Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

Many see _link only as slip roads. But using it for at-grade junctions like described in the wiki has one advantage: _link is usually tagged without a name because it connects two named roads and has none itself. Using no link gives many warning in QA tools. Using highway=residential plus

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Motorway link no default oneway

l 2015-10-30 0:51 GMT+01:00 André Pirard <a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com>: > On 2015-10-29 20:45, Joachim wrote : > It says: > > Strongly recommend explicit tagging of oneway=* on highway=motorway_link. > > For routing purposes no recommendation for ways with *undefined oneway* &

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

a timeout from the API (history too large). Luckily the ways still had int_ref so restoring the relation was easy. What other chances are there to retrieve older versions of relations other than JOSM/osm.org? I read something about overpass. Regar

Re: [Tagging] symmetrical guardrails

Just draw a closed way. This also represents the reality since there are two rails. 2015-07-11 11:04 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: The wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dguard_rail says: If there is a clear inner/outer demarcation to the guard rail,

Re: [Tagging] How to recognize memorial from monument?

The size: If you can walk in it's a monument. There might be cases where there is clearly enough space for many people but no provisions have been made. Here I would compare to other monuments in city/country. 2015-07-11 13:03 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl: Simple question, hard problem:

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Site Relation

definition. * Documented usage examples from the wiki have been added. I'd like to bring your attention to the proposal. Please visit the proposal page [1] and add your comments to the discussion. Cheers, Joachim (Jojo4u) [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site

[Tagging] New proposal: Obligatory tagging of oneway on motorway_link

be best to correct the data. - In map editors undefined oneway should be displayed as tagging error. Cheers, Joachim (Jojo4u) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: Obligatory tagging of oneway on motorway_link

ight lead you the wrong way. Example routing: http://preview.tinyurl.com/qxyavwd Overpass: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/bu9 I checked a good amount of the North America Overpass query and many of them, but no majority, implied oneway=no. Regards, Joachim

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: Obligatory tagging of oneway on motorway_link

ers south-western Germany, Switzerland and parts of France. The are 186 motorway_link ways with oneway=no: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/bp5 An usual design of a motorway exit in Germany has a shared section near the lower road and then splits up nearer to the motorway (shaped like a "Y")

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: Obligatory tagging of oneway on motorway_link

ntation history and current data." The main part of the proposal is about the requirement of explicit tagging, so I'm going with the consensus about routing. If you have better wording, feel free to change the sentence. Regards, Joachim ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: Obligatory tagging of oneway on motorway_link

2015-09-13 23:38 GMT+02:00 Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com>: > On 9/10/2015 5:20 AM, Joachim wrote: >> >> Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that oneway=* must >> also be tagged for every motorway_link. If not tagged, the oneway=* >> status of this

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Use_sidepath was invented to solve the *routing* problem of compulsory *separate* cycle paths. Usage of use_sidepath together with highway=*+cycleway=* was hotly discussed after the proposal got accepted.[1] The question is: Are there somewhere on this world non-compulsory cycle lanes

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - scheduled lifecycle value

2016-05-17 18:42 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > A major milestone in a project is when the right of way is secured (meaning > land is purchased, > or easements signed). > > That still does not guarantee a project will be constructed, but it a > definite step above "planned". I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - scheduled lifecycle value

2016-05-17 10:22 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > how "secure" must secured funding be? Just because money is reserved/foreseen > to build something doesn't mean it will be spent in all cases, and that it is > sufficient to complete the construction. Shall we evaluate

Re: [Tagging] Should greenhouse et al have building=yes? (was building=digester)

2016-05-22 10:31 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt : > I am surprised by his long discussion > > Two (extreme) examples: > http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/70186603/ > amenity=greenhouse > building=no > > http://www.ortobotanicopd.it/il-giardino-della-biodiversit%C3%A0 >

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - scheduled lifecycle value

eetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-July/025630.html Regards Joachim ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] do aerodromes need a relation?

e removed. I already removed it on Stuttgart airport. regards Joachim 2016-04-09 11:16 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > sent from a phone > > Am 08.04.2016 um 13:14 schrieb Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>: > >>> The wiki for a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - snow removal station

Here the wiki page link, I just forgot to link it :( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Snow_removal_station Regards Joachim 2017-01-31 20:16 GMT+01:00 Joachim <nore...@freedom-x.de>: > Lorry drivers are usually required to remove ice and snow from their &

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - snow removal station

ogle image search (https://www.google.de/search?tbm=isch=r%C3%A4umstation+schnee). I'm interested in comments under which name such features are known in UK. Regards Joachim ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.or

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carport

I thought the same now: Discussion was positive and the tag is already in use. So I created the feature page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dcarport and set the status of the feature and the proposal to "in Use". Thanks Joachim 2017-02-04 20:40 GMT+01:00 Yves <yve

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - building=carport

the tags to an area surrounding them. These tags are usually not necessary for private parking. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/carport_buildings Regards Joachim (Jojo4u) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https

Re: [Tagging] Capital=* and admin_level on cities

a.org/wiki/Administrative_centre [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_city#Unusual_capital_city_arrangements 2016-10-03 19:43 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > On 2016-10-03 18:23, Joachim wrote: > > Wouldn't look right for the Netherlands. The capital is Amsterdam, but

Re: [Tagging] Admin_level=2 for non-independent countries

So regarding my question you say the implicit admin_level of a capital should mirror the boundaries. A difference between "independent" and non-independent should be developed there if needed. 2016-10-08 14:32 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale : > Instead of labelling the city itself

[Tagging] Admin_level=2 for non-independent countries

, e.g. creating some of the constructs above and order the countries below? Question: Should capital=yes mirror admin_level=2 or should capital=yes be used for independent countries and capital=2 for the other? Regards Joachim ___ Tagging mailing list

[Tagging] Capital=* and admin_level on cities

The recent rendering of capitals in osm-carto[1] brought new interest in the tag capital=*[2]. I edited the feature page according to the latest summary in the proposal (linked in feature page) which also mirrors actual data usage. Claim 1: Capital=yes should be used for capitals of countries.

Re: [Tagging] Capital=* and admin_level on cities

> Wouldn't look right for the Netherlands. The capital is Amsterdam, but the > seat of government (admin_centre) is The Hague. So capital and admin_centre > are different things here. I see no problems giving both the role admin_centre. The naming of the role shouldn't be taken too literally.

[Tagging] Setting as access=official as abandoned/deprecated

dy against this change? Regards Joachim [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Officially_dedicated_usage [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dofficial [3] http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=55927 [4] https://wiki.openstreetma

[Tagging] Mindistance=*

istance 47 mindistance:hgv 6 mindistance:hgv:lanes It's often used for hgv vehicles in tunnels (http://openstreetcam.org/details/27490/65) or on old bridges (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/6ZQory0nWk0uwwuenNM-Rw). I will also create a wiki tag page. It there anything else to add? regar

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

I agree that landuse should usually get no names. If a settlement has a name which is used only for administrative or postal purposes there is no need for a place=* feature, just use boundary=administrative/postal_code. If the dispersed settlement is perceived as an settlement (I'm living in...)

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Place areas

ary tables: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/place_areas Regards Joachim ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging