Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?

18 paź 2020, 20:22 od joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > While the current tagging is ok, it seems inconsistent that > highway=bus_guideway gets its own tag, while other busways which are similar > in function are tagged as highway=service.  > Given that rail-like bus guideway is drastically

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

19 paź 2020, 10:27 od dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 18. Oct 2020, at 10:39, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> >> Still, highway=crossing bicycle=no is an acceptable tagging (like you can >> map cemeteries or parks >> or churches as nodes in the first pass, especially when

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

18 paź 2020, 23:00 od graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann <> r...@technomancy.org> > wrote: > >> *definitely* not something one does auomatically. >> > > But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be > done!) > > Couldn't a

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Oct 18, 2020, 01:53 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 17. Oct 2020, at 21:01, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> >> Nevertheless some crossings were mapped using highway=cycleway and >> bicycle=no on crossing >> nodes, probably because it is much less fiddly to map it. >> >

Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?

Oct 18, 2020, 10:20 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 18. Oct 2020, at 10:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> One more note: in some cases only specific buses are allowed (for example, >> only public transpor

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Oct 18, 2020, 10:20 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > > Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to > pedestrian crossings > Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk together with pedestrians and cross road using crossing shared with a

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Oct 18, 2020, 10:27 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > On 18/10/2020 07:46, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:46, Martin Koppenhoefer <>> >> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> > wrote: >> >>> Generally, I would propose to only tagcrossing =* on >>>

Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

Oct 18, 2020, 10:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 16. Oct 2020, at 09:32, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> >> generally bicycle=dismount should be used instead, reserving bicycle=no for >> those circumstances where even pushing a bike is not legal (e.g. most public

Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?

Oct 18, 2020, 09:58 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 18. Oct 2020, at 08:12, Joseph Eisenberg >> wrote: >> >> Right now the suggestion on highway=bus_guideway is that other busways might >> be mapped highway=service + bus=designated + access=no. (See >> >>

Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?

Oct 18, 2020, 10:01 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > > > Oct 18, 2020, 08:08 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > >> There is an approved tag for bus guideways, where specially-designed buses >> are guided by a rail: >> >> But how should ordinary busways be mapped? Right now the suggestion on

Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?

Oct 18, 2020, 08:08 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > There is an approved tag for bus guideways, where specially-designed buses > are guided by a rail: > > But how should ordinary busways be mapped? Right now the suggestion on > highway=bus_guideway is that other busways might be mapped

Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

Oct 18, 2020, 09:44 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > On 15/10/2020 17:36, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: > >> I've always been surprised to see a footway=crossing/cycleway=crossing >> way with the intersection node tagged as highway=crossing. There's >> only a single physical crossing, so this seems

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Oct 17, 2020, 00:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 16. Oct 2020, at 10:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> Not in cases where >> (1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to >&

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

17 paź 2020, 15:18 od tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > On 17/10/2020 09:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> >> On 15. Oct 2020, at 15:12, Dave F via Tagging >> wrote: >> >>> Please send all messages to the public forum Martin. >>> >> >> I will write to whoever I want, not your business. >> > >

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Oct 15, 2020, 22:18 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: >> This recent wiki change by >> Emvee >> >> is in my view not >> helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread >> tagging practice (if we like this or not is

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Oct 15, 2020, 22:30 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > >>> Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to pedestrian >>> crossings >>> >> Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk together withpedestrians and >> cross road using crossing shared with a

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

Oct 15, 2020, 14:58 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: > > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 23:44, Volker Schmidt <> vosc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> May I remind my dear mapper friends, that tags are just that: tags. From the >> database point of view these are just couples of arbitrarily chosen, >>

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

15 paź 2020, 09:42 od dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to pedestrian crossings > Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk  together with pedestrians and cross road  using crossing shared with a pedestrians? Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

>> In the bouter github issue everybody (incl. the developer, but excluding >> Mateusz) do expect bicycle=no on a node to mean bicyle=no in node context. >> I was looking for where this first appeared and I failed (maybe it was quoted from start), but this claim is untrue see

Re: [Tagging] Should the tag proposal process force voters to vote for an option?

Oct 13, 2020, 01:39 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: > For me "there simply is not enough community consensus to move forward with > the change." is the issue because you can effectively lock out certain valid > things from being mapped and consumed in a standard way because there is no > large

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

>> eventually they should all be upgraded to areas. >> > > It appears mappers have decided that's not what's best. > > I tried mapping some railway station as areas and I ended not doing this. Either mapping would be quite arbitrary or include massive area that is not really relevant. For

Re: [Tagging] highway=services on bicycle routes?

9 paź 2020, 15:33 od ba...@ursamundi.org: > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:06 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> For me it sounds sort-of similar (the same definition, just swap "motor >> vehicle" with &

Re: [Tagging] highway=services on bicycle routes?

For me it sounds sort-of similar (the same definition, just swap "motor vehicle" with "bicycle", or use "vehicle" to cover both ) but with drastically different functionality. Similarly like "parking" and "bicycle parking" or "motorway" and "cycleway". I would use a new tag. Sep 28, 2020,

Re: [Tagging] Mapping floating booms?

I like waterway=floating_barrier - avoids collision with gates, more clear for foreigner speakers. Hopefully it is not a horrific mutilation of English language. Oct 8, 2020, 20:03 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > A boom is a floating visual or physical barrier used across canals, rivers >

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Oct 7, 2020, 23:01 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > The recent "meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no" thread makes the case > that it means "you cannot use this crossing to cross road while cycling, it > does not affect legality of cycling on the road" > > I think this is a bad idea as

Re: [Tagging] Battery swapping spot in a charging station or being an individual tag?

Oct 5, 2020, 18:58 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Hi All, > > I want to write a new proposal about the battery swapping system for the > automotive vehicle. I'm not sure if modifying amenity=charging_station is > better or creating a new tag amenity=battery_swapping. I prefer to use >

[Tagging] meaning of highway=crossing + bicycle=no

I always understood highway=crossing + bicycle=no tagging to mean "you cannot use this crossing to cross road while cycling, it does not affect legality of cycling on the road" Used when (1) cycleway or footway with allowed cycling is interrupted by crossing where cyclists are obligated to

Re: [Tagging] Tagging specialized head lice removal salons

If you feel that it is ready you may want to do actions from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Proposed Sep 29, 2020, 17:40 by lisbe...@gmx.us: > I've finally updated a draft proposal to the wiki: >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

Yes, but long term or regular presence if road-side sale should be viable for tagging. 3 paź 2020, 16:02 od pelder...@gmail.com: > I think for tagging it should be more than the occasional road-side sale? > > Best, Peter Elderson > > > Op za 3 okt. 2020 om 14:38 schreef Paul Allen <>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

3 paź 2020, 02:44 od frede...@remote.org: > Hi, > > On 10/2/20 19:56, Wieland Kestler wrote: > >> I agree absolutely that somone who makes bread by itself and sells that >> in front of its house, we should tag it by shop=bakery. So the grade of >> „selfmadeness“ does not matter. >> > > We are

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

Oct 2, 2020, 19:56 by redouble...@outlook.de: > > The aim of this proposal is to establish a new tag for a type of „shops“ that > are way less professional as the „normal“ shops. > > This would result in all "less professional" shops - from one selling herbs to one selling electronics to use

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - electricity:source

In that case you want to tag what is signed, not actual electricity source. marked_as_green_energy=* marked_as_renewable_energy=* is verifiable and does not require - impossible for mapper - verification of an actual energy source 29 wrz 2020, 22:28 od lrich...@posteo.de: > > Hi Colin, > > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

"direct marketing" using shop keymeans that there is no way to tag shop type in an usual way (in a shop key) 1 paź 2020, 21:46 od redouble...@outlook.de: > > Hi everyone! > > >   > > > Due to the discussion in the german OSM-Telegram-group I made a proposal for > tagging points where people can

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

I am a bit dubious about value of updating fire=perimeter It is something that changes extremely quickly, we should not encourage people to survey perimeter of ACTIVE fire, OSM is doomed to be strictly worse source of fire perimeter than alternative sources > fire has absolutely enormous

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used It is also basically universally interpreted this way by various data consumers. Sep 25, 2020, 00:05 by cliff...@snowandsnow.us: > Steve, > Just a reminder, landuse is to tag what the land is used for. landuse=forest >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (DEPRECATED building=funeral hall)

Sep 18, 2020, 16:25 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com: > On 18/09/2020 02.46, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> building=church is building constructed as a church that now can >> be a place of worship, warehouse, unused or something else but >> retained bu

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (DEPRECATED building=funeral hall)

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=funeral+hall=h_=images=images=images makes clear that at least some funeral halls are distinguishable from building=house This proposal reports that some members of German OSM community think differently, I am not sure why it is enough to make proposal to encourage to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (DEPRECATED building=funeral hall)

building tags and amenity/shop/... tags are for different purposes building=church is building constructed as a church that now can be a place of worship, warehouse, unused or something else but retained building structure typical to a church amenity=place_of_worship is a place where regular

Re: [Tagging] sleepable:physical=yes/no | Re: Benches and hostile architecture

Is it maybe more universal to map strictly objective parameters instead? It seems for me that mapping length, armrest in the middle and width would be both far more objective and potentially useful also for other purposes 10 Sep 2020, 20:10 by r...@technomancy.org: > I asked about this ~1½

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

Sep 14, 2020, 20:34 by supap...@riseup.net: > > Hey all, > > > again and again there are discussions about which parts of a street > (sidewalks and cycle paths, parking lanes, carriageway) should be > considered when determining the width of a street. There does not seem > to

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for board games themed pubs

12 Sep 2020, 00:50 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > On Fri, 11 Sep 2020 at 22:06, Niels Elgaard Larsen <> elga...@agol.dk> > > wrote: > >> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging: >> >> >     A lot of pubs have board games available for customers to

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for board games themed pubs

11 Sep 2020, 12:21 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk: > On Fri, 2020-09-11 at 11:39 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> board_games=yes seems clearly superior >> >> > > +1 > > A lot of pubs have board games available for customers to play, or they did &

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for board games themed pubs

board_games=yes seems clearly superior I just used it on pub that I know to be fitting this description (I really need to visit it again...) 11 Sep 2020, 10:45 by cie.hoc...@gmail.com: > Hi, > I would like to propose the tagging amenity=pub theme=board_games for board > games themed pubs.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for board games themed pubs

What you mean by "themed"? With board have related decorations? With board game in the name? Sponsored by board game company? With supply of board games playable by visitors?  As completely non-native speaker the word "theme" suggests first two, while I would be interested in the last one.

Re: [Tagging] How to tag body height limits on attractions?

3 is clearly out, 5 seems overly complex Personally I would use 1. 8 Sep 2020, 20:09 by j...@mueschelsoft.de: > Hi, > in the comments of a changeset [1], there is a discussion about how to tag > the required body height for users of an attraction in a theme park. > Likewise, some playgrounds

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

memorial=anchor does not make sense. Typical anchor of that type is typically just a historic anchor used as a decoration, not a memorial or artwork. historic=anchor seems perfectly fine to me 8 Sep 2020, 15:34 by jan...@gmail.com: > This is getting very metaphysical, and tags have been

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of individual terraced houses?

Sep 7, 2020, 16:30 by oliversi...@gmail.com: > Or should a proposal be made (I have no idea how these work)? > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like (but discussing them like you started here is generally a good idea)

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

gt; solve this, but there is also case 4. > > > In case 4, the official information would deviate from the actual > situation on-site, which could warrant to record these two informations > separately when necessary. > > > > > > > Cheers > Tobias >

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

Sep 7, 2020, 00:52 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 6. Sep 2020, at 21:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> That redefines drinking_water:legal=yes which currently is described as >> including >&

[Tagging] What is a proper way of mapping reedbed gowing od edge of the lake, within water?

natural=wetland wetland=reedbed area within natural=water area? JOSM complains about this ("water area within water area") but such tagging seems fine to me. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/844830821 for an example ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

gt; > wrote: > >> >> >> sent from a phone >> >> > On 6. Sep 2020, at 16:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>> >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote: >> > >> > I will use drinking_water:legal=unknown >> >>

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

Sep 6, 2020, 15:51 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 at 14:17, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> drinking_water:signed=no ? >> > > Ambiguous.  It might have a sign that says nothing about th

[Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

We have drinking_water:legal=yes for water that is officially drinkable, we have drinking_water:legal=no for water signed as not drinkable. Do we have tag for water sources (amenity=drinking_water, drinking_water=yes) that are neither officially or signably drinkable nor with "not drinkable

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

Sep 5, 2020, 03:37 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > > > On 9/4/2020 6:24 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> Sep 4, 2020, 18:19 by >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> : >> >>> node and discovered the shelter_type=rock_shelter subtag,

Re: [Tagging] Biker’s rests

Sep 4, 2020, 19:45 by gszymas...@short.pl: > Hi, > > At some bicycle crossings in some cities there are “biker’s rests” > installed that cyclists can support on while waiting for the green > light. They look like [1], [2], or [3]. > > I could not find any existing tag for this furniture. Do

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

Sep 5, 2020, 00:45 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > Am Fr., 4. Sept. 2020 um 22:21 Uhr schrieb Tom Pfeifer <> > t.pfei...@computer.org> >: > >> On 04.09.2020 18:19, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: >> >> >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:shelter_type%3Drock_shelter >>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

Sep 4, 2020, 18:19 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > node and discovered the shelter_type=rock_shelter subtag, but the map in > question didn't render it any differently. Revisiting the site in fair > weather, I found a tiny crack under a ledge that *might* have kept a > child dry. It was very

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

"A cave you might need a torch to explore" - note that caves may be smaller. In fact, some cave classifications have separate categories for caves small enough/open enough to be fully lit by sun and at least some consider rock shelters to be a type of cave. Sep 4, 2020, 05:51 by

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

I would ask on Commons whatever it would be acceptable, I would not just assume that this is unwanted. Aug 27, 2020, 12:18 by bkil.hu...@gmail.com: > Then there's OpenTrailView as a viable alternative (neither Mapillary, nor > OpenStreetCam has a free server component), although in the long

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

"by policy they _should_ delete the lower quality image if a better quality image is also available"only when it is an exact duplicate - not just photo of the same object Aug 26, 2020, 21:45 by bkil.hu...@gmail.com: > Didn't we have an OSM tool in the past that showed points with broken links?

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

26 Aug 2020, 20:34 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 18:03, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> Though note that in practice that it is fairly rare to delete things as out >> of scope. >> > >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

/Template:Nopenis See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2020/08 for things actually going for deletion (and even more obvious copyright violations are speedily deleted) Aug 26, 2020, 18:18 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 16:26, Mateusz Koni

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope/Summary#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose "hosts content that is useful for educational purposes. This means content that could be used by Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other projects that provide knowledge,

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

20 at 9:11 AM Thibault Molleman <>> >> thibaultmolle...@gmail.com>> > wrote: >> >>> While I use the semicolon for some other tags already, the problem with >>> using it for something that has a URL.  >>> Is that TECHNICALLYaccording to the specification, a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

ommons uses? > (so that any app that can already accept wikimedia commons galleries also can > use this new system) > > Cheers > > On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 10:31, Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdre...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> >> >> sent from a phone

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

See wikimedia_commons that may linki wikimedia commons gallery. Aug 26, 2020, 09:33 by me-osm-tagg...@keepawayfromfire.co.uk: > As mentioned semi colon has issues with URLs. It may also be worth > noting that a OSM value can only have 254 chars in it, a limit that > would get hit quickly with a

Re: [Tagging] Confusion bicycle_road <> cyclestreet

I am curious is there any difference in practical use of this two tags. Aug 25, 2020, 12:13 by vosc...@gmail.com: > Hi, > I have come across a new (to me) street sign In Italy: > https://italy-cycling-guide.info/tips-advice/riding-in-italy/ > The road is a one-lane residential road on which

Re: [Tagging] Tagging multiple images on one object

If someone really needs multiple images on one object then https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator is standard. At the same time use for that seems dubious for this specific tag. Aug 26, 2020, 07:41 by thibaultmolle...@gmail.com: > Hi, > > It seems like there (still)

[Tagging] Bus specifc (or psv specific) turn rules

I added section at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn#Special_turn_rules_for_specific_vehicle_types I also created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:psv:lanes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_service_vehicles https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Psv=no

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Aug 24, 2020, 07:22 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > > > On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdre...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> Draw the bridge outline and tag it with man_made=bridge name=* and you’ll >> see what I mean. >> > > Thanks Martin - yep, it works! > >

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

Aug 24, 2020, 01:41 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 00:22, Martin Koppenhoefer <> dieterdre...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> >> Or benches which are right away designed to not let you even sit >> comfortably, like the Rome bus stops: >> >>

Re: [Tagging] ref on roundabout

t; In Afghanistan, there are continuous highways that have roundabouts as >> junctions.  The roundabouts, also have the same Ref because they are part of >> the continuous highway.  For an example check ref=NH0101 ref=NH0102 >> ref=NH0103 or ref=NH0104 >> >> >>

Re: [Tagging] Benches and hostile architecture

"length was refused as an official key for bench" Why? Is there some valid reason, or maybe it was part of proposal that failed for other reasons. lying_hindrance=yes - there are some cases where it is fairly obvious, but there are some borderline situations (like quite short benches that could

Re: [Tagging] ref on roundabout

Aug 23, 2020, 15:23 by f...@zz.de: > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 01:28:07PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> Aug 22, 2020, 12:17 by f...@zz.de: >> >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:09:14PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> > wrote:

Re: [Tagging] ref on roundabout

Aug 22, 2020, 12:17 by f...@zz.de: > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:09:14PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> I would expect roundabout to be split in parts where >> ref is applying and parts where it is not applying, in other words >> without any

Re: [Tagging] ref on roundabout

I would expect roundabout to be split in parts where ref is applying and parts where it is not applying, in other words without any special handling and tag it as usual. Aug 22, 2020, 12:06 by f...@zz.de: > > Hi, > there is a little Discussion in the German forum concerning ref > tagging on

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

Aug 22, 2020, 11:43 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: > On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 17:25, Thibault Molleman <> > thibaultmolle...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> So what's the consensus on an apartment building (way) that has mailboxes >> for each person who has an apartment there. >> I've just been tagging

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

I would say that such tagging is 100% fine and I would consider it superior to addr:housenumber = A1-A11. It would be probably nicer to map individual apartments in such case with their own addr:housenumber (what may require asking people living there), but in many cases it is probably not

Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

Also, his was poorly organized Organised Editing and  this person was forced to map in OSM by badly designed university assigment. If anything that is proof that forcing people to map in OSM is even less useful than expected. ( according to

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] VANDALISM !

Thanks to DWG for taking this action. Aug 22, 2020, 03:35 by claysmal...@gmail.com: > For those who aren't following, the DWG recently decided on a two-day ban for > the person who posted this, for the exact behavior they're exhibiting right > now: >

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Call for verification (Was: Re: VANDALISM !)

"It a playground with half-ass quality more than an authoritative and verified source of information (like e.g. Wikipedia)" I am not sure whatever you claim that Wikipedia is "playground with half-ass quality" or "authoritative and verified source of information". Though any of this claims

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

Aug 20, 2020, 15:50 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: >>> >>> >> And it may be useful to have tag to mark "yes this is actually a single >> housenumber despite >> that includes hyphen or something else that suggests range"   >> > > I would assume that to be the default, when there are multiple

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

Aug 19, 2020, 10:46 by lon...@denofr.de: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:29:50PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: > >> I think you misunderstand hyphenated addresses in Queens. The second >> part of the hyphenation is not a flat/apartment number. As an example, >> the Dunkin Donuts at the corner of 31st

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete: no re-survey for speed limits

Aug 20, 2020, 01:08 by o...@westnordost.de: > Hey guys, > > I just wanted to inform you that unfortunately, StreetComplete will not > offer a re-survey for speed limits in the upcoming "Map Maintenance with > StreetComplete" feature but probably never anyway. > > Short explanation: It is

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

18 Aug 2020, 23:29 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: > > On 2020-08-18 22:39, Clay Smalley wrote: > > >> If you >> >> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:51 PM Colin Smale <>> colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>> > >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 2020-08-18 20:55, Clay Smalley wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 11:26 AM

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

Aug 18, 2020, 07:09 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: > > Data consumers see these hyphenated house numbers as one address, as well. > > Is that a problem? An address range can be considered a single address. > > > Create an address node for each housenumber and place each node somewhere > > on

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Green alley

are worth mentioning if you try > to describe the idea of a park to someone who never saw one. > > This concept might be new to many, but it is definitely something that is > recognized by all who live nearby one, and officially signposted and > recognized by the city in it's own maps

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Aug 15, 2020, 23:48 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 15. Aug 2020, at 17:33, Arne Johannessen wrote: >> >> Therefore, the tunnel's name is the primary name for that particular way, >> and thus belongs into the name=* tag. >> >> The full name tagging for a road

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Green alley

Thanks for posting on mailing list! Is it just about signposted and officially recognized places? Or is it supposed to be similar to tree_lined tag. How mapper is supposed to distinguish where it is done by local residents and one where it is done by city? Why it is using alley=green_alley if

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

As long as it explicitly notes that  name and tunnel:name may be the same I am ok with that 15 Aug 2020, 12:19 by em...@daniel-korn.de: > Am 15.08.2020 um 11:18 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > >> IMHO a tunnel is more than the way through it, the ventilation shafts, >> escape ways, also arguably

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

I oppose such potential removal 15 Aug 2020, 12:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 15. Aug 2020, at 07:32, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> >> would suggest to create a single wiki page for tree-lined road mapping, so >> that we have one place where we describe the three

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

Aug 14, 2020, 16:04 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 14. Aug 2020, at 14:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> Maybe outright recommending removal after trees are mapped would be even >> better? &

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > So, should this contradiction be eliminated from the wiki or not? > > > > Às 09:32 de 26/05/2020, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging escreveu: > >> Based on my experience it is usually better to writesomething, even &g

Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

Aug 14, 2020, 20:49 by hi...@hiddewieringa.nl: > > My goal is to differentiate the two tags. Both tags allow tents, and > both allow camper vans and caravans. Both tags may or may not provide > facilities such as toilets, water, electricity, et cetera. In practice, > the only

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

I strongly prefer up/top over head. At least for me (not representative, not a native speaker), head = up is not clear. 14 Aug 2020, 17:05 by em...@daniel-korn.de: > Am 14.08.2020 um 16:37 schrieb yvecai: > > >> >> I would propose, if you want to use altitude as a definition: >> >> >>>

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

Aug 14, 2020, 14:35 by vosc...@gmail.com: > > > On Fri, 14 Aug 2020, 13:41 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> I feel that tree_lined=separate should be used if trees are separately mapped >> > > This woul

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Aug 14, 2020, 14:37 by em...@daniel-korn.de: > Am 14.08.2020 um 14:29 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging: > > >> >> >> >> Aug 13, 2020, 15:01 by >> em...@daniel-korn.de>> : >> >>> Here's an example [1] where the name of the tun

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

Aug 13, 2020, 15:01 by em...@daniel-korn.de: > Here's an example [1] where the name of the tunnel seems to be tagged as > "name". I'm not sure what the roads name is (might be Schlossbergtunnel, > Hegelstraße or Rheinlandstraße). Tagging it to tunnel:name would definitely > clarify on this.

Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

I feel that tree_lined=separate should be used if trees are separately mapped Aug 14, 2020, 01:06 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > I’ve set up an initial documentation page for the tree_lined attribute (used > mainly in conjunction with highways and waterways) and welcome comments for > it: > >

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

14 Aug 2020, 10:53 by y...@mailbox.org: > On 14.08.20 10:40, dktue wrote: > >>> I would define it as: >>> >>> lower_station: station that has the lowest elevation (exact elevation is >>> not necessary to know, it's obvious) >>> upper_station: station that has the highest elevation >>>

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >