Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

come up with any new proposal) > > > > > On 14/09/2022 22:59, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> The main problem here is that different people will need (or do not need) to >> use hands, >> it also heavily depends on weather and other considtion >> >>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=scramble

The main problem here is that different people will need (or do not need) to use hands, it also heavily depends on weather and other considtion How we would deal with such borderline cases? via ferrata value is far more likely to succeed and I would recommend trying to get it first Sep 14, 20

Re: [Tagging] Fuzzy areas again: should we have them or not?

Dec 21, 2020, 16:42 by zelonew...@gmail.com: > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 8:01 AM Frederik Ramm <> frede...@remote.org> > wrote: >   > >> Our current data model is not suitable for mapping fuzzy areas. We can >> only do "precise". Also, as you correctly pointed out, or basic tenet of >> veri

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

I like this new tag. I had proposing something like that on my TODO list. I added it in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/96211869 to mark addr:housenumber=1-3 as a single address, not a range (based on su

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

Dec 20, 2020, 23:29 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 17:55, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> How objects tagged now with amenity=lifeboat_station should be tagged after >> this proposal p

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

Dec 21, 2020, 13:01 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Mo., 21. Dez. 2020 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> >: > >> >> Mapping military bases in Israel, Russia, mapping anything in China/North >> Korea >

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

Dec 21, 2020, 08:18 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 16:44, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> OSMF board is not spending hours on monitoring wiki pages.

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

Dec 21, 2020, 01:43 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > > > On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 10:37, Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdre...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> >> imagine you were mapping something, and it is legal in the place where you >> are, but illegal in Britain, so you can not do it. Or you are s

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

How objects tagged now with amenity=lifeboat_station should be tagged after this proposal passes? It deprecates some tags without info about proposed replacements about any of them, and some are actually used. Also "The area of the Rescue base should render with the same pink colour as curren

Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

Dec 20, 2020, 00:01 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > On 20/12/20 6:45 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> Is there some good use for sport=shooting_range? >> >> Or is it always preferable to use sport=shooting + leisure=pitch? >> >> This is a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

Dec 20, 2020, 01:18 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 23:58, <> 80hnhtv4a...@bk.ru> > wrote: > >> it had the word bump in it. >> > > Yes, it had the word "bump" in it.  "Bump" is an English word.  There > are traffic-calming devices with the word "bump" in their name. > > The prop

[Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

Is there some good use for sport=shooting_range? Or is it always preferable to use sport=shooting + leisure=pitch? This is a request to review this edit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Asport%3Dshooting_range&type=revision&diff=2074293&oldid=125712 that ended creating https

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

Thanks for documenting this new value! I edited page in attempt to provide more specific definition (based on photos). To author of a proposal: feel free to revert my edit or change it or do something else with it I wonder whatever there is even a British English name for that (or is hillocky an

Re: [Tagging] addr:floor and level:ref - Wiki review welcomed

his doesn't make any sense outside of trying breaking the SIT >>> tagging scheme If you have changes to suggest do that in the >>> context of  an SIT improvement and not just so that you can add >>> yet another SC challenge. >>> >

Re: [Tagging] addr:floor and level:ref - Wiki review welcomed

Dec 18, 2020, 14:56 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Fr., 18. Dez. 2020 um 14:07 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <> > matkoni...@tutanota.com> >: > >> >> 4) I am not planning to work on deprecating either one >> > > > but you are working on cosolidating _both_ > No, I just researched and describe

Re: [Tagging] addr:floor and level:ref - Wiki review welcomed

1) both are in use and while level:ref has more uses most of them come from mass edits[1] 2) this edits were intended to document current tagging practice, not to create a proposal 3) addr:floor went through a proposal[2] and I am not going to mark it as deprecated without consultation 4) I a

Re: [Tagging] addr:floor and level:ref - Wiki review welcomed

Am 18.12.2020 um 13:11 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging: > >> I heavily edited >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:floor >> and created >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:level:ref >> >> Please, edit this pages if something can

[Tagging] addr:floor and level:ref - Wiki review welcomed

I heavily edited https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr:floor and created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:level:ref Please, edit this pages if something can be improved. Review of this pages also would be welcomed. (edits triggered by https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplet

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 17, 2020, 08:02 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 16. Dec 2020, at 17:52, Joseph Eisenberg >> wrote: >> >> You still have to distinguish marine water (outside of the >> natural=coastline) from inland waters, and distinguishing rivers from lakes >> is very impo

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 16, 2020, 19:27 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > The last time I looked, there was no non-deprecated way to map the > information that I had. > That is sign of bad tagging scheme. > I now see that @jeisenbe has restored the `waterway=rapids` tag to the Wiki.   > Is it enough? > I asked here

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 16, 2020, 16:49 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2020-12-16, tr, 17:04 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > >> I agree that it is useful only for primitive rendering of water areas >> (that possibly filters water areas by area but does not distinguish >> between lake

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

OSM Wiki is "dedicated wiki that documents current practices" Yes, it is sometimes outdated - but it is unlikely to be changed by creating an exact duplicate. If you see something wrong you are welcome to edit it (feel free to ask for help if you need it). Dec 16, 2020, 16:49 by o...@dead10ck.c

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 16, 2020, 15:22 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2020-12-16, tr, 16:01 Mateusz Konieczny rašė: > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dreservoir#water.3Dreservoir >> (just added) >> > > Thank you. Maybe it is better to discuss here before adding to wiki? > > In my experience i

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 16, 2020, 14:42 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: >> I get that you consider benefits of natural=water water=* schema >> as unimportant >> > > Can you LIST the benefits? As you see them TODAY. So that we could > evaluate/compare? > (Not point to proposal on wiki, as largest part of it never mate

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 16, 2020, 14:29 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > And what is a problem of listing benefits of water=reservoir schema? > If there are none > I get that you consider benefits of natural=water water=* schema as unimportant But, please, stop pretending that there are no benefits. __

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 16, 2020, 00:17 by zelonew...@gmail.com: > 1. It is not clear from the original 2011 vote which created water=reservoir > (and other values) as to whether the community intended to deprecate > landuse=reservoir or whether the community intended to create two parallel > tagging schemes for

Re: [Tagging] Changes to clarify the Hazards proposal during the vote

+1, this kind of change is completely fine Dec 15, 2020, 06:19 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > Thanks Brian. > > As far as I am concerned, those changes are fine. > > Graeme > > > On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 10:53, Brian M. Sperlongano <> zelonew...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I recently r

Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

Dec 15, 2020, 03:33 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 21:28, Paul Allen <> pla16...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> I can't think of an English term, other than "holiday cottages."  These >> places >> generally call themselves "Foo Holiday Cottages" or "Foo Holidays" or >> "Foo Fa

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Dec 14, 2020, 22:03 by and...@torger.se: > Ok, understood. However as far as I know OSM lacks a standard document > for render implementors to actually know how data should be interpreted. > In part it is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ in part it is decision of authors of map style how they w

Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

Dec 14, 2020, 10:07 by marius...@gmail.com: > On 14.12.2020 07:19, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> >> There are cases where there is group of multiple holiday cottages, >> >> each rentable independently. I know about cases with just 2 and big groups, &g

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

no problem with that, but it > seems to that it must be in a separate database as it just too controversial > to be in the main database. > > > /Anders > > > On 2020-12-13 21:12, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > > >>   >>   >>   >> Dec

[Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

There are cases where there is group of multiple holiday cottages, each rentable independently. I know about cases with just 2 and big groups, 25 in one place. How it should be tagged? I found https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dchalet that is for a single one. Tagging 25 touris

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Dec 13, 2020, 19:58 by and...@torger.se: > > Do you have a suggestion of how to map Sweden's highest mountain, Kebnekaise? > > > The mountain is called Kebnekaise, it has two peaks, one is called > "Sydtoppen" ("the south peak"), the other "Nordtoppen" ("the north peak"). > > I admit that I ha

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC 2 - Pumping proposal

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal#Examples Looking at the first example - I see nothing clearly indicating that pump is operated by muscle power. Is it intentional to not include this distinction? Dec 13, 2020, 19:45 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com: > Dear al

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 13, 2020, 19:53 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 13. Dec 2020, at 18:49, Tomas Straupis wrote: >> >>  Introducing duplicate and unused schema (especially as the only >> option) is not a good IT decision, basic analysis should have shown >> that. But in case of i

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

It seems to be proposing also belisha_beacon=yes that is now unused https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=belisha_beacon%3Dyes At the same time it has "However, in countries like the UK, where belisha beacons are used, every single zebra crossing has belisha beacons installed, so there is

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 13, 2020, 19:33 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2020-12-13, sk, 20:09 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > >> 2020-12-13, sk, 19:18 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: >> Mateusz, can you point out which of my claims is a lie? >> >> "iD coders decid

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 13, 2020, 18:46 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: Please first stop quoting me in way that presents your statements under my autorship > 2020-12-13, sk, 19:18 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > Mateusz, can you point out which of my claims is a lie? > "iD coders decided to sk

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 13, 2020, 16:35 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2020-12-13, sk, 16:13 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė: > >> 2019 was a turning point, and over the last two years, landuse=reservoir has >> been on a steady decline, while water=reservoir continued its rapid growth. >> > > New/duplicate schema with wat

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

on topic of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir I have strong preference toward version with natural=water, but landuse=reservoir is clearly still in significant use on topic of what is deciding for tag popularity Dec 13, 2020, 15:31 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Bria

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

Dec 12, 2020, 14:25 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:25 AM Jan Michel <> j...@mueschelsoft.de> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> where do you see a problem here? The current situation might not be >> perfect, but it is usable as it is. The only thing to keep in mind is >> that th

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - wait

Seems well done to me. I even know two places where it would be taggable. Dec 13, 2020, 06:28 by antoniomade...@gmx.com: > Greetings. > > As discussed here in the mailing list, me and L___I have created a > proposal for the key "wait": > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/wai

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

Dec 12, 2020, 18:27 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 11:22 AM Jan Michel <> j...@mueschelsoft.de> > wrote: > >> On 12.12.20 17:47, Paul Johnson wrote: >> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:46 AM Jan Michel >> > <>> j...@mueschelsoft.de>> >> > > j...@mueschelsoft.de>> >> wro

Re: [Tagging] edit war related to tagging of a bus-only major road

It is very unusual, but I think that highway=secondary may be actually bus only. And I would never describe highway=secondary as a special type of highway=service Dec 11, 2020, 14:21 by jan...@gmail.com: > I think "service" is more appropriate than highway=secondary. Highway=service > has in

[Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

Mapper in Poland run into a tricky case and asked for help. I am forwarding this a bit weird case. Photo is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krak%C3%B3w_Brodzi%C5%84skiego_(5).jpg and depicts - contraflow bicycle lane - bicycle-only left turn lane (signed left turn) - general purpose

Re: [Tagging] Many historic=wayside_cross are not historic

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Counterintuitive_key_names for other similar cases. historic=wayside_shrine, historic=wayside_cross were intended for tagging old shrines and old crosses. But introducing them was done without proposing a tagging scheme for modern crosses and modern shrine

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Military=Coast-Guard & Rescue=Marine_Rescue

Thanks for creating a proposal that would solve problems with the current tagging! I like it - and military force that also is tasked with search & rescue can be also tagged with combination of this two new tags. Disclaimer: I know nearly nothing about this topic. But maybe emergency=marine_res

Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

Dec 3, 2020, 19:14 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk: > On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 18:06 +, Paul Allen wrote: > >> On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 17:54, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>> >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote: >> >>> >>> I am not exactl

Re: [Tagging] RFC Update - Hazard Proposal - rock/land fall/slide

I am not exactly happy about "rock slide" as it seems weird to use it where danger is primarily about individual rocks dropping, not about full scale rock slide. Personally I would prefer "failing rocks" for warning used by a standard road sign. (difference is minor, but if we have luxury of sel

Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

Is it both something that makes sense, accepted by community and supported by Wiki? In such case, have you checked whatever this feature was already requested for mentioned software? It is both rare(?) and tricky to implement in rendering, but editors have greater freedom to handle this. And i

Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

This one looks to me like a small funicular railway. But OSM Wiki includes "the ascending and descending vehicles counterbalancing each other" as one of important characteristic. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway=funicular?uselang=en Dec 3, 2020, 14:53 by winfi...@gmail.com: > I

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

Dec 1, 2020, 00:44 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert <> > lrich...@posteo.net> >: > >> >> I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in >> my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

Given "in the field they may also look like trails." it seems to not be solvable. How mappers are supposed to distinguish them from normal paths? Nov 30, 2020, 20:41 by s8e...@runbox.com: > Hello everyone, > > With the Belgian community, we have been in contact with Natuurpunt, our main > nati

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

Nov 30, 2020, 14:33 by amadva...@gmail.com: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 12:27 PM Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> imagery may well be better than survey by consumer GPS >> > I agree. Where an image is available I always use it as reference. But most > of the trails of my local a

[Tagging] Defining amenity=coast_guard

I run into https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcoast_guard and despite that I have basically zero experience with such objects I am pretty sure that this description (and an old proposal) has a problematic definition It was "A building housing the Coast Guard administrative offices"

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

I would use "survey using high quality dualband GPS (accuracy with X m)" to make it clearly understandable. Most people would be unaware of meaning of "GPS dualband" (I ma quite interested in this topic and I am unsure what is the accuracy difference, especially as there massive differences in acc

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

It is not explicitly mentioned, but it would be a good idea to have explicit mention is it OK to tag hazard that - exists - is unsigned - government has not declared that it exists (maybe government is dysfunctional/missing like in Somalia, or it is covering-up the problem, or it has higher prio

Re: [Tagging] Elevated housing estate

add location=overhead on buildings and other objects? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:min_level https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:building:levels#Buildings_with_parts_that_don.27t_start_at_ground_level (not sure can it be app

Re: [Tagging] Extremely long Amtrak route relations / coastline v. water

Nov 24, 2020, 15:09 by walker.t.brad...@gmail.com: > > I’ve seen the micro grants, I’m not talking about funding from OSM > Foundation.  Basically if someone could identify a solution to some of the > problems that come up in this tagging thread like “updating how X rendering > process works

Re: [Tagging] Extremely long Amtrak route relations / coastline v. water

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Microgrants/Microgrants_2020 would kind of illustrate what kind of money was requested for OSM-related projects. Some of that was pure or nearly pure software development, though most of them are either funded or were a quite poor proposals. Nov 24, 2020, 12:1

Re: [Tagging] Extremely long Amtrak route relations / coastline v. water

Nov 24, 2020, 01:24 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > > On 22/11/2020 22:27, Christoph Hormann wrote: > >> Exactly. It also shows how we in OSM traditionally make decisions about >> tagging. An idea to change tagging practice was suggested - on an open >> channel for everyone to read and comm

Re: [Tagging] Extremely long Amtrak route relations / coastline v. water

Nov 22, 2020, 19:00 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > I'm surprised you think that as you were a contributor to the discussions: > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3102 > This is a closed, not implemented PR. So it is not a case of "OSM-carto demanding boundaries on ways

Re: [Tagging] Extremely long Amtrak route relations / coastline v. water

Nov 22, 2020, 19:34 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > > On 22/11/2020 18:12, Clay Smalley wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 11:12 AM Dave F via Tagging <>> >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Contributing to the database (also *volunteers*) are

Re: [Tagging] Extremely long Amtrak route relations / coastline v. water

Nov 22, 2020, 17:08 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Likewise we need to stop software developers from expectingcontributors > to add data purely because they can't be bothered/notcompetent enough to > write a few lines of code. (OSM-carto demandingboundaries on ways) > [citation n

[Tagging] surface=boardwalk? is it duplicate of surface=wood?

Is there some value in surface=boardwalk tag? It seems to be a duplicate of surface=wood. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=rock

Nov 21, 2020, 17:43 by o...@westnordost.de: >> rock „pieces“ would be tagged as „stone“ I guess? >> > > Not so sure about that, then it would be surface=stones, (note the plural) > wouldn't it? > I am completely fine with both versions. I created today https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:s

[Tagging] Piles of stones

to designate a point of importance in surveying", > which also isn't really right, because this isn't for any use apart from > getting all the rocks in one place. > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 at 08:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <

Re: [Tagging] surface=rock

Nov 20, 2020, 23:14 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 20. Nov 2020, at 23:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> surface=rock >> surface=bare_rock >> > > > these seem both explicit and ok, althoug

[Tagging] surface=rock

It seems that we have no good value to mark surface of path of rocky paths. surface=gravel fits for surface of small rocks (almost always man made, though especially in mountains some may be of a natural origin) surface=fine_gravel fits for small gravel surface=unhewn_cobblestone =sett =paving_s

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Pumping proposal

I am not a fan of deprecating pump=manual and replacing it with nearly impossible to remember and less clear mechanical_driver=manual Also, this proposal deprecates pump=powered without providing replacement Now to tag this info one is supposed to select value from reciprocating_solenoid combusti

Re: [Tagging] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

Nov 20, 2020, 11:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Fr., 20. Nov. 2020 um 11:28 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <> > matkoni...@tutanota.com> >: > >> This seems unlikely, with 0 lanes it would mean that cars inside are blocked >> and unable to leave. >> > > > that's not the meaning of "lanes", l

Re: [Tagging] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

Nov 20, 2020, 11:03 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Fr., 20. Nov. 2020 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> >: > >> I would describe >> https://westnordost.de/misc/2or1lanes.jpg>> as road >> with

Re: [Tagging] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

I would describe https://westnordost.de/misc/2or1lanes.jpg as road with - one lane driveable by full-size vehicles - one parking lane And tag it as: lanes=1 parking:lane:both=parallel (judging from what is visible about left side) Additional detail that I am generally not tagging may specify for

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

Nov 18, 2020, 13:02 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Let's encourage people to use the source tag properly rather than cause > further decay. Or come up with a better solution, which is definitely > not a changeset comment. > Source tag on the changeset. Supported by all serious editors, if ht

Re: [Tagging] Power line going underground

You can suggest not complaining in such case by creating a JOSM issue: see instructions at https://josm.openstreetmap.de/newticket Nov 9, 2020, 21:50 by t...@fitchfamily.org: > I’ve added those tags. JOSM still complains but if it fits the power line > schema better I guess having some editor

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 8, 2020, 17:44 by jayands...@gmail.com: >>> And there should be several specialized layers: general car navigation map, >>> sport map for hiking/cycling/skiing, transportation. All of that would be >>> possible with vector tiles which are less computationally demanding to >>> create. >>>

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

accept several > geometries for a same entity, be it only to avoid long discussions on > boundaries > Yves > > Le 8 novembre 2020 09:47:04 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer > a écrit : > >> >> >> sent from a phone >> >> >>> On 8. Nov 20

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 8, 2020, 14:00 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2020-11-08, sk, 09:46 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > >> (and it is from person who put a lot of effort into tagging improvements, >> wikifiddling, >> deprecating some unwanted values, deduplication and validator-

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

I really like an idea of separate database/layer for such fuzzy objects. Especially as there are multiple competing ideas for when specific object ends and even how many continents/oceans we have. Nov 8, 2020, 06:51 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > If we're talking about fuzzy features (which do no

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 8, 2020, 05:31 by mach...@gmail.com: > I absolutely agree with Seth, OSM should switch to vector tiles ASAP. > Note that OSM would not switch to vector tiles. At most one more rendering would switch to vector tiles. For OSM Carto see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/i

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

ndeed do a lot of) is that I see my data > resulting in good looking and useful cartography (which today leaves some > basic key things to be desired in my humble opinion). > > > On 2020-11-07 16:50, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > > >>   >>   >>   >

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 7, 2020, 16:41 by and...@torger.se: > And in the end it's about the resulting map. > Not only, OSM data is also used in other ways. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 7, 2020, 13:33 by j...@wizmail.org: > On 07/11/2020 11:13, Walker Bradley wrote: > >> Computing power seems to be a constraint struggle without greater >> fundraising capacity, so could there be some work done on the rendering >> process? Could we do a specific and targeted fundraising ef

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

> some of these algorithms could run on GPU clusters these days No matter where code actually runs you need to have and handle this servers. For reference basic requirements for a render node include: 80 GB RAM (at least; better 128 GB); 6 or more CPU cores (12+ with HyperThreading, CPU year 2011

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 6, 2020, 23:10 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Fr., 6. Nov. 2020 um 21:04 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> >: > >>> ** Support for group naming is limited. It's here very common that several >>> smaller

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 6, 2020, 23:39 by and...@torger.se: > > One example is making a multipolygon instead of the semantically superior > group, as multipolygon actually renders. > > Why multipolygon is supposed to be semantically inferior? ___ Tagging mailing list Ta

Re: [Tagging] Basic cartography features missing, why?

Nov 6, 2020, 19:31 by and...@torger.se: > Hello everyone, newcomer here! > > I've been a casual contributing mapper for a couple of years here in Sweden. > Only since 2018 :-O, I thought it was longer, and during this time I've made > 1700 edits mostly using iD, just started using JOSM for so

Re: [Tagging] What is a saltbox?

Feb 12, 2020, 20:39 by o...@lepiller.eu: > Le 12 février 2020 14:26:26 GMT-05:00, Michael Brandtner via Tagging > a écrit : > >Hi, > >we have a big inconsistency between different wiki pages and editors > >how we define the roof shape "saltbox".  > >1) A saltbox is a roof with a tilted part at

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

gt;> >>> Nov 5, 2020, 19:55 by >>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>>> : >>> >>>> I didn't get it, Mateusz. >>>> What does historic=wayside_shrine have to do with threshing floor? >>>> >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

Nov 6, 2020, 01:03 by elga...@agol.dk: > Joseph Eisenberg: > >> Generally OpenStreetMap data is not updated frequently enough by mappers and >> database users for us to map temporary states (e.g. anything which lasts >> less than 6 months). Many database users will download a data extract for

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

ginal intent. " Nov 5, 2020, 19:55 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > I didn't get it, Mateusz. > What does historic=wayside_shrine have to do with threshing floor? > > > > >>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 11:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

Nov 5, 2020, 18:22 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > > > Nov 5, 2020, 13:56 by pla16...@gmail.com: > >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 11:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>> >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote: >> >>> >>> We

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

Nov 5, 2020, 13:56 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 11:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> We also have historic=wayside_shrine that is used for ones that are not >> historic at all. >&g

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a threshing floor

Note that https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/historic=threshing_floor#chronology indicates that most of uses were likely imported. We also have historic=wayside_shrine that is used for ones that are not historic at all. Overall man_made=threshing_floor seems OK, though tagging also histori

Re: [Tagging] religious bias - Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)

Nov 4, 2020, 21:46 by t.pfei...@computer.org: > I was surprised that this tag is rushed into voting despite the arguments > against it even here in the tagging list discussions. > Any typical longer discussion on tagging mailing list will have arguments against any position. > * 27 Sep: 'Ch

Re: [Tagging] religous bias - Feature Proposal - Voting - (Chapel of rest)

Nov 5, 2020, 09:43 by woll...@posteo.de: > Thanks for all the interventions. > > To avoid that the discussion becomes inconclusive again, could everybody rate > the following "favourable", "acceptable" or "unfavourable"? > > amenity=mourning > unfavourable (unclear) > amenity=place_of_mournin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity=*

Note in some regions where blackout are often happening it is quite typical to have both grid connection and backup generator. Is it also typical in hospitals, some factories and other places where power loss would be especially problematic (what includes also for example dams, even ones with the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

ters/data providers that don't > consider this tag won't lead people to park there. > > On 28/10/2020 05:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> >> >> >> Oct 28, 2020, 03:22 by >> andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> : >>

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

t;, but also setting > up equipment, turning vehicles around etc.) > > > In my opinion the key "emergency" is perfect for such cases. > > > For the use at roads, however, there is "parking:lane: = > fire_lane" if a lane is designated like this.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

Oct 28, 2020, 03:22 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 13:20, Jonathon Rossi <> j...@jonorossi.com> > wrote: > >> We've got emergency=landing_site for helicopters, maybe just >> emergency=parking? >> > > I like that, areas set aside for parking by emergency vehicles.  > ame

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >