Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2019-12-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Dec 2019, at 16:03, Greg Troxel wrote: > > It seems bicycle=no is in order. and foot=no so that pushing is not an option. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Business names in capital letters

2019-12-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Dec 2019, at 19:26, Markus wrote: > > If we enter names exactly as they appear on signs, we would have to > change all place names to all caps in Italy, France and likely in > other countries too. as a general rule, all names exactly as they appear on signs does

Re: [Tagging] Relation for place archipelago with members place island

2019-12-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Dec 2019, at 02:11, Paul Allen wrote: > > The inner is entirely within the outer, so it meets the letter of the law > (but maybe not the spirit). > Can renderers cope with it? basically you have just outer members then (one in the simplest case), renderers and

Re: [Tagging] Relation for place archipelago with members place island

2019-12-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Dec 2019, at 00:15, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There would not be too many coast lines with names, fewer again with a > continuous coasts that have names. > So I would think the name applies to the island, not the coast. you can think it is most

Re: [Tagging] Relation for place archipelago with members place island

2019-12-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Dec 2019, at 00:14, Paul Allen wrote: > > You could go with the one object/one way method. Draw an area for the > place=island. On top of > that draw a closed way for the coastline. It's extra work, and a bit > tedious, but not too bad. yes, you could either

Re: [Tagging] Relation for place archipelago with members place island

2019-12-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 14. Dec 2019, at 12:46, Christoph Hormann wrote: > That looks correct, archipelagos are normal multipolygon relations. +1 > Building them from the same coastline ways that are used to map the > individual islands is the established method for mapping them.

Re: [Tagging] Business names in capital letters

2019-12-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Dec 2019, at 21:30, Clifford Snow wrote: > > I would favor adding the name exactly as it appears in a sign, even including > punctuation marks if it's in their sign. For example AT AT at one time > was an abbreviation for American Telephone & Telegraph but they

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2019-12-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Dec 2019, at 08:02, Francesco Ansanelli wrote: > > Thanks everybody for the feedback. > I've added the bicycle=dismount on the railway. if I saw this I would think I’d have to push the bike there, not take a train Cheers Martin

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

2019-12-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Dec 2019, at 03:16, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Wikipedia tags should include the relevant language.. it should include the relevant article. You cannot assume that all articles linked from a specific article to versions in different languages are all

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2019-12-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Dec 2019, at 18:37, Francesco Ansanelli wrote: > > I added a bicycle route that implies the use of a funicular (railway). > I'm not sure how to "tell" in the relation that you have to take the train > and not ride the railway. > Can you give me some hint? I am

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

2019-12-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 11. Dez. 2019 um 13:29 Uhr schrieb Allroads : > > Lately I wrote down for myself some thoughts. > 1. A traffic sign (combination) should preferably be tagged with as few > tags as possible. > 2. A traffic sign should preferably be tagged as directly as possible with > tags. > 3.

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Telecom distribution point

2019-12-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Dec 2019, at 23:08, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Should these pits be mapped under this scheme? can you tell which pit is the one where the last split takes place? Are they identifiable by looking at the cover? Then yes. Cheers Martin

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

2019-12-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Dec 2019, at 21:12, Allroads wrote: > > because of motorcar abuse, they wrote the controversy in it. A problem to be > solved. We all know how a wiki developed, evaluates, a few can change the > content. maybe only relative few are updating the wiki, but for a

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

2019-12-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 10. Dez. 2019 um 14:41 Uhr schrieb Allroads : > multi_tracked_motor_vehicle, solve the problem of abusive use of motorcar, > which is a personal car. Not a total group of vehicles on two wheels. > Major > hierarchy impact for routing systems. > it really depends. I guess we agree that

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

2019-12-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 10. Dez. 2019 um 13:53 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > ... and in Italy you would have to group the latter three together and > send them on the road. Only bicycles and pedelecs, but not S-pedelecs can > use cycleways. And then there are cities that allow e-scooters on > cycleways, and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Leisure=Skatepark

2019-12-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 9. Dez. 2019 um 18:31 Uhr schrieb Tom Pfeifer < t.pfei...@computer.org>: > On 09.12.2019 03:13, Scott via Tagging wrote: > > Description: An area designated and equipped for skateboarding, in-line > skating, BMX'ing, or scootering. > > > > Proposal for fixing improper definition of

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

2019-12-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Dec 2019, at 16:13, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > : (Unilever-owned) GROM produce their ice cream concentrate in a factory and > then convert that stuff locally into ice-cream for which people queue.("Un > gelato come una volta"). > Is that industrial or "artigianale"

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Dec 2019, at 16:49, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Only-exit ways in zoos, Orla Perć hiking trail, > some tourism routes in castles, mines etc don’t know for the hiking trail, but the other cases are not what I would see as “legal prescriptions”, it’s what the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

2019-12-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Dec 2019, at 09:57, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > I have also seen this referred to as "park and > pool" (short for "park and carpool"). Would this be too confusing of a name > as well? seems comprehensive, I agree there should be the „and“ in the tag Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Dec 2019, at 04:11, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > If you want to be explicit that's fine, but I think oneway=yes on a > highway=footway,path already implies it's oneway for pedestrians. you might see oneway=yes like this for footways, although additional tags like

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Dec 2019, at 04:36, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If oneway=yes is placed on a route relation then any excursions and > appropriate approaches will have to be separate relations. is it a legal restriction or a practical one if placed on a route relation?

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Dec 2019, at 01:51, Peter Elderson wrote: > > I think a simple oneway=yes on a hiking route relation could say it's > signposted for one direction. I would prefer being more explicit in the tag name, e.g. sign_direction=forward/backward/both

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

2019-12-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer via Tagging
sent from a phone > On 6. Dec 2019, at 23:28, Martin Scholtes wrote: > > What exactly don't you understand? Apart from your question, I can't > figure it out. the name is misleading, rather than park_and_drive, the name of the concept and borrowing from the well known park and ride

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Dec 2019, at 19:29, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > I think the "forward" and "backward" don't belong in a role of a relation. > Oneway=yes on a way should be enough oneway is generally not considered to apply to pedestrians. I agree with what Kevin has written, there

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (changing_table:location)

2019-12-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Dec 2019, at 21:41, Jan Michel wrote: > > Also, introducing another set of 7 tags for such a minor piece of information > is (at least to me) an absolute overkill. my suggestion if you want to map these in great detail would be mapping the bathrooms (or other

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting result - Pedestrian lane

2019-12-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Dec 2019, at 07:17, Marc Gemis wrote: > > But we are not mapping the users of the lane, we are trying to map the > construction, not? > The construction is some paint on a surface that would be used by cars > if there was no paint. no, we are not just mapping the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)

2019-12-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 4. Dec 2019, at 16:53, Sören Reinecke wrote: > > > If it wins, what do you expect would it mean in practical terms? > > In practical terms we make using OSM data one little step easier because they > do not need to watch out for possible two or more keys and to risk

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting result - Pedestrian lane

2019-12-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 13:06 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis : > I would love to see consistency between cycleway and footway mapping. IMHO these are quite different, bicycles are generally considered vehicles by the law and pedestrians are not. It doesn't seem to make sense to have "consistency"

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)

2019-12-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 15:07 Uhr schrieb Sören Reinecke via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Now I try it the other way around: Deprecating "phone" tag. if it fails, will you try to deprecate both tags? If it wins, what do you expect would it mean in practical terms? Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)

2019-12-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Are we going to have more individual votings about each of contact:website, contact:fax, contact:dovecote, ... ? > > Surely we know from previous discussions that > >- some people prefer using "phone" as a key, >- some people prefer "contact:phone" > > as has been written by Andy,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)

2019-12-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 12:43 Uhr schrieb Sören Reinecke < tilmanreine...@yahoo.de>: > Hi Martin and others, > > The new proposal overwrites the old one. There's just the new content > except the section "Vote 1". What I can do is putting everything in the > "content" section into a new page. It

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – notary

2019-12-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 00:01 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > You might also mention that office=notary can be used for a place that is > only a notary. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aoffice%3Dnotary > > more precisely, a place that is a notary public

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)

2019-12-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Sören, may I suggest you set up a new page for the new proposal? It is already a very long page, and readability would certainly benefit from a more streamlined proposal page. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – notary

2019-12-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. Dec 2019, at 21:27, Sebastian Martin Dicke > wrote: > > I often found offices of lawyers, which are notaries, too, and office > sharings of lawyers and notaries. To tag this appropriate, I wrote a > proposal: > > >

Re: [Tagging] Use of a site relation for grouping parking spaces

2019-12-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. Dec 2019, at 20:32, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > I doubt it is useful to use a type=site relation with parking_space features > at all. But your proposed rewording would be an improvement. I mostly agree, although one could construct situations where you might want

Re: [Tagging] craft VS man_made

2019-12-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Dec 2019, at 19:02, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Martin, don't overdo this. > We don't map cafè espresso, cafè espresso macchiato, macchiatone, cappuccino, > americano > :-) > Many of these prosciuttifici produce raw cured ham and smoked raw cured ham > and some

Re: [Tagging] craft VS man_made

2019-12-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Dec 2019, at 11:28, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd be more specific with product=prosciutto. prosciutto just means ham, a coarse distinction would be cooked prosciutto and dried (salted) raw prosciutto (prosciutto cotto and prosciutto crudo), which

Re: [Tagging] craft VS man_made

2019-12-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 2. Dez. 2019 um 09:44 Uhr schrieb Cascafico Giovanni < cascaf...@gmail.com>: > Hello ML! > > > in Italy there are several small processing companies catalogued as > artisans, mostly in categories like food processing (meat, biscuits, > milk, etc), which don't run a shop (or shop is a

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

2019-11-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 28. Nov. 2019 um 15:04 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend : > Please do explain how at rendering I can change what's in the data at > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/53.22594/-0.48389 to something more > like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/359607456 so that at anything less > than z16 you

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

2019-11-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 28. Nov. 2019 um 13:45 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend : > Tagging 2 things to represent 1 physical feature just makes it extra-hard > for anyone consuming the data. They'd have to say "OK, I've got a > man_made=embankment here; now, before I decide what to do with it, I have > to see if there

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

2019-11-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 28. Nov. 2019 um 01:23 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick < graemefi...@gmail.com>: > A berm, in modern usage, does indeed refer to any number of broadly > similar concepts, in that it is (usually) a simple pile of dirt, either > bare, or covered with grass. > > So how about changing the

Re: [Tagging] How to correctly name a forest

2019-11-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Nov 2019, at 23:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Tree covered areas are easy, but we are > missing something like place=forest +1, once I thought we could use „natural“ for this, but it didn’t get traction... A node will not be sufficient, because the typical

Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

2019-11-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Nov 2019, at 18:31, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Tagging sidewalks as tags is certainly a valid method > of doing this. Some regions prefer tagging > sidewalks as a separate ways, > for example Poland. adding sidewalk tags to a highway doesn’t necessarily imply we

Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

2019-11-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Nov 2019, at 18:31, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Note that OSM tagging is not obligated to follow > UN Vienna agreement definitions. I know, but there’s a lot of thought in this document, so it makes sense to see how they did handle things. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

2019-11-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Nov 2019, at 17:36, marc marc wrote: > > I don't see a physical séparator between the road and the sidewalk > so it's controversial to separate these different lanes into several ways afaik the highway represents a carriageway, sidewalks are not considered part

Re: [Tagging] shop selling trucks

2019-11-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 26. Nov. 2019 um 13:08 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis : > Typically, the websites of the vendors use "Commercial Vehicles" > > some examples: > > https://www.volkswagen-vans.co.uk/en.html > https://www.peugeot.co.za/range.html > http://www.usedvans.mercedes-benz.co.uk/ (window title) this is

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

2019-11-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 26. Nov. 2019 um 09:30 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > Graeme, please mark the page as proposal. > > I am not at all happy with "berm". It is unfortunately a term used for a > number of different things all related to earthworks. > What is missing in OSM are clean-cut mapping possibilities

Re: [Tagging] Several different boxes on the same pole

2019-11-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Nov 2019, at 22:53, François Lacombe wrote: > > Let me know if you have ideas there’s a proposal for a relation type=node which allows for several point objects with just one geometry object (could be semantically enriched by mapping the pole with the node, the

Re: [Tagging] Long term detour routes ?(construction, disaster)

2019-11-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Nov 2019, at 04:34, John Willis via Tagging > wrote: > > Route=detour exists for *permanent alternate* routes that exist in addition > to the existing route (per the wiki). AFAIK a common case for the tag are motorway detours, e.g. in Germany, these are

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

2019-11-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Nov 2019, at 19:18, s8evq wrote: > > So in Belgium, I think we do need a specific access tag for speed pedelecs. > People have been using moped_p=* for a while now, but this never went through > the proposal process. are there specific traffic signs for P

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 122, Issue 70 reinforced shooting walls ?

2019-11-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 20. Nov. 2019 um 15:55 Uhr schrieb St Niklaas : > Hi I dont expect an embankment on a shooting range to be reinforced. The > so called bullet-catcher is safely made out of sand or alike just to avoid > swurling bullets at the end of the range, the sand allows the projectile to > enter to

Re: [Tagging] How to tag earth walls in a shooting ramge

2019-11-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 20. Nov. 2019 um 14:51 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > Yes, they're retaining walls. But, since they're made of earth (often > visibly so), may be > naively mapped as embankments by some. A civil engineer may be able to > infer, from > the angle of repose, that they are reinforced but that

Re: [Tagging] How to tag earth walls in a shooting ramge

2019-11-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 20. Nov. 2019 um 14:12 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > Note also that, in civil engineering, retaining walls made of earth are a > thing. See > this video explaining mechanically stabilized earth walls: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0olpSN6_TCc > > these are retaining walls, the whole

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

2019-11-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 20. Nov. 2019 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Markus : > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, 04:43 Joseph Eisenberg, > wrote: > > Doing this for every intersection between a path and road, or lower > > classification road with a high classification road, would be a large > > amount of extra work for mappers, so

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

2019-11-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 20. Nov. 2019 um 06:56 Uhr schrieb Jorge Aguirre < jorge.agui...@kaart.com>: > I had been out for the last few weeks and had left this proposal in > standby. I am back now and have revised and updated the original proposal > and included some images as examples, so hopefully it is all

Re: [Tagging] How to tag earth walls in a shooting ramge

2019-11-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 19. Nov. 2019 um 22:11 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > Shooting ranges often have earth walls to separate the individual shooting > "booths". > I see three alternative tagging approaches, but none is satisfactory > 1) man_made=dyke (but the wiki says this is only for water) > 2) trace the

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

2019-11-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 19. Nov. 2019 um 04:49 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Are you sure that the information that you want is not already > available from a Digital Elevation Model? > I do not agree with this. DEMs (at least what is commonly and freely available currently) do

Re: [Tagging] Business which sells static caravans / mobile homes: shop=mobile_home or shop=static_caravan?

2019-11-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 19. Nov. 2019 um 05:53 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Rather this is a place where you can view and order a manufactured > dwelling, aka "static caravan", "mobile home", which you might place > in a "trailer park" in the USA. Some of these look rather

Re: [Tagging] shop selling trucks

2019-11-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 18. Nov. 2019 um 12:08 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes < p...@trigpoint.me.uk>: > Maybe to reflect driving licence requirements? > Only those with relatively recent licenses need a special license to drive > a vehicle between 3.5 and 7.5t. > Many of us can drive a 7.5t vehicle on a car license.

Re: [Tagging] shop selling trucks

2019-11-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone >> On 17. Nov 2019, at 19:23, Marc Gemis wrote: > AFAIK, VW does not sell lorries/hgv/trucks. Their commercial vehicles > are pick ups and vans (caddy/transporter/crafter) The largest, has a > GVW of 5t. you may be right, actually brand=volkswagen commercial vehicles;volvo

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

2019-11-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Nov 2019, at 11:25, Markus wrote: > > I use highway=footway + footway=link connect steps and sidewalks to a > road, in order to retain the real length and geometry of the steps or > sidewalks and to indicate that these aren't steps or a sidewalk > anymore, but part

Re: [Tagging] shop selling trucks

2019-11-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I have now changed this back to shop=truck, seems the most convincing of all options, and the most frequently used specific tag Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop selling trucks

2019-11-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Nov 2019, at 23:26, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I would use something like > shop=car car=truck I had considered this, but shop=car says it is for automobiles, and trucks aren’t automobiles > > Similarly I recently used > shop=furniture furniture=office >

Re: [Tagging] shop selling trucks

2019-11-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Nov 2019, at 20:19, Jmapb wrote: > > Hi Martin, we have shop=hgv documented for this. It's rarely used but I say > go for it! > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hgv#shop.3Dhgv > I had used shop=truck which is also rarely used and undocumented, but it has

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: >

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