Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 5 feb 2020, alle ore 16:11, Paul Allen ha > scritto: > > 4) Where the only tags are barrier=hedge + area=yes then render > as before, +1, any object with area=yes should be considered an area. > a hedge that has area. This would exclude the cases like >

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

2020-02-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 5 feb 2020, alle ore 11:53, Volker Schmidt ha > scritto: > > I have not looked into this in detail, but this seems to me a strong case for > site relations. I don’t see how site relations would solve the different levels of structure in different

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

2020-02-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 4. Feb. 2020 um 17:45 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging writes: > > > Universities may have faculties, that often deserved to be mapped > separately. > +1, I agree with this. Also institutes, departments, and whatever subdivision there may be which can be

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

2020-02-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 4. Feb. 2020 um 09:15 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > Dear All, > > I agree with Antonio that the wiki is too ambiguous and needs a bit of > clean up, including more image examples of drinking fountains which merit > to be tagged as > >

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

2020-02-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 3. Feb. 2020 um 09:59 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > The request is for a fountain of utilitarian purpose, not historic, > artistic or cultural. > How could we deny there is cultural or historic background for this fountain?

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

2020-02-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 3 feb 2020, alle ore 04:32, John Willis via Tagging > ha scritto: > > All of the other bicycle_parking values *imply an ability to lock your bike > to some object*, but =ground_slots and =floor (and =surface) imply *do not*, > because it is assumed that

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

2020-02-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 2 feb 2020, alle ore 23:33, António Madeira > ha scritto: > > Saying that "A fountain for cultural / decorational / recreational purposes. > (...) This might range from the usual fountain that you'll find in lots of > city centers, up to large fountains like

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

2020-02-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 2 feb 2020, alle ore 23:24, António Madeira > ha scritto: > > An official mention on the fountain or just knowing that people drink the > water? I’d say knowing that people drink it, plus the absence of a “no drinking water” sign. But it could depend on the

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

2020-02-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 2 feb 2020, alle ore 23:24, António Madeira > ha scritto: > > It's difficult to tag a village central fountain, with it's structure, > colours, design etc. and just tag them with drinking_water. the tagging for this would be amenity=fountain

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

2020-02-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 2 feb 2020, alle ore 22:58, Joseph Eisenberg > ha scritto: > > The first is designed like a Roman or Medieval drinking fountain, so > amenity=drinking_water is appropriate. The second example does not > have water running in the picture, but if it can be used

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-02-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 31 gen 2020, alle ore 17:58, Jmapb ha scritto: > > In neither case would I say that adding an old_ref or old_name tag is > wrong per se, but I doubt that it would ever be particularly helpful. I am using the old_ref tag occasionally, it doesn’t harm and could

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. Jan 2020, at 00:22, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Most taxi and pedicab drivers recoginise one or both of these names, > so I have used "name=Jalan Kimbim - Piramid", "alt_name=Jalan Kimbim", > "loc_name=Jalan Piramid". +1, adding all the variants/alternatives is

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate healthcare=pharmacy and healthcare=hospital

2020-01-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 29. Jan 2020, at 14:49, Paul Allen wrote: > > Like it or not, iD has more influence on tagging than this list or carto > does. If > iD decides a certain tag should be used in preference to an alternative, or > that > dual-tagging should happen, then that's what

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate healthcare=pharmacy and healthcare=hospital

2020-01-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
There could be different kinds of pharmacy, e.g. with dispensing=yes and no. Is the dispensing tag also suggested for the healthcare pharmacies? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Area country borders

2020-01-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 19:10 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : Thanks for that, both of you. Umm, are my eyes playing up or is it mapped as county boundary? the German border (here a part) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/389808670 is mapped as country border, and is used by Germany and

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

2020-01-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 19:07 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > Mateusz, offlist deliberately. > this went wrong ;-) Anyway, from my point of view, the Q for the last elections have shown that most people now active in the board also see a problem with

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

2020-01-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 19:02 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > (yes, I am aware about Crimea mess - > we should follow on the ground > situation also in that case) > > Mateusz, offlist deliberately. Would you be willing to write to the new board and ask

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

2020-01-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 19:02 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Tagging it as its own separate country > is certainly not ok and absurd. > > For how it should be solved in my > opinion: > we should follow on the ground rule > for tagging this. > reason

Re: [Tagging] Area country borders

2020-01-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 18:43 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken < snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>: > On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 17:35 +, Paul Allen wrote: > > Do we have a way of mapping this? Should we have a way of mapping > > this? > > From what I can tell, it was already been done. indeed, it is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

2020-01-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 16:58 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > I think they do need a sign or it is impossible to objectively map whether > a bar will refill a bottle of water for free for anyone (ie paying or > non-paying customer). > I think if they

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

2020-01-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 14:59 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > Hello Martin, > > A refill scheme is a cafe, bar, restaurant, club, hotel participating in > one of the many refill schemes where they agree to fill up anybody's water > bottle for free without

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

2020-01-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Jmapb : > And also editing the > highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban > situations. this seems very strange and is likely the result of fiddling. In the areas I am aware of, path is the standard way to map mixed mode ways

Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways

2020-01-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 13:11 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale < colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > OSM clearly associates coastline with high water: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Coastline > > If the admin boundaries are very close, or even coincident with high > water, I would expect two ways in OSM,

Re: [Tagging] admin_level on ways

2020-01-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 11:21 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale < colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: However, practically this leeds to ambiguous situations, where for example admin_level=4 is added to islands and might be misinterpreted as administrative "standalone" level 4 entities (with the island name etc.).

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

2020-01-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 11:41 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > Dear Warin, > > Thank you for your email, I have added a voting section and put my vote in > :) I appreciate your advice. > > We debated for a week before I wrote the RFC proposal and I have

[Tagging] admin_level on ways

2020-01-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I wonder what is the current state of admin_level on ways, in particular with respect to osm-carto. Historically, the recommendation was to add the lowest admin_level additionally to the ways that are part of admin relations (to help applications that render boundaries based on ways, for examples

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Jan 2020, at 15:19, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Well, any crossing involves different ways crossing each other, and should be > considered from all angles involved. A way can't cross another way without > being crossed itself. the question is which way is

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
In Germany, this is how the beginning / end of living streets work: http://www.gablenberger-klaus.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/K-Spielstra%C3%9Fe-1.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Drosselweg.JPG Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

2020-01-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Jan 2020, at 10:22, European Water Project > wrote: > > If a cafe is tagged "drinking_water:fee=yes", it could lead people > erroneously to believe that the tagged cafe sells water ? I’ve yet to see a cafe that doesn’t sell water. Btw, I guess you are less

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

2020-01-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Jan 2020, at 16:34, marc marc wrote: > > but to switch to disused: if there's no water on the day of the survey, > I think that's excessive. for the drinking fountains in my area seeing there is no water does indeed justify to put it on disused, while it’s in

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

2020-01-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 20. Jan. 2020 um 16:01 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > Wouldn't it make more sense for mappers to tag status=broken or status=out > _of_order instead of deleting ? > personally I have changed them to "disused:amenity=drinking_water" (and back

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

2020-01-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 20. Jan. 2020 um 15:09 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > If they're sub-surface, a mapper won't see them on a survey or aerial > imagery. The > OP appeared to be talking specifically of surface features for preventing > weeds > and/or erosion control, not reinforcement. Visible, therefore

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

2020-01-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 03:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski < ja...@piorkowski.ca>: > Ah, good point! So I guess for a drinking fountain seasonal=yes is the > most reasonable when I don't know the months when it's active (I'm in > a climate that freezes, so they get shut down sometime before

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

2020-01-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 02:53 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > > seasonal=summer > > Well, this is the problem with the tag "seasonal" - it's not 100% > clear if "seasonal=summer" means "this feature is only available in > the summer" or "this feature is NOT

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

2020-01-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
even more related wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotextile Cheers Martin PS: just another example of the plurality of articles (and connected wikidata objects) for (partially) "the same things" ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

2020-01-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 23:11 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > maybe surface=landscaping_fabric or =landscape_fabric ? > > Wikipedia has stub under the second title > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscape_fabric > not sure which name is better > here's an article

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

2020-01-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 23:11 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > maybe surface=landscaping_fabric or =landscape_fabric ? > I don't find the surface tag compelling for this, because around here, most of them are below the surface (although not very deep). I would either

Re: [Tagging] EV charging stations questions and proposals

2020-01-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 18. Jan. 2020 um 17:26 Uhr schrieb Lionel Giard < lionel.gi...@gmail.com>: > For motorcar vs car, it seems logical to update it to motorcar as it is > the recommended way of tagging car access, as it is probably just an old > wiki information on the amenity=charging_station. > I am not

Re: [Tagging] Cooker or Stove in the kitchen?

2020-01-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 16. Jan. 2020 um 01:38 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 00:26, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >> British English speakers: >> >> If you are mapping a device which burns fuel or uses electricity to >> cook food in a pot or pan, is this a "cooker" or a "stove" or >> something

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

2020-01-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 18. Jan. 2020 um 17:36 Uhr schrieb Lionel Giard < lionel.gi...@gmail.com>: > I wasn't speaking about disabled only here, even if it must exist > countries where disabled are marked but not enforced by law, but i don't > know any example. But for other dedicated parking space like "parent"

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

2020-01-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 18. Jan 2020, at 18:08, Florimond Berthoux > wrote: > > Hi, I added my proposal: > > drinking_water:fee=yes/no > drinking_water:fee:conditional="no @ customers" alternavite: > drinking_water:fee:customers=no > drinking_water:bottle=yes/no > > I think that the key

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

2020-01-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 17. Jan 2020, at 19:57, Alessandro Sarretta > wrote: > > If the parking_space with specific symbology is regulated by law and only > accessible by disabled persons (like in Italy) btw, in Italy disabled parking spaces are accessible by everyone, but only disabled

Re: [Tagging] Question about capacity:*=* on parking_space

2020-01-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 17. Jan 2020, at 10:40, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > If you use capacity:disabled on both features, this might lead to > double-counting yes, on the other hand I would see parking_space as parallel to parking, so if one is inside the other it would seem logical

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

2020-01-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 17. Jan 2020, at 20:27, Alessandro Sarretta > wrote: > > And water is probably too general... I try suggesting to use tap_water, that > should clearly state that is not bottle water :-) > > So it could be: > > tap_water=yes/no/customers >

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

2020-01-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Jan 2020, at 01:49, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > But disabled=yes should never have been described > as deprecated - it was always being used. I guess „disabled“ was discouraged for political reasons (diversity) as it isn’t an acceptable term (AFAIK, I am not

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Jan 2020, at 12:05, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Pedestrian walking on the carriageway or shoulder is obligated to walk on the > left side of the road. right. Now show me a oneway street that hasn’t a left side ;-) Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] How to revive a tag proposal?

2020-01-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 14. Jan 2020, at 19:50, António Madeira wrote: > Sorry, I didn't get your point, Andy. > The tag was used 32 times, that doesn't seem a "relatively popular" use > of the tag. if there aren’t proper alternatives I agree it is relatively popular. > Someone using iD

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:55 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I >> guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no >> > &g

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

2020-01-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 15. Jan. 2020 um 07:20 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Since drinking fountains are man-made rather than natural features, > they usually have a date when they are turned on or off. > > This can be specified with the key "opening_hours=*" - this is the >

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

2020-01-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 15. Jan. 2020 um 08:03 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis : > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:16 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > And that raises another point, how would you render disused physical > objects??? > > I would say that depends on the purpose of the map. A map that wants > to show

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski < ja...@piorkowski.ca>: > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural > language. > > Here's how the mappers have seen

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

2020-01-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Jan 2020, at 10:13, European Water Project > wrote: > > free_water = I think allowing yes is ambiguous and can lead to confusion, but > if that is what is most acceptable fine. Someone could use yes to describe > customers. > > I would suggest > > free_water =

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

2020-01-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 22:51 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > free_water_table= or free_water:table= will be confusing for places > that sell take-out food and don't have tables, for examples small > fast-food restaurants, convenience shops, etc. > > The word

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 01:30 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > > following this logics, "oneway:foot" means the oneway restriction > applied to pedestrians, and the result would be no restriction, because > "oneway" already has no implication for pedestrian > > That

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,

2020-01-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 17:29 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > While I understand your point of view, many are trying hard to change > legislation and might see it as more than a marketing gimmick but rather a > right to be able to drink without generating

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 17:08 Uhr schrieb Jmapb : > IMO they're both ugly. Don't love -1, and don't love introducing a new > backward/forward scheme with basically the same meaning and possibly > ambiguous interactions with the older oneway scheme. the idea that oneway is about "driving" and

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > That argument isn't convincing > > In Openstreetmap the keys are arbitrary strings; "oneway:foot" is no > more relate to oneway than "not_oneway" or "phoneway". > Technically you are correct, but there

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

2020-01-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Jan 2020, at 14:07, European Water Project > wrote: > > How about free_water_refill=yes free_water_table=yes ? free_water_refill at a restaurant or cafe to me sounds as if you must buy water and get refills for free Maybe we would want to distinguish getting

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > I would prefer oneway:foot=yes or foot:oneway=yes - the meaning of > this tag is obvios. > > "foot:backward=no" is not very intuitive. According to some contestants, the meaning isn't obvious, as there

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 12. Jan. 2020 um 19:05 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > The OP clearly defines the scope of his question with "pedestrian highways" that's not clear at all, apparently it should not contain highway=pedestrian but only (path, footway and track). Surely I

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

2020-01-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 09:25 Uhr schrieb Jake Edmonds via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Do you have a suggestion Martin? maybe a generic amenity=bottle_return_machine ? could be used for all kind of machines that take bottles, and amended with tags about the kind of bottles. It

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

2020-01-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Jan 2020, at 06:51, Marc Gemis wrote: > > To come back to tagging: so people seem to have a problem with > amenity=recycle in case of reuse, but do not have a problem with > amenity=vending_machine for such a machine (that does not sell anything). Or > am I

Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

2020-01-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. Jan 2020, at 22:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > The map can't do everything all the time - at some stage, the driver has to > look out the windscreen & make some of the decisions themselves! this, and we can add all those places you mentioned so that everybody

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

2020-01-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. Jan 2020, at 18:15, Marc Gemis wrote: > > I don't understand this "typology of container that is accepted". Some > glass bottles I have into put a container, others I can return to a > shop and get some money back. There is no difference in container, the > only

Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

2020-01-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 11. Jan 2020, at 23:05, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >>> 13, Via Aeroporto, Orio al Serio, Italy >>> You get some ten results most of them with the correct address. > You replied >> first 11 results seemed all perfectly ok to get there :) > > But you missed the point. If

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski < ja...@piorkowski.ca>: > I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are > one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that > is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted >

Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

2020-01-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 12:35 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > Just to illustrate the problem, try find this address on OSM: > 13, Via Aeroporto, Orio al Serio, Italy > You get some ten results most of them with the correct address. > > first 11 results seemed all perfectly ok to get there :)

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

2020-01-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 11. Jan 2020, at 08:07, Jake Edmonds via Tagging > wrote: > > Is the different between recycling and reusing important for the average > consumer who a) wants to claim their deposit and b) doesn’t want to put the > item into landfill? first of all it is

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > >> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only, > > That tag on footways would apply only to walkers. well, unless someone adds bicycle=yes in which case it would change and only apply to bicycles?

Re: [Tagging] Rare route values route=inline_skates and route=running

2020-01-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 11. Jan 2020, at 06:23, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Are there actually signed, verifiable inline skate routes? yes Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

2020-01-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 10. Jan. 2020 um 13:57 Uhr schrieb Florian Lohoff : > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:37:21PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > For big buildings/POIs mapped as areas, I would expect the routing engine > > to bring me to the main entrance, or if not available, any entrance.

Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

2020-01-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
For big buildings/POIs mapped as areas, I would expect the routing engine to bring me to the main entrance, or if not available, any entrance. I also have seen similar problems, for example with the biggest airport in Rome: https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=fco Routing starts about 8

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

2020-01-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 10. Jan. 2020 um 08:58 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis : > > amenity=reverse_vending_machine > > reverse_vending=bottle_return > > > > Machines may take more than one type of item. Some here take bottles and > bottle creates. Some take metal cans. > > > > Reverse vending machines are not the only

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 10. Jan. 2020 um 09:09 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > A 'tourist' route would usually target scenery, history the occasional eatery. > It should be 'interesting' to the visitor. > > Yes, a tourist route may sometimes be identified unambiguously, for example if it is a

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 9. Jan. 2020 um 10:41 Uhr schrieb Florimond Berthoux < florimond.berth...@gmail.com>: > tourism=yes : if the cycle route is a touristic purpose route > commute=yes : if it's a route for commute and every day cycling > where do you get this information from? Is it verifiable? >

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 8. Jan. 2020 um 22:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > But sometimes it is used on paths and footways to indicate that such way is > oneway for pedestrians (especially in cases where only pedestrians are > allowed) > to use it. > I'd put it like this: "with

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Givebox

2020-01-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Jan 2020, at 00:38, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: > > Hi Markus, why not just "reuse" amenity=reuse? IMHO too generic, reuse is a concept but it doesn’t suggest which kind of object it refers to. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Jan 2020, at 14:40, Paul Allen wrote: > > In that, very exceptional case, it might be useful to put addresses on > entrances (except it's possible all entrances interconnect via corridors). I > have no > problem with exceptional tagging to handle exceptional

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

2020-01-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Jan 2020, at 23:10, Phake Nick wrote: > > amenity=parking > parking=bus > bus=tourist_bus a tourist_bus is not a subtype of a “bus” in OpenStreetMap. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 7. Jan. 2020 um 02:06 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 00:57, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> > On 7. Jan 2020, at 01:17, Paul Allen wrote: >> > >> > The question is, are we mapping an address or the location of a

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Jan 2020, at 01:17, Paul Allen wrote: > > The question is, are we mapping an address or the location of a house > name/number > plate associated with the address? I'd say the address. both, we are mapping both, using the same tags: housenumbers and addresses

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Jan 2020, at 00:32, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > > but can you show us rule where it says address data can't be added to > buildings if there's only one entrance? this is also what I have been arguing for in Italy, use addr tags on the whole area when there’s

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

2020-01-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 6. Jan. 2020 um 03:25 Uhr schrieb John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > > On Jan 6, 2020, at 1:27 AM, Florimond Berthoux < > florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have just detected the wiki page "amenity=tourist_bus_parking" > > > Why is this it’s own amenity,

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

2020-01-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 6. Jan. 2020 um 06:45 Uhr schrieb Julien djakk < djakk.geograp...@gmail.com>: > I would vote for an importance tag, values from 1 to 6 : for some roads or > path we could reach a cool level of details : example : > car:importance:commute=1, bike:importance:long-distance=3 > > We can

Re: [Tagging] depreciate recycling:metal in favor of recycling:scrap_metal

2020-01-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Jan 2020, at 04:52, Paul Johnson wrote: > > As opposed to scrap metal, which is pretty much everything from car hulks to > household appliances to copper wiring and plumbing, etc... household appliances are not (only) scrap metal but contain typically a fair

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

2020-01-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Jan 2020, at 07:29, Maarten Deen wrote: > >> Baltic Sea to be the "Baltic Sea" or for South America to be "South >> America" - this is an example of English imperialism. > > This "imperialism" idea of yours is just your idea. It is not something that > is widely

Re: [Tagging] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

2020-01-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Jan 2020, at 00:05, Tomek wrote: > > Listoj estas kategoriigitaj laŭ regionoj, la listo por angloj estas: > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb that is the list for users in Great Britain. Here we’re on the tagging mailing list, which has global

Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins

2020-01-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Jan 2020, at 22:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The archaeological site may cover several ruins, probably the entire > community. So I would map that over the entire area. archaeological sites quite often are nested, overlapping (both, horizontally

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

2020-01-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Jan 2020, at 23:22, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > x=designated means access only for x and and there is a sign, ore something > equivalent, stating this > x=designated AND y=designated means access only for x and for y and there is > a sign, ore something equivalent,

Re: [Tagging] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

2020-01-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Jan 2020, at 23:27, Tomek wrote: > > EN (automatic translation) > I plan to remove the "name" and "wikipedia" tags from places that are not > associated with a specific nation or language: > * continents > * north and south poles > * seas and bays, but exceptionally

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

2020-01-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Jan 2020, at 16:46, Colin Smale wrote: > >> The term vending machine is misrepresenting these machines and should not be >> used. > > > They are frequently called "reverse vending" machines - instead of the > customer trading money for goods, they trade goods for

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

2020-01-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Jan 2020, at 20:18, Florimond Berthoux > wrote: > >> is “designated” implying that other vehicles cannot (legally or physically?) >> use the parking, or that there are specific measures so that the designated >> vehicles fit perfectly into the fixtures? > > No,

Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins

2020-01-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Jan 2020, at 19:55, Tod Fitch wrote: > > One trouble with names it that the people who lived in those areas moved out > long before the advent of written documentation so we don’t know what they > called the places. All the names are from later peoples (different

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Jan 2020, at 19:24, Rob Savoye wrote: > > I assume the right place for tags like 'addr:housenumber' & > 'addr:street' are on the building way, and not a standalone node ? it depends where the number/address is assigned to, and may vary, e.g. in Germany it depends

Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins

2020-01-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Jan 2020, at 17:06, Rob Savoye wrote: > > > Digging around the internet, I see a variety of ways to tag sites like > this, and a few old unapproved proposals. Since these structures are > thousands of years old, shouldn't they be 'historic=archaeological_site' >

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

2020-01-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
is “designated” implying that other vehicles cannot (legally or physically?) use the parking, or that there are specific measures so that the designated vehicles fit perfectly into the fixtures? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

2020-01-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Jan 2020, at 13:39, Jake Edmonds via Tagging > wrote: > > Some bottle return vending machines are placed inside supermarket stores and > give the user a discount coupon to redeem in-store when paying for their > shopping. The supermarket chain may not own, empty

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tax free shopping

2020-01-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Jan 2020, at 23:38, Philip Barnes wrote: > >> you're right, maybe saying that "this shop does not offer any service >> (prepared forms, memberships in organizations, etc.) for an >> tax-exemption" is better? >> > Absence of such facilities surely applies to 99.%

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

2020-01-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Jan 2020, at 22:12, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > My feeling is that we should not add more humanities along that line, like > RV_parking, hgv_parking, snowmobile_parking, cargo_bike_parking and so on, > but try to think,of something better. > In particular I would

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tax free shopping

2020-01-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Jan 2020, at 19:49, Hauke Stieler wrote: > > Hi, > > you may noticed the discussion "Tag for 'tax free shopping'" on this > mailing list. This is the proposal for the new "duty_free" tag. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tax_free_shopping

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >