Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposal: Default Langauge Format

> > As a Flemish person, I rather have the name of the street pronounced > in Dutch in Brussels than in the 2 languages as is now the case. This > is probably one of the complications > This is especially true because the pronunciation rules for

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposal: Default Langauge Format

I would expect Frederik to be even more disappointed if we were to first duplicate name to name:XX and then have another round of edits to remove name. At some point JOSM's valdiator was telling me to add name:language, so I did. That's where some of those Belgian entries probably come from for

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposal: Default Langauge Format

Every street in Brussels HAS a name:fr tag. They also ALL have a name:nl tag. An IPA representation also needs information about the language it is for. A name, even spelled with the exact same characters will be pronounced differently by a French speaker compared to a Ducht speaker. Sometimes

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

t those following vehicles may pass. The reason I used the term >>> "turnout" is because the signage erected by the Alaska DOT uses that term, >>> as in, "Slow Vehicle Turnout Ahead 1500 feet". >>> >>> I see polyglot is ready

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

A few months ago bus_bay=left|right|both was voted. For me this is similar, albeit over a longer distance. extra_lane_for_slow_moving_traffic_to_compulsory_halt_to_let_other_traffic_pass_by=left|right|both ? If you figure out which tag to use, we'll add it to the double split map mode of JOSM's

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

. If not, ask them to update their software logic. In that case one route relation for multiple 'modes of transport' suffices and we can keep things simple. Polyglot Op zo 2 sep. 2018 om 15:05 schreef Paul Allen : > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Jo wrote: > >> In public transport: &g

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

In public transport: 1 (one) route_master relation for the line 1 or more (typically 2) route relations for the variations in itinerary. Jo Op zo 2 sep. 2018 om 13:59 schreef Paul Allen : > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Jo wrote: > >> You are inverting how route_master relati

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

You are inverting how route_master relations are used in public transport. There the route master represents a line, and our route relations represent the itineraries (all the variations). Polyglot Op zo 2 sep. 2018 om 13:35 schreef Paul Allen : > On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 10:02 AM, Volker Schmidt

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

I would also think that the bicycle part would be somewhat different (more split due to oneway traffic for bicycles on cycleways, whereas foot routes can take the shortest path in both directions), so I think the best approach is 2 route relations with quite some overlap. It is a bit annoying that

Re: [Tagging] horse mounting/dismounting steps

I found some more examples: https://www.pathsforall.org.uk/pfa/creating-paths/think-different.html https://www.pathsforall.org.uk/pfa/creating-paths/to-ride-or-not-to-ride.htmlhttps://www.pathsforall.org.uk/pfa/lowland-paths-guide/horse-mounting-blocks.html I would be more specific and call

Re: [Tagging] What is a VTC car in OSM ?

Vehículos de Turismo con Conductor Op wo 22 aug. 2018 om 00:49 schreef Steve Doerr : > On 21/08/2018 09:55, José G Moya Y. wrote: > > VTC is how rental cars with professional driver are called in Spain. I > > think the rest of the thread clarifies this: It is the Spanish name > > for Uber,

Re: [Tagging] access:disabled... yes or designated?

you mean it must be tagged: access=no +exceptions ? designated is an odd word. I started to understand it as signposted as such, or clear from road markings. but it's not the meaning it has in designated driver, where it means "assigned with a specific role/responsability" Op do 16 aug. 2018

Re: [Tagging] Slash, space, or spaced hyphen in multi-lingual names

It's actually funny how these things go. Several years ago, mappers asked: How can we map multilingual names. We told them: In Brussels we do it with a spaced hyphen. Oh thank you, we'll do it in a different way. Several years later, people wonder why there are different ways for doing things

Re: [Tagging] Slash, space, or spaced hyphen in multi-lingual names

before adding the contents to OSM. Op za 11 aug. 2018 om 01:05 schreef Paul Allen : > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 11:38 PM, Jo wrote: > >> Fortunately all streets in Brussels are already mapped, based on official >> data from Urbis. So the person from Biel who would prefer to pu

Re: [Tagging] Slash, space, or spaced hyphen in multi-lingual names

glue together in Dutch, like they do in German. Anyway, we don't want to put exactly what is on the street name signs in our name tags. It's simply not practical and it would very quickly become nonsensical. Jo Op vr 10 aug. 2018 om 23:48 schreef Peter Elderson : > if I were a renderer I wo

Re: [Tagging] Slash, space, or spaced hyphen in multi-lingual names

The renderers and ALL data consumers would then have to take that into account. Tagging for the renderer means: Using a inappropriate tag on an object such that it renders in a colour or style the mapper prefers over correctly tagging an object. Putting 2 names in a name field where those 2

Re: [Tagging] Slash, space, or spaced hyphen in multi-lingual names

Op do 9 aug. 2018 om 07:18 schreef Marc Gemis : > Andy, > > Can you please elaborate a bit on the reason for your question ? > Is it because you want a map with a uniform syntax for multiple names ? > I assume it is not because humans do not understand the meaning of > one of the following forms

Re: [Tagging] Slash, space, or spaced hyphen in multi-lingual names

It's mostly our names did have hyphens, but none had hyphens with spaces around them. Annoyingly we still get in trouble for those cases where both sides of the street have different names... They exist, but they are rare enough not to cause real headaches. Op wo 8 aug. 2018 om 17:44 schreef

Re: [Tagging] Documentation issues of PT tagging schemes

Hi Roland, I made a fresh attempt to explain things as simple as it gets: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Polyglot/Public_transport_proposal_for_simplification I might expand this to how I see we could extend this tram and metro mapping. For trains I would add such nodes for each sub

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

There is a relatively simple solution that could satisfy everybody. (Except maybe the people paying for the storage, but let's say tags are cheap) For each tag that describes a measurement, add a counterpart tag with the values converted to SI units, meter, second, km/h (or even m/s, everybody

Re: [Tagging] Transport mode on platforms? (Was: Re: Documentation issues of PT tagging schemes)

Very soon after PTv2 was 'accepted' I understood that if we would ever replace hw=bus_stop NODES with pt=platform, the mode of transport would need to be added on these nodes. Ever since it's a back and forth pulling between yes the mode of transport can be added on them and NO the platforms

Re: [Tagging] Documentation issues of PT tagging schemes (was: Re: Public Transport v3 — starting RFC)

The whole point of wanting to move to a simpler tagging scheme is to become able to write simple to understand documentation. Dropping the "v1" tags that some like to call 'deprecated' is not possible, because then your stops don't render. Replacing highway=bus_stop by public_transport=platform

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

Op za 23 jun. 2018 om 10:26 schreef Peter Elderson : > I think a bus stop node on the bus route is exactly what is needed to > route people from anywhere to anywhere. You connect the pedestrian route to > the bus route at that point. It does not really matter if the route > includes a platform

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

> > You forgot to mention that PTv2 complicates tagging > > and processing by requiring to add also bus=yes. > > > As I do not like entering two tags where one fits well I continue > > and will continue and want to continue mapping bus stops > > solely as highway=bust_stop. > > > bu stop is also

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

It is not needed to have a platform. In that sense the public_transport=platform is a misnomer for the node that represents the bus/tram stop., but it is what was decided we would use. Maybe we should come up with a v3 where that node gets a different value, say

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

For access restrictions we had started by using psv=yes, but I guess few people will read that as public services vehicle and another problem with that is that is apparently includes taxis as well. Personallly, I see a big difference between a way tagged as *=platform and a node with that tag.

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

Op vr 22 jun. 2018 om 10:10 schreef marc marc : > Le 22. 06. 18 à 01:26, Yves a écrit : > > Why adding 'platform' where there's no physical platform? > > public_transport=platform describe where passagers wait > for a public transport. > if there is no dedicated area, use a node outside the

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

The thing is, when PTv2 was voted, I asked what to do with the bus stop nodes next to the way. The answer was put public_transport=platform on those NODES. In fact they rather represent a pole with a flag on it. But for some bus stops, there is nothing physical present. The bus stops there and

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

on topic changing the rendering of highway=platform or railway=platform on ways is not useful. Those are just fine the way they are. It's the platform nodes (previously highway=bus_stop) that we are concerned about. Jo (Polyglot) Op do 21 jun. 2018 om 17:47 schreef : > As I previously said

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

/railway=tram_stop, but the more I think about it, the less this seems necessary. Polyglot Op wo 20 jun. 2018 om 23:44 schreef Paul Allen : > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Jo wrote: > >> >> It's probably best to provide a link to the actual route relation. It's &g

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

Hi Paul, It's probably best to provide a link to the actual route relation. It's indeed a complex one. Polyglot Op wo 20 jun. 2018 om 23:11 schreef Paul Allen : > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:43 PM, > wrote: > >> Everything you write is no different between PTv2 and the old tagging >> scheme.

Re: [Tagging] stop first or not and spliting or not the way for PT

I want to see a continuous line in JOSM's relation editor, so all the ways in the relations connect at end points. So I'm splitting the ways so they fit in the route relations. Polyglot Op wo 20 jun. 2018 om 20:52 schreef marc marc : > Le 20. 06. 18 à 20:20, Paul Allen a écrit : > > X --- bat

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

18 02:53 > > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm- > > carto > > > > Le 20. 06. 18 à 17:44, Jo a écrit : > > > Actually I have started to remove public_transport=platform from > > WAYS > >

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

that is easy to understand for everyone. If we don't the wiki will remain murky, unclear and ambiguous. I rest my case. Polyglot Op wo 20 jun. 2018 om 18:53 schreef marc marc : > Le 20. 06. 18 à 17:44, Jo a écrit : > > Actually I have started to remove public_transport=platform

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

Actually I have started to remove public_transport=platform from WAYS with highway=platform and railway=platform. As far as I am concerned public_transport=platform goes on NODES next to the ways in combination with highway=bus_stop or railway=tram_stop. Removing those tags from ways comes from

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

highway=platform is a tag that goes on a way, just like railway=platform. public_transport=platform can go on both ways and nodes. If on a node next to the highway/railway, public_transport=platform/bus=yes is the equivalent of highway=bus_stop and public_transport=platform/tram=yes is the

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

shelter=yes on a highway=bus_stop NODE indicates there is a shelter nearby, but says nothing about where it is exactly nor its size. amenity=shelter shelter_type=public_transport on a CLOSEDWAY indicates where the shelter is. height is not super important. I guess most are about 2.3m high. If

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

as buildings. Jo Op zo 17 jun. 2018 om 08:43 schreef Shawn K. Quinn : > On 06/16/2018 11:45 PM, Bryan Housel wrote: > > Does `amenity=shelter` imply `building=yes`? > > If this is for bus stop/transit shelters, it would imply building=roof > at minimum. The shelters here usuall

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

I tag bus stop shelters with amenity=shelter, shelter_type=public_transport. In Belgium they are constructions with glass 'walls' and a metal roof. I don't consider them as buildings though.

Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes

Name should indeed be changed, but I'd go for lanes:transition, so it groups with the other lanes related tags. Not sure if that is a good type for the relation though. There is no need to bother the user, in case there is an adjacent way with this tag. Then it's obvious which part of the

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

2018-05-29 11:05 GMT+02:00 Andrew Davidson : > On 29/05/18 14:04, Jo wrote: > >> >> We're talking about PT v2. >> >> > In which case I don't understand why we want to create a new role. If you > are using PTv2 then you will have the same way listed twice at the

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

then. Jo 2018-05-29 6:04 GMT+02:00 Jo : > > > 2018-05-29 1:09 GMT+02:00 Graeme Fitzpatrick : > >> Could you fool the routers / system by inserting an imaginary >> mini-roundabout at the end of the cul-de-sac? >> >> That way the router would think that the bus dri

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

2018-05-29 1:09 GMT+02:00 Graeme Fitzpatrick : > Could you fool the routers / system by inserting an imaginary > mini-roundabout at the end of the cul-de-sac? > > That way the router would think that the bus drives in, goes round the > roundabout, then drives out again. > > Include a note that

[Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

Hi, A few days ago I helped Paul Allen with mapping some bus routes. During one of these itineraries, the bus has to do something totally counterintuitive, twice! It has to back up in reverse to get out of a cul-de-sac. The obvious way to solve this to me is to double the way it starts reversing

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

itineraries. For hiking/cycling it's a misnomer. So it would be good to phase it out. What I'm trying to accomplish, while we're doing that is to not only replace it with circular_route, to indicate intent, but to also add a tag that validators can use to perform validation. Jo 2018-05-28 9:54 GMT+02

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

doesn’t have to) an > “exit only” and A1 and “entry only” stop). > > > > If yes, then it is roundtrip=yes. And you shouldn’t just remove an > existing tag that actually applies. > > If no, then the roundtrip=yes is wrong and should be removed. > > > > *From:* Jo &l

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

be yes. But the first and the last bus stops are not exactly opposite one another. Jo 2018-05-27 6:22 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org>: > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I wish you a happy trip on th

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

For validation purposes it would be interesting to know if the ways in the route relation are supposed to form a closed loop. Can we adopt closed_loop=yes for that use case? Polyglot 2018-05-26 12:10 GMT+02:00 Peter Elderson : > I would like to wrap this up, without a

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

I don't see a problem with adding tags that enable validation to be performed, even if it means some redundancy in the data. But I may have misinterpreted the roundtrip tag myself. Jo 2018-05-25 11:52 GMT+02:00 Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com>: > Isn't that should-b

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

raries + a route_master to describe the line. Jo 2018-05-25 12:51 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com>: > > > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> In that case it is a service-thing rather than a route-thing. Is it >&g

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

are still on it 3 hours later... Oh those corner cases! Jo 2018-05-25 12:32 GMT+02:00 <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au>: > Or to express it even more general: > > > > If you start at any stop, and remain on the vehicle, you will at some > later point get back to the stop you s

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

I tend to use roundtrip=yes when (after fixing) a route relation gets this double way icon next to the ways, instead of a single vertical line (JOSM only ofc). If we all start using it that way, we could create a validator rule for checking the relation is still 'all right'. Polyglot 2018-05-25

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

obviously Quack, quack 2018-05-19 22:15 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen : > On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 9:06 PM, marc marc > wrote: > >> >> node public_transport=plateform for the waiting area >> + >> relation type=route route=walking_bus >> yes duck tagging...

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

yes, that sounds fine. 2018-05-19 21:20 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 19. May 2018, at 19:04, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > OTOH mapping the routes as route=foot/hiking/walking also do

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

OTOH mapping the routes as route=foot/hiking/walking also doesn't fit, as such route relations don't have the concept of 'stops' with a time table. Polyglot 2018-05-19 18:44 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > sent from a phone > > > On 19. May 2018, at 16:56, marc

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

2018-05-18 17:11 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Stucchi : > Hi, > > After the discussion about that a walking school bus is not a public > transport, so the proposal is to change the tag to amenity, like for taxi > rank. > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

. But those also don't have stops marked on the streets. They simply go and pick up the children near their homes. They are mostly for children with special needs though. Jo 2018-05-06 23:28 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > 2018-05-06 11:21 GMT+

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

The foot tram routes definitely only if there are signs along the road, indicating at what time the children are expected to be there. the walking_bus seems like a school bus, but without an actual vehicle. There are stops with times that the 'bus' passes there and there is a fixed itinerary. I

Re: [Tagging] Unifying large multi-location store chains

2018-05-03 23:27 GMT+02:00 Graeme Fitzpatrick : > Hi > > I think I can see what you're getting at, but, as always, international > usage is going to rear it's ugly head! > > We have Target & K-mart (not Big K-mart) in Australia, but over here > Lowe's is a men's wear chain

Re: [Tagging] musical_instrument tag for publicly available musical instruments

- tag one of them as area, position the other as node inside the other 2018-04-30 11:00 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 10:36 AM, José G Moya Y. > wrote: > > I think this is a good idea, but, in the suggestion of Thorsten, I find > >

Re: [Tagging] tagging cycleable city-models focused on simulating road network

Things that are interesting to add as well are fee / time period bicycle rental go cart rental own bicycle allowed? Polyglot 2018-04-23 11:13 GMT+02:00 Peter Elderson : > The Dutch word is 'verkeerspark' (=traffic park). > > Some call them 'verkeerstuin'(traffic garden'),

Re: [Tagging] tagging cycleable city-models focused on simulating road network

Now you have 4. I've been wondering about this for a long time. Polyglot 2018-04-23 9:56 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt : > I have struggled with this here in Italy. > Maybe we should try to promote amenity=traffic_park - see [1] - eve though > it only has three hits in taginfo so

Re: [Tagging] How to map Outdoor Fitness Equipment

It is actually meant for adults. fitness_station seems like the best fit to me. Thanks Jo 2018-04-21 1:24 GMT+02:00 Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com>: > I had also thought fitness_station until I looked at the image and saw > that we were talking about monkey bars. > > On

[Tagging] How to map Outdoor Fitness Equipment

A few days ago this was installed: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/geAJ9RpsDDeDNQxqwpykBw Any suggestions on how to map it? Polyglot ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

2018-04-08 17:37 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes : > On Sun, 2018-04-08 at 15:52 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 2:57 PM, Philip Barnes > > wrote: > > > Almost, Safle Bws is a bus stop. A bus station is Gorsaf Bws :) > > > > > > Phil

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

That is absurd behaviour. Seems like somebody programmed a bot. Polyglot 2018-04-05 1:49 GMT+02:00 Tod Fitch : > Seems like tagging “noise” to me. I’d expect a router to use the > roundabout itself because exiting, making a U turn and then re-entering the > roundabout will

Re: [Tagging] highway=stop and highway=give_way to traffic_sign=stop and traffic_sign=give_way

Those two tags go way back. Stop signs are important, so we've been mapping them before the more general traffic_sign tags came along. I'm using them as nodes on the highway, more to indicate the effect of signage, than to indicate signage and traffic signs themselves. 2018-04-02 9:33 GMT+02:00

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

the bus and tram stops, I stopped doing that. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/PT_Assistant/Mapping_Public_Transport_with_JOSM Jo 2018-03-31 9:23 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse <selfishseaho...@gmail.com>: > Is public_transport=platform now about the structure or the

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

way and add a public_transport=platform node > in addition? > > Why not tag that node public_transport=stop then? This would allow for > a clear distinction between platform and stop. > > > On 30 March 2018 at 11:52, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > When tagging platforms as way

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

, but it may be exaggerated. They are not mapped for the purpose of adding them to the route relations and there is clearly accommodations for the buses near such stops. Most of them look like (narrower) sidewalks though. Jo 2018-03-30 11:06 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse <selfishseaho...@gmail.

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

ch could have > been > >> solved with a generic transit icon.) > >> > >> A third concern was double-rendering. If both a highway=bus_stop node > and a > >> public_transport=platform node exist, won't mappers want to remove the > >> duplicate? I woul

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

PT v2 says you CAN map stops using 2 objects. People reading that understood that you MUST use both a stop_position node and a platform way/node. Then it was interpreted as: both of those HAVE TO be added to the route relations. To make things look consistent in the route relations, then some

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

es is also relatively simple to do. Jo ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

I've tried to accomplish that many years ago already, it failed. The people at the helm of the rendering stack consider the 'old' tags good enough and the new scheme somehow not explicit enough, hence the double tagging. Dropping the tags you call obsolete from the data, is not an option as far

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

I'm not very optimistic you'll manage to get that proposal to pass. We'll probably keep double tagging everything for a long time to come. The reason why I put public_transport=platform on bus stop nodes, is that JOSM conveniently adds a platform role when they are added to relations. Also

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

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 : > OK, I understand what you're trying to highlight, but don't see it as > relevant to this thread. >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

I added many borders in Uganda a few years ago, they are gray in your rendering. Should I go and put admin_level tags on them now? For the highest or the lowest admin_level they are part of? Or a semicolon separated list...? Seems like a step backward to me, but I guess, whatever works.

Re: [Tagging] Culverts and Fords

the water is tunneling under the road, through a narrow passage. It's not the road that goes through a tunnel. 2018-03-01 17:40 GMT+01:00 Vao Matua : > Thank you all for the explanations. > I think that my issue might have to do with UK English usage. I would > never call a

Re: [Tagging] railway=platform nodes at tram stops

railway=platform unambiguously refers to an actual platform, mapped as a way or as an area. public_transport=platform + tram=yes (+railway=tram_stop) can be mapped on an isolated node (so not part of the railway=* way). It would be my preference to ONLY map it on (isolated) nodes. That's what I

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/holloway 2018-02-19 21:20 GMT+01:00 Steve Doerr : > On 19/02/2018 09:00, Philip Barnes wrote: > > As a native English speaker I have never heard the term Hollow Way, >> however reading the description it seems that this proposal is

Re: [Tagging] Nonbreakable spaces in name tags

I think it would be best to make the tools we use JOSM, Overpass API, iD, etc. Unicode aware, so they can handle this correctly. Polyglot 2018-01-26 16:50 GMT+01:00 Matej Lieskovský : > @marc: I just realized - I'm not talking about breaking words between > syllables

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

on them either. What can be seen is that almost never more than 1 car was parked there when the planes flew over. So it's definitely not a parking lot. I don't think we really have a way to tag an empty piece of land with no defined "function" nor vegetation on it, Jo 2018-01-12 14:38 GMT+

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

It definitely doesn't look like a public parking lot. It would be good if someone local could resurvey if the shop is still in that house. Jo 2018-01-12 5:19 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>: > is there street view imagery ? do you have local knowledge ? > > If

Re: [Tagging] route role on cycle routes

I fail to understand what information the route role is supposed to add. I never needed a link role in bicycle or hiking route relations, it seems something to use on route=road relations. Polyglot 2018-01-11 19:35 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien : > The validator also

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

voting process? Jo 2018-01-11 11:02 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien <fernando.treb...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Fernando Trebien > <fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > That's true. It works in my case, but there might be a rare real > > scenario (

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

I like the hail_and_ride tag for route and route_master relations and the hail_and_ride role for segments of the route where it applies (so as a role for the ways). So this is ready to vote upon, as far as I'm concerned. Polyglot 2018-01-10 19:20 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien

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

but you would still have a sequence of connected ways and hence the order in which to follow them would be clear. I can understand one can hail anywhere, but the starting point and last stop can still be mapped, or not? 2018-01-10 17:53 GMT+01:00 marc marc : > Le 10.

Re: [Tagging] What is the unit of seamark:light:range?

Those applications should definitely also be able to understand units. So it would be good to implement that regardless of what the default is. 2018-01-10 15:07 GMT+01:00 Malcolm Herring <malcolm.herr...@btinternet.com>: > On 10/01/2018 13:53, Jo wrote: > >> Let's hope

Re: [Tagging] What is the unit of seamark:light:range?

lol, enough choice. Actually, I tend to like nmi, hard to confuse with anything else, except maybe national meteorological institute... 2018-01-10 13:44 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > 2018-01-10 10:46 GMT+01:00 Andrew Davidson : > >> The symbol

Re: [Tagging] What is the unit of seamark:light:range?

@Martin Annoyingly the wiki states nmi. @Andrew I downloaded all those points worldwide using an Overpass query. Then I used a regular expression search in JOSM and used the todo list to check some at random. Jo 2018-01-10 10:19 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.

Re: [Tagging] What is the unit of seamark:light:range?

There are 17912 objects tagged with "seamark:light:range" in our data. Not a single one has a unit. They all seem to be in international nautical miles. Do we add " nmi" to all of them? On the one hand being explicit seems like the better solutio. On the other hand, who's going to do it in a

Re: [Tagging] emergency bays - which side?

For bus bays the way is split twice, creating an extra segment. At that point it's easy to use left/right/both. This is the same principle that is used when tagging turn lanes near crossings. I'm sure there are people who don't like splitting ways in ever smaller pieces, but that ship has sailed.

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

a far better tag would have been: landuse=GreenAndHardToClassify_HelicoptersMightLandHere 2017-12-02 11:59 GMT+01:00 Daniel Koć : > W dniu 02.12.2017 o 10:39, Marc Zoutendijk pisze: > > Let’s keep it simple and stick with one tag (village_green), keep the way > is is rendered and

Re: [Tagging] part_of:wikidata key

What I take away from the discussion is that wikidata tags are somehow evil and that who insists on mapping them, should make sure to encapsulate way features in relations (associatedStreet, river, site, etc). I'll refrain from creating proposal pages on the wiki for part_of:wikidata. To me it

Re: [Tagging] part_of:wikidata key

I should have known I was opening a gigantic can of worms here... Anyway, I like relations as much as the next guy, probably more so. I've been editing and correcting thousands upon thousands of them. One hing I can tell you: they are fragile. It wouldn't hurt to have some redundancy and

[Tagging] part_of:wikidata key

Hi, I would like to propose a new key: part_of:wikidata The wikidata key itself should only occur on a single OSM object. When trying to add it to linear features, this poses a problem, as it's possible to split such features. Grouping objects in associatedStreet and river relations (and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

I, for one, prefer to have the platform node/way and its corresponding stop_position in 1 stop_area relation per direction of travel or per platform (in bus stations). I don't mind adding the shelter, waste_basket, bench, ticket_vending_device, announcement_board to such a relation. Then these

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Street_furniture

Hi José, I see you mention Google imagery. Please don't jeopardize the project by using that. We have permission to use Bing, Mapbox, DigitalGlobe, Esri. They are all accessible in a convenient way in JOSM. For horizontal streetview imagery we have Mapillary and OpenStreetCam. Jo 2017-10-18 0

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Validity of Route Relations

On 14/10/17 09:29, Jo wrote: > > >> So the proposal is about the routes/itineraries that change, stops that >> aren't served anymore or new stops added to the lines. >> > > Are you sure about that? The proposed new tag is "timetable:valid_until". > And

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Fixing wiki* -> brand:wiki*

I like brand brand:wikidata brand:wikipedia When sorted alphabetically it's easy to compare them visually that way. Same goes for name name:etymology:wikidata and the others. Polyglot 2017-10-02 10:41 GMT+02:00 Ilya Zverev : > Hi folks, > > One question: why

<    1   2   3   4   >