Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

On 28/10/2019 09:42, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On 10/28/19 03:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: "sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign For me it seems a horrible and

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

No. Just because, once again, routing software fails & you don't use a certain tag it is not a reason to deprecate. The tail does not wag the dog in OSM. Contact the navigation software developers & tell them to write some decent code. DaveF On 23/10/2019 09:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

On 15/10/2019 16:24, Vɑdɪm wrote: Apparently you've misunderstood the proposal. It is not about a place where sunbathing is generally allowed, which indeed would be too vague/general. It's about a dedicated place. That you've changed your tune & given vague/unrealistic examples suggests

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

Better to drop it. it's too vague/general. All the examples in this list are leisure places (Beach, lido, park) at which sunbathing is just one of many assumed activities. Swimming, kicking a ball about, throwing a frisbee etc.There's no requirement to explicitly tag it. You'd be better off

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

On 14/10/2019 14:50, Dave F via Tagging wrote: PS Can anyone explain what an " academic member" is? Just found out it was a spell-correct typo. Volker is an ACA member DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

On 14/10/2019 00:17, Warin wrote: On 14/10/19 07:26, Volker Schmidt wrote: (disclosure: I am academic member, but express my personal view) The Great Divide route is, to my knowledge, not signposted. The source for thr route is most likely either a GPX track from ACA or a map set from ACA, 

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

Are you able to properly verify these are all "Random road your cycling club likes to ride on the weekend" & not designated/signed routes? ATM it appears you're vetting them purely on the class of highway used. Designated cycle routes can go along "just regular roads, with no designation for

Re: [Tagging] building typology vs usage

On 13/09/2019 16:14, Wolfgang Zenker wrote: That would be kind of redundant, wouldn't it? We already use other tags for the current function of a building, I'm repeating much of my of my previous comment, but no, the schema which hijacked building=* to represent the original historical

Re: [Tagging] building typology vs usage

On 11/09/2019 14:50, Paul Allen wrote: I said that if it was a church and looks like a church then tag the building as a church even if it now functions as something else. Buildings don't have a 'type'. There's no 'class', no standard architectural style or size. A quick image search proves

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone

I've yet to see an argument for collecting all under the 'contact:*' tag that bears scrutiny . The "group them without having to keep a hardcoded list" falls down as they have to be split into separate variables to make sense of them. DaveF On 25/08/2019 20:48, marc marc wrote: Le 25.08.19

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal

On 31/07/2019 08:20, Warin wrote: "Any tag you like" is one of the OSM mantras. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like To be clearer it should be "Any tag you like.. to describe something different" If a valid tag is in use - use that. Cheers DaveF

Re: [Tagging] New property Key:walk-in for amenities like clinics, barbers, hair salons that offer walk-in appointments/service?

How about using booking? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Abooking DaveF On 15/08/2019 03:36, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Another user has proposed the Key walk-in=* to specify if an amenity, like a healthcare facility, sees people on a walk-in basis or not. In particular it's for medical

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

I believe the main reason isn't (& probably shouldn't) deprecated is that it allows entities which are unused but still physically there, to be rendered. disused:*=* aren't rendered on the 'standard' render. Davef On 29/07/2019 07:23, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I was going to fix the status of

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Hi This is not a criticism of Joseph. This post confirms what I've been saying for the past year - PT tags add nothing but confusion to OSM, which directly leads to errors. highway=bus_stop is a completely separate tag to any in the PT schema. It was created long before the invention of the

Re: [Tagging] Clashing access tags

Even if 'construction' was to be used, it would still cause the same confusion to Richard F On 15/07/2019 20:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 14 Jul 2019, 21:03 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: Route relations should be aware of tags on ways. access=no can be used in part to indicate road works.

Re: [Tagging] Clashing access tags

On 14/07/2019 13:07, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Hi all, Occasionally I encounter tag combinations like this: bicycle=designated highway=proposed (from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335831004) where the "bikes can ride along here" of the first tag is contradicted by the "this

Re: [Tagging] Removing an ATM

On 09/07/2019 14:04, MARLIN LUKE wrote: Hi, I've read in the wiki (and on this list) that it's best to avoid loosing history. This refers to the edit history of an object ie How many times it's been amended, by whom, & what got changed. I have an ATM mapped in a street which does not

Re: [Tagging] JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

On 06/07/2019 14:08, Andy Townsend wrote: Where any editor gives incorrect suggestions I'd suggest raising a ticket with the editor concerned about it.  I've done that a couple of times in the past with JOSM and the issues have been resolved almost immediately. Obviously it helps to provide

[Tagging] JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

Hi Unsure if these validation warnings on uploading a changeset in JOSM are new or I've never noticed them before: >"Suspicious tag combination highway=cycleway together with foot=designated, use highway=path"     This is incorrect. A cycleway tag can be used on a shared path, one which

Re: [Tagging] A modest proposal to increase the usefulness of the tagging list

(not read the whole thread as there are far too many from you, Simon.) What is WMF ? When you say "not posting more than 30 times per month" do you mean thread starts or are you including responses? Never understood the criticism of "noise" - if you don't like it, ignore it. These are

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On 24/05/2019 18:56, Nick Bolten wrote: But Nick, /you/ made it personal. No, I didn't. I named nobody. Nick, making it personal also means making it about yourself. You've been self referential numerous times: "My experience with this mailing list" And yet, this thread is devolving

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On 24/05/2019 18:29, Nick Bolten wrote: Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched. But Nick, /you/ made it personal. I haven't seen any of the behaviour you claim. You probably need to grow some thicker skin. If you're looking for sycophantic agreement with any point you

Re: [Tagging] iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

html But to quickly summarise: What Jo said. DaveF On 23/05/2019 23:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 04:49, Dave F via Tagging wrote: Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of a raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement. Sorry, but do you

Re: [Tagging] iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Please see the discussion on the Transit forum. Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of a raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement. From OSM's Welcome page: "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real and current/ " "What it

Re: [Tagging] ID is not a king and final arbiter of OSM

If they'd wanted to do that the github thread wouldn't have been locked. He's never been good at taking criticism. He confesses *all* responses will be critical, but still thinks he's right. DaveF On 23/05/2019 18:26, Jmapb wrote: On 5/23/2019 12:32 PM, Tobias Zwick wrote: Undoubtedly, the

Re: [Tagging] iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Don't you think, with his refusal to participate in discussions about raised issues, that it's often self inflicted? On a couple of occasions he's said he ignores these forums & note how often github threads are instantaneously closed. DaveF On 23/05/2019 09:16, Tobias Zwick wrote: I like

Re: [Tagging] iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

They've (just quincylvania?) got their logic backwards. A platform is, by default, accessible by people. It's what they are designed for in the real world. I find it strange/worrying he makes these far reaching decisions unilaterally (unless there's other hidden discussions not linked to in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals

On 07/05/2019 22:46, Volker Schmidt wrote: Two spontanous reactions 1) You cannot deprecate a tagging that is used 750k times (crossing=uncontrolled) or 570k times (crossing=traffic_signals) In principle, why do you think it can't be performed?

Re: [Tagging] Incorrectly tagging locks on rivers as canals

Have these diversions been given a 'XYZ Canal' name? if not then it's a river. I think the duck test needs to be applied. DaveF On 25/04/2019 11:25, Richard Fairhurst wrote: DaveF wrote: The water flowing through it is still river water. The water flowing down lots of canals is ultimately

Re: [Tagging] Incorrectly tagging locks on rivers as canals

. 2019 à 20:40, Dave F via Tagging a écrit : Hi This maybe UK specific but it's a tagging problem & maybe wider spread. To allow navigation, rivers occasional have lock gates, usually as a separate channel. Some contributors tag these incorrectly as waterway=canal for the centre line. h

[Tagging] Incorrectly tagging locks on rivers as canals

Hi This maybe UK specific but it's a tagging problem & maybe wider spread. To allow navigation, rivers occasional have lock gates, usually as a separate channel. Some contributors tag these incorrectly as waterway=canal for the centre line. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347369154

Re: [Tagging] Why should we avoid overusage of amenity=* tag?

On 21/04/2019 01:12, Warin wrote: I am all for the introduction of the key education=* It makes sense, adds detail - improves the map data base. True. The one that irks me is amenity=cafe. It isn't there for the benefit of the community; it is a commercial enterprise & should be tagged

Re: [Tagging] 'track_detail' on railway lines - what does it represent?

On 21/04/2019 21:52, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Apr 21, 2019, 1:37 PM by tagging@openstreetmap.org: User is still active. Overall, I would ask in at least some changesets before or together with asking on ml. If I want to know why an individual contributor adds a tag I would ask on a

[Tagging] 'track_detail' on railway lines - what does it represent?

Hi 'track_detail, used on railway tracks. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4414158 4700+ total worldwide  3900+ in the UK I can find nothing in the wiki Is track_detail meant to indicate that all tracks have been mapped? Surely that can be noted just by looking at the map? DaveF

[Tagging] junction=yes as a polygon. Who uses them?

Hi Following a discussion on OSM-Carto, I'm curious what software uses junction=yes as a polygon. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Dyes#How_to_use_on_an_area A couple of examples: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5492033 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/218106249

Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1

On 13/04/2019 01:37, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Example: I'm considering using the tag "area=yes" to check if a barrier should be rendered as an area. Right now "barrier=hedge" is rendered as an area in the Openstreetmap-carto if it is imported as a polygon. This happens for all closed ways that

[Tagging] Horse mounting steps

Hi https://snag.gy/3jSyt7.jpgSteps provided so that a rider can climb back on. Any ideas?  Could find anything in Taginfo or wiki https://snag.gy/mwYNd6.jpghttps://snag.gy/mwYNd6.jpgamenity/leisure=horse_mount, maybe. https://snag.gy/mwYNd6.jpg This example is provided at a road/bridleway

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

um 00:48 schrieb Dave F via Tagging: As already stated, sidewalk is to indicate a physical object. Sidewalk has no legal implications. 'Foot' is used purely to indicate legality. So? I don't think this is disputed. The reasoning here is that the absence of a sidewalk in some situations goes

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

. That conflation occurs doesn't make it acceptable. Your misunderstanding/misuse of the 'sidewalk' tag is resolved with another tag. (wow, 5 negs in a row, respect!) Mvg Peter Elderson Op 18 feb. 2019 om 01:45 heeft Dave F via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> het volgende gesc

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

, Peter Elderson wrote: I'm afraid countries differ with respect to legal imlications of sidewalk. This discussion, I've seen it 5 times now ande it never ends with consensus. It never ends at all. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 18 feb. 2019 om 00:49 schreef Dave F via Tagging mailto:tagging

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

As already stated, sidewalk is to indicate a physical object. Sidewalk has no legal implications. 'Foot' is used purely to indicate legality. On 17/02/2019 22:29, Tobias Wrede wrote: Am 17.02.2019 um 20:44 schrieb Andy Townsend: I don't think that a "global" encouragement to add foot=no makes

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

I should have been clearer. I was indicating a case where foot=no would be appropriate, but I should have stated there are also cases where 'yes' or 'designated' are required. I'm still unsure why Tobias W. thinks tracks shouldn't be queried at all yet residential roads should. Don't

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

On 15/02/2019 12:20, Tobias Wrede wrote: Unfortunately, the legal situation is not always as clear as we wish to. There are a lot of grey zones and we need to apply common sense when tagging the access rules. You're undoubtedly correct. However, foot=yes/no has always represented, as

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Why do you exclude tracks? Legal access to them are often denied as they're on private land (example: farms) Why ford? Why oneway? Cheers DaveF On 15/02/2019 11:50, Tobias Wrede wrote: As far as I am concerned roads that are most likely to merit a foot=no are - all highway road types

Re: [Tagging] Can OSM become a geospacial database?

Going off topic, but you /can/ tag it as "shop=salumeria", it will still be searchable & will be displayed on the standard map with its name & a dot. DaveF On 05/12/2018 21:26, Sergio Manzi wrote: But maybe I've misunderstood your question: if you where asking how I would like to tag a

Re: [Tagging] leisure=recreation_ground discouraged?

Last time I looked it was a preprogrammed option in all the 3 main editors. On 05/12/2018 13:28, Philip Barnes wrote: We normally use landuse=recreation_ground, have never come across the leisure version. Phil (trigpoint) On 5 December 2018 12:24:05 GMT, Dave F wrote: Hi

[Tagging] leisure=recreation_ground discouraged?

Hi It appears there's an attempt to discourage/deprecate leisure=recreation_ground. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Drecreation_ground https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Drecreation_ground I've done a history search of this forum & can find no discussions on

Re: [Tagging] New rag to draw node name with rotate angle

On 10/11/2018 15:08, Greg Troxel wrote: Dave F writes: On 10/11/2018 14:46, Greg Troxel wrote: Dave F writes: Every tag is for the renderer, otherwise all maps would be black lines & dots. As your link clearly states: /"Don't deliberately enter data *incorrectly* for the

Re: [Tagging] New rag to draw node name with rotate angle

On 10/11/2018 14:46, Greg Troxel wrote: Dave F writes: Every tag is for the renderer, otherwise all maps would be black lines & dots. As your link clearly states: /"Don't deliberately enter data *incorrectly* for the renderer" / The tag 'layer' is purely to aid renderings. T

Re: [Tagging] New rag to draw node name with rotate angle

Every tag is for the renderer, otherwise all maps would be black lines & dots. As your link clearly states: /"Don't deliberately enter data *incorrectly* for the renderer" / The tag 'layer' is purely to aid renderings. Cheers DaveF On 09/11/2018 18:04, OSMDoudou wrote: Looks like

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

Hi On 02/11/2018 01:43, Allan Mustard wrote: I don't see a problem with duplicating a tag in both the relation and sections of the object.  In my case I have been mapping the national highway network of Turkmenistan the last few months.  I have created relations so that all segments belong

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

Hi I hope you're open to rescinding this proposal. This data is too transient to be of benefit within the OSM database. The poor implemented & negligibly maintenance of opening hours is a good example as to why it shouldn't be added. The numerous Public Transport schemas are a mess. Their

Re: [Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

Hi Please be aware OSM is geospatially aware. Your example should have a boundary from which any amenity within can be determined. I've noticed an increase in the unnecessary use relations in the belief they're the only way to 'collect things together'. The 'site' type is just one example.

Re: [Tagging] Topographic Prominence for Peaks

Wouldn't those who need this information be using a contours overlay? Cheers DaveF On 23/09/2018 01:00, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I've been tagging peaks (natural=peak) with the key prominence= Prominence is a natural feature... ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Is waterway=riverbank an 'Old scheme' ?

plan on writing about it soon. DaveF On 07/09/2018 23:00, Andrew Hain wrote: Would you favour a campaign like the one to update old style multipolygons then? -- Andrew *From:* Dave F *Sent:* 06 September 2018 19:04:23

Re: [Tagging] Is waterway=riverbank an 'Old scheme' ?

Clarifying: natural=water, water=river fits in with all other bodies of water mapped as polygons. Cheers DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is waterway=riverbank an 'Old scheme' ?

Hi I would say yes, it is. It fits in with all other bodies of water mapped as polygons. It makes it easier for renderers to do a general render for all water features or be more specific for each type. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water I swapped over when it was pointed out to

Re: [Tagging] delivery areas?

Still a minefield, still add websites imo.. Cheers DaveF On 23/08/2018 16:57, seirra wrote: I was thinking more to the tune of specific things like charity shops or smaller stores where it may not be standard On 08/23/18 16:42, Dave F wrote: If you mean things like fast food deliveries etc

Re: [Tagging] delivery areas?

If you mean things like fast food deliveries etc, then tag the website, which should have such details. How horrendously confusing would the database be with every delivery service was mapped? DaveF On 23/08/2018 16:34, seirra wrote: hello, i was wondering if there was any established way to

Re: [Tagging] healthcare : nurse <> nursing_home <> nursing

2 url doesn't help, healthcare key on wiki doesn't have the word nurse on it. social_facility is wrong for this case. Le 05. 08. 18 à 17:56, Dave F a écrit : Could you clarity: Are you interested in the noun - 'a nurse' or verb - 'to nurse'? There are many varieties of nurses &

[Tagging] mobile phone repair only

Hi I've a shop which only repairs mobile phones. I've tagged it as shop=mobile_phone mobile_phone:repair=yes sales=no Seems a bit contradictory. Is there a more direct tag? Cheers DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] healthcare : nurse <> nursing_home <> nursing

Could you clarity: Are you interested in the noun - 'a nurse' or verb - 'to nurse'? There are many varieties of nurses & many establishments where people are nursed: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility DaveF On

Re: [Tagging] Documentation issues of PT tagging schemes

On 25/07/2018 05:58, Roland Olbricht wrote: Hi, This would not be the bells and whistles method, but the bread and water method. The basics that would have the routing working and the map displaying things. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop I see fundamental

Re: [Tagging] Dangerous waterways tagging

Hi This is another one of those discussion which comes up every year or so. The perception of danger is subjective; which never fits well within OSM. Waterways are not dangerous in themselves. They are inanimate objects. They don't jump out & attack you as you walk by. It's the naive way

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport v3 — starting RFC

Hi In the UK the are forty relations as site=railway_station with the role of 'stop'. Am I correct in think these are redundant in relation to the current PT schema? I asked what stop_areas are for on the OSM forum. Could you clarify? The wiki states what they are, but not their usage. Are

Re: [Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

On 19/07/2018 12:21, Peter Elderson wrote: All of those are survey goals. A proposal like this comes along every few years & never really gets off the ground. "Long hiking & cycling routes" by their nature of being long are rarely traversed completely; people hop on-off of them in short

Re: [Tagging] Unresolved notes

As I've said before, Notes was a good idea, poorly implemented. Users should be able to delete them. I've never quite understood the reluctance to allow that. New users are able to delete OSM data on they're first edit, but Notes have to be protected for some reason. I get bored of 'The

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

On 06/06/2018 16:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Wednesday 06 June 2018, Andy Townsend wrote: Anyway what i am absolutely certain of is that rendering different tags identically in a map has never encouraged mappers to consistently differentiate between them. :-) The "long tail" of different

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

On 06/06/2018 12:48, Paul Allen wrote: Actually, there is a difference. If grass is grown for a purpose (be it grazing or mere decoration) it's landuse.  If it's there naturally and not used (by man) for any purpose (or incidental to man's purposes) then it's landcover.  At least, that's

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

On 06/06/2018 13:37, Andy Townsend wrote: 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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - scenic

Every few years a new proposal to describe how pleasant the view is on a journey. It never really catches on as it's so subjective. Some might preferring traveling past disused steel works rather than though Tyrolean mountains. DaveF. On 31/05/2018 22:50, Andreas Meier wrote: Hi there, I

Re: [Tagging] tagging arbiters (gone OT)

pass-turbo.eu/s/yXx<http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/wWg> Read the discussion here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3102#issuecomment-372455636 DaveF On 19/05/2018 03:12, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com <

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

On 06/05/2018 13:28, Philip Barnes wrote: For unsigned references we use official_ref and prow_ref which will not appear on the standard map but can be rendered on more specialised maps. Back in May'15 on Talk-GB there was a discussion about this [1]. Highway_authority_ref was proposed as it

Re: [Tagging] Slipway vs boat ramp

Yes. A sub-tag should be used to distinguish. Something like 'rails'? --- I'm more concerned at the lack of water into which a vessel could be launched. Is the reservoir accurate? Does the level fluctuate? DaveF. On 03/05/2018 19:16, Malcolm Herring wrote: On 03/05/2018 17:14, Mike H

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

On 29/03/2018 15:38, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 29.03.2018 15:38, Dave F wrote: The building=train_station tag remains, since it describes the building type, independent of the current usage. No. The building tag is for current usage. OSM maps the present with its primary tags. If contributors

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

On 29/03/2018 10:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 29. Mar 2018, at 10:05, Johnparis > wrote: Interesting. Musée d'Orsay in Paris offers another possibility: building=disused:train_station usually the disused prefix

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

On 29/03/2018 09:05, Johnparis wrote: Interesting. Musée d'Orsay in Paris offers another possibility: building=disused:train_station But that doesn't account for what it currently is. DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

On 28/03/2018 23:02, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 28.03.2018 23:20, Dave F wrote: Hi I've a building to tag which used to be a train_station but currently has a different use. The building=train_station tag remains, since it describes the building type, independent of the current usage

Re: [Tagging] Campaniles tagging

Shouldn't these be tagged as a subset of bell_tower? On 12/03/2018 06:54, Tomasz Wójcik wrote: Currently there are 2 tags for campaniles, which has no difference between each other: * man_made=tower + tower:type=campanile * man_made=campanile I think we should move "man_made=campanile" to

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

Yes, but again, irrelevant to this thread. On 12/03/2018 13:44, Jo wrote: Except of course, when the boundary is disputed, then there might be overlap and possibly even holes of no man's land? Polyglot 2018-03-12 13:41 GMT+01:00 Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com <mailto:dav

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

F. On 12/03/2018 00:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Monday 12 March 2018, Dave F wrote: and it would not distinguish between the outer boundaries (towards the high seas) and the boundaries between two countries. Unsure what you mean. Could you elaborate, Example? Sure: https://www.openstreet

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On 11/03/2018 09:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: * tagging the ways in addition to the relation is ok but not required. I agree with all your points except this. I think duplication is prone to error & should be discouraged. DaveF. ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On 10/03/2018 22:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: But as pointed out this will not be complete (though more complete than for land boundaries) I would much prefer to complete the addition of the unique tag 'maritime' than the duplicating 'admin_level' and it would not distinguish between the

Re: [Tagging] aeroway=runway - wiki fiddling

Something similar in concept to a river could be developed. A linear way for the the routing etc (waterway), and an area to indicate the outline of the runway/taxiways (riverbank). I always map them as closed polygons because: * It's more accurate * Runways aren't necessarily rectangular,

Re: [Tagging] aeroway=runway - wiki fiddling

They can now. They just can't be bothered. If a roundabout can be navigated, so can the boundary of an area. DaveF On 11/03/2018 22:45, Warin wrote: Eventually routers will have to deal with areas that are routable .. pedestrian areas , step areas as well as runways that are areas.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

urday 10 March 2018, Dave F wrote: If Matthijs wishes to distinguish between boundaries at sea (a good idea, I believe) then a *unique* tag should be added to those ways. Note independent of the subject of this thread the tag maritime=yes - which is what is proposed to be used for determining th

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

If Matthijs wishes to distinguish between boundaries at sea (a good idea, I believe) then a *unique* tag should be added to those ways. Duplicating data is not the way to indicate differences. How about boundary:administration=maritime (or something similar)? I've never understood why the

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. As I said, everything has a history. Wayside cross and shrine, monuments, memorials, castles etc. It just

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

...and water. As the On 20/02/2018 14:30, Philip Barnes wrote: In this case, they are old and have a history. They started as tracks and usually still are. Which is why they should be tagged as track/footway etc. They are sunken purely by the passage of time, wear from feet, hooves and

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

On 19/02/2018 23:16, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: everything we tag is still what it is. A historic=archaeological_site is also “used” as archaeological site, or a historic=memorial. But not for its original purpose, as it is in this cae DaveF

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

On 19/02/2018 11:32, Colin Smale wrote: Why historic? It still is a sunken lane. If something is still in use then historic is the wrong tag. Everything, even the most recently open roads, have a history even if it's a short one. DaveF ___

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

[Tagging] 'Unknown' value.

Hi I recently seen a variety of keys being given the value of 'unknown'. I'm struggling to see its purpose. It confirms nothing & adds no value to the database. Am I missing something? DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

[Tagging] 'Unknown' value.

Hi I recently seen a variety of keys being given the value of 'unknown'. I'm struggling to see its purpose. It confirms nothing & adds no value to the database. Am I missing something? DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] How to tag this area

I see a licensing problem. Why? As long as OSMDoudou is using a valid source to map, it doesn't matter how he refers the information to the rest of us. DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] route role on cycle routes

e an exception, the exception must be evident. On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote: On 25/01/2018 20:06, Fernando Trebien wrote: The role is missing here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle#Members I'm unsure what you mean by &qu

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

On 18/01/2018 21:02, Fernando Trebien wrote: I think this means... if the track is mapped as a different line with highway=cycleway, you should not add cycleway=* on the main road's line. one should surely use cycleway=lane on the main way and also map the parallel track as a separate line.

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

#Cycle_tracks On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote: On 15/01/2018 14:47, Fernando Trebien wrote: The wiki also says that, when mapping a parallel cycleway as a parallel line, one should not use the cycleway=* tag on the motorised way For clarity, cou

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

On 15/01/2018 14:47, Fernando Trebien wrote: The wiki also says that, when mapping a parallel cycleway as a parallel line, one should not use the cycleway=* tag on the motorised way For clarity, could you confirm which wiki page that is written. DaveF

[Tagging] cycleway:both=no in StreetComplete

Hi There's been quite a few recent additions of 'cycleway:both=no' being added by users of StreetComplete. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8609990 There's no mention of this tag on the wiki & to me appears a bit ambiguous. Most (all?) are the sole cycle tag on the entity. Both=no suggests

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >