform is mandatory in a public transport route - otherwise you would just have a route with 'hitchhiking'? In the real world, that happens.  As well as public transport routes with _only_ the route

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks and cycleways as tags vs as extra lines

On 16/01/2018 10:17, "Christian Müller" wrote: But a simple (read ideally one or two tags) attribute that enables data users to bisect a set of motorized ways by the sidewalk or sidepath property may simplify a lot of queries. sidewalk=separate is currently used a fair bit to indicate that

Re: [Tagging] Nonbreakable spaces in name tags

On 26/01/2018 14:48, Matej Lieskovský wrote: ... we reached out to the DWG, which did not solve the dispute. For completeness, I actually suggested posting here rather than have the DWG issue a "commandment" - I have some knowledge of Czech and Czech grammar but not much, and it made sense

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks and cycleways as tags vs as extra lines

On 16/01/2018 13:10, Marc Gemis wrote: I would love to have this confirmed by the makers of e.g. navigation software. It is not clear to me whether you are a data consumer that has this problem or whether you think they might have a problem. From the perspective of someone consuming the data

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

On 12/01/2018 14:06, marc marc wrote: from aerial imagery and existing tag : landcover=gravel :) Which to be clear is a pretty rare tag - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landcover=gravel - 431 uses worldwide. Best Regards, Andy ___

Re: [Tagging] 'Unknown' value.

On 03/02/2018 22:16, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: foot=unknown in England I've added a few of those - mostly they're places where there is physical access, but it's really not clear what the access rights (if any) are.  There's no signage suggesting legal access, no infrastructure

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

On 13/02/2018 22:14, marc marc wrote: Le 13. 02. 18 à 23:09, Richard a écrit : the only one added is waterway=pressurised. why not pipeline for this? maybe because a siphon is not a pipeline :) By what definition?  The pipeline that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/203739284 would be

Re: [Tagging] 'Unknown' value.

On 05/02/2018 16:46, OSMDoudou wrote: I'd rather use fixme and note tags instead of encoding uncodified information in well-established tags. I use fixmes a lot (I even wrote something to extract them from OSM for survey - https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/Notes01 ).  Where I've used e.g.

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

On 20/02/2018 07:40, joost schouppe wrote: Some of the most used historical tags are for things that are just old, not necessarily disused or with another use than the original one. Wayside cross and shrine, monuments, memorials, castles etc. It just seems to signify a special relationship

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

On 19/02/2018 09:00, Philip Barnes wrote: Hi Joost As a native English speaker I have never heard the term Hollow Way, however reading the description it seems that this proposal is describing what is called a Sunken Lane. I would avoid cutting as that implies something that has been cut

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

On 19/02/2018 20:59, Jo wrote: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/holloway Indeed - but if you actually read the links there you'll see Bill Bryson's comment on that very page ("In different regions they go by different names...").  He's someone who's studied the origin of the language in both

Re: [Tagging] landuse=clearing

What I've tended to do with clearings is: o natural=wood for "here be trees", with leaf_type added. o If there's a large "landuse=forest" area already and that encompasses wood, clearings, ponds etc. (and there often is), leave that as "landuse=forest" or add as "landuse=forestry" (note -

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

On 27/07/2018 13:19, Andrew Hain wrote: ... and unit management support in editors. ... and presumably also in every data consumer that uses OSM data too? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

On 21/07/18 08:09, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: ... You can be sure that pretty much everyone that maps the detailed features of a golf course does so because they want to see it on the map. As an aside, if anyone's looking for a style that does render golf features have a look at

Re: [Tagging] Put the name in sidewalks and cycleways

On 05/08/18 19:10, Nick Bolten wrote: I've run into this issue as well, many times, and it's like I said: the 'name' tag is meant to answer the question 'what is the name of this thing?', sidewalks themselves usually don't have names, and the street name isn't the name of the sidewalk. When

Re: [Tagging] How to tag small canals?

On 16/08/2018 08:49, SelfishSeahorse wrote: What is the usual (or sensible) way to tag small canals like mill races (example: [^1]) or small irrigation channels (example: [^2]), i.e. the small equivalent of waterway=canal? [^1]:

Re: [Tagging] horse mounting/dismounting steps

On 28/08/2018 14:53, Philip Barnes wrote: They are not beside bridleways, ... All the ones I've mapped have been - often before and after bridges and tunnels, so that you can lead Dobbin on foot rather than risk banging your head or risk being thrown off onto the motorway when a car horn

Re: [Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

On 19/07/2018 07:50, Peter Elderson wrote: I would like some thoughts on the idea of tagging route maintenance. Long hiking & cycling routes need regular maintenance. On the road, of course, which is not our problem, but as a consequence they need re-surveying and adapting the route relations

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

On 17/07/2018 22:04, François Lacombe wrote: Hi all, A discussion has recently started about waterway=fish_pass here : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:waterway%3Dfish_pass Ignoring the wiki, what non-waterway tags are used for fish_pass in OSM? 

Re: [Tagging] "sym" tag

On 24/07/2018 15:59, José G Moya Y. wrote: I've found some places of worship tagged with the undocumented "sym=church" tag. They're from Garmin waypoints.  See https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/sym for other examples. Don't just mechanically edit them, because there are likely other

Re: [Tagging] Designated value as a key

On 09/09/2018 13:53, Johnparis wrote: I agree that it is theoretically a problem for the software not to use access:bicycle=yes (for example) instead of bicycle=yes. I believe I've seen (from Thorsten?) a list of such tags, as a hierarchy.

Re: [Tagging] psychics

On 05/07/18 06:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 07/05/2018 12:59 AM, Jmapb wrote: So I was considering changing them to shop=fortune_teller. But doesn't the average psychic offer more than just fortune telling? Relationship counselling, crime detection, treasure hunting, mind reading,

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks and cycleways as tags vs as extra lines and StreetComplete

On 22/01/2018 16:05, Fernando Trebien wrote: Undone. Thanks But we need to talk about how messy the scheme is becoming by mapping cycleways and sidewalks differently when separate from the main way. To be honest I wouldn't worry too much about how complicated the tagging scheme is, as long as

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks and cycleways as tags vs as extra lines and StreetComplete

On 15/01/2018 14:47, Fernando Trebien wrote: When mapping sidewalks and cycleways, it is possible to do so as tags on the line of the motorised way [1][2] or as standalone lines parallel to it [1][3]. You've recently changed the wiki to suggest that sidewalk=sidepath is valid:

Re: [Tagging] Culverts and Fords

On 28/02/2018 21:31, Vao Matua wrote: What I would like to do is simply merge a node of the road and a node of the stream and give it the tag tunnel=culvert (when I do this JOSM complains) Because that would then be a ford rather than a culvert - you're implying that at a certain point (the

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

On 09/04/2018 11:55, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Currently definition at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbus_station is unclear, it fits two cases * intercity bus station (routes between cities, importance comparable to railway=station) * terminus highway=bus_stop (routes

Re: [Tagging] Small gate only for foot access

On 20/04/2018 11:26, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: I believe the correct shorthand for access=no foot=yes would be just access=foot ? That's not the way that access tags generally work. There are 784 at taginfo: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/access=foot but it's

Re: [Tagging] Small gate only for foot access

On 20/04/2018 09:57, marc marc wrote: Le 20. 04. 18 à 10:32, e.rossin...@alice.it a écrit : how can I correctly tag a small gate only for foot access? barrier=gate and then which other tag can I use? For completeness, https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/barrier=gate#combinations shows the

Re: [Tagging] Identifying language regions

On 24/04/2018 09:11, Rory McCann wrote: Ireland has 2 official languges (Irish first & then English), but only ~2% of the population speak Irish daily. There are some legal defined regions of Ireland which are supposed to be "Irish speaking areas", but even there Irish is a minority language.

Re: [Tagging] 'Unknown' value.

On 16/03/2018 21:46, marc marc wrote: SomeonElse write me today because since access=unknown could have a hidden meaning (= for access key, the mapper doesn't know if access is allowed and wants to make it known that it's complicated) What I actually said was on

Re: [Tagging] wetap specific tags

On 23/03/2018 13:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: actually, this isn't an import but an app. Even so, I'd still comment on the changeset made by the person who pressed the button in the app so that they know that there is a problem.  Also of course you can try raising issues in github

Re: [Tagging] wetap specific tags

On 23/03/2018 12:32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I noticed that the wetap app sets tags in a "wetap" name space for properties for which we already have established tags. Here's an example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/304151931/history Personally, I'd ask the question of the person who

Re: [Tagging] Manor tagging

On 17/03/2018 09:51, Daniel Koć wrote: Since there was no response so far, may I propose to deprecate using historic=manor and suggest on the wiki page to use only historic=castle + castle_type=manor instead. The reasons: OSM doesn't really have deprecated tags, except in special cases (for

Re: [Tagging] [Documentation] RFC - man_made=pumping_station

On 26/04/2018 14:52, Paul Allen wrote: Although other updates I made at the same time were rendered, the pumping station wasn't. ... on some maps.  It'll appear on others, such as: https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=20=52.0821841=-4.657313 * I wouldn't let the fact that

Re: [Tagging] Greengrocer vs grocery vs shop=food?

On 17/10/2018 14:22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Is WIkipedia definition "A *delicatessen* or *deli* is a retail establishment that sells a selection of unusual or foreign prepared foods" correct? "foreign" - not in English, no, and none of the

[Tagging] Martitime disputed borders - was "Add some tag to identify disputed borders ?"

On 26/10/2018 18:16, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: Another related issue -- maritime disputed borders. Indeed, that is a case where overlapping admin_level=2 boundaries may make sense. Another example is around Gibraltar, where both of the interested parties can claim to have some control over the

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On 25/10/2018 23:50, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Wikidata’s license is CC0, so that is compatible, and almost all numerical values from Wikipedia, like height of buildings and towers, are also in Wikidata. Something doesn't become "licence washed" by being copied from a differently licensed

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

On 03/11/2018 04:55, djakk djakk wrote: I do not see why timetables are hard to maintain ? Most bus lines do not change their schedules for years (even in big cities, Paris for example). Because changing the schedule means buy a new bus and hire new drivers. OSM has been described as a

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

On 08/11/2018 01:59, Dave Swarthout wrote: To my way of thinking, a tag in the relation implicitly applies to every member of the relation. No.  Think of a long-distance footpath - that may have an operator, or it may have tags that apply specifically to the footpath route. It may also run

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

On 08/11/2018 20:24, Paul Allen wrote: On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 7:44 PM Philip Barnes > wrote: In the UK traveline already provide this service and use OSM. In fact they are part of the OSM community and update the map. See

Re: [Tagging] Estimated values for height

On 11/11/2018 15:12, marc marc wrote: taginfo only count the old/ugly schema with the source on objects in stead of changest. for a source tag, it's a count a bad pratice :) No, putting a source on an object is not "bad practice".  If the source for all of the objects in a changeset is the

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On 12/11/2018 13:21, Noémie Lehuby wrote: Should we consider the disputed=yes tag on boundary ways as a /de facto/ standard and uniformize a few borders ? Can you give examples of where you'd use it? There are many, many examples of disputed borders in OSM and they have been mapped in

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

On 20/09/18 03:57, John Willis wrote: ... Retail is always wrong. Commercial is a crutch. In your part of the world, perhaps.  Elsewhere, this isn't guaranteed to be the case.  Certainly here in the UK many formerly "civic" services have been privatised and are run for out-and-out

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

On 24/09/18 20:24, Fredrik wrote: Ref prominence, there is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=hill. There is an attempt to document what a hill is and how its separated from a (natural=)peak by separating them on prominence. Are you trying to create a new term there, are you

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

On 26/09/2018 09:12, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-09-26 06:32, Mark Wagner wrote: That's not what I said.  To repeat, my point is that, at least locally, ... Sorry Mark, you are wrong. There is no guarantee, signposted or not. I think the key point here is "at least locally".  Certain things

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On 1/16/19 5:56 PM, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote: A lot of the trailheads I've mapped contain none of the identifiers you mentioned in the first paragraph (shelter, pole, special design, flag, etc.), all they have is a designated parking lot for your vehicle.  I would like your wiki page better

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 20/01/2019 23:17, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The end to this madness is for renders to recognise that the landuse=forest needs to be rendered differently from natural=wood. Until several years ago the “standard” style (Openstreetmap-Carto) did show a difference between landuse=forest and

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Re: Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

On 23/01/2019 08:32, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Jan 23, 2019, 9:10 AM by 61sundow...@gmail.com: How are areas zoned/set aside to produce timber from trees to be tagged? The trees are not always there - like crops on a farm field. Not using landuse=forest and not landuse=forestry.

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Can you give a few examples of what trailheads are to you? There's a clearly defined American concept, it isn't not really used much in British English.  Also what do you mean by "official" below - is there some kind of VVV list or similar? Best Regards, Andy On 21/12/2018 11:54, Peter

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On 21/12/2018 18:12, Peter Elderson wrote: The route starting points in Nederland are multimodal, named, have to fulfill some requirements, and are recognizable in the field as such by some kind of landmark feature such as an oversize green grass halm, cone of stones, oversize key. They

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.3)

On 05/12/2018 18:52, Johnparis wrote: I have just posted another revised version of my proposal on mapping disputed boundaries. It greatly simplifies the tagging and relation structure. One thing that would be really helpful would be to summarise those changes somewhere.  There's a whole

Re: [Tagging] How to tag shared waterway highway

On 08/12/2018 10:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I would recommend drawing a separate “way” for the highway. I imagine that the route taken by vehicles or people walking is a few meters off of the center of the waterway, and perhaps a little straighter. If you are coarsest tracing the waterway and

Re: [Tagging] How to tag shared waterway highway

On 08/12/2018 11:19, Warin wrote: Fords are where the water runs across the road.. not along with it... at least that is the common situation here. We have more water than you :) A regular ford does just go across the road, but one that shares the road for a bit is called a "long ford".

[Tagging] Both proposals for disputed country borders

(previous conversations heavily edited) On 28/11/2018 10:49, Rory McCann wrote: On 28/11/2018 06:39, Johnparis wrote: ... Finally, is there some reason you want to create a competing proposal? I don't have any knowledge of two competing proposals being discussed at the same time; would

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On 23/11/2018 16:33, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:30 PM SelfishSeahorse mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>> wrote: 1. 'inner' roles (and thus 'outer' roles too) are still needed in case a country has enclaves. Even if a country has exclaves and/or has enclaves

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

consider this as a good practice ? Is it ok if I add disputed=yes all over the Croatia / Serbia way borders ? I hope it helps clarify the purpose ;) Noémie Lehuby Qwant Research Le 13/11/2018 à 21:37, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org a écrit : From: Andy Townsend To:tagging@openstreetmap.org Sub

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On 26/11/2018 08:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a type=boundary relation to store information about claimed, "de facto", and "de jure" borders can you give a definition for de jure?

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On 26/11/2018 09:49, Warin wrote: Where the two boundaries use the same way - simple - no problem. Where they differ? The choices are then available and could be left to the renders rather than OSM? Too simple? It depends what problem you're trying to solve.  If you're just trying to

Re: [Tagging] My proposal for disputed country borders

On 27/11/2018 23:01, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: This proposal has several problems: 1) Too many new relations, up to 180 per border or whatever the number of independent states has reached. It's a concern (I've made similar points about languages in the past) but in this case I don't think that

[Tagging] Definitive mapper-feedback style (was: Re: Using multipolygons to map bays in Alaska)

On 17/11/2018 11:27, Frederik Ramm wrote: ... it is good to have a central map that provides valuable feedback, and keeps mappers from, say, introducing random highway types by simply not rendering them. I'd agree there, and unfortunately the OSM-Carto style isn't fit for purpose as that.  It

Re: [Tagging] Named walking tracks following road

On 28/11/2018 07:52, OSMDoudou wrote: I would suggest to make a consistent edit of the area, not just solve one isolated MapRoulette challenge. Yes. Actually, in a case like that where someone's accidentally merged some names or other tags I'd suggest commenting on the changeset so that

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On 26/11/2018 11:24, Peter Elderson wrote: The whole thing seems pretty shaky to me. That's unfortunately as true in the physical world as it is in OSM. ... and Paul Norman's "osmborder" (mentioned by Noémie previously) is a huge start - you get a list of boundary segments classified

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

On 03/01/2019 14:37, Peter Elderson wrote: What about the same question without the “easily”? I occasionally (especially with a DWG hat on) have to modify relations on a member-by-member basis, and depending on what exactly what you want to do, JOSM, P2 or something else might be the best

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On 11/01/2019 13:51, Steve Doerr wrote: On 11/01/2019 12:56, Paul Allen wrote: All you actually need is some form of tag for a TOP. Agreed designation = toeristisch_overstappunt Notwithstanding the 'It's not a "legal classification"' that was top-posted in a follow-up message, that's

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On 11/01/2019 17:05, Peter Elderson wrote: The Trans-Pennine Trail trailhead is a trailhead No - it really isn't. That was my entire point. I'm willing to bet a small round of beer in the pub up the road that almost no-one walking past that info board will say "oh look - that's a

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On 09/01/2019 15:18, Peter Elderson wrote: The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is in Nederland. .. If other trailheads (non-TOP) would be mapped, they would not get this particular reference. I'm not convinced that the things on that page

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On 09/01/2019 18:35, Kevin Kenny wrote: Are we back to trying to warp the definition so that only Toeristich Overstappunt qualifies? The reverse of that, actually - based on my limited knowledge of these in Noord Holland (which to be fair Peter said weren't typical of the Dutch ones) they

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

On 09/01/2019 19:03, Bryan Housel wrote: It’s not documentation.  It’s just a bunch of prescriptive advice by random people.  Most of the people involved don’t even work on software.  They’re just really into tagging and arguing, and I don’t have time for it. At its worst its that, sure -

Re: [Tagging] Telephone exchange

Re "central office", it's not really an English term.  I'm guessing that it was translated from French - see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/037016.html and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Telecom_local_loop .  The English term that matches

Re: [Tagging] Is there any use of shop=general/general_store not covered by shop=convenience/supermarket/country_store?

On 25/03/2019 15:00, Paul Allen wrote: On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 14:36, Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote: In situations matching your description I think that either shop=supermarket or shop=country_store would fit. There used to be a shop near me which wouldn't

Re: [Tagging] What's the default `access` value? | Re: amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On 04/04/2019 09:52, Rory McCann wrote: So what's the default `access` for `amenity=place_of_worship`? I don't think there can be a default *for all types of PoW*. Spot on - and actually that applies to plenty of other things within OSM too (for example - highway=track).  Anyone consuming

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=inflatable_park

On 27/03/2019 11:21, Silent Spike wrote: My first tagging proposal, came across a few of these facilities and figured it is best to establish a tagging for them as they're growing in popularity: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/inflatable_park Something like this would

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 24/02/2019 14:25, djakk djakk wrote: I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 26/02/2019 09:58, Dave Swarthout wrote: Whoa, What happened to the original topic of this thread? We were trying to come up with a system of determining whether a highway is classified or residential. Now we're talking about traffic density and traffic speed, and some sort of numerical

Re: [Tagging] Micronations

On 09/02/2019 19:47, Sergio Manzi wrote: The thing is quite obviously fruit of immagination, creativity, and/or delusion: there surely isn't out there such a concoction of toll booths (/many of them/), bunkers, town halls, dams, towers, campgrounds, etc. As Simon has already mentioned

Re: [Tagging] landcover=trees bot edits

On 06/03/2019 13:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Regarding landcover=trees overlapping the road: this is not a problem or an error, it means the trees are covering these parts. No - look at the imagery that the mapper claims to have used again - the tree (singular) doesn't cover the road. 

Re: [Tagging] landcover=trees bot edits

On 06/03/2019 11:29, Peter Elderson wrote: If it's an import (not automated edit) and the import is ok then it's regular usage. Er, no - that way madness lies.  We get enough rubbish in OSM from "substandard" imports, without those imports deciding to use previously unused or unpopular

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 23/02/2019 10:11, Peter Elderson wrote: In this scheme, a highway=road (no classification) within a residential area would (after long dicussions and heavily debated pull requests) be displayed and routed as (currently) a highway=residential? It depends on the renderer and depends on the

Re: [Tagging] leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

On 05/03/2019 11:48, Marián Kyral wrote: landuse=grass -  means that there will be landuse (grass) on landuse (residental). Is this OK? I'm not sure If I want to create a lots of multipolygons because of this. Yes, renderers normally do sane things in cases such as this.  In any case the

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 23/02/2019 15:35, Greg Troxel wrote: ... But we don't have primary_residential primary_not_residential even though in the US that makes just as much sense as level5_residential and level5_not_residential. OSM sort-of did have that a very long time ago.  The "abutters" key was used

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On 23/02/2019 11:36, Peter Elderson wrote: The tagging scheme should have a clear intention to facilitate rendering and routing. Then renderers and routers know what there is, so they can decide how to handle it. To be clear, "highway=road" is used when it _isn't_ clear what the

Re: [Tagging] Multipolygon (several outers) forest with different leaf_types: mapping strategy?

On 13/03/2019 13:59, David Marchal wrote: I mapped a forest made of several pieces of woodland, some contiguous and some isolated, with differents leaf_types. I mapped this (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9393253) with a landuse=forest multipolygon, with common tags such as name and

<    1   2   3   4   >