On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 20:52, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> > seasonal=summer
>
> Well, this is the problem with the tag "seasonal" - it's not 100%
> clear if "seasonal=summer" means "this feature is only available in
> the summer" or "this feature is NOT available in the summer".
Ah, good point! So
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 01:19, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> On 1/15/20, European Water Project wrote:
> > Would it be appropriate to use the tag "seasonal" for a water fountain
> > (whether tagged as "amenity=drinking_water" or "amenity = fountain and
> > drinking_water = yes" )?
>
> Since drinking
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski
> :
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer
>> wrote:
>> > Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural
>
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural language.
Here's how the mappers have seen the tags in question so far,
according to Taginfo:
oneway:foot=no 1267 occurrences (not all from one region)
oneway:foot=yes
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:38, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 09:39:44PM -0500, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > I was thinking about this whole thing earlier. Caution, wall of text.
> >
> > At the risk of being philosophical, what is an address exactly?
>
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 18:18, Jmapb via Tagging
wrote:
> On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
> > one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
> > is, highway=footway. If t
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski
> :
>> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are
>> one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that
>> is, hi
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 04:48, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 10:20, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> > On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging
>> > wrote:
>> >> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only,
>> >
>> > That tag on footways would apply only to
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 18:04, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 09:34:32AM -0500, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 04:22, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > > OTOH in the dense urban areas you have the problem of Address for road A
> > > n
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 04:22, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> OTOH in the dense urban areas you have the problem of Address for road A
> nearer to Road B. So you get navigated to the wrong spot on the road
> network. This view is generated with the OSRM Car profile and mapping
> all addr:* objects with
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 08:03, marc marc wrote:
> Le 08.01.20 à 05:10, Marc Gemis a écrit :
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:30 PM marc marc wrote:
> >> keep it simple !
> >> advanced stop box only use a cycleway=asl without relation
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dasl
> >> a
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 10:00, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:06 PM Jarek Piórkowski
wrote:
>> I'm looking for a way to tag designated areas where cyclists wait to
>> safely make a far turn (in right-hand-drive regions, a left turn).
>> I'll call them "
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Although unusual, oneway on pedestrian highways (path, footway, track) is
> possible in some places.
>
> Cases of oneway pedestrian traffic includes some hiking trails, border
> crossing,
> exit-only passages and more.
>
> How to tag this?
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 19:41, Morten Lange via Tagging
wrote:
> On-street markings for a two-stage left-turn were recently introduced on a
> few roads/streets in Oslo, Norway.
>
> I think
> cycleway:asl=two_stage_left_turn
> looks okay.
>
> But since there is
> cycleway=asl
>
> why not use
>
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 12:15, Florimond Berthoux
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think it’s a good thing to map these two stage turn for bicycles.
> I can’t see better solution than using relation (unless doing surface
> mapping...).
>
> Le lun. 6 janv. 2020 à 04:21, Jare
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:29, marc marc wrote:
>
> Le 06.01.20 à 04:19, Jarek Piórkowski a écrit :
> > Comments most welcome!
>
> keep it simple !
> advanced stop box only use a cycleway=asl without relation
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dasl
> a
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 20:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Was wondering about how to bring this up when the ongoing discussion about
> building addresses started ...
>
> I've recently been working on Map Roulette errors, & while doing so, have
> come across quite a few cases where addresses
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 18:23, Dave F via Tagging
wrote:
> On 05/01/2020 18:37, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > This depends on the country.
> > It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark,
>
> Hi
>
> Where does it say that? Where does it say it's forbidden to add address
> data to
On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 20:05, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking for a way to tag designated areas where cyclists wait to
> safely make a far turn (in right-hand-drive regions, a left turn).
> I'll call them "left turn boxes" for short though point
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 19:16, Colin Smale wrote:
>> What do you consider a definition of "duty free" or "duty free shop"
>> that would be useful to a OSM data consumer?
>
> Which OSM data consumer?
>
> Just a reminder: I didn't start this, I am merely trying to add a nuance to
> the data
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 18:48, Colin Smale wrote:
> Just to be clear: in the situation I am referring to, an article priced at
> GBP120 in such a mixed shop is GBP120 net to an exporting passenger, but
> GBP100 net + GBP20 tax (@20% VAT) to a non-exporting passenger. Everybody
> pays the same,
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 17:37, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2019-12-31 23:04, Hauke Stieler wrote:
>> that's true, the EU is one special case here. But would the status of a
>> traveler influence the tagging schema of "duty_free=*" in your opinion?
>
> The EU is only a special case because there are
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 16:24, bkil wrote:
> We had the same argument over a local mailing list and another idea came up:
> some of the signage you see and many of their own website use the given
> capitalization for stylistic purposes. But the question remains: why isn't a
> map using
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 22:30, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > What I'm saying is highway=bundesstraße could be acceptable, but
>> > straße=bundestraße wouldn't be. Mostly so way type objects with highway=*
>> > are still potentially routable.
>>
>> How do you propose these "potential routable"
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:26, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > I'm not arguing in favor of a change in language for key name. But the
>> > local broadly accepted classification terminology (preferably in English
>> > for consistency sake) for the value.
>>
>> Why in English? Bundesstraße is a broadly
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:16, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:57 PM Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>> > Being able to speak each country's highway lingua franca would make it a
>> > lot easier for OSM to become the Rosetta Stone of maps simply from ease of
>> > classification.
>>
Hello,
I'm looking for a way to tag designated areas where cyclists wait to
safely make a far turn (in right-hand-drive regions, a left turn).
I'll call them "left turn boxes" for short though pointers to a better
name would be welcome!
They're paint-designated places for cyclists to wait to do
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 22:39, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
> Last month I wrote about defining service=* tag values for
> railway=tram ways, which were previously not defined and used somewhat
> varyingly in the wild. Thanks Mateusz for your help refining the
> definitions!
>
>
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 05:17, Phake Nick wrote:
> 在 2019年3月10日週日 11:04，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道：
>> There are a fair number of commercial tutor/coaching establishments that
>> provide after school hours tuition in various subjects/courses.
>
> I have checked some of these features in
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 20:16, Sergio Manzi wrote:
> Then why not bolts and nuts? I suppose there are many nuts of historical
> significance around.
Indeed, and if someone comes up with a good tagging proposal for them,
I'll support it, rather than disparage just because I personally don't
find
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
> Here we should be getting the best tags
+1, I would rather have a well-specified tag that is rarely used than
no tag at all.
--Jarek
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 16:29, Richard Welty wrote:
> i spent some time looking at a project to build OSM based
> emergency maps. i concluded we needed to do layers of
> information, some of which were appropriate to host in
> OSM and others which were not. there would have been a
> program to
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 09:42, dktue wrote:
> I currently found out that shops that sell clothes are either tagged with
> shop=clothes
> or with
> shop=fashion
> but I can't find out when to use which.
>
> Can anybody clarify?
There is a continuum with shop=clothes, shop=fashion, and
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 13:35, Paul Allen wrote:
> But I'd prefer we have specific keys for
> timetables and GTFS data rather than rely upon either of those. Much better
> to make things clear
> with timetable=* and gtfs=* (except we have to deal with partial
> timetables/feeds from operators
>
Paul,
If your use case is people using the query tool on
https://openstreetmap.org to follow links to PDFs to plan a journey,
then whatever tagging specification you use doesn't really matter as
long as it's understandable to the people viewing it - a link looks
like a link so that's quite easy.
Hello,
I've gotten paid for wrangling GTFS worldwide before - happy to tell
you some of my experiences.
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 19:42, Paul Allen wrote:
> As I said, I'd prefer not to use url=* because it could be for anything - a
> page about the history of
> the bus stop (maybe the shelter is
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:34, Sergio Manzi wrote:
> BTW, do we have a specific tag for "emergency traffic light" that are put
> near emergency vehicles exits to stop normal traffic when emergency vehicles
> are about to exit?
Funnily enough, per
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 18:02, Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems like the best way forward now is for a proposal allowing
> OpenStreetMap data to be tightly integrated with outside sources (such as
> GTFS) to be created by someone.
+1. To avoid lots of changes, perhaps only set
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 15:25, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> To exclude emergency vehicles one should tag physical, not legal
>> barriers.
>
> To include motorized emergency vehicles where access=no or motor_vehicle=no,
> you need to add emergency=yes.
Because if we don't, the fire truck stops, the
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 09:10, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access and
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency
> were just modifed
>
> Review of
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aemergency=revision=1812453=1606896
Should "so
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 13:11, Paul Allen wrote:
> Vehicular access may be
> prohibited by law, even if it's physically possible. Or it may be restricted
> to service vehicles
> supplying shops along the way (do we have an access value for that?)
Yes, of course, access=delivery, possibly
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:52, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 12:41 Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:32, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 Fernando Trebien
>> > wrote:
>> >> I never thought that e
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:32, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 Fernando Trebien
> wrote:
>> I never thought that emergency access would determine highway
>> classification. It seems like a secondary use of the way, not its main
>> use/purpose.
>
> motor_vehicle=no would exclude
Reposting to mailing list, after henkevdb sent to my personal email
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 14:16, henkevdb wrote:
> watercourses ( in Belgium anyway) are (mostly) open to the 'general
> public', so , access=no (with description ; "No access for the general
> public.") is not good then
Don't set
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 12:54, henkevdb wrote:
> Possibility to 'introduce' a Key:access=restricted ... with description ;
> traffic only open for mentioned*=yes .
IMHO: What is the advantage over using access=no? access=no already
compounds like this. This also works in parallel with existing
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 19:15, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OSM relies on the contributions of many people, most of them are not going to
> spend much time learn stuff - particular complicated stuff that they don't
> see in their day to day life.
>
> The complexity of things like the
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 17:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> Is OSM supposed to be for a tight, dedicated group of expert mappers trying
> to create the best, most accurate, technically-perfect map the World has ever
> seen; or is it for the use of John Doe & Jane Public using OSMAND & Maps Me
>
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 14:51, Mark Wagner wrote:
> > Do you have any locally-defined highway system that approximately
> > matches the idea of "a system of highways that generally connects
> > place=hamlet"?
>
> That would be the state highway system: nearly every incorporated
> community and
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 07:55, Paul Allen wrote:
> You are living in an ideal world that does not exist. Go to the standard
> carto. Use the query tool.
> All the translation mechanisms you posit do not exist.
Hey, wait a second. Most people around where I live wouldn't
understand why smaller
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 18:07, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> highway=*
> tunnel=yes
> sidewalk=no
> and a significant length
+1 on this. I would expect a pedestrian router to apply a scoring
penalty to highways with sidewalk=no or sidewalk=separate, and with
the help of this scoring choose the
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 10:48, Jmapb wrote:
> I've been tagging them as office=tutoring... can't remember whose suggestion
> that was, but it seems adequate. (Only 35 hits on taginfo though.) Could
> combine with tutoring=test_prep if that's the main focus.
Hi John and J,
In Toronto I've seen
My suggestion would be to map only the normal and the predictable. If it's
usually not navigable in summer, "no @ summer" or something. If it's not really
predictable, I wouldn't map it unless it's something dangerous like vulnerable
to flash floods or lahars.
Highways liable to getting cut
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:51, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality.
> The absence of keys like the mentioned key walkable(, cycleable,
> motorcarable, hgvable etc.) is a clear sign for that, because there are
> enough situations where the situation on the
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 08:42, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> What do you think?
Hello,
In my experience in Canada I would indeed expect all (or basically
all) highway=residential to be (legally) accessible to pedestrians,
the question would be more about comfort or safety. I don't know if
tagging
Hi all,
Last month I wrote about defining service=* tag values for
railway=tram ways, which were previously not defined and used somewhat
varyingly in the wild. Thanks Mateusz for your help refining the
definitions!
I have now written
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 17:10, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> In a related discussion I have heard the argument that, after mapping the
> individual trees, "if we
> delete the tree_row way, we lose the information that they are part of a tree
> row."
>
> The problem with that argument is that a tree_row
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 09:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> IMHO this violates the one object - one OSM element principle. Either I
> choose the coarser approach
> to map a way for the row, or I refine it to individual trees, but should not
> use the row anymore.
Hello,
My interpretation would be that
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 17:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> What concerns me a bit, is that there are 75+ OSM mappers, which is
> great! But it would seem that there are only ~50 (? - someone would know)
> members of "Tagging", with only ~20 of those being active (which I would call
>
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 15:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Evertthing is right and welcome!
Cheers, thank you!
>> 1. no service tag recommended for tracks that are regularly used in
>> scheduled service, including loops and tail tracks
> Also part of loops that are never used to carry passengers,
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 at 16:58, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> Well, all of which I mentioned is optional. But I can come up with two
> use cases for wanting to know which level is the ground level:
>
> 1. Localization
>
> In an application, it is much nicer to be able to write
> "ground floor" (en-GB),
Hello,
First time posting here, forgive if I've missed some rules.
Summary: I wanted to refine tagging of some tram/streetcar tracks to
show what they're used for, and found this isn't standardized and
isn't documented.
I would like to suggest updating wiki for Key:service to specify
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 08:29, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 09:58, yo paseopor wrote:
>> -Information about the capacity of a parking
>
> Tag the capacity of the car park itself. It's more useful. People may use
> the query tool (or
> similar techniques) to look at the tags for
101 - 162 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
