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

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

2020-07-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 23. Jul 2020, at 21:36, Jmapb wrote: > > As I see it, having bicycle=no imply permission to push a dismounted bicycle > violates the principle of least surprise because it's inconsistent with other > *=no access tags. I wouldn't presume I could push my car along a >

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

2020-07-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Jul 2020, at 22:51, bkil wrote: > > bicycle=no is usually used on busy motorways where dismounting isn't feasible: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C14.svg > > On such a road, a bicycle router should only offer to dismount if the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

2020-07-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Jul 2020, at 22:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > why do we have capacity:disabled, or indeed capacity:*, rather than modeling > those spaces as separate lots? because different mappers have different preferences. For disabled parking spaces I would also prefer

Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

2020-07-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 21:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke < mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>: > I've seen some parking lots that have spaces specifically for > motorcycles (i.e. that are not large enough for cars), although the lot > as a whole is mixed-use. Is there no "direct" way to tag this

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

2020-07-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Jul 2020, at 17:10, pangoSE wrote: > > I suggest you add the guidepost to a node on the path instead. I am mapping guideposts rather rarely, when I do it, I place them on their actual position, sometimes on building outlines, or on retaining walls, or just

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

2020-07-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 17:27 Uhr schrieb Tod Fitch : > It certainly would not be my pick of terms, but it seems manhole=drain has > an appropriate definition in the wiki [1] and considerable use [2] for a > place that water disappears into a man made structure. Most of them around > here are

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

2020-07-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 21. Juli 2020 um 21:39 Uhr schrieb pangoSE : > Andy Townsend skrev: (21 juli 2020 13:31:45 CEST) > >On 21/07/2020 12:04, Michal Fabík wrote: > > > > >I've also been trying to add these (both guideposts and route markers) > >to the relevant hiking route relation. > > That does not sound

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

2020-07-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 11:48 Uhr schrieb bkil : > I have yet to see a park where they limit the size of luggage I can carry > with me (within rational limits). > > I think local law always defines what a bicycle is exactly. I don't think > that they have the right to search your box to check

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

2020-07-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 11:34 Uhr schrieb bkil : > I think the core idea behind such a restriction is that people only want > to go to that park for walking around (no cross-traffic), and pushing the > bike for half an hour doesn't make much sense and allowing people to push > bikes around would

Re: [Tagging] Farmlands subject to rotation of crops

2020-07-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Jul 2020, at 10:36, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I would go with farmland, orchard, vineyard and not even consider indicating > any rotation of crops. +1, these are also those that I distinguish, because annually sown crops are subject to frequent changes, while

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

2020-07-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Jul 2020, at 11:07, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > bicycle_pushed=no was suggested in previous discussion, see > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-November/thread.html#49056 and then you would also need bicycle_carried=no and

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

2020-07-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 18. Jul 2020, at 20:42, Alan Mackie wrote: > > The closest I can find on the wiki is manhole=drain? but this is for manholes, not suitable for small grates where a person can not enter. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

2020-07-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Jul 2020, at 16:29, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > If I remove it from the areas, however, at least iD no longer thinks they are > parking lots. I am not sure about iD because I use it rarely, but some years ago it did manage to make sense of multipolygon relations,

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

2020-07-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Jul 2020, at 16:17, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > On 15/07/2020 03.33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> Also you should not have 2 objects amenity=parking which cover the same >> area (regardless of additional tags). > > Do you mean havin

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

2020-07-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 10:03 Uhr schrieb Lionel Giard < lionel.gi...@gmail.com>: > In the parking example that i talk about, the multipolygon is not usable > if i want to indicate the specificity of each part of the parking lot like > capacity or capacity:disabled (as the tagging is global for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > If you are interested in reading some interesting thoughts about landcover > classification, there is the FAO landcover classification system, thought > to be useful globally: > http://ww

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 14. Juli 2020 um 18:24 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > I suggested this as a helpful guide when defining tag values. I don't > think it can be used one-to-one for OSM. > Bare ground, BTW, can be found also the area covered by CORINE, as it > includes the Sahara for example) > right, but

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

2020-07-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 01:40 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 23:44, Matthew Woehlke > wrote: > > The multipolygon is just ammenity=parking, but the sub-objects are >> tagged with more information (capacity, in particular). Again, is that >> sane, or do I need to do this

Re: [Tagging] Intermittent highways?

2020-07-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Jul 2020, at 00:49, Justin Tracey wrote: > > If the festival is held at some date expressible using the opening hours > syntax, you could use the "open hours" tag[0] or add conditions to the > "access" tags I would not use opening_hours tag to represent the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Jul 2020, at 17:36, mbranco2 wrote: > > Unluckily it's only about part of Europe (from 62°N to 28°S, from 14°W to > 29°E) > The working scale of the project was 1/10, and the smallest mapping unit > was 25 hectares. thank you for mentioning significant

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

2020-07-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Jul 2020, at 16:55, Lionel Giard wrote: > > That's a bit of a stretch of the multipolygon definition as there is no inner > ring. sorry? The minimum requisite for a multipolygon is one outer ring. There must not be inner rings or multiple outer rings. It is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Jul 2020, at 23:16, Peter Elderson wrote: > > As I understand it, it is soil. That is something. sure, you could also spend a lifetime mapping rocks, and when you’re done, you start mapping smaller rocks ;) Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Jul 2020, at 22:36, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > The Atacama desert has many areas of bare sand and rock, but also some places > with mixed stoney soil: how would you map this? Are we going to map the voids? Usually in an area like this I would expect that a

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