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

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

2020-07-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Jul 2020, at 19:04, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Reading the wiki versions, I would say the "site" relation is extremely > vaguely defined. > > I would think we are free to make it something useful. I agree > > At the risk of repeating myself, I believe there

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

2020-07-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Jul 2020, at 05:59, Yves wrote: > > Why do you say "A site means things are concentrated around a point", sites > relation helps to map disjoint elements, but I don't think I saw anything > about their repartition. it is my interpretation of the term “site” and

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

2020-07-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Jul 2020, at 00:11, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I do consider a site relation a fitting approach for a city wall. its use would also go against the wiki definition which states: „ This relation is not to be used in cases where the element can be represented by one

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

2020-07-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. Jul 2020, at 21:14, Taskar Center wrote: > > Why is the relation type on the Berlin Wall a “collection” rather than > “boundary”? it’s a collection of remaining traces of a boundary (which btw was never a „line“ in the geometric sense, because there always was a

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

2020-07-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. Jul 2020, at 20:53, yo paseopor wrote: > > Big sense, nerver forget. > What about that? > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6651797#map=11/52.5183/13.2976 it’s a type=collection though, not a site. And questionable in parts, as the Berlin wall is

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. Jul 2020, at 20:32, Mark Wagner wrote: > > The US has two national highway networks: > > * The Interstate Highway System, major high-speed roads connecting > major cities. > * The United States Numbered Highway System (commonly referred to as > the "US

[Tagging] site relations for city walls?

2020-07-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Someone has made a site relation for the Aurelian citywalls in Rome. Does this make sense to you? We‘re speaking of a generally linear object of many kilometers length, in parts fragmented / interrupted. Cheers Martin sent from a phone ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

2020-07-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 11. Jul 2020, at 15:43, Paul Allen wrote: > > If ever we map > everything in the world as a first approximation, then we can worry about > second approximations. actually you do not have to map everything in the world in a first approximation in order to map details,

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

2020-07-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 11. Jul 2020, at 00:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > You then get the problem that customers are allowed to come in to the front > counter / service / reception area, but the rest of the office / building is > strictly staff only I believe the distinction should be

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

2020-07-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Jul 2020, at 21:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > I have to strongly disagree. Consider an intersection of dual carriageways > (so, four intersection nodes) where signals are tagged on the intersection > nodes. that’s the problem, they should not be tagged on the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

2020-07-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Jul 2020, at 16:17, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > My use case isn't the only one that has issues with this sort of thing; > routers can "see" more traffic lights than actually exist and can (so I hear, > anyway) give directions that are potentially confusing. this

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
IMHO this discussion is going offtopic as we generally do not map ownership. If you want to dig deep into american legislation specifics only, it is not so relevant for the international mailing list, because these things tend to work differently in different countries. Cheers Martin

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

2020-07-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Jul 2020, at 14:40, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I'd imagine that pollution and erosion would result in a surface of mineral, > rather than organic soil; lack of water still remains a possibility. For small areas you can also imagine so many people walking or driving

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

2020-07-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Jul 2020, at 13:33, Peter Elderson wrote: > > To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil. > Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year? not if there isn’t water at all, or if it is heavily contaminated Cheers

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

2020-07-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Jul 2020, at 12:05, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Organic without any mineral, would you still call that soil? I’d call it humus, not sure whether the term soil can apply or not, I am not a native English speaker. Cheers Martin

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

2020-07-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil? +1, I also disagree that “soil can be organic or mineral”. It has typically both, organic and mineral components, but organic

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

2020-07-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 9. Jul 2020, at 19:27, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Both appear to be tagged as office=company, but it seems to me that > there is a clear need to distinguish between > > (a) company office where I can walk in > and buy service (or handle issues with

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Jul 2020, at 16:17, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Really? If Alice and Bob each own 50% of "Fairview Heights Apartments", you > would expect that there are legal property records indicating exactly which > half of said complex is owner by Alice and which half is owned

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Jul 2020, at 15:59, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Neither Google nor anyone else can copyright facts by recording them in a > photograph. they do not base their restrictions on copyright law but on contract law (terms of service) Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Jul 2020, at 16:24, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > (On which note... knowing that a residence is *also* a shop is potentially > important!) look for shop=* rather than building typologies... Cheers Martin ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Jul 2020, at 15:43, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > In some sense, I could say that the question is whether the building is > *legally* multiple separate properties. For townhouses and row houses, the > answer is (typically) "yes". For apartments and condominiums, the

Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee

2020-07-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Jul 2020, at 15:06, Paul Allen wrote: > > My questions are along the lines of "Is there any sort of coffee shop or > cafe in this village?" rather than "Does it sell really expensive coffee?" you might want to exclude those places from your search where a cup of

Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee

2020-07-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Jul 2020, at 15:04, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > > €20 espressos in Venice should quality. But I am not so sure about the > specialty. it’s not as if a coffee in Venice costs 20€ a cup, you will get good coffee for 1€ in any normal bar. It costs 20€ if you sit

Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee

2020-07-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Jul 2020, at 14:00, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > > We also do not have special tags for specialty wine or whiskey or bread. > For food we do have start but only stars that are awarded by recognised > tourism boards. we do have shop=deli while you’re right that

Re: [Tagging] Specialty Coffee

2020-07-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Jul 2020, at 11:22, Jake Edmonds via Tagging > wrote: > > Other tags: > microroasting=yes has 64 uses, mainly on amenity=cafe, in the same way > microbrewery=yes is used for pubs. there is also craft=coffee_roasting 1 occurrence, but seems suitable:

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Jul 2020, at 11:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > If it was obviously built as a house I'd tag it as building=house > +1 as nobody has replied to this, I’m asking again: is a house really only a single dwelling building, or can there be a few more?

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Jul 2020, at 11:03, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > If someone wants it is OK to map office/craft as an area inside house yes of course, generally it is a superior method, but it may be not worth the effort in most cases, compared to the current

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Jul 2020, at 23:51, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > It looks like what we have here are "townhouses", which are somewhere in > between "strict" row houses and condominiums just that there is no „town“ ;-) > > I'm still inclined to argue that whether or not the

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Jul 2020, at 23:51, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Sure, but a condominium is *not* the same. A condominium is, indeed, > basically an apartment that you "own" rather than leasing. You don't own a > lot, or have any ownership whatsoever of the building exterior, and

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 7. Jul 2020, at 23:41, Skyler Hawthorne wrote: > My own personal interpretation would be to say that if two houses share > a wall, they are part of the same building. I agree here with what Paul wrote some posts ago: things are blurred in reality. The details depend

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 7. Jul 2020, at 23:45, Paul Allen wrote: > Building for the house, node for the workplace. Micromappers will be upset > unless you place the workplace node precisely, of course, but you probably > have never been inside so don't know. That's assuming it still is being

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Jul 2020, at 23:45, Paul Allen wrote: > >> here the buildings on the left and right: >> https://www.10cose.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/chiesa-calcata.jpg > > I can't figure out which buildings you mean. any but the church. It’s in the same village as the first

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Jul 2020, at 21:48, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Personally, if it's possible to determine the boundaries between properties, > my inclination would be to model them as separate buildings. (It's somewhat > worth noting that townhouses are *owned*, at least in part,

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 7. Jul 2020, at 22:02, Paul Allen wrote: > If you are suggesting using terrace to describe a topology that > isn't actually a row of houses, that would be very confusing. the German term is equally row house (Reihenhaus). Main difference to an apartment building is

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Jul 2020, at 15:08, Skyler Hawthorne wrote: > > If I wanted to suggest this approach in the wiki, should I start a separate > email thread to discuss this tagging scheme before editing the wiki page? you do not need a separate thread, but changes like this should

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Jul 2020, at 22:42, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > According to the wiki page about building=terrace, it is usually best > practice to map each house as a separate area (closed way) object. > > "A more detailed and recommended alternative is to map each dwelling >

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

2020-07-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Jul 2020, at 20:45, Skyler Hawthorne wrote: > > Are there any alternative schemes? Is there a tag to indicate that a closed > way represents a "dwelling" or "housing unit", but not a standalone building > in and of itself? Or, what if I tagged the whole building

Re: [Tagging] R: Are we mapping ground on OSM?

2020-07-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 6. Juli 2020 um 08:22 Uhr schrieb Michael Montani < michael.mont...@un.org>: > It seems to me that up to now there is a duality of tagging in OSM for > landcover: basically there are some tags that refer to 'what's on the > imagery' (eg. natural=sand, natural=rock ...) and others which

Re: [Tagging] Are we mapping ground on OSM?

2020-07-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Jul 2020, at 11:27, Michael Montani wrote: > > What are you thoughts? Have you ever needed or thought about how to address > this issue? Which tags would you use / propose (if needed) to map ground? there is natural=bare_rock for some cases, generally I would go

Re: [Tagging] How to tag correct number of lanes for freeway on/off ramps?

2020-07-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. Jul 2020, at 22:20, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Accordingly, there are actually four lanes for these stretches. > > What is the correct way to model this? split the highway so that each way had the same number of lanes, then fix the lanes (4 rather than 3) where

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a graffiti?

2020-07-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Jul 2020, at 16:12, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > If this was a monument, what would we consider a much taller sculpture yes, I’ve also some examples https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Treptower_Ehrenmal,_Tag_des_Sieges_2015,_01.jpg#mw-jump-to-license

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a graffiti?

2020-07-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Jul 2020, at 15:27, Paul Allen wrote: > > But if it had been > constructed as part of the memorial, it might (just) qualify as a monument to me this is in no way especially large, it looks just like a piece of wall. Proceed as you wish ;-) Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a graffiti?

2020-07-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Jul 2020, at 14:27, Paul Allen wrote: > > After doing some digging, that wall is the remains of a gabled wall of a > ruined cottage, so it wasn't constructed specifically to apply the > graffito. Which means it's not a monument. So I'll retag it as > a memorial.

Re: [Tagging] Is there any case of valid numeric addr:housename - for example addr:housename?

2020-07-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Jul 2020, at 10:55, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > > I tagged it like that because I had trouble finding it when I had to go > there to visit a patient. established solution for this is using the key “ref”. addr:housename is about addresses. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a graffiti?

2020-07-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Jul 2020, at 02:23, Paul Allen wrote: > > Somebody, > not me, mapped it as a monument although I don't think monument > applies: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6211918213 it definitely isn’t a monument in OpenStreetMap terms, you should retag it. memorial

Re: [Tagging] Open-air stage

2020-07-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Jul 2020, at 05:27, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > So neither of those fit the situation where customers sit on the ground, with > no cover, in front of a covered stage? exactly. Also there might be some inconsistency wrt to the meaning of amenity=theatre. Is this

Re: [Tagging] Open-air stage

2020-07-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Jul 2020, at 09:47, Jez Nicholson wrote: > > Perhaps the definition of amphitheatre having to surround the stage is too > strict? Surely it is still an amphitheatre if the stage is at the front like > a Greek theatre? The requirement is fine, it clearly wouldn’t

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-07-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Jul 2020, at 01:18, Paul Allen wrote: > > How would you tag your example? It doesn't really seem a good fit for > any tag we have. I don’t know the specific place, but typically I would tag amenity=fast_food cuisine=kebap It also says “pizza” but from looking at

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a graffiti?

2020-07-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Jul 2020, at 01:05, António Madeira wrote: > > What is the criteria to tag a graffiti? > Since there's no wiki for this type of artwork, the only information > that exists is "A notable graffiti work", here: it’s a qualifier that is highly subjective as noted by

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-07-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 2. Jul 2020, at 00:44, Paul Allen wrote: > I cannot deny the possibility, but I have never seen a takeaway > kebab shop with seats for queuing customers. typical configuration in such places around here is a board (“table”) attached to the wall and bar stools. You

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-07-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Jul 2020, at 00:21, bkil wrote: > > I can see someone started experimented with > amenity=restaurant + restaurant=diner > > And: > amenity=fast_food + fast_food=van/truck/street_kitchen to keep this straight, these are long tail values, 77% of all fast_food values

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-07-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Jul 2020, at 13:34, Paul Allen wrote: > >> Eh, as opposed to retagging coffee shops or McDonald's being feasible? > > Indeed. That was my point. There's a lot that doesn't work well, but it's > too late to fix it with retagging. To give some numbers, wrt McD

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-07-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Jul 2020, at 02:51, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > Do we want to introduce new tags for gastronomical service places? If > yes, so far takeaway has one of the clearer definitions I've seen, so > we could start there. we already have the quite established tag

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-07-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Jul 2020, at 02:29, Paul Allen wrote: > > Few people would want to stand > in a queue while raw food is cooked for them. You have been writing a lot about cooking raw food, but regular restaurants also use a lot of ingredients that have been precooked, typically

Re: [Tagging] Is there any case of valid numeric addr:housename - for example addr:housename?

2020-07-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Jul 2020, at 12:55, Paul Allen wrote: > > Of > course, most people in the UK don't know that and just stick up a > house name or change an existing one without approval. Other > jurisdictions may not require approval. it does not mean we can not recognize the

Re: [Tagging] Is there any case of valid numeric addr:housename - for example addr:housename?

2020-07-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Jul 2020, at 04:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Highly likely these are errors. However it is not impossible that a number > could be used as a house name. can you give an example? By which definition a number written as number can be a „name“? If

Re: [Tagging] Is there any case of valid numeric addr:housename - for example addr:housename?

2020-06-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. Jun 2020, at 15:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Is there some chance that any of them is valid? IMHO not, these are likely autocompletion bloopers. I’d support an automatic retagging effort to addr:housenumber (unless there is already a different

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráre?, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. Jun 2020, at 14:13, Philip Barnes wrote: > > Cuisine=dessert is perfectly valid, my local big town has > two restaurants which only sell desserts. doesn’t seem to meet the requirements of the amenity=restaurant tag in OpenStreetMap though („full sit down menus“),

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 29. Juni 2020 um 14:05 Uhr schrieb bkil : > If we already add a type, why can't we make it right? Why not use such > a taxonomy that makes sense, enabling interpretation for both locals > and internationally? I think this is what we all are striving for here, the problem is that it is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

2020-06-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 29. Jun 2020, at 15:27, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > Rice yoghurt -> > https://www.sbs.com.au/food/article/2020/02/06/are-rice-yoghurt-drinks-new-drink-craze > > Fruit Tea -> https://yifangfruitt.com/ are yoghurt drinks... question mark Let’s discuss these when there

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 29. Jun 2020, at 21:02, bkil wrote: > > However, I'm not quite comfortable with someone adding a specific > combination of top level tags to convey a new kind of function > regardless of how similar the synthesis result might sound like unless > the meaning of the

Re: [Tagging] Central European insight needed: cukrászda, cukrárna, cukiernia, ciastkarnia, cukráreň, pasticceria, konditorei, patisserie, ...

2020-06-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 29. Jun 2020, at 17:34, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > > Those that do serve wine should be tagged with > drink:wine=served. Something that I do bother about in Europe. the drink:wine=* tag is used 3265 times, half of them with amenity and the other half with shops,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

2020-06-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 29. Jun 2020, at 14:12, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > So we have a first level tag for fruit_tea, purple_yogurt, milk_tea, > bubble_tea, fresh_squeezed_juice, blended_juice, milkshake, smoothie? It's > too long tail and breaks down when you have a shop that sells a mixture

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