Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:

Le 17.09.23 à 12:50, Anne-Karoline Distel a écrit : I'm proposing to establish the lifecycle prefix "vandalised:" which has been in use for at least 8 years in some form https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Vandalised: I wonder if it makes sense to be so precise about "past" life

Re: [Tagging] Postal verses locational addresses

Le 13.09.23 à 19:21, Jez Nicholson a écrit : OSM addresses are physical, 'locational' addresses ok it is the anomalous postal addresses that need to have their own schemeif at all. some mapper in France are using contact:* for that (and also some contact:addr for a kind of

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:

Le 17.09.23 à 15:59, Anne-Karoline Distel a écrit : If you come to a bench that is no longer there, "vandalised:" would not apply. If the seats are damaged to an extend that you cannot sit on it any longer, then it would. so vandalised for you mean "intentionally taken out of service but still

Re: [Tagging] Streets with gradually increasing widths

Le 15.08.23 à 14:39, Kashish via Tagging a écrit : pbnoxious suggested using width=* to specify the mean/median width I don't think it's a good idea as it break previous usage of this key : width=* is about the minial witch for the whole segment. if a router want to use it, it should be able

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gender

Le 28.09.22 à 01:34, Illia Marchenko a écrit : gender=mixed/segregated has clear semantics. this shows that there is a need for 2 new values, not necessarily for a new key unisex=mixed/segregated has clear semantics too ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] improve the proposal procedure

Le 20.10.22 à 15:53, Casper Kersten a écrit : @Marc_marc - limit to 1 simultaneous proposal per person? I oppose this idea. Sometimes people just have plenty of free time and good ideas and use this to make and share proposals. I see no reason to hinder them. not to hinder them

Re: [Tagging] improve the proposal procedure

Le 20.10.22 à 14:59, Illia Marchenko a écrit : I think that additional restrictions are unnecessary, unless proper reason. If the reason was not clear enough, i rephrase it : if you open RFCs to close them in less than 12 hours, it's a worry for the time of the others who started to read the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of community mailboxes (cluster maiboxes)

Le 22.10.22 à 00:15, wolfy1339 via Tagging a écrit : The `amenity=post_box` tag seems to be only for outgoing mail only, while this handles both incoming, and outgoing mail in one feature, while the  `amenity=letter_box` is for incoming mail only. How would you recommend this be tagged, as it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site

Le 22.10.22 à 15:09, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : sent from a phone On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key from site_type to

Re: [Tagging] Using restriction and restriction:vehicle for the same restriction relation should be discouraged

Le 28.10.22 à 22:06, easbar.m...@posteo.net a écrit : Is there any reason not to do this? it look like you said that you should use only one access tag on a object and I don't understand why I hope router understand restriction tags like access tag : the more specific overwrite the more

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - Rejected - Require proposal announcements to be made on the new forum instead of the mailing list

Le 23.10.22 à 10:07, Cartographer10 via Tagging a écrit : The vote clearly shows that a change is needed I hope the change 'll be "in favor of", and not "against something" the community is already over-segmented with the problems we know (like recently a tag that doesn't have the same

[Tagging] improve the proposal procedure

Hello, the past few weeks have been stormy for proposals: - people opening 4 or more RFCs to collect opinions - RFCs or votes that open and close in less than 12 hours - Proposals that go to vote on the 14th day, even though this is the minimum time limit and the problems in progress have

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

Hello, Le 14.09.22 à 11:42, Asa Hundert a écrit : It is proposed to create the tag highway=scramble as a base tag for hiking paths, where use of hands is required, be that for keeping balance or be it for pulling up this is in direct conflict with highway=path

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

Hello, Le 15.09.22 à 00:27, martianfreeloader a écrit : don't want to die On the basis of which criteria will you set the limit? for some people, put your shoe on a rock or touch it seems the limit and you seem to be saying that it is no longer a highway=path for you in these cases all

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

Le 04.10.22 à 14:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : Can we mark it as deprecated and recommend not using it? yes With replacement of man_made=water_tap where applicable > which is likely for all cases or almost all cases. and for other amenity=fountain + drinking_water=yes ?

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

Hello, Le 04.10.22 à 10:08, stevea a écrit : I wouldn't call this a "drinking fountain," since I understand that term to mean the water flows upwards as for the forest saga [1], I think it is illusory to hope that all contributors and users of the data will be able to see the same

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

Le 04.10.22 à 20:54, Jass Kurn a écrit : I can not agree with deleting this tag while the rest of the tagging for drinking water is such a mess it depend if this one is a good idea, despite the dancing elephant :) or if it's not a good idea in my experience, small steps are more likely to

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

sorry for the mix english-french :) here is the msg again Le 04.10.22 à 14:52, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : > I would prefer even more using a different key for both: maybe > flow=gentle_upward_jet > flow=downward > would be better? as a not-native, gentle_upward_jet is again a mix

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

Le 04.10.22 à 14:52, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : I would prefer even more using a different key for both: maybe flow=gentle_upward_jet flow=downward would be better? as a not-native, gentle_upward_jet is again a mix several : gentle (qui est plutot un flow rate) et a flow

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

Le 05.10.22 à 15:21, Jass Kurn a écrit : it should be, as a suggestion,  drinking_water:type=bubbler, or drinking_water:type=bottle_refill. :type is a meaningless suffix type of what ? big/small ? private/public ? nice/ugly ? so our suggestion could be drinking_water=bubbler, or

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Le 12.10.22 à 17:39, Evan Carroll a écrit : If you an area with 100% detached residences inside, it's a residential. Right? Always. No exceptions, no :) if you have x number of detached residences occupied by offices, it is not a landuse=residential it follows from the detached residences

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Le 12.10.22 à 19:56, Evan Carroll a écrit : Where is it documented that a "shop" in a detached house should be mapped as a detached house, and not a shop? you should have both : the building the user = the shop it's documented in "one feature = one element" :) Where is the notion of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Le 12.10.22 à 13:15, Sebastian Martin Dicke a écrit : If there is an aircraft standing on an airstrip which has been decommissioned yesterday (or thirty minutes ago), is it considered properly to tag them as historic=aircraft? I think it depends on the history of the object : if the last

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Le 12.10.22 à 07:04, Evan Carroll a écrit : is it better to have a computer make an objective statement and tell how you accurately the landuse tag fits? I read your algorithm a bit quickly but I don't see how a computer is going to be able to tell where the boundary is between residential

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Le 12.10.22 à 09:55, Peter Neale via Tagging a écrit : historic is an attribute of an object that IS something else what's "something else" is a historic=archaeological_site ? and a historic=ruins ? ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] camp sites in Haiti

Le 12.10.22 à 11:51, Illia Marchenko a écrit : fixme=Review I dislike the idea to add fixme for stuff that doesnn't require to be fixed but are old (and old items should be rechecked from time to time)! if someone want to express the survey date, let's use survey:date if someone want to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

On 12/10/2022 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: we do not need the historic key to be “approved”, you don't need please do not speak for others, you are not a spokesperson :) :) Approving a definition that would make current tagging an “error” approving that "historic=* is about "with

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Le 11.10.22 à 20:48, Andy Townsend a écrit : That was added in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/127101982 , I am surprised that no one is concerned about the compatibility between its proprietary source and osm ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

Le 06.10.22 à 10:12, martianfreeloader a écrit : gender=segregated - all genders allowed, genders segregated gender=unisex - all genders allowed, no gender segregation gender=not-segregated ? but unisex==egregate <> unisex=not-segregate has the same meaning, minus the key change behind this

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

Le 10.10.22 à 19:55, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit : (BTW, I want to document existing tagging here and tap=yes has 347 uses while man_made=water_tap 23 711 uses - though if someone wants to make proposal they are welcome, tagging scheme is quite rotten here) I have been looking at the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Refine departures board tagging

Le 10.10.22 à 19:58, Dimitar a écrit : |Voting has started for Refine departures board tagging. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Refine_departures_board_tagging sorry but in the deluge of proposals, I missed the RFC of this 2nd version. but frankly I don't understand :

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

Le 10.10.22 à 18:07, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit : having fountain=* as subtag of amenity=drinking_water does not look like a good solution to me of course, I share your opinion since it breaks the tag chain system : a sub-tag rafines the "upper" tag which must therefore be present. it is

Re: [Tagging] Better term for unisex

Le 10.10.22 à 19:37, Amanda McCann a écrit : some non-native speakers treated `unisex=yes` as meaning “gender segregated but male & female are available” as a non-English speaker, I understand unisex as "possible for both", without any information on whether it will be segregated or not.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

Le 08.10.22 à 11:49, Illia Marchenko a écrit : Water outlets for public or customer use (generic tagging). https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Water_outlet I am afraid that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

Le 09.10.22 à 09:37, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : Why do people have to “deprecate” other people’s tags when they introduce new ones with different semantics? to avoid 42 schemas https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png Standardization is a good thing for quality but it is often a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Payment denominations

Le 10.10.22 à 10:54, Tom Pfeifer a écrit : Accepting a particular coin or banknote is among short-living business policies that can change frequently and is often harder to observe than e.g. opening_hours. maybe it's a cultural difference: the shops I know with a sign informing about this

Re: [Tagging] offlist about for

bad thread, sorry :( ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Le 11.10.22 à 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : I see no value in approving de facto key. Maybe there would be value in deapproving historic=battlefield Also, is "are of historic interest" mismatches how historic=wayside_shrine historic=memorial many historic=wayside_cross are

Re: [Tagging] RFC: Proposed features/Deprecate man made=drinking fountain

Hello, Le 11.10.22 à 14:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deprecate_man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain#Examples I fully approve, especially the fact that it does not approve of the mix of other tags but only solves the issue with this

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

Le 11.10.22 à 11:23, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit : On 11/10/22 10:22, Marc_marc wrote: you do not need to have the use of a key "approved for fountains" that would respect the meaning of the approved tag. however it would be useful to discuss/approve the most relevant values t

[Tagging] offlist about for

Le 10.10.22 à 11:14, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit : for=drinking/bottle/dog/... to describe how it can be used I'm quite unsure about this idea... a fountain that spouts water downwards can be used to fill bottles, to drink and to let dogs (and other animals?) drink.

[Tagging] advices about multiple values have inaccuracies , between several pages

Hello, I find that advices about multiple values have inaccuracies between several pages : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like#Syntactic_conventions_for_new_values Properties can have a large number of possible values my reading : key=yes/no value aren't a propertie, it's the

Re: [Tagging] advices about multiple values have inaccuracies , between several pages

Le 11.10.22 à 14:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : though https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/crossing%3Aisland is still a property To caricature your example: red=yes/no is a technically property this is not a good idea though, the hidden characteristic is color and the value is

[Tagging] offlist Re: RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

Le 11.10.22 à 13:25, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit : If I have a fountain that is not decorative, doesn't have a tap and doesn't provide drinking water, this fountain cannot be tagged. Because no main key applies to it. - Not a decorative fountain, thus not an amenity=fountain - Doesn't

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

Le 11.10.22 à 09:48, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit : we just need to approve that it should be used for fountains as well. you do not need to have the use of a key "approved for fountains" that would respect the meaning of the approved tag. however it would be useful to discuss/approve the

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

Le 11.10.22 à 12:27, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : When we tag a “model” it will sooner or later become a geek tag which would indeed distinguish a 60ies from a 90ies nasone :D model=nasone as a 1st step if ppl want, model=nasone_1960 or model=nasone:1960 or :date isn't an issue

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

Le 11.10.22 à 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : Am Mo., 10. Okt. 2022 um 09:53 Uhr schrieb Davidoskky : I would propose the deprecation of the value fountain=stone_block since it could be tagged as fountain=driking, material=stone. There are many fountains made of stone, but not

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Le 11.10.22 à 16:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : do not attempt to have nice definition for all keys https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Counterintuitive_keys_and_values I find the advice very strange on the contrary let's try to have a nice definition for all keys and not

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Le 11.10.22 à 16:01, Peter Neale via Tagging a écrit : Many ruins and memorials are "of historic interest" it is true, but that could be tagged as a property ("historic=yes") of the object "man_made=" . witch main tag for aa ruins with historic interest ? it's not a building=* anymore and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - pickup

Le 11.10.22 à 21:33, Evan Carroll a écrit : We could map these onto the building polygon explicitly please : one element = one object building <> the user of the building. so imho it's best to have one object for the buildinng, another for the shop or the pickup or whatever. ex of issue : name

Re: [Tagging] not:brand:wikidata?

Hello, Le 08.10.22 à 15:40, Dave F via Tagging a écrit : What is 'not:brand:wikidata'? I've used the not: prefix before to indicate that an object seen from sat imagery was not what the previous contributor thought it was. I guess not:brand:wikidata means that the brand doesn't correspond to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Payment denominations

Hello, Le 09.10.22 à 22:58, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : is it legal in the EU not to accept certain types of Euronotes? I seem to have heard that some people wanted to ban it when the amount is less than half the ticket, also with coin in a bus. but it's certainly not forbidden to pay for

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

Le 10.10.22 à 09:49, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit : Introduction of the generic value fountain=utility, that describes the fountain as non-decorative. it's vague and overlap drinking at least I'm unsure fountain:style is the best name for the key to describe those fountains; if you have a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bench: replace seats by capacity

Le 10.10.22 à 14:07, Matija Nalis a écrit : (i.e. are we talking about how many thinly 3 years olds_or_ have super-obese adults can fit there?) As with all slightly subjective values, at best an average use is given. example: a path (too narrow for for a car of average width) is sometimes

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

I started this thread to confirm/reject listing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bubbler.jpg as man_made=water_tap fountain=bubbler drinking_water=yes amenity=drinking_water how can you have a sub-tag fountain=* without a main tag *=fountain ? next time I map one, I 'll use

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bench: replace seats by capacity

Hello, Le 29.09.22 à 18:26, martianfreeloader a écrit : I am considering two groups of mutually exclusive proposals to settle this issue propose, withdraw, re-propose in 24 hours, that's a bit fast. give time for ideas to mature. I've done some research on how the tag is used, (I'm leaving

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bench: replace seats by capacity

Hello, Le 29.09.22 à 19:11, Anne-Karoline Distel a écrit : I don't have a number of 3-4 friends with me when I'm mapping to test the bench really ? sitting in the middle of the bench, I have an idea if the bench is 2-3-4 seats, in the same way that a friend of yours could see for himself if

Re: [Tagging] Can we assume surface=cobblestone:flattened to be an exact duplicate of surface=sett?

Hello, Le 30.09.22 à 04:20, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : maybe it should be changed and be treated as missing surface info I don't see how cobblestone:flattened could mean unhewn_cobblestone in some case, imho it's a alias for sett but if cobblestone:flattened (as said in the

Re: [Tagging] Terminology primary feature, main tag, etc..

Hello, Le 03.10.22 à 07:51, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : power pole + street lamp + stork's nest? having more than one main tag on an object is in my opinion a practice not to be encougered, it's again one feature = one object: you add the information that it is made of aluminum

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - migration to use belarusian as default language in Belarus for tagging

Hello, Le 03.10.22 à 12:27, Mariusz a écrit : they cannot write the most frequently displayed text tag (name) in Belarusian? I have no idea which of you is right about the main language of the signs (especially if you read the same paragraph from WP to the end, about the main mother tongue)

Re: [Tagging] Terminology primary feature, main tag, etc..

Le 03.10.22 à 10:47, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : there are cases where road is going in stream bed imho only one main feature/objet : the stream bed and car use it, a bit like a bicycle uses a road. but we don't really have a secondary tag to say that the stream bed is usable by a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - pickup

Le 15.10.22 à 06:24, Evan Carroll a écrit : On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 4:20 PM Marc_marc <mailto:marc_m...@mailo.com>> wrote: Le 11.10.22 à 21:33, Evan Carroll a écrit : > We could map these onto the building polygon explicitly please : one element = one object

Re: [Tagging] Hvad stiller vi op med tour de France ruterne?

Hello, Le 15.10.22 à 18:55, Volker Schmidt a écrit : (using Google's English translation of the Danish text) In addition a bicycle route has to be signposted. it was signposted when it happend :) I doubt that the the fact that the TdF in a given year ran over a certain set of roads is

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Tag capacity on benches without separation or not?

Le 05.10.22 à 18:57, martianfreeloader a écrit : I've drafted two opposing proposals on whether capacity/seats should be tagged on benches without a functional separation into seats or not. I admire your energy, but I don't think a proposal is made to say what people are allowed or not

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

Hello, Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : who cares for "in use" or "approved" me :) approved that means that the subject has been discussed, that people have spent time on it, that there has been an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements it's quite different

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

Le 22.12.22 à 18:10, Raphael a écrit : I think we should rather decide where the tagging discussion should take place and then announce proposals at that place. the power of discourse, when it 'll be in a "full working state" is that is that it allows a unified communication between the users

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

Hello, Le 09.01.23 à 17:49, António Madeira a écrit : include emergency storage tanks so that people know it's ok to add covered=* to those structures. imho it's alread include by "covered reservoir" but that's also a little wrong. the reservoir isn't convered (under something that coverd it

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

Le 12.01.23 à 17:02, António Madeira a écrit : If, for example, we state that it has a roof=no, you're defining a specific kind of covering, when it has none and you have no way to know if that would be a roof, a tarp, a shed, etc. roof=* is indeed maybe too specific. but closed or not tank

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Announce proposals on the community forum

Le 07.01.23 à 18:39, Cartographer10 via Tagging a écrit : For proposal authors, it means that they don't specifically have to interact with the ML. that is what I call a fragmentation, that's what happend with the fragmentaiton of the fr community There are people who feel discouraged to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Announce proposals on the community forum

Le 07.01.23 à 17:17, Cartographer10 via Tagging a écrit : Announce proposals on the community forum https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Announce_proposals_on_the_community_forum t is revealing to see that you left a remnant of "switch to the forum", which seems since the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Announce proposals on the community forum

Le 07.01.23 à 21:15, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit : I checked out the site stats[1] and learned that over the last 30 days, the French forum has averaged 36 messages per day with 257 active users. Then I headed over to talk-fr to investigate how much activity was happening there.  In the

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

Le 06.12.22 à 00:47, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit : https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2022-November/066540.html Are there any further comments that anybody would like to raise? I have not issue with merging 3-4 tags with the same meaning but : - what are we mapping ? reading

Re: [Tagging] building=entrance

Le 12.12.22 à 20:27, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : Following a JOSM discussion I wanted to ask here, if someone else is using building=entrance to tag entrance buildings. it doesn't look like to be a building but a indoor=* (root ? entrance ?) and sometime a building:part (for 3D tag) i

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

Le 16.12.22 à 08:30, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : 16 gru 2022, 02:51 od graemefi...@gmail.com: On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 10:59, Andy Townsend mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>> wrote: doesn't explain why "amenity=lifeboat" is "deprecated".  Like it or not, this is used

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gender

Le 17.12.22 à 21:58, Illia Marchenko a écrit : Gender proposal is ready for voting. After the previous vote, this proposal has been reworked. I plan to start voting in a few days. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Gender

Re: [Tagging] Homogenize diplomatic tags

Le 17.12.22 à 12:03, Georges Dutreix via Tagging a écrit : 23990 - add office=diplomatic + diplomatic=embassy when [embassy][office!=diplomatic] 23992 - add diplomatic=embassy + embassy=* if [office=diplomatic][!diplomatic][~"^name"~"embass",i] 24031 - change to diplomatic=consulate if

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Le 18.12.22 à 21:29, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit : I would like to understand how folks in various places would interpret this: highway= foot=no sidewalk=separate I interpret it exactly as you describe it in the text: there is a carrierway not allowed to pedestrians there is another object

Re: [Tagging] uphill vs. incline=up - direction of travel

Hello, Le 18.12.22 à 20:19, Patrick Strasser-Mikhail a écrit : It was pointed out[3] that 'incline' is a tag and intended to indicate a *direction* and amount of inclination of *the road in relation to the mapping direction*, not the direction of the *vehicle driving* on the road. that's not

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

Le 15.12.22 à 04:25, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit : No further comments or discussion so moved to voting: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/emergency%3Dlifeboat_station#Voting it's a

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

Le 07.12.22 à 07:31, Warin a écrit : On 7/12/22 01:54, Marc_marc wrote: Le 06.12.22 à 00:47, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit : https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2022-November/066540.html Are there any further comments that anybody would like to raise? I have not issue

Re: [Tagging] Re-opening of historic=* key vote without community notification

Le 15.11.22 à 14:36, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit : Sarah Hoffman has previously pointed out some structural issues with the use of historic as a top-level key sometimes and an ancillary key other times: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2022-November/066294.html

Re: [Tagging] species:language to loc_name:language

Hello, Le 21.11.22 à 17:22, Carlos Sánchez a écrit : I suggest changing species:language to l oc_name:language as for the same species there exists a huge variability of common names, not only differing by language. I disagree loc_name is a

Re: [Tagging] Best practices for creating a categorical key=value

Le 18.01.23 à 16:22, Daniel Bégin a écrit : the mapping of a company that produces and installs precast concrete could be tagged as… office=construction_company construction_company=precast_concrete but I have my doubts on the best way to do it. Any suggestion? tag linking (A=B B=C) is

Re: [Tagging] Best practices for creating a categorical key=value

Le 18.01.23 à 16:53, Casper Kersten a écrit : office=company + company=construction what's the added value versus office=construction ? for me office=company is only usefull is you don't known that kind of company quite close to office=yes. if you known the company=*, it's a tautology

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

Le 25.01.23 à 17:48, Daniel Bégin a écrit : office=* refers to places mainly providing services and frequently selling them. I would have rather described the key as being the place of cerebral or administrative tasks, as opposed to craf which is the place of manual tasks: technically it is

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

Le 30.01.23 à 14:54, Illia Marchenko a écrit : recommend leisure=practice_pitch what's the diff with a leisure=pitch ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

Hello, Le 30.01.23 à 16:24, Illia Marchenko a écrit : leisure=practice_pitch is not suitable for full game. I had not seen that this tag was documented and in the history we already see the 2 opinions: when you see an XYZ sports field, do you have to be an expert in that sport with a

Re: [Tagging] "Mörthe und Mosel"

Le 04.01.23 à 11:31, Hartmut Holzgraefe a écrit : On 1/4/23 11:08, Ulrich Lamm wrote: Meurthe-et-Moselle ist ein Département der Republik Frankreich und sein Gebiet seit vielen Jahrhunderten frankophon. Der Fluss Meurthe fließt in ganzer Länge durch französisches Sprachgebiet. Die

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Le 10.11.22 à 12:26, Yves via Tagging a écrit : it's reasonable to use them for campings in some corner cases where a single area doesn't work. taking one random exemple : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13012999#map=19/49.12702/10.86422 according to the parking name=*, the parking may

Re: [Tagging] Railway tagging: detail key

Le 09.11.22 à 15:20, Marc_marc a écrit : Hello, Le 09.11.22 à 10:59, Nathan Case a écrit : The key is predominantly used in France (77.6% of uses [3]) no idea. forwarded/translated to talk-fr + 2 changeset comment feedback from the main (if not the only) contributor of this tag in France

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

Le 03.11.22 à 14:20, Volker Schmidt a écrit : I think the best way out is to think detached from the meaning of the strings of characters we use for tagging. osm isn't wikidata. it's perfect fine to use P123=Q1234 for wikidata. osm use "human readable" string , that's allow the "any key you

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

Le 04.11.22 à 09:35, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : the tag “historic” is about features that typically or frequently are historic, it isn’t a tag to exclude those features of the same kind that aren’t. exept the mess with tombs, most objet 'll never have this kind of issue. so i don't

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Street vendors

Le 07.11.22 à 11:24, Illia Marchenko a écrit : (ii) made values of vending=* similar to values if the shop=*. a vending machine may sell parking_tickets -> vending=parking_tickets shop=parking_tickets seem very strange. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Railway tagging: detail key

Hello, Le 09.11.22 à 10:59, Nathan Case a écrit : The key is predominantly used in France (77.6% of uses [3]) no idea. forwarded/translated to talk-fr + 2 changeset comment Regards, Marc ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Le 09.11.22 à 22:00, Sven Geggus a écrit : Now a recent changeset discussion is questioning my whole approach because it arguably violates the "One feature, one OSM element principle": https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/126035627 this chanset is big, witch relation for ex ? Ignoring

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

Le 13.11.22 à 23:51, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit : The standard for a proposal, which purports to change tagging standards that affect *the entire community*, should be to advertise it as widely as possible. of course, and the current proposal is not needed to "to advertise it as widely

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

Le 14.11.22 à 14:49, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit : it is better to let people decide for themselves where they wish to communicate. a community split offer a fake "let people decide" : - if someone want to make a proposal, the notification must be send to both channel - if a mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

Le 13.11.22 à 16:01, Cartographer10 via Tagging a écrit : I didn't receive any feedback on my updated proposal. If you have any, please share it here I have the impression that you have received a lot of it but you simply refuse to listen to it and go on forcing it until it finally passes.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

Le 13.11.22 à 20:40, Cartographer10 via Tagging a écrit : There are quite some people discouraged by the mailing list requirement You regularly use this argument but it makes no sense. So there would be people motivated enough to make a proposal but whose only blocking factor is to post 2

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Le 10.11.22 à 21:49, Sven Geggus a écrit : With site-relations this is even easier as I can consider all objects related to the site a feature of the camp-site in the relation. I think this is elegant especially in comparison to the alternatives first of all, you can't say both that the

  1   2   >