sent from a phone
> On 6. Jul 2020, at 22:42, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> According to the wiki page about building=terrace, it is usually best
> practice to map each house as a separate area (closed way) object.
>
> "A more detailed and recommended alternative is to map each dwelling
> se
sent from a phone
> On 6. Jul 2020, at 20:45, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
>
> Are there any alternative schemes? Is there a tag to indicate that a closed
> way represents a "dwelling" or "housing unit", but not a standalone building
> in and of itself? Or, what if I tagged the whole building wit
Am Mo., 6. Juli 2020 um 08:22 Uhr schrieb Michael Montani <
michael.mont...@un.org>:
> It seems to me that up to now there is a duality of tagging in OSM for
> landcover: basically there are some tags that refer to 'what's on the
> imagery' (eg. natural=sand, natural=rock ...) and others which foc
sent from a phone
> On 5. Jul 2020, at 11:27, Michael Montani wrote:
>
> What are you thoughts? Have you ever needed or thought about how to address
> this issue? Which tags would you use / propose (if needed) to map ground?
there is natural=bare_rock for some cases, generally I would go wi
sent from a phone
> On 3. Jul 2020, at 22:20, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> Accordingly, there are actually four lanes for these stretches.
>
> What is the correct way to model this?
split the highway so that each way had the same number of lanes, then fix the
lanes (4 rather than 3) where it
sent from a phone
> On 2. Jul 2020, at 16:12, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> If this was a monument, what would we consider a much taller sculpture
yes, I’ve also some examples
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Treptower_Ehrenmal,_Tag_des_Sieges_2015,_01.jpg#mw-jump-to-license
https://
sent from a phone
> On 2. Jul 2020, at 15:27, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> But if it had been
> constructed as part of the memorial, it might (just) qualify as a monument
to me this is in no way especially large, it looks just like a piece of wall.
Proceed as you wish ;-)
Cheers Martin
_
sent from a phone
> On 2. Jul 2020, at 14:27, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> After doing some digging, that wall is the remains of a gabled wall of a
> ruined cottage, so it wasn't constructed specifically to apply the
> graffito. Which means it's not a monument. So I'll retag it as
> a memorial.
a
sent from a phone
> On 2. Jul 2020, at 10:55, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote:
>
> I tagged it like that because I had trouble finding it when I had to go
> there to visit a patient.
established solution for this is using the key “ref”. addr:housename is about
addresses.
Cheers Martin
___
sent from a phone
> On 2. Jul 2020, at 02:23, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Somebody,
> not me, mapped it as a monument although I don't think monument
> applies: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6211918213
it definitely isn’t a monument in OpenStreetMap terms, you should retag it.
memorial might
sent from a phone
> On 2. Jul 2020, at 05:27, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> So neither of those fit the situation where customers sit on the ground, with
> no cover, in front of a covered stage?
exactly. Also there might be some inconsistency wrt to the meaning of
amenity=theatre. Is this
sent from a phone
> On 2. Jul 2020, at 09:47, Jez Nicholson wrote:
>
> Perhaps the definition of amphitheatre having to surround the stage is too
> strict? Surely it is still an amphitheatre if the stage is at the front like
> a Greek theatre?
The requirement is fine, it clearly wouldn’t b
sent from a phone
> On 2. Jul 2020, at 01:18, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> How would you tag your example? It doesn't really seem a good fit for
> any tag we have.
I don’t know the specific place, but typically I would tag
amenity=fast_food
cuisine=kebap
It also says “pizza” but from looking at t
sent from a phone
> On 2. Jul 2020, at 01:05, António Madeira wrote:
>
> What is the criteria to tag a graffiti?
> Since there's no wiki for this type of artwork, the only information
> that exists is "A notable graffiti work", here:
it’s a qualifier that is highly subjective as noted by Pau
sent from a phone
>> On 2. Jul 2020, at 00:44, Paul Allen wrote:
> I cannot deny the possibility, but I have never seen a takeaway
> kebab shop with seats for queuing customers.
typical configuration in such places around here is a board (“table”) attached
to the wall and bar stools. You ca
sent from a phone
> On 2. Jul 2020, at 00:21, bkil wrote:
>
> I can see someone started experimented with
> amenity=restaurant + restaurant=diner
>
> And:
> amenity=fast_food + fast_food=van/truck/street_kitchen
to keep this straight, these are long tail values, 77% of all fast_food values
sent from a phone
> On 1. Jul 2020, at 13:34, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> Eh, as opposed to retagging coffee shops or McDonald's being feasible?
>
> Indeed. That was my point. There's a lot that doesn't work well, but it's
> too late to fix it with retagging.
To give some numbers, wrt McD 99,
sent from a phone
> On 1. Jul 2020, at 02:51, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> Do we want to introduce new tags for gastronomical service places? If
> yes, so far takeaway has one of the clearer definitions I've seen, so
> we could start there.
we already have the quite established tag takeaway=y
sent from a phone
> On 1. Jul 2020, at 02:29, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Few people would want to stand
> in a queue while raw food is cooked for them.
You have been writing a lot about cooking raw food, but regular restaurants
also use a lot of ingredients that have been precooked, typically by
sent from a phone
> On 1. Jul 2020, at 12:55, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Of
> course, most people in the UK don't know that and just stick up a
> house name or change an existing one without approval. Other
> jurisdictions may not require approval.
it does not mean we can not recognize the house
sent from a phone
> On 1. Jul 2020, at 04:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Highly likely these are errors. However it is not impossible that a number
> could be used as a house name.
can you give an example?
By which definition a number written as number can be a „name“?
If it
sent from a phone
> On 30. Jun 2020, at 15:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> Is there some chance that any of them is valid?
IMHO not, these are likely autocompletion bloopers. I’d support an automatic
retagging effort to addr:housenumber (unless there is already a different
sent from a phone
> On 30. Jun 2020, at 14:13, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> Cuisine=dessert is perfectly valid, my local big town has
> two restaurants which only sell desserts.
doesn’t seem to meet the requirements of the amenity=restaurant tag in
OpenStreetMap though („full sit down menus“),
Am Mo., 29. Juni 2020 um 14:05 Uhr schrieb bkil :
> If we already add a type, why can't we make it right? Why not use such
> a taxonomy that makes sense, enabling interpretation for both locals
> and internationally?
I think this is what we all are striving for here, the problem is that it
is
sent from a phone
> On 29. Jun 2020, at 15:27, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> Rice yoghurt ->
> https://www.sbs.com.au/food/article/2020/02/06/are-rice-yoghurt-drinks-new-drink-craze
>
> Fruit Tea -> https://yifangfruitt.com/
are yoghurt drinks... question mark
Let’s discuss these when there i
sent from a phone
> On 29. Jun 2020, at 21:02, bkil wrote:
>
> However, I'm not quite comfortable with someone adding a specific
> combination of top level tags to convey a new kind of function
> regardless of how similar the synthesis result might sound like unless
> the meaning of the indepe
sent from a phone
> On 29. Jun 2020, at 17:34, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote:
>
> Those that do serve wine should be tagged with
> drink:wine=served. Something that I do bother about in Europe.
the drink:wine=* tag is used 3265 times, half of them with amenity and the
other half with shops, bu
sent from a phone
> On 29. Jun 2020, at 14:12, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> So we have a first level tag for fruit_tea, purple_yogurt, milk_tea,
> bubble_tea, fresh_squeezed_juice, blended_juice, milkshake, smoothie? It's
> too long tail and breaks down when you have a shop that sells a mixture
sent from a phone
> On 29. Jun 2020, at 13:35, bkil wrote:
>
> Okay, so at least now I better see where the misunderstanding stems
> from. Let's get some facts straight.
thank you for this summary which is in line with how I would see it.
Cheers Martin
___
sent from a phone
> On 29. Jun 2020, at 12:18, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> I think it's better to have some kind of high level tag like amenity=drinks
> or shop=drinks which you order at a counter (as opposed to shop=beverages
> which is more a shop that has pre-made bottled drinks which you wa
sent from a phone
> On 29. Jun 2020, at 12:41, Gábor Fekete wrote:
>
> You would be surprised if you wanted to cure your hunger in a Hungarian cafe.
> I do not expect (real, nutritious) food in a cafe.
because it seems the term „cafe“ in Britain has a different meaning than it has
in Germa
btw., there is also the established "direction" tag which defines cardinal
directions and angles. Is there a reason we need a different tag for
cameras?
Admittedly, 80% are about "forward" backward, both and clockwise:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/direction#values
But at least the specif
Am Mo., 29. Juni 2020 um 10:53 Uhr schrieb Cascafico Giovanni <
cascaf...@gmail.com>:
> Hello!
>
> What is "camera:angle"?
>
> Taginfo [1] lists values consistent both to field-of-view and
> inclination. I cannot find wiki, just discussion and a proposal status
I guess, "angle" assumes that Nor
sent from a phone
> On 29. Jun 2020, at 02:10, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> But McDonalds call themselves "restaurants"!
it does not matter. That’s the difference between advertising and reality ;-)
It may be a “restaurant”, but not for OpenStreetMap, at least around here
nobody considers
sent from a phone
> On 29. Jun 2020, at 01:41, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> BTW, until recently there was a combined cafe and art gallery near me. Not
> separate rooms, but one big room. Paintings for sale on the walls of the
> cafe,
> sculptures for sale on shelves and window ledges. Is it a caf
sent from a phone
> On 29. Jun 2020, at 01:41, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> I'm not aware of any takeaways near me licensed
> to sell alcohol.
it may have something to do with public drinking being allowed or not (on the
street, not in a pub)
Cheers Martin
___
sent from a phone
> On 29. Jun 2020, at 00:59, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Maybe bread, probably pastry, but I very much doubt sweets.
I meant to say pastry, not sweets like in candy. Sorry for the confusion.
Cheers Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Ta
sent from a phone
> On 29. Jun 2020, at 00:59, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> It doesn't explicitly say alcoholic beverages, so it doesn't fit pubs.
To decide the kind of place I would not look whether a place sells alcohol or
not, as this is not a question of typology but if drug legislation (e.g.
sent from a phone
>> On 28. Jun 2020, at 21:55, Paul Allen wrote:
> Either you have very expensive cafes or very cheap restaurants. :)
clearly you could have both, so it is not a very good criterion.
> To over-generalize even further, a cafe is fast food with
> seats. My local chip shop
sent from a phone
> On 28. Jun 2020, at 19:52, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Because I can spot
> a cafe by looking through the window as I go past but I cannot determine
> the type of service without hanging around or going in.
it lies in the nature of things that you must know a thing in order to
sent from a phone
>> On 28. Jun 2020, at 17:11, Paul Allen wrote:
> Some cafes in the UK lack table service. Maybe somebody brings your
> order over after you've placed your order at the counter, maybe your order
> is announced when it is ready and you have to get it yourself, maybe
> you sit
sent from a phone
>> On 28. Jun 2020, at 15:58, bkil wrote:
> We are leaning towards being dissatisfied with tagging as either
> shop=pastry or amenity=cafe.
today I think I would prefer a generic descriptive term as the main tag (e.g.
shop=sweet_bakery) and have subtags for specilizations o
FWIW, the tag shop=pastry was introduced for these, because the tag that
was in use up to then was shop=confectionery where the term seemed to
describe a sweets shop. Now, pastry is probably a term which covers just a
part of all these, literally. In general, it may also be a question what
you want
sent from a phone
> On 27. Jun 2020, at 23:16, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>
> I wish you much luck convincing iD not to apply its presets ("upgrade tags")
> for those Starbucks locations that don't have seating.
we are not discussing iD presets on this list, it is about tagging.
Cheers Marti
sent from a phone
> On 27. Jun 2020, at 16:59, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
>
> Even if it
> was just a kiosk I would still tag amenity=cafe for consistency.
if it were just a kiosk you should not tag it as amenity=cafe, exactly for this
reason: consistency.
Cheers Martin
___
sent from a phone
> On 27. Jun 2020, at 16:03, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> I would call that a takeaway in everyday language which we map as fast food
> in OSM.
I would be ok with fast food for bubble tea, although typically you say “food
and drinks”, i.e. calling a place where you can get on
sent from a phone
> On 26. Jun 2020, at 20:37, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> I would expect a "shop=mobile_phone" to sell mobile phones, so your first
> option of "shop=mobile_phone_accessories" is best, though
> "shop=phone_accessories" is also a good option.
I agree with Joseph, the sho
Am Fr., 26. Juni 2020 um 19:47 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :
> In British English we have tea shops - they also sell coffee and food. We
> have
> coffee shops - they also sell tea and food. Functionally, they are cafes,
> as
> OSM tags define that term.
>
I believe it is an omission of the early da
FWIW, I also believe these are very different from shop=beverages, as they
are selling drinks ready to consume, while shop=beverages is a kind of shop
that sells beverages to take home (while nothing prevents you from buying a
single drink and consume it as soon as you leave the shop, this is not w
sent from a phone
> On 26. Jun 2020, at 15:59, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> Trees have been there sometime by the looks of them, and are unlikely to be
> cleared. To the FS this track no longer exists (they have blocked its only
> junction with the larger network with a mount of earth), so they
sent from a phone
> On 26. Jun 2020, at 12:52, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> A lot of the UK's sewer network is old. Like a qanat, it channels water and
> has vertical shafts. Little of that network, except some of the very first
> sewers in the UK, is of historical significance.
according to WP t
sent from a phone
> On 26. Jun 2020, at 02:58, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier=log says it should only be
> used on a node, but if you don't know exactly where then I'd say using it on
> the way would be fine
when you add a barrier=log to something
Am Mo., 22. Juni 2020 um 09:32 Uhr schrieb Joseph Guillaume <
josephguilla...@gmail.com>:
> I suppose the reason I haven't provided an example is that historically
> significant qanats are the exception in my opinion - in most cases I can't
> think of a reason why it should be listed as historic o
Am Fr., 26. Juni 2020 um 12:02 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> Jun 26, 2020, 09:29 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> to me this sounds like an unmaintained track road.
>
> Yes, but how we should tag it?
>
sorry, couldn't resist ;-)
I would tag a few obstac
sent from a phone
> On 26. Jun 2020, at 08:53, pangoSE wrote:
>
> For me there are 2 categories: sites hosting free images like
> Flickr, Mapillary and Commons and all the rest.
Flickr is only at 1200 tag occurrences in total and we should stop this
fragmentation IMHO. They are not free eit
sent from a phone
> On 26. Jun 2020, at 08:53, pangoSE wrote:
>
> Is there anything preventing us from running bots (with simple
> algorithms) on the database? Wikimedia projects do that all the time. I
> rarely see this in OSM (besides the http/https bot)
We should be really reluctant, I se
sent from a phone
> On 26. Jun 2020, at 01:45, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> How would you recommend tagging a path or track that has many fallen trees
> across it? There are too many to map each one with a node tagged barrier=log.
to me this sounds like an unmaintained track road.
Cheers Mart
sent from a phone
> On 25. Jun 2020, at 19:59, pangoSE wrote:
>
> image=File:* -> commons_file=File:* image=Category:* ->
> commons_category=Category:* image=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:*
> -> commons_file=File:* image=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:* ->
> commons_c
sent from a phone
> On 25. Jun 2020, at 19:59, pangoSE wrote:
>
> There are some image= tags that link to multiple images separated by ";".
> These will be manually migrated to contain only one image that is not linking
> to commons and the rest in a note, note1, noteX if multiple urls.
t
sent from a phone
> On 24. Jun 2020, at 15:43, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> I have just found a situation with mandatory oneway for pedestrians (and
> cyclists).
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/u7_0bEMY-iMrHiuafltvmg
what makes you believe this is mandatory oneway for pedestrians? Looks lik
when I write „protected area“, this often will have implications like you may
not construct buildings, you may not walk off roads and paths, you may not pick
plants (e.g. flowers) and mushrooms, log trees, hunt, light a fire, etc., while
otherwise in Germany you have generally the right to walk
sent from a phone
> On 23. Jun 2020, at 17:20, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> In other countries, how are National Park and other protected_area boundaries
> determined? If there are villages or towns within the boundary, are they
> actually protected? Are they excluded from the area?
in I
sent from a phone
> On 23. Jun 2020, at 09:59, Georg Feddern wrote:
>
> "A boat that is _not_ driven by motor or sail."
> So it also forbids canoe/kayak.
>
> So the access can only be determined correctly if a rowboat is considered
> with the access canoe=*.
canoe=no
rowboat=no
boat=yes
sent from a phone
> On 23. Jun 2020, at 06:38, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> I would say that rowboats should be a boat, while canoes & kayaks (& surfskis
> should also be mentioned under that category) would be canoe
I would also see it like this. Boats with a sail may be very small while
sent from a phone
> On 22. Jun 2020, at 00:07, Joseph Guillaume wrote:
>
> only some qanats are of historic value
while I don’t think these must be absolutely tagged with historic=*, you still
could show an example of a qanat that “isn’t of historic value” so that it
becomes more convincin
sent from a phone
> On 21. Jun 2020, at 15:22, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> My point was only that we should be carefully looking for variants of the
> concept, and try to make it mappable, avoiding too specialized tags.
> Something like "milk collection point" would comprise both if we were to
sent from a phone
> On 21. Jun 2020, at 14:13, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> The nearby farmers bring their milk to the container and fill it up. The full
> containers are collected and carried to the dairy.
> I found this photograph of such a container on Instagram.
> I suppose this is not a map
sent from a phone
> On 21. Jun 2020, at 10:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> this makes a lot of sense, the sentence “the immediate water source is an
> aquifer OR a well” doesn’t.
ok, maybe it does ;-)
Can a well have a higher water level than the aquifer it is boring int
sent from a phone
> On 21. Jun 2020, at 10:05, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> "the origin of the qanat was a well that was turned into an artificial spring"
this makes a lot of sense, the sentence “the immediate water source is an
aquifer OR a well” doesn’t.
Cheers Martin
sent from a phone
> On 21. Jun 2020, at 02:26, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> > In case of a well, as the aquifer is below your starting point, I’d think
> > you would need some kind of pump and not just gravity (at the beginning)?
>
> Look at the diagram:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qa
sent from a phone
> On 21. Jun 2020, at 03:02, Joseph Guillaume wrote:
>
> It would be like mapping every fountain as historic.
>
> They're often not considered of historic interest locally, let alone
> nationally or internationally.
>
> Hope this clarifies my thinking...
you are raising
sent from a phone
> On 21. Jun 2020, at 01:59, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> Can there be old underground water conveying structures that people have dug
>> into the ground, that are not “historic”? Can you explain what kind of
>> situation you are thinking about?
>
> The tag historic=* is not a s
sent from a phone
> On 20. Jun 2020, at 09:33, Joseph Guillaume wrote:
>
> That's right - what I meant is that we should not treat every qanat as
> historic just because it is old.
I do not follow. Can there be old underground water conveying structures that
people have dug into the ground
sent from a phone
>> On 20. Jun 2020, at 20:39, Joseph Eisenberg
>> wrote:
> The immediate source of water is groundwater (aquifer or well), not a spring,
> stream or river
> Water flows by gravity in free flow (not pressurized or pipe flow)
> The channel is underground (minimising evaporatio
sent from a phone
> On 20. Jun 2020, at 14:17, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> in the sense of using a non-English and non-European term where the most
> descriptive and clear term comes from a non-European language. We have other
> cases of such tags in OSM but still in a proposal process whi
sent from a phone
> On 20. Jun 2020, at 14:44, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> They should probably have disused=yes or a disused lifecycle
> prefix (cue endless arguments about which) except in parts of the world
> where they actually are still in use (if they are).
I think if any I would use disused=
sent from a phone
> On 20. Jun 2020, at 02:10, Joseph Guillaume wrote:
>
> somebody else needs to map whether it is historical or active.
for me „historic“ does not necessarily imply it is not active. Have a look at
the historic key, most things are „active“:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.
sent from a phone
> On 20. Jun 2020, at 01:58, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Normal OSM access is assumed to be access=yes, where some access is
> restricted then in OSM it should be marked *=no.
for roads access=yes is assumed, it is not necessarily the default for all kind
of f
sent from a phone
> On 20. Jun 2020, at 00:59, Joseph Guillaume wrote:
>
> I just wanted to emphasise that this proposal isn't really about whether to
> tag qanats - it's about whether to tag them with man_made=qanat or
> waterway=canal+canal=qanat.
>
> There's already 1000 tagged, and they
Am Fr., 19. Juni 2020 um 23:15 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> As mentioned on the proposal page, there are 4 criteria, which all qanat
> features share:
>
>
>- The immediate source of water is groundwater (aquifer or well), not
>a spring, stream or river
>
>
What about historic=aqueduct
should it be applied as well, in case of historic qanats?
Cheers Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
sent from a phone
> On 19. Jun 2020, at 20:32, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
>
> A qanat is a specialized kind of underground aqueduct which is the
> traditional way of supplying water in hot and arid climates within limited
> distance of a mountain range.
while the description reads quite ne
sent from a phone
> On 19. Jun 2020, at 11:20, European Water Project
> wrote:
> For how long ?
for as long as Facebook wants. There is also the practical aspect: even if the
license is permissive, it doesn’t imply you can actually get the data for
downloading.
Facebook has changed condit
I just noticed that a year ago someone well meaning has significantly
changed the site relation definition, by introducing the requirement for
the site to be "man_made":
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relation%3Asite&type=revision&diff=1850677&oldid=1850254
According to the comm
sent from a phone
> On 14. Jun 2020, at 20:02, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote:
>> What do you mean by 'just unused?'
>
>
> Waiting to be demolished
or repaired, turned on, reused etc.
just unused means not currently used/operating, but might again in the future,
or not.
For example a disused
sent from a phone
> On 10. Jun 2020, at 23:28, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> I would suggest that the one feature per element page needs to include a
> couple of exceptions to the rule.
the rule is mostly pointless, because it depends what you define as a feature.
In the crossing example there
sent from a phone
> On 10. Jun 2020, at 18:56, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> Also, the land manager (e.g. parks and recreation department) has access to
> almost all of their properties via motor vehicle.
>
> Does this only apply to unpaved ways?
General motorized traffic is typically exclude
sent from a phone
> On 10. Jun 2020, at 18:19, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> Before changing the wiki, I'd like a clearer understanding of your proposed
> change.
this sentence was only introduced recently, it is not backed by history,
current usage or the people in this thread here. Just remov
sent from a phone
> On 10. Jun 2020, at 20:28, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> 1. Tagging both the crossing and a node on the highway.
> https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/YEFoYcTgR2gtW3j
> 2. With no crossing ways, just a node on the highway to mark the type of
> crossing https://mycloud.s
Am Mi., 10. Juni 2020 um 14:09 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny <
kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>:
> As far as I know, all routers need the node if they're going to, for
> instance, present a warning to an approaching motorist or cyclist that
> the crossing is impending. But some attributes of the crossing (most
sent from a phone
> On 10. Jun 2020, at 02:31, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> In terms of function, 'track' and 'service' (with or without
> 'driveway') are practically interchangeable - at least in terms of
> what they provide to the road network. They're both distinguished by
> the fact that they do
sent from a phone
> On 10. Jun 2020, at 01:07, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
> I asked this same question about a trail in a nearby park (Natural Area) a
> couple of weeks ago on this list and received a largely different answer from
> the one I am receiving today. Perhaps it is just that differe
sent from a phone
> On 8. Jun 2020, at 11:53, European Water Project
> wrote:
>
> Which is why we seek to store user contributed images on Wikimedia Commons
> (if they will accept them) rather than on our server.
+1, I completely agree, of all available options wikimedia commons seems a g
sent from a phone
> On 8. Jun 2020, at 18:14, Alan Mackie wrote:
>
> Last I heard it was "mostly harmless".
the less dangerous an area is, the more the remaining dangers will be
emphasized. Let’s tag normalized dangerousness ;-)
Cheers Martin
__
sent from a phone
> On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, map
> it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM
Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not there
Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 12:28 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:
>
> Jun 8, 2020, 11:39 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
>
> On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt wrote:
Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the
> razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been
> replaced by roa
Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 10:48 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:
> Dear Martin,
>
> For-profit companies have different levels of openness, I think it would
> be a mistake to put them all in the same bucket.
>
> While all their data and images are not open, Mapil
sent from a phone
On 6. Jun 2020, at 11:22, Lanxana . wrote:
But how to indicate that it’s underwater partially or totally and its
access is occasionally possible, when the water drops?
an area with natural=water around it?
I find these tags, but none convinces me:...
Location=underwater [
sent from a phone
> On 7. Jun 2020, at 03:32, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How hard you look for them? I would hope that does not extend to ground
> penetrating radar that is used to find old buildings that used to exist
>
ultimately things under the surface would be included, th
701 - 800 of 6524 matches
Mail list logo
