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

2020-08-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 17:33, Arne Johannessen wrote: > > Therefore, the tunnel's name is the primary name for that particular way, and > thus belongs into the name=* tag. > > The full name tagging for a road tunnel should usually look like this: > > name=The Tunnel >

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

2020-08-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 19:12, Paul Allen wrote: > > If we decide that > we want to tag such things in the first place. as there was significant discussion how to tag them, it doesn’t seem that not mapping them is an option we still have to discuss Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 15. Aug 2020, at 13:47, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: > I oppose such potential removal here is an example: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways this is maybe not bad as a general overview, but then it duplicates significant part of the information

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 13:47, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > I oppose such potential removal referring to which page? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 07:32, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > would suggest to create a single wiki page for tree-lined road mapping, so > that we have one place where we describe the three different approaches for > mapping them. we have one place (the wiki) and the possible

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 07:32, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I do see these issues with adding sidewalks and cycle paths, where we have a > similar choice between mapping as separate objects or as road property. it is often perceived as an either or choice, but there is no

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

2020-08-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 01:21, Arne Johannessen wrote: > > That's precisely why man_made=tunnel is so rare. IMHO a tunnel is more than the way through it, the ventilation shafts, escape ways, also arguably all the tubes, could be considered „the tunnel“. The reason it is

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

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2020, at 00:36, Arne Johannessen wrote: > > However, name=* should always contain the primary name of a feature. For a > road tunnel, the primary name is typically the tunnel's name, as the tunnel > is usually a more prominent feature than the road is. IMHO

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 23:56, Paul Allen wrote: > > I'd almost think you were talking of the landscaping feature of private > gardens known as an avenue yes, think of these, but also on public roads (although they’re an ornamental feature and not just functional),

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 22:50, Paul Allen wrote: > > Trees at > the side of the road are an incidental. Fields at the side of the road are an > incidental. Quaint houses at the side of the road are an incidental. no, the trees we are looking at are not incidental, they are

Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 22:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> Both tags allow tents, and both allow camper vans and caravans. > > > interesting, I would have expected a caravan site to not permit tents by > default. actually the caravan site puts

Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 22:09, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > - The tag tents=yes/no (only listed in the camp_site Wiki) would be a good > way to find a place to camp with a tent, but almost none of the caravan_site > have this tag. All camp_sites in OSM I have

Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 20:51, Hidde Wieringa wrote: > > Both tags allow tents, and both allow camper vans and caravans. interesting, I would have expected a caravan site to not permit tents by default. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 16:45, Paul Allen wrote: > > I wouldn't use this attribute on anything around here. that’s fine. Apparently this attribute wasn’t created for an area like yours. Nobody said you should use it. There are other areas in the world where these are

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

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > If name of tunnel is also name of road then name tag should be fine. how would you know whether the name is for the road or the tunnel if there is only a name tag? What about setting both tags with

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Maybe outright recommending removal after trees are mapped would be even > better? vandalism. It’s like suggesting removing the lit tag after street lamps have been added. Or some landuse after

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 16:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > We are also mapping buildings and residential landuse and distinguishing > residential roads. or street lights and the lit property on roads. C

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:37, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Apart from that I would not advocate "overlapping" mapping with three > different schemes: individual trees a separate nodes, tree lines as separate > ways, and the new proposal. > On any given object there should

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:35, Paul Allen wrote: > > I still do not see a purpose for the attribute except as a convenient way > of avoiding mapping tree rows. routing. While it is not impossible to find tree lined roads by analyzing the context, it is an expensive

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 13:13, Paul Allen wrote: > > What if the trees line only > three of four sides? Or there aresome sizable gaps for the entrances? indeed I would not suggest to use this on polygons, rather for linear features like roads and waterways. I’m

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 13:28, Paul Allen wrote: > >> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> Maybe it’s because I am not an English native speaker, but I would expect >> something more than a head lice removal treatment place or a speech >> th

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 12:48, Paul Allen wrote: > > Some > values that are far more specific like speech_therapist seem to have > crept in that might be better as specialities. > > I'd say the facilities offering headlice removal and nothing else are as much > clinics as are

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 12:13, Jez Nicholson wrote: > > Q: if I mark a road as tree_lined=both and later map all the individual > trees, do I remove the tree_lined=both tag as I now have finer detail? as it is stated in the page, you should not do it. Having the individual

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Aug 2020, at 06:57, Peter Elderson wrote: > > I can see how an area such as a parking, a churchyard or pedestrian area can > be tree lined. I can also see this, but I’m not sure we should use this tag for it. Placement on area (borders) will vary a lot, and it

[Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

2020-08-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I’ve set up an initial documentation page for the tree_lined attribute (used mainly in conjunction with highways and waterways) and welcome comments for it: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tree_lined This used to be a redirect to natural=tree_row (which is a different tag, as it is

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

2020-08-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Aug 2020, at 14:12, dktue wrote: > > the wiki states since more than eight years that there's a debate about > wether one should tag "tunnel:name" or "name". [1] > > Is there any new opinion in the community on this topic that has not been > documented in the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

2020-08-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. Aug 2020, at 23:54, Lisbeth Salander wrote: > > Maybe > healthcare=head_lice_removal would be more succinct? +1 > > As a bonus, that tag works both on its own and for hairdressers > (shop=hairdresser + healthcare=head_lice_removal). +1 > Map renderers

Re: [Tagging] Aerialway stations

2020-08-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. Aug 2020, at 21:39, Yves wrote: > > Alexey, you're right, anyway physical properties like incline are better > tagged on way than on relations. and horizontal aerialways aren’t completely unheard of either. The incline solution works only for a subset of

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

2020-08-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. Aug 2020, at 14:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >  > > sent from a phone > >>> On 12. Aug 2020, at 13:55, Lisbeth Salander wrote: >> For the >> moment, I filled in general `healthcare` tags: >> https://www.open

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

2020-08-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 12. Aug 2020, at 13:55, Lisbeth Salander wrote: > For the > moment, I filled in general `healthcare` tags: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7806359146 I agree with Paul that those which are also hairdressers should probably get an additional property, although I

Re: [Tagging] PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

2020-08-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 11. Aug 2020, at 19:55, Clay Smalley wrote: > > We've pointed out concrete steps you can take to improve these > initially-mapped stop positions. If mapping stop positions accurately is > important to you, why not take responsibility for improving them? I agree that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops

2020-08-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Aug 2020, at 15:11, Paul Allen wrote: > > If you disagree with that, then whichever of shop > or amenity you think is the best fit to your cultural edge case and should > therefore apply to all types of establishment in all countries, I want the > other > one. If

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops

2020-08-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Aug 2020, at 14:11, Paul Allen wrote: > > Not exactly. Shop fits where consumption is not allowed on the premises. while it could be an indication, there isn’t such a strong rule that you could tell from seeing a shop=* tag that consumption is never allowed at

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

2020-08-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Aug 2020, at 19:37, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Well, perhaps it is clear to you and I, but I found a number of > amenity=parking_space with capacity > 1 and no associated amenity=parking. > *Someone* is using it wrong :-). yes, what I intended was that

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

2020-08-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Aug 2020, at 17:58, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Which honestly makes me surprised we have two separate amenities for parking > already, since amenity=parking, access=no, bicycle=designated would be > equivalent to amenity=bicycle_parking, and would make it easier to

Re: [Tagging] PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

2020-08-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Aug 2020, at 14:26, Jo wrote: > > You could add all. WRT mapping the stop position I agree that adding them all would make sense. For the connection relation I believe it is not manageable to record and maintain this level of detail, and the practical gain is

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

2020-08-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Aug 2020, at 14:48, Jan Michel wrote: > >> features, either bicycle or motorcycle and scooter parkings. > > > I already proposed two options. You didn't like either. > > amenity=parking + vehicle=no + motorcycle=yes + kick_scooter(*)=ye this doesn’t allow for

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

2020-08-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Aug 2020, at 13:46, Jan Michel wrote: > > If I just enter 'scooter parking' into Google Image Search, I find plenty > examples of designated parking areas for both bicycles and scooters combined. > There are also some moped/mofa parkings that allow (kick-)scooters

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Aug 2020, at 15:51, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I don't see what's not clear about access=* overriding all access not > explicitly set. +1, and that‘s also the reason why it should not be used Cheers Martin ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops

2020-08-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I still believe shop=bubble_tea is suitable, as these are specific shops where you can get only bubble tea. Although bubble tea is something to drink, I would rather think of it as a specific kind of sweets, than as a shop where you can get a beverage. Amenity could also be suitable, if you

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

2020-08-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Aug 2020, at 15:47, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > However, it sounds like you have this backwards; you are using > amenity=parking_space to map lots and amenity=parking to map individual > spaces. There appears to be a modest amount of such backwards mapping, and it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

2020-08-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Aug 2020, at 14:51, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > >> that’s almost 22k uses, it is already established and voting yes or no will >> not change it > > Well, yes, voting "no" is probably not useful, but this is also the least > "interesting" bit of the proposal. The

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

2020-08-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Aug 2020, at 20:14, Jan Michel wrote: > > It might be useful to have two different top-level amenity tags for parking > lots for large and small vehicles, but not one tag for every type of vehicle. I would say it depends on the kind of parkings that are to be

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

2020-08-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Aug 2020, at 19:12, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I feel like a data consumer unable to deal with access tagging is already > broken in advance. although we already use access like tags for parkings it should be noted that being allowed to access is different to being

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

2020-08-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Aug 2020, at 17:57, Jan Michel wrote: > > I propose to not introduce new top-level keys because they are not flexible > enough. I'm very well aware that we have parking, bicycle_parking and > motorcycle_parking already, but it just doesn't scale with the amount of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

2020-08-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Aug 2020, at 22:54, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > - To codify / make official the de-facto parking_space=disabled that’s almost 22k uses, it is already established and voting yes or no will not change it > - To allow mapping motorcycle parking as part of a unified

Re: [Tagging] customer_service=yes/no - Feature proposal RFC

2020-08-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Aug 2020, at 23:18, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Using access tags access=yes/access=customers/access=private - it is > not entirely clear. And in many cases place clearly offers customer > service but nearly all office is still closed to outsiders.

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 5. Aug. 2020 um 23:21 Uhr schrieb Mike Thompson : > > However, access=yes is a pretty broad statement. There may be modes of > transport not yet contemplated (or which the mapper, and even the land > manager is not aware of) which in the future will be prohibited. > +1, "access=*" is a

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

2020-08-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Aug 2020, at 18:30, Colin Smale wrote: > > The status of the Gulf of Taranto is disputable as it appears to have no > basis in international law. it is indeed disputed by the UK, the US and maybe others, but according to the Italian baseline it is completely in

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

2020-08-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Aug 2020, at 17:24, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Looking at the Phillipines and Indonesia, the baseline has very little > relation to the physical geographical tide lines, since it merely connects > the outer edges of islands in the archipelago. > > Similarly, in

Re: [Tagging] Have our tagging voting rules changed recently?

2020-08-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Aug 2020, at 11:44, Jez Nicholson wrote: > > Frederik asks, "was our voting process changed recently", to which I believe > the answer is, "yes, abstentions are no longer included in the count" The “new” process is also flawed, as a no vote can bring a proposal to

Re: [Tagging] Have our tagging voting rules changed recently?

2020-08-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Aug 2020, at 11:16, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > It might actually be better to introduce the opposite rule - that > yes-votes need to explain why they are willing to dismiss sustained > critical voices in the discussion. This is a good point, and it is also

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

2020-08-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Aug 2020, at 14:16, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > Almost all of the arguments you bring up here are cultural or political > in nature. Christoph, I guess it could be seen from looking at the email headers or when reading in a threaded view, but for the

Re: [Tagging] Have our tagging voting rules changed recently?

2020-08-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Aug 2020, at 09:59, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Has this been used in other votes in the past? the instructions have always stated that opposing votes should explain why they are against it. In practice this is not a significant hurdle, because many reasons go like

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-08-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. Aug 2020, at 23:57, Jmapb wrote: > > The official postal version of the street name may be tagged as > `official_name`; IMHO official_name is not a suitable tag for an officially unnamed road with an official postal name. At least not around here, where streets get

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

2020-08-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. Aug 2020, at 22:10, Tod Fitch wrote: > > Looking at wikipedia, it seems that “storm drain” is used in the UK, Canada > and the US [1]. And there is an “inlet” [2] associated with it. What are the > opinions using: > > storm_drain = inlet I would suggest to use

Re: [Tagging] RFC: service=? for all highway=service (service=parking needed, primarily, I think)

2020-08-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 3. Aug. 2020 um 11:06 Uhr schrieb Tom Pfeifer < t.pfei...@computer.org>: > Possibilities discussed were: > > service=parking_access > service=main > service=access > service=major apart "access", all of these seem better than "parking". My preference would go to the more neutral "main"

Re: [Tagging] RFC: service=? for all highway=service (service=parking needed, primarily, I think)

2020-08-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. Aug 2020, at 06:09, David Dean wrote: > > On the main parking road, I think we are largely in agreement that > service=parking would be a good addition to OSM documentation (and is already > in use throughout the world, as such). if we need a specific service

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-08-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. Aug 2020, at 02:15, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The point is that a 'normally expected curb' may be a considerable obstacle > to a wheelchair person. And the purpose of this tagging is to indicate > wheelchair access difficulties. wheelchair users

Re: [Tagging] RFC: service=? for all highway=service (service=parking needed, primarily, I think)

2020-08-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. Aug 2020, at 00:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > >> >> So what all these have in common is that they are not public roads not >> intended for through-traffic. They are all on private/public properties. >> So maybe they could be summarized under service=property, with

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

2020-08-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Aug 2020, at 12:30, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > If you consider that incorrect you also have to ask yourself if you draw > the same conclusion for natural=bay and natural=strait polygons: didn’t you argue some time ago that natural=bay should only be placed as

Re: [Tagging] RFC: service=? for all highway=service (service=parking needed, primarily, I think)

2020-08-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Aug 2020, at 11:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Sorry, means nothing, at least to me? it’s meant to be a coined word for an access road that leads to more access roads, that collects different or multiple kind of access roads, in short a more important access

Re: [Tagging] RFC: service=? for all highway=service (service=parking needed, primarily, I think)

2020-08-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Aug 2020, at 10:19, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > service=parking seems like a good idea > to me too generic for me, also not suitable where the road is not just for the parking. Proposal: service=access_collector Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-08-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Aug 2020, at 09:01, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Also, seriously, no offense to Croatia, the only place in the world not > hostile to Americans that US passports are still accepted. I don’t see it as hostility, it’s reasonable precautions, of temporary nature...

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-08-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Aug 2020, at 03:55, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Much easier to tag the numerical height of the curb as this avoids the > confusion of words, particularly with different languages, cultures and > climates. this would require a lot of measurements,

Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-08-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Aug 2020, at 17:20, Alan Mackie wrote: > > I don't know how I'd map this. Do you have to pass through border checkpoints > when you enter or leave the area? around here, no, but neither are there border checkpoints at the border of the main territory, you just

Re: [Tagging] maxweightrating [was: Conditional destinations (hgv, bicycle, maxweight…)]

2020-08-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Aug 2020, at 16:57, Jan Michel wrote: > > Sorry for not being more clear: There is no connotation of a "maximum" or > "allowable limit" in neither the English nor the German term. > "gross weight" or "Gesamtgewicht" is just the current total weight, without > any

Re: [Tagging] maxweightrating [was: Conditional destinations (hgv, bicycle, maxweight…)]

2020-08-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Aug 2020, at 16:21, Jan Michel wrote: > >> which implies empty mass plus maximum mass of payload. > > > No, "gross" refers to the German "Gesamt" as in "total weight of vehicle, > driver and load". The precise translation of "gross weight" is > "Bruttogewicht" or

Re: [Tagging] maxweightrating [was: Conditional destinations (hgv, bicycle, maxweight…)]

2020-08-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Aug 2020, at 15:27, Jan Michel wrote: > > General terminology point of view: > As I understand it, the term 'rating' already refers to the allowed limit. > Note that it's called 'gross weight rating', but not 'maximum gross weight > rating'. I guess the “gross”

Re: [Tagging] Conditional destinations (hgv, bicycle, maxweight…)

2020-08-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Aug 2020, at 11:28, Jan Michel wrote: > > The access tag is 'maxweightrating' like 'maxweight' or 'maxheight'. In the > value of conditional tags there is no 'max' because there we refer to actual > values and not limits. We use 'weight', 'height' and hence also >

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised - Proposal

2020-08-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Aug 2020, at 12:36, Supaplex wrote: > > I wrote a proposal for it: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/kerb%3Dregular > > How should I proceed - can I already set the status to "Proposed"? Do I have > to write a separate email for RFC or is

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-08-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Aug 2020, at 09:39, Supaplex wrote: > > I felt that this list more agreed rather than opposed. bring it to voting. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-08-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Aug 2020, at 09:08, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Please revert this wiki change. > The kerb hight values have been used in at least one project documenting > wheelchair accessibility. I have reverted the edits now, please create a proposal for edits like this, that

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-07-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 31. Jul 2020, at 21:31, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Name is only the name. Names are not refs. For the above example, ref=NY > 214, noname=yes would be the right way. the authority for names are the local people. I would bet that some of them would refer to this

Re: [Tagging] Conditional destinations (hgv, bicycle, maxweight…)

2020-07-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 31. Jul 2020, at 18:01, Jan Michel wrote: > > I'm not familiar with French rules, but is it the actual weight or the > allowed total weight of the vehicle that matters? If it's the latter, you can > use 'weightrating' instead of 'weight'. shouldn’t that be

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-07-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 31. Jul 2020, at 18:25, Jmapb wrote: > > But most of the ways in the route have no valid name. Segments were > imported from TIGER with name=State Highway 214 but that's been removed > in favor of ref=NY 214. around here we keep both, no need to remove the name if it

Re: [Tagging] food forests / forest gardening

2020-07-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 31. Jul 2020, at 11:34, joost schouppe wrote: > > I think that is a good idea. Even if the "form" is not really orchard-like, > the "function" absolutely is. And the key is already in use and documented. I think I would rather see these as kind of garden, with

Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb Alan Mackie : > This is why I suggested that the more practical solution would probably be > to re-tag all existing admin_level=2 with admin_level=1 except for the EU > ones as there are far fewer elements to be updated. Arbitrarily deciding > that the

Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging

2020-07-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 13:16 Uhr schrieb ael : > Only because, as you say, the source tag is misused. I admit that > extending tags is not very widely done, like it or not, this is what makes the whole concept dysfunctional in practise. Maybe it's time to change habits ;-) > and some

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-07-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 30. Juli 2020 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes < p...@trigpoint.me.uk>: > when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something like > 25-40cm, while 4 cm surely wouldn’t be considered “raised” > > At that height even a fit able bodied person would need to think about >

Re: [Tagging] food forests / forest gardening

2020-07-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. Jul 2020, at 13:42, Paul Allen wrote: > > The best I could come up with, given that it described itself as part orchard, > was landuse=orchard. If we ever come up with a more appropriate tag I'll > change it there’s no principal problem with using undocumented

Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. Jul 2020, at 14:41, Alan Mackie wrote: > > To me pooling resources does not generate a higher level entity, it > rearranges existing ones. If the EU does become the "final decider" across > all branches of government, then to me it becomes the admin_level=2 entity

Re: [Tagging] Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. Jul 2020, at 14:04, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > To me as a citizen of a EU country it does not feel like the EU is a > higher-level administrative body than the country. Yes, countries have > decided to contractually transfer some rights and responsibilities to > the

Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging

2020-07-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. Jul 2020, at 10:39, ael wrote: > > often without survey, and then do not update the source, so > that tag becomes completely misleading. that’s what happens all the time. When I edit things that already have a source tag (generally source=Bing) I am removing it,

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-07-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. Jul 2020, at 02:17, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > You have to consider the purpose of the tag. To a wheelchair user, > there might not be a lot of practical difference between 25 and 10 cm, > because both are impassable. wheelchair users are not the only addressee

Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging

2020-07-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 26. Jul 2020, at 23:58, ael wrote: > > Adding such source tags to a changeset seldom makes sense. > Most of my changesets are a mixture of local knowledge, surveys, gps, > photographic and video. I even occasionally use satellite imagery... > So the source data needs to

Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?

2020-07-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 29. Jul 2020, at 18:50, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Do we really not have a way to tag *platforms*? only for public transport, otherwise you could tag them with highway=pedestrian and area=yes Cheers Martin ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

2020-07-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. Jul 2020, at 00:03, Clifford Snow wrote: > > The wiki has a raised kerb as any kerb greater than 3cm in height. Your > definition of a regular kerb is one greater than or equal to 10cm when reading the term raised kerb I’d rather think about something like

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2020, at 19:54, Kevin Broderick wrote: > > The homeowner now maintains the driveway (or sometimes more than one > homeowner maintains a shared driveway), but the right-of-way remains open to > the public, even beyond the regularly maintained driveway. if you

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2020, at 19:26, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Uh... IIUC, "public" driveways are just fine. A driveway is a minor service > road leading to a residential *or business* property. I've tagged plenty of > things that aren't really "roads" (entrances to parking lots,

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 28. Juli 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the property as > residential (eventually as service) and the part on private grounds as > service+driveway. Never use the driveway

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2020, at 07:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > As result, in initial stages something > used solely as a driveway to a single > house will be already named with > it's own street name. I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Jul 2020, at 21:56, Rob Savoye wrote: > > I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if > it has a county name, like "Lost Gulch Road" too, wouldn't it then be > highway=residential? that’s how I would see it as well Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Jul 2020, at 17:20, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but may be still correct if it is > leading to > only vacation huts) these would be highway=service not track. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

2020-07-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Jul 2020, at 13:41, Michael Montani wrote: > > I eventually found on-the-ground images of the feature I would like to > propose / map. are these suggested to be represented as polygons? How would the border be determined? I looks from the imagery as if there is

Re: [Tagging] amenity=customer_service RFC

2020-07-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 23. Juli 2020 um 15:53 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > Careful with "access". > access=customers on an office building would imply you can drive into this > building with any means of transport, provided you are a customer. > no, this does not seem to make sense. When there is a

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2020-07-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Jul 2020, at 20:28, Jo wrote: > > In Antwerpen there is a bus that you can only take, as a cyclist, so > accompanied by a bicycle +1, in the German town of Tübingen there was also such a Bus which brought cyclists up the hill (it is suspended for many years now

Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

2020-07-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Jul 2020, at 16:18, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > >>> ...and what if we're mapping spaces? I'm not sure I'm on board with >>> dividing things which are logically "one parking lot" >> if there is no name, what makes a parking space logically one lot? > > Consisting of

Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging

2020-07-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Jul 2020, at 22:53, Tobias Knerr wrote: > > The date when you last checked a shop's opening hours it is a fact. But > opinions on how often one should revisit a shop to check the opening > hours again may vary a lot between mappers. on the other hand the check

Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

2020-07-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Jul 2020, at 21:31, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > ...and what if we're mapping spaces? I'm not sure I'm on board with dividing > things which are logically "one parking lot" if there is no name, what makes a parking space logically one lot? Cheers Martin

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