Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

menity=waste_basket or amenity=waste_disposal. Regards Markus > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – Voting – natural=peninsula

for all the good advices and comments during RFC! All problems that came up should have been resolved and the proposal has been adapted accordingly. Best regards Markus aka SelfishSeahorse ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – Voting – natural=isthmus

And me again ... I've also opened the vote on natural=isthmus: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Disthmus Definition: an isthmus (a narrow strip of land, bordered by water on both sides and connecting two larger land masses) Markus aka SelfishSeahorse

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

in the vote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_schedules/Interval Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

a cover/roof exist or not > - if its use is storage or an industrial process (e.g. sewage treatment > plant basin) > - if the content is clean water, dirty, fuel, corn... > - if its underground, on the ground or half-half > - whether it is inside a building or outside > ... > That seems l

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

llery/buildundergroundtab/building-a-large-underground-slurry-tank.jpg> [^3]: <http://img.agriexpo.online/images_ag/photo-g/170326-11371047.jpg> Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tree rows vs individual trees

need to > map both at the same time). That's my opinion too. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 23:44, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Perhaps use the tag covered=no to signify an uncovered storage tank? According to the wiki, covered=no would signify that the storage tank isn't covered by something else, not that it isn't closed. Therefore my suggestion with

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

ing (what building=* is used for). If we find a tag for open containers, i suggest to replace/deprecate building=slurry_tank. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 18:27, Paul Allen wrote: > > Not sure. Depends what you mean by "tank." However, there's a problem with > the rendering > of man_made=storage_tank whether or not you consider it must be closed: it > renders with the > symbol for a silo. Which is very wrong. Yeah, I

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 18:19, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > have the feeling that we have discussed this before. On the fly I find these > two hreads: > > [Tagging] Wastewater Plants (After a long search in the archive ...) Apparently it was even me asking the same question – shame on me!

[Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

Thanks Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

e clear and prominent – maybe a different page colour and a status of 'informal' instead of 'in use' for those non-standard tags. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

de facto used. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 11:05, Hufkratzer wrote: > > [...] If we allow that everyone can create a new wiki page in the key/tag > namespace for a tag that is used only twice and list this tag on the *main* > features page the will become next to useless for the occasional user. + 1

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

/node/2007095790#map=13/48.2706/-4.2582> [^2]: <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/534716211#map=13/48.2706/-4.2582> [^3]: <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9238102> Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

ause i couldn't find any area at a coast that could be mistagged as natural=peninsula. For the unlikely case that someone uses natural=peninsula for coastal areas nevertheless, i trust common sense that mappers will find a way to solve this in discussions or ret

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

I'm resending/forwarding the following email to the tagging list, because i forgot to reply to all. -- Forwarded message - From: Markus Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 17:56 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

uired anyway for ditches that are used for both irrigation and drainage. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 11:21, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > Thank-you for confirming that, Mark. > > Personally I think we, in OSM, should stop with this folly of overloading > English words with meanings they do not have in any dictionary (be it AmE, > BrE, CaE, or whatever). > > Both the "ditch" and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Hi Dave, On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 00:33, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > I like the proposal, Markus, but am confused by this statement: > > natural=peninsula is not intended for tagging coastal areas or coastal strips. > > What does it mean? Can you word it differently perhaps? I was

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

suggestions for improvement! Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=isthmus

Hello everyone, I'm proposing the tag natural=isthmus for mapping named isthmuses. An isthmus is a narrow strip of land, bordered by water on both sides and connecting two larger land masses. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Disthmus Regards Markus

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

gt; small and usefull quantity. > Rather subjective, not a objective measurement. If the differences as so > arbitrary why distinguish between them at all? It's not just size, it's also conveyance vs direct distribution or collection, similar to power=line vs power=m

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

her canal uses can still be added later. > Also isn't "land drainage" potentially in contradiction with "useful water"? Yes, you're right, *useful* should be removed. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2551.html> Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_York_Peninsula#/media/File:A2015_Cape_York_Peninsula_map.svg;? Good idea, thanks! I've added it to the proposal page. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

te des Capucins). Thanks for your feedback! I tried to improve the differentiation and the illustration. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] crossing=cycleway as a node

be best. (By the way, a tiger crossing is an unsignalised crossing for cyclists *and pedestrians*.) Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – Approved – crossing:island=*

the questions and concearns raised during voting soon in a separate post. Thanks for your participation in the vote and the discussions. Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

he reason why i got confused. I've improved the differentiation from natural=cape and abandoned the minimal area requirement of 1 km². Please tell me if it makes sense now. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.op

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

terway=canal > for large irrigation or land drainage channels. Consider using waterway=drain > for lined superflous liquid drainage channels. I would even go one step further and abandon waterway=drain. The question that still remains is: what does "small" and &q

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 00:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > OK, how about "A natural=cape can be part of a natural=peninsula, a > natural=peninsula can be part of a larger natural=peninsula, but a > natural=peninsula cannot be part of a natural=cape"? Or: 'A natural=cape can be part of a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 04:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > A found a guide somewhere that said 300 was a good maximum number of members > for a multipolygon. Found it here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation#Size and mentioned it in the proposal.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 14:20, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > On Saturday 19 January 2019, Markus wrote: > > > > If natural=cape doesn't mean a headland forming a coastal extreme > > point, then i fail to understand what natural=cape does mean. Does it > > only mean t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 14:16, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > And how do i as a mapper practically determine the area of Pointe de > Pen-Hir to be about 0.3 km^2? By mapping the area the name Pointe de Pen-Hir refers to as area:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 01:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Southport Spit https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-27.9567/153.4276 > could all also be mapped as =cape (although the Spit should possibly be an > =isthmus? {which doesn't actually exist yet!})) The Southport Spit isn't an isthmus.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 00:26, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > [...] The problem i see is - as > previously mentioned - defining natural=peninsula in a way that makes > it mean something more specific than 'some named land area at the > coast'. But that problem is completely unrelated to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

oint? Isn't it rather a fuzzy area that the name refers to? Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 22:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Both natural=cape and natural=peninsula can be part of a natural=peninsula, > comes out a bit awkwardly. Maybe just leave it as "A n=c can be part of a > n=p", but a n=p cannot be part of a n=c"? It certainly can be phrased better

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 22:41, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > On Friday 18 January 2019, Markus wrote: > > [...]particularly the > > distinction from natural=cape. natural=peninsula now includes a > > minimal area limit of 1 km². > > That is a very bad idea on two

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 21:49, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Rather than a new relation type, I think it would be simpler to tag > the indefinite part of the boundary of whatever area feature with a > key like "indefinite=yes". [...] This is a sensible solution and it's even simpler than what i was

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

/-4.4886 Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

intend to differentiate them from waterway=canal? Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 17:24, Hufkratzer wrote: > > and the German page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:waterway=ditch > mentions "Bewässerungsgraben" which means irrigation ditch. A wiki page in non-English language should be a translation. Defining a tag differently is

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:42, Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > > Markus, you can find that in the "How to Map" section of the ditch proper > page: > "If the ditch is used for irrigation, the usage of irrigation=yes is > proposed." > https://wiki.openstreetm

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

tion –, there is waterway=canal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dcanal Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 14:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am Mi., 9. Jan. 2019 um 10:36 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm : >> >> I fear that people will otherwise with great diligence and fun tag >> things like the "Iberian Peninsula" which will not be of any use and >> just lead to more relation

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 17:07, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > >> I believe many time the boundary of a peninsula are politically defined, for >> instance most would often see the Iberia peninsula end at where Spain meet >> France > > So is Andorra within or outside the Iberian peninsula? I was

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

you better try to make the definition somewhat clearer. I've replaced *nearly surrounded by water* with *surrounded by water on the majority of its border*, but i'm unsure whether this is clearer. If you or someone has a better idea, please tell me.

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

hrive if there's mutual respect between these groups. +1 Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Top up

and thus prepaid_top_up:brand= would suffice? I'm sorry, i missed the second RFC after you've updated the proposal. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 10:37, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > I think we need to map peninsulas in three ways, as nodes, areas, and ways. > > Areas when the land border is obvious. Nodes for little ones, when you don't > have time to draw an area and the shape of the peninsula is obvious. Then > there

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

parately (natural=spit seems obvious), as they differ from peninsulas quite a lot with regard to their shape. Should i also propose tags for coastal areas and spits? Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – Voting – crossing:island=*

Hello everyone, I'm opening voting on crossing:island=*, a tag for specifying whether a pedestrian crossing has a refuge island: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:crossing:island Thanks in advance for your participation in the vote. Best regards Markus

Re: [Tagging] Values in namespaces/prefixes/suffixes Considered Harmful - Or: Stop over-namespacing and prefix-fooling

fined in the code (instead of > being put in values). > * Values in namespaces/prefixes/suffixes are hard or impossible to > search, match, count or group in computer languages, including SQL. I'm a bit late but thank you, Stefan, for your explanation! Regards, Markus

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – crossing:island=*

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 at 16:20, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I really like this solution, it removes one of > conflicts in crossing tagging. Thanks for your support! Are there any other comments? Otherwise i'll open voting soon. Regard

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 13:08, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > To make this clear once again since this continues to be forgotten: The > meaning of tags in OSM does not necessarily have anything to do with > the culture specific definition of the terms used for key and value > from some dictionary.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

fully is clear and objective enough. I've updated the proposal page accordingly. Regards, Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 01:44, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I’d suggest encouraging mappers to use a node in the center of a large peninsula, as is done for continents and seas, rather than trying to map it as an area. I've already added this comment in section Tagging: 'If it is unclear where the

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

On Monday, December 31, 2018, Tobias Wrede wrote: > > Now that several comments here indicate that the only practical > distinction today is the name on the front sign I come to think that we > could abandon the tag altogether. > +1 ___ Tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

! Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula

ral=x, & should be > mapped as they are named: =headland, =cape, =peninsula, =promontory etc etc If promontory, headland and cape is already part of the name, why duplicating it with different tags? Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 19:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Being this about a landform I would tend to prefer the natural key for it, > although the use of place isn’t defacto limited to man made places > (particularly locality) either. A peninsula is a land form, on the other hand, we're

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula

Hello, I'm proposing the tag place=peninsula for mapping named peninsulas. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:place%3Dpeninsula Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up

eature or service isn't available (e.g. that you can't top up public transport cards at a specific place). How would your top_up tagging scheme look like? top_up= + top_up:=? Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up

up' ... how are these to be > tagged? Together with a payment tag too. > > There are some convenience stores that offer 'top up' services .. how are > these to be tagged? > > > On 26/12/18 19:31, Markus wrote: > > Hi Daniele, > > > > From the proposal page: > > &

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up

obile_phone=yes/no top_up:mobile_phone:vodafone=yes/no top_up:mobile_phone:lycamobile=yes/no top_up:public_transport=yes/no top_up:public_transport:oyster=yes/no top_up:public_transport:opal=yes/no top_up:credit_card=yes/no top_up:credit_card:ok=yes/no Regards Markus On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 02:45, Daniele Santini

Re: [Tagging] leisure=track for summer tobogans?

k in this way? In my opinion no. I would rather tag the slide leisure=summer_toboggan, summer_toboggan=slide or similar. Regards and merry Christmas Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Walking route on a beach

on the ground and not knowing that a hiking trail runs along the beach, one would certainly not map a path there. Maybe a third choice were to add the beach area to the hiking route relation? [^1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/620720574 Regards Markus On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 22:31, Warin <61sun

Re: [Tagging] Highway=*_link roads at Y-junctions and roundabouts?

rg/node/2539835932 There's just a triangular painted island, that means it's just one carriageway. Therefore i'd rather not map two one-way road sections there (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways#Carriageways). Regards Markus ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Printing company for newspapers

makes quite sense. Therefore, i'd suggest to tag a printing works man_made=works + works=printing (+ product=printed_matter). [1]: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/works Regards Markus On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 15:42, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 2:28 PM Erkin Alp

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Railway tracks on highway

be flexible > enough to handle it, do you agree? Thanks for the interesting link. I agree and try to be more precise in the future. :-) Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Railway tracks on highway

Thank you, Mateusz and Colin, i haven't thought of curve radii and signalling. By the way, i deliberately didn't mention the Bordeaux system because it's uncommon and not a metro (but some kind of tram). Regards Markus On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 at 20:46, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > In Kraków,

Re: [Tagging] emergency=control_centre

-tag fire stations amenity=fire_station + emergency=fire_station. If enough people do the same, maybe one day be don't need amenity=fire_station any more.) Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Railway tracks on highway

embedded_rails=tram/railway/subway and embedded_rails=yes probably is enough information. (By the way, why did you leave out light_rail and narrow_gauge?) Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] emergency=control_centre

On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 at 17:22, dktue wrote: > > I've been convinced that the office-key is a suitable place to put the tag. On the other hand, i also understand your logic to put everything emergency-related under the emergency=* key. ;-) ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] emergency=control_centre

office=public-safety_answering_point would probably fit better than emergency=*. (In an emergency it might not help much to know where the public-safety answering point is located.) Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

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

re of some kind, but you couldn't find anything that anyone would point at and say 'That's the platform' /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

on't consider PTv2 to be a solution to public transport tagging /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carport

[2017-02-04 18:56] Joachim > > A carport is distinctive enough from building=garage and building=roof > so that an own tag should be used. [...] > The key building=* is used since a carport is a type > of building=roof. Funny how you first try to set the carport apart from

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Key:oven - Approved

Hoi, I like to inform you that the oven proposal was approved with 16 votes (0 opposes, 0 abstains). https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:oven Many thanks to everyone who voted! meillo (on behalf of Giardia) ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Nesting Site - Approved :-)

Hoi, the voting for the Nesting Site proposal has now been closed. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Nesting_Site It was approved with 26 votes for, 1 vote against and 0 abstentions. I want to thank anyone who voted or contributed in other ways. It was great to see this

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - "Key:oven"

Hoi, closely related to the bakehouse/baking_oven proposal, Yvan just moved to the voting phase, is the proposal for Key:oven, which I have to honor to open for voting on behalf of Giardia. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:oven Yvan already wrote that we worked well

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Nesting Site) ... was Bird Tower

Hoi, we now have reworked our Bird Tower proposal, trying to incorporate all comments we have received. The result is located there: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Nesting_Site (The old URL redirects.) The old voting state (until the vote was aborted) was moved

[Tagging] How to change currently voted on proposal (Bird Tower)?

Hoi community, we are currently in voting phase for our Bird Tower proposal. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bird_Tower It happens that we are currently receiving comments, which we would have liked to receive during RFC phase. Well, we don't mind because these comments

Re: [Tagging] Key:visibility

[2016-11-29 11:10] Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > 2016-11-29 7:02 GMT+01:00 markus schnalke <mei...@marmaro.de>: > > This is just like the smoothness=* case. Instead of having values > like ``excellent'', ``bad'' or ``horrible'', we now learned

Re: [Tagging] Key:visibility

[2016-11-28 20:50] Paul Desgranges > > Visibility and readability are not the same, [...] They also suggest different meanings, at least to me. When I first read you message about visibility of public clocks, I thought it would indicate from which directions or places

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Bird Tower

Hoi, after some last improvements during the RFC phase, we feel that our Bird Tower proposal now is ready to be voted on. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Bird_Tower Please participate in the voting to achieve a high turnout. For the OSM group UlmerAlb, meillo

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bird Tower

Hoi, in the name of the mapping group UlmerAlb, I welcome you to discuss our proposal for tower:type=nesting_site to tag a man made bird nesting aid mounted on a mast or tower. In short: A bird tower is a man made mast or tower equipped with one or multiple birds nests, serving as an

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:building=bakehouse

[2016-10-17 13:14] Yvan Masson > > After 4 days as a draft, I switched the "Tag:building=bakehouse" > proposal to "proposed" status. Great to see the advancing of the proposal! :-) > Definition: "Building made especially as a baking oven, usually public" > URL: >

Re: [Tagging] Proposal : amenity=baking_oven

[2016-10-13 13:57] Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org> > On 13.10.2016 13:18, markus schnalke wrote: > > [2016-10-13 13:05] Yvan Masson <yvan.mas...@openmailbox.org> > >> > >> I just proposed the introduction of the "baking_oven" tag on > >

Re: [Tagging] Proposal : amenity=baking_oven

[2016-10-13 13:05] Yvan Masson > > Hi list, > > I just proposed the introduction of the "baking_oven" tag on > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/amenity%3Dbaking_oven > > I would be pleased if you could have a look on this draft and give your >

Re: [Tagging] Casing in values

[2016-08-25 10:51] "Jerry Clough (SK53)" <sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk> > On 25/08/2016 08:47, markus schnalke wrote: > > snip > > Is it the same for genus=Tilia, i.e. should it be genus=tilia? > > > > (Recently iD started to tab-complete it in lowercase, ev

Re: [Tagging] Casing in values (was: Multiple values for one key - the cuisine problem.)

[2016-08-25 09:15] Martin Koppenhoefer > > Il giorno 25 ago 2016, alle ore 06:18, André Pirard > > ha scritto: > > > > I saw that the OSM people are very picky about correct spelling. > > formal values are without capitalization in osm Is it

Re: [Tagging] How to tag high water marks (flood marks)?

[2016-07-20 10:45] Martin Koppenhoefer > > it appears there is already this tag in use, which might cover part of what > you > are after: > monitoring:water_level I disagree. As I understood it, monitoring:water_level is for regularily *monitoring* of the level, whereas

[Tagging] Structured approach to the multi-value discussion

Hoi, I like to suggest the following structured approach to tackle the multi-value (MV) topic: Phase 1: Are MV necessary? First, collect examples of seemingly necessary MVs in a wiki page. Classify them as ordered and unordered MVs. Discuss alternative tagging possibilities, which don't need

Re: [Tagging] Proposal about suffixed tags has been approved

[2016-02-25 01:37] moltonel 3x Combo > > That is part of the problem with the proposal, and its votes. It > touched lots of topics, and some people probably got confused about > the rather focused intent (I certainly did). For example there was > strong consensus on the list

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

[2016-02-23 11:54] Andy Townsend > > > > It was provisionally rejected with 40 votes for, 18 votes against and > > 4 abstentions. > > Approval rate: 68.97%. Less than required 74% so provisional > > rejection; proposer to make final call. > > The tricky bit of course is that

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

Hoi, I'd like to share some thoughts about the ``How to implement MV in OSM'' question, as opened in: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Multivalued_Keys I'd prefer to first have explicit agreement that we actually need MV ... but as the implementation discussion is already

<    1   2   3   4   >