Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - mimics

2019-11-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Nov 2019, at 23:20, Paul Allen wrote: > > Also, if I can see a fake pine tree, it's not concealed, is it? If it were > concealed, I wouldn't be > able to see it at all. Another reason to drop tower:construction=concealed. > > So while we're adding mimics=* (or

[Tagging] shop selling trucks

2019-11-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I have found a shop that sells Volvo and Volkswagen commercial vehicles (large trucks). Looking in the wiki, it suggested the tag shop=car should/could also be used for this, but I find it puzzling. How would someone looking at the map understand, that this shop=car, brand=Volkswagen;Volvo is only

Re: [Tagging] disguised communication towers

2019-11-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Nov 2019, at 22:04, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don not understand what a "a dome covered guyed lattice tower" is was thinking about something like this with guy wires: https://images.freeimages.com/images/large-previews/9f3/radome-1522847.jpg

Re: [Tagging] disguised communication towers

2019-11-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 14. Nov. 2019 um 11:01 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > tower:construction seems a tag that describes different orthogonal > properties according to the mostly used values. Some describe a structural > system (eg. lattice, guyed lattice, tube), others a shape (e.g. dish, >

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

2019-11-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Nov 2019, at 04:08, John Willis via Tagging > wrote: > > Sorry, I am continuing to have trouble properly replying to the tagging > group, it keeps defaulting to the individual. you have to “reply to all” @list-admin maybe this setting could be changed?

Re: [Tagging] disguised communication towers

2019-11-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Nov 2019, at 22:02, Eric Theise wrote: > > From my morning reading it seems that entities tagged with > > tower:type=communication > tower:construction=concealed > > and either man_made=mast or man_made=tower should cough up cellphone towers > masquerading as

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

2019-11-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 12. Nov. 2019 um 14:15 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > from the description, light meals aren’t a hard requirement, or it could >> be seen as satisfied by selling cakes (or ice cream cups in the case of >> cuisine =ice_cream): >> > > I suspect that, over the years, people have forced things

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

2019-11-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 12. Nov. 2019 um 11:49 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > We are (almost) all volunteers, Joseph. It's irritating that this claim > is repeatedly rolled out as an excuse. > > I'm increasingly disappointed my *voluntary* contributions to the OSM > database are

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

2019-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 11. Nov 2019, at 23:02, Markus wrote: > > Another difference is the width: in Switzerland, pedestrian lanes are > about 1.5 m wide and shoulders about 4.5 m. But in my opinion their > different purpose is reason enough to use different tags. +1, these are lanes, they

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

2019-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 11. Nov 2019, at 14:38, Paul Allen wrote: > > For better or worse, shop=cafe is documented as selling beverages AND light > meals, and this > is how it is understood in British English. from the description, light meals aren’t a hard requirement, or it could be seen

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

2019-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 11. Nov 2019, at 14:38, Paul Allen wrote: > > I think these are important distinctions: consume on the premises or off > the premises. They are different operating models and customers have > different > expectations. indeed, and you can buy alcohol in a lot of

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

2019-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 15:22 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > On 10/11/2019 16:53, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > > So I agree these tags should be kept separate. > > I'm struggling to comprehend how a question I deliberately kept simple > at just one sentence long can

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

2019-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 11:55 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > Again, is there some difference > in use by general population of mappers? > > I am not looking for differences in use > wanted by specific mappers active here. > > I am not looking for how > "place selling

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

2019-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I would definitely dispute the sentence that was now added to shop=ice_cream: "exact duplicate of amenity=ice_cream", as it describes only a part of what amenity=ice_cream can cover. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

2019-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 03:19 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > [is there a] "consistent difference between shop=ice_cream and > amenity=ice_cream in real tagging by mappers", or not? > > It does not appear that these tags are consistently used in a > different way,

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

2019-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 01:10 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 23:51, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> > On 10. Nov 2019, at 21:57, Paul Allen wrote: >> > >> > I also see a clear parallel between amenity=bar and amenity=ice_

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

2019-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 07:27 Uhr schrieb John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > It seems I was (very) confused, possibly by misreading it several > different times. I have mapped 40km of levees wrong, with an improper lower > bounds line. I’ll have to fix it. > I now understand

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

2019-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel : > On 11.11.19 01:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I generally agree with your remarks, just here I would like to point out > > that there aren’t any scooters in the “mofa”-class (AFAIK, not limited > > to Piaggi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

2019-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 09:28 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel : > I don't really like the idea to introduce both 'electric_bicycle' as a > generic term and 'pedelec', 'speed_pedelec' as more narrow tags in case > we need to be specific. > if the vehicle class is treated exactly like another one (e.g.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

2019-11-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Nov 2019, at 22:10, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > The first vehicle type that comes in mind as "scooters" are Vespa scooters > that come with different motorizations and therefore can fall in different > categories from mofa to motorcycle. I generally agree with

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

2019-11-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Nov 2019, at 21:57, Paul Allen wrote: > > I also see a clear parallel between amenity=bar and amenity=ice_cream: go in, > sit down > and consume (there may be an option to purchase to take out). I would not see sitting as a requirement for any of these two. It is

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

2019-11-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Nov 2019, at 18:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Are you claiming that there is some consistent difference between > shop=ice_cream and amenity=ice_cream in real tagging by mappers? I have no idea about consistent use of these tags, but I am claiming they are not

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

2019-11-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Nov 2019, at 15:57, Markus wrote: > > Are there really shops that only or mainly sell packaged ice cream for > taking home? it doesn’t say anything about “packaged” and I would rather expect an ice cream shop not to sell packaged ice cream. Ice cream (in Italy)

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Seveso sites ?

2019-11-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
While I first was assuming this would comprise inactive but contaminated sites, I now see this is for operational sites only, which are dealing with chemical substances of which release into the environment could potentially pose a hazard to the people living nearby. Right? How would we survey

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

2019-11-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Nov 2019, at 14:16, Jan Michel wrote: > > > E.g. in Germany they are mostly combined in the larger cities, but usually > separated in smaller towns. That's related to having professional fire > fighters and stations that are always manned compared to volunteers

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Seveso sites ?

2019-11-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Nov 2019, at 23:47, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > hazard=chemical > "risk_level"=low/medium/high what kind of risk is the risk_level addressing? “chemical” is very generic, may be fine for the first level but should get a more detailed subtag aside. Also we

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

2019-11-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Nov 2019, at 17:14, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> (Special permission for extreme weather should be encoded with some >> variation of the conditional access tag scheme.) >> > +1 > > In Poland it is countrywide law applying for all sidewalks, not signed >

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

2019-11-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone On 7. Nov 2019, at 18:54, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see any reason why data consumers, including the bicycle modes of routing engines, should ever interpret bicycle=no in a way that permits walking bicycles. the tag “bicycle”

Re: [Tagging] Traffic Signs "pushing bicycle not allowed here"

2019-11-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Nov 2019, at 14:57, Andy Townsend wrote: > >> an good practice rule is "don't map the legislation", isn't it ?? > > If you can infer defaults from legislation, sure, but as has previously been > said you explicitly can't do that here. +1 Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] the nature of large-scale paid edits (was Re: Service road)

2019-11-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Nov 2019, at 23:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On the subject of mapping driveways - do people only map up to the front > fence (especially in suburban areas), or all the way to the garage / house ie > everything visible on aerial imagery? I’m doing it

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

2019-11-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 7. Nov. 2019 um 11:31 Uhr schrieb marc marc < marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>: > Hello, > > Le 06.11.19 à 19:55, Mark Wagner a écrit : > > There are places like federal Wilderness Areas in the United States > > where possession of a bicycle is forbidden > > can you share the a picture of this

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

2019-11-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 6. Nov. 2019 um 12:47 Uhr schrieb Allroads : > Not only for bicycle dismount is used. These mofa moped motorcycle, need > also wiki pages. > > IMHO we need neither bicycle=dismount, nor similar tags for mofas, mopeds, motorcycles and other vehicles. If you dismount, you are a pedestrian

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

2019-11-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 6. Nov. 2019 um 09:16 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > Also, it may be OK to carry bicycle in a box and not OK > to push (not road access, but in some train you are not allowed to > enter with bicycle, > bit once bicycle is in a box this is considered as

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - sunbathing

2019-11-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 6. Nov. 2019 um 10:19 Uhr schrieb Vɑdɪm : > The voting reached the planned end date. > > There are 18 votes in total submitted there plus 2 non-voting comments. > > The results are: 13 "yes" including my own vote and 5 "no" including one > without a comment, which gives 72% of "yes"

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

2019-11-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Nov 2019, at 01:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Does motor_vehicle=no mean I can push one though there? I did think not ... > at least not on a regular basis indeed, moto_vehicle=no does not prevent you from pushing your motorcycle. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

2019-11-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Nov 2019, at 14:05, Valor Naram wrote: > >  > Hey, > > it's over. I closed the vote with 61 votes against and 46 votes for my > proposal. My proposal has been rejected by community members: >

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

2019-11-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Nov 2019, at 18:48, Markus wrote: > > I guess that bicycle=no almost always means that *driving* a bicycle > isn't allowed. So it seems just logical to use a new tag for places > where pushing (or transporting) bicycles isn't allowed too. Maybe > bicycle=total_ban or

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

2019-11-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Nov 2019, at 14:01, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > On the page I claim that > "In some places it is illegal to both ride and push bicycle, > there is no good tagging scheme to indicate it." > and I want to check is it correct. do you have an example for a street

Re: [Tagging] Service road - Can it be a driveway if serving multiple houses?

2019-11-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I’d like to add gated communities: these are completely private settlements, with restricted access, but there is still a road hierarchy that may merit more distinction than just service with and without a driveway qualifier (i.e. we’ll usually solve these with access restrictions). For me a

Re: [Tagging] emergency=no on hospitals is ambiguous

2019-11-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
what about specific emergency departments, e.g. a gynecological hospital which has an emergency department for gynecological emergencies only? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

2019-11-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 3 nov 2019, alle ore 09:59, Jan Michel ha > scritto: > > This depends on legislature. In Germany, on normal streets (not on motorways) > the shoulder is not only for emergency use and pedestrians, but also for all > slower vehicles. These should drive there to

Re: [Tagging] emergency=no on hospitals is ambiguous

2019-11-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 3 nov 2019, alle ore 09:13, Jo ha scritto: > > the confusion is that emergency may refer to rooms, but usually in > OpenStreetMap it refers to access for emergency vehicles. actually emergency is a well defined key for emergency vehicle access AND for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

2019-11-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 2 nov 2019, alle ore 20:37, Clifford Snow > ha scritto: > > I like your proposal but think it needs to clarify the difference between a > pedestrian lane and a shoulder [1]. In the US, most (many?) states allow > pedestrians to walk on shoulders if there is no

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

2019-11-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
currently your proposal is a description of the physical appearance of the feature, but for highways what is needed are usually functional and legal definitions. A cycleway is a way designated for bicycles, a motorway excludes slow traffic, and so on. To make sense of a pedestrian lane it

Re: [Tagging] Billboard or something else

2019-10-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 30 ott 2019, alle ore 13:09, Jonathon Rossi ha > scritto: > > I didn't say these signs had to display messages that must be obeyed just > that they often do. what I meant was that we might want to distinguish between those that show information and those

Re: [Tagging] Billboard or something else

2019-10-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 30. Okt. 2019 um 12:23 Uhr schrieb Jonathon Rossi < j...@jonorossi.com>: > +1 for traffic_sign=variable_message > > In many jurisdictions road users must obey messages on these signs, > including speed reductions (e.g. caused by weather), closed lanes (e.g. > crash), and closed motorway

Re: [Tagging] Billboard or something else

2019-10-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 30. Okt. 2019 um 11:02 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > these aren’t traffic signs, a common, although underspecified tag is > man_made=gantry (subtagging the type of gantry could make sense) > > > The gantry is the support structure. > > I am aware of this > The sign

Re: [Tagging] Billboard or something else

2019-10-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 30 ott 2019, alle ore 08:05, Johnparis ha > scritto: > > I'd go with > > traffic_sign=variable_message these aren’t traffic signs, a common, although underspecified tag is man_made=gantry (subtagging the type of gantry could make sense) Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

2019-10-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 29 ott 2019, alle ore 10:16, Colin Smale ha > scritto: > > If X:de, X:it and X:fr appear to mean the same thing, it doesn't mean there > aren't subtleties which would be lost for ever if the tagging was conflated. whether or not they are lost depends on how

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

2019-10-29 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 29 ott 2019, alle ore 01:23, Paul Allen ha > scritto: > > From a very brief examination of what kreisfreie Städte are they seem to bear > some > similarities to the UK's unitary authorities. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_authority > If the concepts

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

2019-10-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 28 ott 2019, alle ore 10:00, Sarah Hoffmann ha > scritto: > > It is one possibility to tag such administrational oddities > as German "kreisfreie Städte" where an admin_level=6 may be > a county or a city. thank you, this is indeed a case where it actually

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

2019-10-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 28 ott 2019, alle ore 02:56, Clifford Snow > ha scritto: > > Counties in the US are tagged as admin_level=6 + boundary=administrative. +1, I have never understood why some people are double tagging administrative entities not only with admin_level and

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Access Aisle

2019-10-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 25 ott 2019, alle ore 14:36, marc marc > ha scritto: > > highway=footway is sometime (counry-specific) restricted to way > with a traffic sign like the current one in its wiki page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway > I never see sutch

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

2019-10-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 26 ott 2019, alle ore 22:05, Mateusz Konieczny > ha scritto: > > the vote is running out on 5th Novembre 2019. Please vote for "Yes" and make > life easier for both mappers and developer. > It is kind in a poor taste to do request voting for a specific option.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

2019-10-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 26 ott 2019, alle ore 21:34, Valor Naram via Tagging > ha scritto: > > Things like "Two Tags For The Same Purpose" prevents that. Supporting two > tags causes more work and pain to all: for developers, researchers, for > mappers, for the OpenStreetMap

Re: [Tagging] Tagging estuaries: estuary=yes or river=estuary?

2019-10-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 26 ott 2019, alle ore 02:27, Dave Swarthout > ha scritto: > > I realize that some rivers are mapped using just a riverbank area while this does occur, it is considered at best incomplete and to fix, usually we consider the waterway=river more important than

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > Il giorno 25 ott 2019, alle ore 11:32, Volker Schmidt ha > scritto: > > The roundabout signs are visible in the Streetview photo!. they have been removed recently ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
There was once a normal crossing of 4 ways, which has been converted into a "normal roundabout" by putting up a set of arrow signs on a single pole in the centre (i.e. it was mini wrt dimensions, but not because it was not traversable). As this didn't work out (no room for bigger vehicles to turn)

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 25. Okt. 2019 um 00:42 Uhr schrieb Paul Johnson : > I hate to be a stick in the mud, but whether or not it's legally > traversable doesn't seem to have much bearing on whether or not it's > physically traversable. It's kinda like mapping a flush median in this > case, it's not a seperate

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Access Aisle

2019-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
These seem similar to the swiss pedestrian lanes we were talking about last week here. They are not separated by a curb (i.e. are likely not to be considered "sidewalks") and cars may drive on them, provided they take care of pedestrians. for reference:

Re: [Tagging] swimming=* access tag

2019-10-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 23. Okt. 2019 um 12:03 Uhr schrieb Robert Skedgell < r...@hubris.org.uk>: > I wonder whether it would be worth adding a swimming=* access tag to the > wiki and the list under "Water-based transportation" section of the page > for access=* (alongside boat=*/canoe=*)? > I am not opposed

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Oct 2019, at 08:24, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > Which if taken at face value would make any roundabout, however big and > however many roads join there, a "mini roundabout" if the centre is > traversable. +1, this is how I see it making sense, without having to

Re: [Tagging] Proposing an amendment for an existing tag

2019-10-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Oct 2019, at 14:09, Vɑdɪm wrote: > > I think that's a rather important clarification which could help solving > some confusion about the matter which arises sometimes. I would raise the issue here, and if there is generally agreement, change the docs, otherwise

Re: [Tagging] Hunting stands, bird and wildlife hides

2019-10-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
the bird/wildlife watching places I have mapped had indeed signs with typical animals you might see, while hunting stands in my area at most may have signage that you may not access them, but usually there are no signs at all Cheers Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] Hunting stands, bird and wildlife hides

2019-10-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 22. Okt. 2019 um 09:35 Uhr schrieb Ilya Zverev : > Hi folks, > > Today we were looking for a tag to mark this structure: > > http://not.textual.ru/zverik/2/5/some_hide.jpg > > Searching the wiki gave out FIVE options: > > - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dbird_hide >

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

2019-10-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Oct 2019, at 21:34, Markus wrote: > > > It isn't a nuance of one English dictionary. +1 if there are nuances, I would see them between this shared lane for pedestrians and motorvehicles and no footway marking at all (sidewalk=no), not between a sidewalk and the

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

2019-10-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 18:15 Uhr schrieb Tobias Knerr : > Me too. As I see it, the core of the question comes down to whether the > OSM data model should put a pedestrian road section without a kerb in > the same general category as one with a kerb, or whether these should be > treated as

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

2019-10-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 11:06 Uhr schrieb Valor Naram via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Specifications I did not include: > - Some mappers started to add emergency numbers to police stations, > hospitals and fire stations. This is fine as long as local numbers are used > and the number

Re: [Tagging] Proposing an amendment for an existing tag

2019-10-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 12:18 Uhr schrieb Vɑdɪm : > I wonder how such an amendment could be arranged. > > Should I just make a copy of an existing page, make the relevant changes > there and let people know what it is all about? can you please be more specific? It really depends on the kind

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

2019-10-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 12:15 Uhr schrieb Tobias Zwick : > Shoulders are a common feature on many roads. And the tagging for this is > already established. Maybe a different way to tag kerb-less sidewalks thus > would then be > > shoulder=right > shoulder:right:access=foot > (or access no and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (phone)

2019-10-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 21. Okt. 2019 um 00:54 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > For example, requiring the country code in all phone numbers would not > be standard practice in Indonesia or the USA, since people in these > countries very rarely make phone calls to other countries.

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

2019-10-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Oct 2019, at 08:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I am curious about opinion of a native speaker > of British English. while I am not, I’m pretty sure the British term is pavement, not sidewalk (for the kerb separated way, no idea about the marking separated way)

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

2019-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 19. Oct 2019, at 21:48, Markus wrote: > > The tag i used was > pedestrian_lane= +1, or e.g. sidewalk:right=lane there are a few instances tagged like this: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/sidewalk%3Aright=lane Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Amenity=Gambling & adult_gaming_center tagging conflict

2019-10-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 17. Okt. 2019 um 07:04 Uhr schrieb John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > While Tagging Pachinko parlors in Japan, I came across a wiki > documentation conflict. > > 2 different tags say that they are the proper ones to use when tagging > pachinko parlors: > > >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

2019-10-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Oct 2019, at 10:08, David Marchal wrote: > > The second thing, which is the real problem to me, is that I don't see how to > link these with the forest, as a parcel number is valid only in a given > forest. With a relation? What kind? no need for a relation, the

Re: [Tagging] Removal of rendering for waterway=wadi

2019-10-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 14. Okt. 2019 um 09:43 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > > If it is a valley, wouldn’t there be water at some time, even if very > rarely? > > Off the top of my head, there are at least 3 types of valleys that > never contain running water: > > 1) Valleys in

Re: [Tagging] theme it is for me then | Re: How to map Irish pubs?

2019-10-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 15. Okt. 2019 um 04:39 Uhr schrieb Jmapb : > On 10/14/2019 6:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > There are in some areas pubs that would merit a brand tag (maybe it is > > generally common), they have the beer logo aside their name on the > > sign, b

Re: [Tagging] theme it is for me then | Re: How to map Irish pubs?

2019-10-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Oct 2019, at 22:55, Rory McCann wrote: > > >MC: I would expect brand tag to be brand of pub (what AFAIK is rare), not > > list of brands of its inventory. > > I agree. `brand` is for (e.g.) `brand=Weatherspoons`. You could use > `sells:Guinness=yes` to record that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

2019-10-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Oct 2019, at 20:03, Markus wrote: > > It's a detail, but i think that leisure=sunbathing_area (or > leisure=sunbathing_place) were a more descriptive tag than > leisure=sunbathing. Besides, most leisure=* values are nouns. I agree with sunbathing_area being a

Re: [Tagging] Removal of rendering for waterway=wadi

2019-10-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Oct 2019, at 08:58, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > As discussed back in January 2015, the tag waterway=wadi is ambiguous, > because it is was used both for dry valleys and for intermittent > waterways can you explain the difference between a dry valley and an

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019-10-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 12:38 Uhr schrieb Richard Fairhurst < rich...@systemed.net>: > (I have a fair few lines of code in cycle.travel's rendering and routing > codes to blacklist certain routes in OSM which are made up or otherwise > unsuitable.) wouldn't it be better to delete them from

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

2019-10-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 12:39 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken < snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>: > Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that legal separation MUST lead to > way separation. Just that a rule that wouldn't allow it would be a very > bad rule. What makes most sense based upon the ground

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

2019-10-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 11:10 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken < snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>: > It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic laws > in the cause of getting as fast and as safe to where he needs to go. So > he would use his own judgment and not so much what a

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

2019-10-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 10:26 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken < snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>: > > A level strip of grass can be crossed by any car. With a big SUV you > can cross curbs and so on. It's just a questions about how big your car > is and the nature of the physical separation. But I don't

Re: [Tagging] Must/Should and Lawyering - Re: Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

2019-10-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 16:45 Uhr schrieb Florian Lohoff : > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Node > "Where ways intersect at the same altitude, the two ways must share a > node (for example, a road junction)" > > altitude? I'm not sure what this is trying to say. What is the typical

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

2019-10-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
do we really want to repeat for another hundred posts "sunshades, sunshades"? Either make new points, or please refrain from repetitive posting. Thank you Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

2019-10-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 16:10 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken < snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>: > For example if you try to create a routing advice for a car journey. > Let's say that the journey starts at Main street number 10 and that > Main street is a two way street where the two directions are

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

2019-10-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 12:41 Uhr schrieb Andrew Harvey < andrew.harv...@gmail.com>: > That sounds very similar to > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:overtaking which let's you > determine when you can cross that dividing line when tagged as a single > undivided way. > overtaking is a

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

2019-10-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm < frede...@remote.org>: > The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is > clearer and easier, as it does away with the need for turn restrictions > at junctions. this is an interesting aspect: why do we need turn

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

2019-10-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 9. Okt. 2019 um 22:05 Uhr schrieb Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com>: > I'd go with landuse=forestry on the property, a tag that was suggested > here a while back. This isn't official or anything, but moving towards > tagging forest parcels differently from the trees seems important. >

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'add=milestone'

2019-10-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 9. Okt. 2019 um 15:11 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > ...some mad king throwing darts at a map: if it looks like a house number, > is treated like a house > number, and appears on the house/gate/whatever as a house number, then > it's a house number. > House numbers don't have to be sequential

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

2019-10-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 9. Okt. 2019 um 12:46 Uhr schrieb Vɑdɪm : > Otherwise, as > pointed out earlier by some people, in some contexts you'd sunbath > nearly everywhere. > ... > In this picture you'd see 2 different bathing establishments > (stabilimenti balneari). One of them which is at the foreground

Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

2019-10-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 9. Okt. 2019 um 01:50 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 00:36, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> the way we are dealing with these distinctions of eating and drinking >> places is mostly main tags, and subtags only for subtleties. A tiki b

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'add=milestone'

2019-10-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 9. Okt. 2019 um 09:00 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale : > I would just like to make a point about mileages/kilometrages. Physically > marked positions (e.g. a milestone or a sign with an address) can not be > replaced by, or derived from, the actual distance along the road. > > These distances

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'add=milestone'

2019-10-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 9. Oct 2019, at 03:24, Jorge Aguirre wrote: > > After reading all the responses and comments made regarding this issue I > would like to modify the originally proposed tag name ('addr=milestone’) to a > new proposal to name it: ‘addr=road_marker’ - which works for

Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

2019-10-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone On 9. Oct 2019, at 01:02, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Other common themes are Polynesian (tiki bar), speakeasy, surfing, >> medical... plenty more out there I imagine. There's one bar in NYC that's >> themed around smashing appliances with bats. > theme=* could

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

2019-10-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Oct 2019, at 22:08, Colin Smale wrote: > > So the subtlety you are referring to, is that some phone numbers routinely > connect to a recording instead of a human. > > How about phone:recorded_message=* which would leave room for phone=* for a > manned line, or

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

2019-10-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Oct 2019, at 15:40, Colin Smale via Tagging > wrote: > > In that case it makes perfect sense to consolidate onto one or the other. But > if there are any perceived semantic differences, however subtle, then either > we find some way to represent that using other

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

2019-10-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Oct 2019, at 15:14, Paul Allen wrote: > > Housename may be useless where you live but for some of us it is essential. yes , of course, sorry for stepping on your toes, I was being sarcastic to better make the point, but I am aware that there is some use for this

Re: [Tagging] Guard booth building type

2019-10-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Oct 2019, at 21:52, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > Not sure if this word is common in English, I just looked up the translation > of the German word for that. I am not sure what you have translated, but I would re-translate this back as Pförtnerloge, which is not

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >