Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
or railway areas that far away from the > station. +1, could be used, I’d even say, from far away until very very close, up to the limit of the station area. > On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 at 18:42, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > This was also discussed in the wiki: > >

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 7. Okt. 2020 um 10:31 Uhr schrieb Andrew Harvey < andrew.harv...@gmail.com>: > In practice many are mapped as the same area, but that's usually only > because unless you're a train operator it can be hard to actually survey > where the station starts and ends from the train network point

[Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I know we have already been discussing this several times in the past, but due to recent editing disagreements in the wiki, I am raising it again. For several years, we had railway=station on a way documented in the wiki as the complete area of a train station.

Re: [Tagging] Battery swapping spot in a charging station or being an individual tag?

2020-10-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Oct 2020, at 23:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > amenity=charging_station + charging=battery_swap + battery =gogoro;iOnex (to > use the examples given by OP, which would then be changed as applicable in > each country) I think the system provider would better

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

2020-10-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 3. Okt. 2020 um 14:38 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 at 13:22, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> shop=* seems ok for me. > > > And for me. There are "formal" shops which open only 2 days a week. Or > have limited hours.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

2020-10-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. Oct 2020, at 12:15, Alan Mackie wrote: > > This seems to me to be a relative of market stalls. Smaller concerns that are > 'staffed' but usually have very focussed or limited stock. +1, with possibly varying merchandise according to the season or other factors.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

2020-10-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Oct 2020, at 20:28, stevea wrote: > > The term "direct_marketing" is used in various dialects of English around the > world as meaning something wholly different than your proposed usage here. even in German it is used for a kind of advertising (sending

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 133, Issue 2

2020-10-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 2. Okt. 2020 um 10:01 Uhr schrieb St Niklaas : > Whats wrong with shop=farm, > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.05459/5.15648 > for a hunter? Farming and hunting are 2 different kinds of professions at least since Cain and Abel. ;-) Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

2020-10-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Oct 2020, at 08:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > "direct marketing" using shop key > means that there is no way to tag > shop type in an usual way (in a shop key) +1, it would better be a property than a shop type. Still it leaves the question open

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

2020-09-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. Sep 2020, at 08:30, stevea wrote: > > I'll say it once again: such a fire=perimeter IS a real-world "thing," > represented in OSM by a lightweight datum that I find to be "worth it" to be > in the map. +1 it is also clearly verifiable on the ground and will

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Sep 2020, at 13:45, Pieter Vander Vennet wrote: > This width was tagged with 'width:carriageway'. > I think this is a good tagging decision, being explicit about which width you have measured seems the way to avoid ambiguity. (and it still leaves room for the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

2020-09-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Sep 2020, at 00:51, Michael Patrick wrote: > > ( I once went to one in Detroit, where the open casket and reception line was > right there with tables of people eating brunch ('wake')). so it could be “wake_room”? Now this might sound a tad euphemistic as well,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

2020-09-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Sep 2020, at 16:40, Clifford Snow wrote: > > I just happened to be talking to a funeral owner yesterday. To be clear he is > located in the US then it is not so relevant for our discussion, because the standard is British English. Maybe it could make sense to

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

2020-09-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 23. Sept. 2020 um 10:47 Uhr schrieb Jeroen Hoek : > Granted, for footway=sidewalk renderers could omit the name. > > The sidepath:of:name approach has the benefit of more explicitly > declaring a way a 'sidepath of' though, and works for cycleways, > bus-lanes, etc. too. > it doesn't

[Tagging] admin, please remove this user from the list

2020-09-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
It's been some weeks now that I get this kind of reply for every message that I write to tagging. Can an admin please remove the address jim...@hey.com from the list recipients? Thank you. *haystack-mail-home-inbound-postfix-0.localdomain rejected your message to the following email addresses:*

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

2020-09-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Sep 2020, at 19:11, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > > Explicitly naming sidewalks and all other parallel ways makes for a > maintenance burden and would create a very busy rendering on most map renderers have all the necessary information to omit name for footway=sidewalk.

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

2020-09-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Sep 2020, at 00:18, Paul Allen wrote: > >> unless they are further than 200m from your actual position. > > Depends on the jurisdiction. In some parts of the US you must use a > designated crossing (at least in built-up areas). In the UK you are told > "Where

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Sep 2020, at 15:36, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > or if someone outright deletes the utility tag, that power pole is still > correctly tagged. if it is a power pole, why would you remove the utility tag? When there’s a highway=track and you remove the tracktype tag

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

2020-09-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
isn’t this all centered on motorists‘ point of view? What do people think about seeing it from other perspectives, e.g. highway=cycleway and adding tags like primary=track (means there is an implied primary road, physically separated, which is running along this cycleway). Can also be done for

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Does anyone think that it is a good idea to add those two new tags in this > particular situation? utility=power seems to be a redundant concept in general (you can see which kind of lines are attached - if they

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Does anyone think that it is a good idea to add those two new tags in this > particular situation? while I am personally not unsatisfied with power=pole I could understand that people who want to deprecate this

Re: [Tagging] Powerbank Sharing Systems

2020-09-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 19. Sept. 2020 um 13:49 Uhr schrieb Jake Edmonds via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > >> Unless anyone can point me to existing tagging, I will submit a > proposal, based on amenity=bicycle_sharing, titled > amenity=powerbank_sharing for tagging docking station. > >> > > I wouldn't

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 18. Sept. 2020 um 09:41 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson < pelder...@gmail.com>: > Changing to crossing=marked then specifying that it's a zebra just makes > it more work, and harder to interpret. > +1, if you don't know the implications of crossing=zebra, then you don't know them either for

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 17. Sept. 2020 um 18:32 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke < mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>: > > *Traffic* lights I can buy. I am more suspicious of the claim that you > can tell whether they have pedestrian crossing signals or not, usually pedestrian crossings are marked, and depending on the

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 17. Sept. 2020 um 02:45 Uhr schrieb Taskar Center : > 1) How is this shared space controlled? ... > > 2) How is the space demarcated? A crossing may be demarcated by a number > of different ground markers, > > 3) How can a pedestrian call up the signal ... > > 4) who is sharing the

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 17. Sept. 2020 um 02:37 Uhr schrieb Taskar Center : > This is yet another example why "sticking" the sidewalks onto the highway > (as a tag) rather than mapping them as separate ways is appearing to be > less and less practical. > why should these be mutually exclusive alternatives

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Sep 2020, at 20:22, António Madeira wrote: > > The problem, I believe is with iD's presets. thank you for the hint, I think you’re right. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 16:27 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > I thought the correct tag for this was crossing_ref. Have you cross > checked to see if they've been swapped instead of removed? > crossing_ref is a different kind of beast, as some people use it to

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 15:26 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke < mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>: > My understanding is that crossing=zebra is deprecated in favor of > crossing=uncontrolled / crossing=traffic_signals. there are many issues with "uncontrolled", especially if you use it to intend a zebra

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Sep 2020, at 14:25, Supaplex wrote: > > Do you have examples where "zebra" is changed automatically? Where and who > and why? I have seen it only sporadically and have contacted the mappers in some cases, the same for marked when there were traffic lights. I

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb ael : > Yes. ISTR that the last time I tried to mark a crossing, zebra wasn't a > option in the presets. But my memeory may be at fault. > which editor are you using? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list

[Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while the very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018 below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the tagstats with more than 1 million uses. What do you think about it, shouldn't we be

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Sep 2020, at 19:05, Jan Michel wrote: > > If you want to tag how much space there is for some kind of vehicle moving in > some direction, there are the specific width tags like width:lanes, > sidewalk:width, cycleway:width, shoulder:width, verge:width > and so on.

Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:53, Alan Mackie wrote: > > Priority road definitely seems like you'd want it on the map features list if > you're in a country that uses it. > > Not sure how common emergency bays are? +1 for priority roads (although I believe the opposite is

Re: [Tagging] sleepable:physical=yes/no | Re: Benches and hostile architecture

2020-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Sep 2020, at 19:27, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Is it maybe more universal to map > strictly objective parameters instead? > > It seems for me that mapping > length, armrest in the middle and width > would be both far more objective and >

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Sep 2020, at 21:39, Mark Wagner wrote: > > Which one is "the" width of the road? not only from year to year but also with the seasons... Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 15. Sept. 2020 um 10:34 Uhr schrieb Tobias Zwick : > I was under the impression that the wiki already defined it like 2). > If it were like this it would be fortunate, because we already have nearly 1,9 million highways tagged with "width", and if we could reasonably expect that these

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 14. Sept. 2020 um 20:37 Uhr schrieb Supaplex : > again and again there are discussions about which parts of a street > (sidewalks and cycle paths, parking lanes, carriageway) should be > considered when determining the width of a street. There does not seem to > be a consensus and

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for board games themed pubs

2020-09-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 11. Sep 2020, at 12:23, Philip Barnes wrote: > > A lot of pubs have board games available for customers to play, or they did > in normal times. > > Themed implies that is the raison d'etre for the pubs existance and you would > only go there to play board games,

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:51, Paul Allen wrote: > > One has a plaque saying it is the birthplace of some important figure. > The plaque is a historic memorial, the house it is attached to is just a > house (as is the house next door). we’ll be mapping the plaque anyway (and

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:29, Paul Allen wrote: > > It's a memorial or it's not. If it's not a memorial, and there just because > it looks > nice (somebody else brought up that possibility, not me) it's artwork. I don’t find a definition of art, work of art, where

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:23, Paul Allen wrote: > > To say that something is historic means that it is important or significant > in history. importance and significance are quite relative and I have the impression you are imagining the bar much higher than what we usually

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of individual terraced houses?

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 22:54, Oliver Simmons wrote: > > (playing devils advocate here) > but then why do `building=bungalow` and `building=semidetached_house` exist? > > Bungalows can be seen from `building:levels=1`. > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=bungalow

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 22:15, Paul Allen wrote: > > Possibly tourism=artwork I’d much rather go for historic=anchor than for tourism=artwork these are rarely public art Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] .Re: tagging drinking water of unclear official (signed)

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 13:52, Peter Neale wrote: > > I'm not arguing against "drinking water", just against "portable water" > (water that can be carried) sorry for posting in reply to you, it was meant more generally as responding to the warming up of a discussion about

Re: [Tagging] .Re: tagging drinking water of unclear official (signed)

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 07:55, Peter Neale via Tagging > wrote: > > I dont know about the USA, but in British English, "portable" means that it > can be carried. > > If you can drink it, it is "potable". we‘ve had this discussion 10 years ago and the decision was for

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 01:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Because I want to use drinking_water=yes and something indicating that there > is strong > reason to believe that water is drinkable do I understand you correctly that in your interpretation

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Sep 2020, at 21:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > That redefines drinking_water:legal=yes which currently is described as > including > places where status is not explicitly signed but is known to be good > (examples > may include water fountains

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Sep 2020, at 16:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > I will use drinking_water:legal=unknown if drinking_water:legal is about the content of a sign, I would prefer Paul‘s suggestion: drinking_water:legal=unsigned

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Sep 2020, at 16:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > may be also unsigned, but it may be clearly coming from drinkable tap water the water could be contaminated at the end of it’s journey (conduits), and not be suggested to drink although the general

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

2020-09-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 4. Sept. 2020 um 22:21 Uhr schrieb Tom Pfeifer < t.pfei...@computer.org>: > On 04.09.2020 18:19, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: > >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:shelter_type%3Drock_shelter > >> > > > > I'd suggest natural=rock_shelter as a replacement tag. > > +1

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

2020-09-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Sep 2020, at 20:29, Jmapb wrote: > > If I were proposing a tag, I'd probably say `camera:url` or `webcam:url`. But > `contact:webcam` is documented and in popular use all over the world. I am not saying a webcam is never a means to contact someone, but it isn’t a

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

2020-09-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 4. Sept. 2020 um 19:03 Uhr schrieb Jmapb via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > On 9/4/2020 11:34 AM, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: > > The "See also" section of that page seems to suggest the undocumented > > tag `contact:webcam` for this purpose. > > (Mea culpa, contact:webcam is indeed

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

2020-09-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Sep 2020, at 17:10, dktue wrote: > > Any suggestions how to tag this? maybe „url“ or „surveillance:url“? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

2020-09-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Sep 2020, at 22:33, Mike Thompson wrote: > > OHVs > 50 is there also an upper limit? 50” are 127 cm, so that’s to say wider than a motorcycle? Is the question whether “off highway vehicle” would merit its own subclass for access? Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] leisure=schoolyard

2020-08-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
It's been a while that I have been to school, but from memory, as well as from the current situation I see from my kids at their school, the school grounds are basically the same as the "Pausenhof". E.g. in my school, pupils had their respective spaces according to age groups or maybe classes, and

[Tagging] leisure=schoolyard

2020-08-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I just discovered someone has added leisure=schoolyard to the wiki. It is not completely clear to me how to apply this tag, is there a difference between the school grounds minus the buildings and the schoolyard? Which parts have to be excluded from a schoolyard? Does it only apply to spaces

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

2020-08-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Aug 2020, at 15:21, Jake Edmonds via Tagging > wrote: > > Sorry, I meant that images of generic drinking fountains can go in ‘Drinking > fountains in ’ and only need one image linked to the node. > A unique fountain deserves its own category I named the

Re: [Tagging] Confusion bicycle_road <> cyclestreet

2020-08-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Aug 2020, at 14:44, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > In my opinion the "naked " German Fahrradstrasse is equivalent to > highway=service|residential > vehicle=no > foot=use_sidewalk or sidewalk=separate if there is a separate sidewalk > bicycle=designated > maxspeed=30

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

2020-08-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Aug 2020, at 12:18, bkil wrote: > > there is usually no need for more than one image on a POI I have recently tagged some city gates and both sides would have been interesting. The other kind of POI I am frequently taking photos are fountains and drinking

Re: [Tagging] Confusion bicycle_road <> cyclestreet

2020-08-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Aug 2020, at 12:35, joost schouppe wrote: > > So putting the Dutch and Belgian thing together but not the German, that > doesn't make much sense. I read this as a suggestion for a third alternative tag? Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

2020-08-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Aug 2020, at 10:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > See wikimedia_commons that may linki wikimedia commons > gallery. there are quite some links in “image” for wikimedia commons categories (but not all images in a category may be relevant for osm), a

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

2020-08-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Aug 2020, at 00:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > If we put access=no on a road, we (usually) don't then show if the road is > physically blocked, or it just has a "No Entry" sign. actually we do, access is about legal access. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

2020-08-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Aug 2020, at 11:02, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > > Better. But why not sitting=no, etc it is not clear whether you cannot physically sit there or whether it is legally forbidden Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

2020-08-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Aug 2020, at 02:07, pangoSE wrote: > > What I mean is that its a bad idea to keep the exact same data in multiple > places and thinking about it postal addresses follows land plots and legal > boundaries and not POIs. it is often not the exact same data.

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

2020-08-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 22:10, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > But if you want to change the definition how could you change the definition of an undocumented tag? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

2020-08-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 20:58, Michael Schmidt via Tagging > wrote: > > So, how to go on from here? My proposal stands. you should follow the proposal process as delineated in the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process i.e. set up a page in the

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

2020-08-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 15:46, Vucod via Tagging > wrote: > > length and width keys on benches were refused because they judged that it was > going too much into details I don’t know who “they” are, but “they” can well stick with this opinion and not map these properties

Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

2020-08-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 04:12, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > You can tag the changeset in OSMCha as Good or Bad, but unfortunately no > middle ground of just "Reviewed". on the other hand, if you can’t tell whether it is good it probably isn’t reviewed either... Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

2020-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 02:48, Paul Allen wrote: > > I'm not seriously suggesting we map them this way but speed bumps are > technically hostile architecture. :) If we would go this way this should probably be hostile_engineering :) Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

2020-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 02:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > >> Fortunately OpenStreetMap Carto incentivizes mapping of bridges now (man >> made explicit bridges), so it will probably become the preferred mapping >> style sooner or later > > As with many things, the best

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

2020-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 01:45, Paul Allen wrote: > > It's hostile to public urinators. agreed, but isn’t publicly urinating an offense anyway? Speed limits are also hostile to people who like to drive fast for example. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

2020-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2020, at 23:20, pangoSE wrote: > > This collides with one feature one element does it not? it does not. An address is not (necessarily) a feature, it can also be a property > Can you give an example of what you mean by stable? if you move the POI or the

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

2020-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2020, at 21:52, Michael Schmidt via Tagging > wrote: > > But this does not reflect current practice. > I have randomly checked bus relations in Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne and Munich > and found, that the practice comes very different. > Some without

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

2020-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2020, at 23:39, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Hostile architecture is also employed to deter skateboarding, littering, > loitering, and public urination." > > There is an example of a 1800s church with a sloped wall, designed to deflect > urine great you

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

2020-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2020, at 23:20, Peter Elderson wrote: > > The British really call bench construction "architecture"? I may be misguided but I believe the term is “urban decor” for these things, including street lights, bins, planters etc. and yes, it is often designed by

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

2020-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2020, at 22:24, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > We want to make it clear that lying down or sitting down is not allowed or > physical obstructed, right? I think the focus is on physically obstructed, although this is also not very easy to decide in every

Re: [Tagging] ref on roundabout

2020-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 00:06, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Tagging multiple ref on one road, if road carries multiple routes is > routinely done already. > > roundabout is not changing anything here +1, ref on highways refers to routes, it’s legacy. If

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

2020-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2020, at 18:53, Thibault Molleman > wrote: > > Should that entrance node also have the > addr:housenumber=15 > tag or is it assumed based on it being placed on the building's way? The addr:housenumber ideally should be added to the object to which it applies

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

2020-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2020, at 18:40, Oliver Simmons wrote: > > I agree with the `hostile_architecture=` tag as this could be expanded on in > the future I can see the point, but it is probably not verifiable in many instances (it could be seen as hostile but it could have other

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

2020-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2020, at 15:45, Paul Allen wrote: > > I have a vague recollection of bridge:name being introduced because some > people were unhappy with using name for the name of the bridge. They > argued that name should be the name of the road and bridge:name should > be

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

2020-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2020, at 14:31, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > name=* for a tunnel's name that is mapped with tunnel=yes seems to be common > practice (at least 760 motorway tunnels in Italy are tagged this way). > On the other hand we do have many tunnels, where the road in the

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

2020-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2020, at 10:17, Jo wrote: > > The house number is not 12 and it is not 14, it actually is 12-14, because 2 > buildings were torn down and a single building was built instead of it. This > also happens when people or companies acquire 2 adjacent buildings, they

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

2020-08-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Aug 2020, at 23:22, Arne Johannessen wrote: > > That's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, I'm only applying *exactly* > what's currently documented on the wiki's name=* page, which considers > pragmatics instead of semantics. > > In other words, instead of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

2020-08-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Aug 2020, at 13:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Would that be acceptable? words are better IMHO, easier to remember and faster to type... Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

2020-08-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Aug 2020, at 11:05, Michael Schmidt via Tagging > wrote: > > But I prefer the short version and am tagging it.. the general rule is “no abbreviations” and shortenings will make collisions much more probable... Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

2020-08-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Aug 2020, at 13:18, Alan Mackie wrote: > > There seems to be some overlap with the values of the bridge key. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge this is because the bridge:structure key was introduced later on, before we lumped everything into

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

2020-08-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Aug 2020, at 12:11, Jake Edmonds via Tagging > wrote: > > Doesn’t bridge:structure refer to the design of the supports? I would say bridge:structure refers to the structural system of the bridge (e.g. arch, beam, pylon with ropes, etc.) so I agree that it is not

Re: [Tagging] ref on roundabout

2020-08-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Aug 2020, at 12:18, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > Adding all refs of all streets PLUS that of the roundabout would > make it even worse as you couldnt distinguish which of the refs > references the Roundabout and which of the refs is that of the streets. typically the

Re: [Tagging] ref on roundabout

2020-08-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Aug 2020, at 12:11, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > I would expect roundabout to be split in parts where > ref is applying and parts where it is not applying, in other words > without any special handling and tag it as usual. +1 Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

2020-08-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Aug 2020, at 09:25, Thibault Molleman > wrote: > > So what's the consensus on an apartment building (way) that has mailboxes for > each person who has an apartment there. > I've just been tagging those as: > addr:housenumber = A1;A2;A3;A4;A5;A6;A7;A8;A9;A10;A11

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

2020-08-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Aug 2020, at 22:25, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > "public building" and "trunk highway" are also common terms. > > Do we tag > >building=public_building > > or > >highway=trunk_hghway these are different because it would be a literal repetition. What we do

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

2020-08-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Aug 2020, at 20:53, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > What type of footway is not a walkway? > > What type of walkway is not a footway? > > The two terms are synonyms; using them twice is therefore a tautology. the term as I understand it is „canopy walkway“ not

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

2020-08-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Aug 2020, at 15:18, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > That's a tautology (consider: footway=walkway) and can be reduced to: > > footway=canopy it is not a tautology, it’s a subtype, footway=canopy sounds horrible (maybe that’s just me?) > > or better: > >

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

2020-08-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Aug 2020, at 14:33, Michael Schmidt via Tagging > wrote: > > OK, in this case I must tag the state network twice - for LSB and SKV... > > What do you think about that? I would prefer the long version (less duplicates of different entities) and just a single

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

2020-08-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Aug 2020, at 03:34, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging > wrote: > > in the united states it is Curb. in Germany it is Bordstein Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

2020-08-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Aug 2020, at 01:05, Clifford Snow wrote: > > Martin - does that suggest that over 12,000 existing raised kerbs will need > to be resurveyed? that’s how I read it, and there are actually 28.4K raised kerbs affected (because you have to look at the ways as well).

Re: [Tagging] Canopy Walkways

2020-08-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Aug 2020, at 23:18, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > What's wrong with "bridge" ? it’s ok, but not sufficient when you want to search them. Maybe something like leisure=canopy_walkway or tourism=canopy_walkway (in addition)? Or maybe footway=canopy_walkway? highway=

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

2020-08-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Worth mentioning that the proposal intends to redefine the tag kerb=raised , true? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

2020-08-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Aug 2020, at 15:29, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > And it may be useful to have tag to mark "yes this is actually a single > housenumber despite > that includes hyphen or something else that suggests range" referring to addresses or to housenumbers,

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >