Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Training

Probably worth mentioning how places which are officially classified as schools and part of school system would be affected. What about for example https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dmusic_school ? What about universities where future sailors/pilots are training (often these are mi

Re: [Tagging] Use of crossing:island where crossings and islands are mapped separately

Sep 27, 2022, 08:42 by r...@hubris.org.uk: > Where there is a crossing with traffic islands, but the highways forming the > crossings and crossing the islands are mapped separately, my assumption has > been that crossing:island=no is the correct tagging. > What "crossing:island" means exactly

[Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Clickable_water_tap.jpg You need to push button to activate (rather than turn handle) Is adding man_made=water_tap to it correct? Right now it is tagged as amenity=drinking_water fountain=drinking man_made=water_tap and the first two are clearly applicab

Re: [Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

Sep 27, 2022, 14:58 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 27 Sep 2022, at 14:52, Georg wrote: >> >> IMHO yes. >> > > > I agree, although I wouldn’t see it necessary to characterize the feature > I see value in mapping whether given amenity=drinking_water is a proper tap o

[Tagging] Is this continouos flow a water tap?

What exactly defines man_made=water_tap? Open/close ability? Top-down water flow (rather than small upward jet of many drinking water fountains?) Is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beim_Kiosk_(Anlagage_Sihlh%C3%B6lzli).jpg man_made=water_tap or man_made=drinking_fountain ? ___

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gender

How it relates to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:male https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:female https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:unisex ? Sep 28, 2022, 00:52 by illiamarchenk...@gmail.com: > Gender destination of the facility. 

[Tagging] Can we assume surface=cobblestone:flattened to be an exact duplicate of surface=sett?

So far I assumed that surface=cobblestone:flattened is an exact duplicate of surface=sett but looking at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-January/thread.html#34931 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:surface https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?tit

Re: [Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

anks > > Graeme > > > On Tue, 27 Sept 2022 at 23:20, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> Sep 27, 2022, 14:58 by >> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> >>>

Re: [Tagging] Can we assume surface=cobblestone:flattened to be an exact duplicate of surface=sett?

Sep 30, 2022, 10:56 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Hello, > > Le 30.09.22 à 04:20, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : > >> maybe it should be changed and be treated as missing surface info >> > > I don't see how cobblestone:flattened could mean unhewn_cobbl

Re: [Tagging] OSM Wiki

Sep 30, 2022, 15:13 by georg2...@nurfuerspam.de: > Hi Mateusz, > > in your edit > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aman_made%3Dwater_tap&type=revision&diff=2408821&oldid=2112133 > you added the sentence > >> For working one additional tags fitting it would be ... >> > > I d

Re: [Tagging] OSM Wiki

Oct 1, 2022, 00:43 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > "Note that > fountain > => > bubbler > > providing tiny upward jet of water is not considered as a water tap" > > I disagree with that

Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions

1 paź 2022, 18:30 od f...@zz.de: > For me the difference is > > service -> Private property > unclassified -> Public road > That is not viable as general rule. For example Poland has driveway leadingto abandoned railway station classifiedas a public road. Tagging it as highway=unclassified

Re: [Tagging] Terminology primary feature, main tag, etc..

Oct 2, 2022, 23:30 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 2 Oct 2022, at 19:40, martianfreeloader >> wrote: >> >> - primary feature [1] >> - main key [2] >> - primary key [3] >> - feature tag [4] >> >> 1) Are these synonyms (except for the key/tag distinction)? >> > > > ye

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Healthcare 1.1

I used to consider deprecating of amenity=hospital as clearly bad idea, even if done in far future But healthcare tag seems to be a good idea to me and I even ended using it in one of tags that I promoted/proposed/invented. But note that over half of amenity=hospital is without healthcare=hospita

Re: [Tagging] Terminology primary feature, main tag, etc..

Oct 3, 2022, 10:11 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > A stream would not normal start and finish on a road .. so that would be > a separate way compared to the road.. and I'd put ford on that section > of road.. > > Normally yes, but there are cases where road is going in stream bed. S

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

As the another mapper who was mentioned I am not entirely sure is it drinking fountain, but what I know: - it is intended to directly provide drinking water to people in city center - it is possible to drink directly from it (but that may be unfeasible for example for someone older and with reduce

Re: [Tagging] OSM Wiki

Added "no drinking" water tap example at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap#Examples (if someone has a better photo: feel free to replace this example, water tap is not well visible there or reply to this posting with link of freely licensed image, preferably already up

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

Oct 4, 2022, 11:21 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Di., 4. Okt. 2022 um 11:08 Uhr schrieb Davidoskky via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> >: > >> > I wouldn't call this a "drinking fountain," since I understand that term >> > to mean the water flows upwards >> >   COULD drink from it, if

Re: [Tagging] OSM Wiki

Oct 4, 2022, 00:19 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 at 19:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> or reply to this posting with link of freely licensed image, preferably >> already >>

[Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

I am not entirely how to solve various issues surrounding drinking water terminology (help highly welcomed!) but it is now really clear to me that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain is not helpful at all and it should be marked as deprecated - many drinking fount

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

Oct 4, 2022, 11:54 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > upward or downward flow > what about fountain=bubbler for gentle upward jet fountain=downward_flow for things like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Water_flowing_from_drinking_water_tap.jpg ( I would prefer even more using a different key

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

Oct 4, 2022, 20:54 by jassk...@gmail.com: > I can not agree with deleting this tag while the rest of the tagging for > drinking water is such a mess. It feels as if you're concentrating on an ant > in the corner of the room while ignoring the dancing elephant in the middle > of the room.  > I a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Bench: replace seats by capacity

This revert makes sense to me. BTW, one may count both seats and capacity on benches, why not Oct 2, 2022, 22:15 by dafadl...@gmail.com: > Until very recently, the wiki said that seats=* means seats, not capacity: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Dbench&diff=235

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

Oct 7, 2022, 01:05 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: >> these are 2 completely different things, one is a feature and one is a >> property. >> >> both can be used, but typical applications will be different. >> > > Yes, I meant that there is no need for such feature since it overlaps with > other

Re: [Tagging] addr:town

Sep 24, 2022, 17:07 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > Am Sa., 24. Sept. 2022 um 13:38 Uhr schrieb Andrew Hain <> > andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk> >: > >> The key addr:town is currently documented as de facto [>> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q1070>> ][>> >> https://wiki.openstreet

Re: [Tagging] not:brand:wikidata?

Created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:not:brand:wikidata based on what I know Right now it has "TODO: add an Overpass query or other report listing such cases" Oct 8, 2022, 15:40 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Hi > > What is 'not:brand:wikidata'? > > There are 5000+ in the database.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

Oct 9, 2022, 10:53 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > There is also the more “rogue” (not well-sanctioned, rather “under the > radar,” maybe looked at by some or many as “disapproved” or “questionable…”) > method of simply “any tag you like, and using it in the wild” (without the > whole Propos

[Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

As the next part of drinking water linguistic journey I documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap#Examples (bottom example) that bubblers are mostly water taps, despite that it may be highly confusing for some people which are not native speakers. Like me. Let me

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

For now I 1) notified people who used added this tag more than once (currently mapped man_made=drinking_fountain are counted) See notification list at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain#Deprecation 2) added section "Problems" at https://wiki.openstreetmap

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Payment denominations

Oct 9, 2022, 22:58 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 9 Oct 2022, at 22:01, m.brandt...@posteo.de wrote: >> >> voting has started for the proposal Payment denominations. >> > > > question: is it legal in the EU not to accept certain types of Euronotes? > no idea, but ma

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

Oct 4, 2022, 15:15 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 4 Oct 2022, at 14:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> See for example image shown at >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:fountain%3Ddrinking >

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

Oct 4, 2022, 15:14 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 4 Oct 2022, at 14:46, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> Also, ones in Rome that I have seen mostly had downward flow. >> > > > the typical, mostly depl

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

Oct 9, 2022, 23:08 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 9 Oct 2022, at 22:56, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> Let me know if this edit was right or wrong (I am quite confused here, >> and this is why I want to docu

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

Oct 9, 2022, 23:06 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 9 Oct 2022, at 22:56, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> As the next part of drinking water linguistic journey I documented at >> https://wiki.openstreetm

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

n-decorative 'fountains'. > > > On 10/10/22 07:56, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> For now I >> >> 1) notified people who used added this tag more than once >> (currently mapped man_made=drinking_fountain are counted) >> >> See notific

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

Oct 10, 2022, 11:57 by illiamarchenk...@gmail.com: > > > вс, 9 окт. 2022 г., 9:50 Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com> >: > >> On 8/10/22 20:49, Illia Marchenko wrote: >> > Water outlets for public or customer use (generic tagging). >> > >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Prop

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

Oct 10, 2022, 15:45 by marc_m...@mailo.com: I started this thread to confirm/reject listing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bubbler.jpg as man_made=water_tap fountain=bubbler drinking_water=yes amenity=drinking_water > > how can you have a sub-tag fount

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

Oct 11, 2022, 09:48 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: >> Of course, this is not the key I'm actually proposing. I just don't want to >> get in another discussion about semantics and thus I would like to simply >> discuss the need of such a key without defining the actual name. >> >> If people agr

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

Oct 11, 2022, 12:27 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 11 Oct 2022, at 11:30, Davidoskky via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> >> Nobody is tagging the specific model type, such as distinguishing >> nasone from the 1960s and nasone from the 1990s. >> >> >> Should we intr

Re: [Tagging] advices about multiple values have inaccuracies , between several pages

Oct 11, 2022, 14:17 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Hello, > > I find that advices about multiple values have inaccuracies > between several pages : > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like#Syntactic_conventions_for_new_values > Properties can have a large number of possible values >

[Tagging] RFC: Proposed features/Deprecate man made=drinking fountain

I created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deprecate_man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain#Examples I believe there is consensus to deprecate, but it is not unaminous so I created a proposal to confirm consensus. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagg

Re: [Tagging] advices about multiple values have inaccuracies , between several pages

Oct 11, 2022, 14:44 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Le 11.10.22 à 14:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : > >> though https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/crossing%3Aisland is still a >> property >> > > To caricature your example: > red=yes/no is a technica

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - RFC - Use model to describe fountains

again: it seems to be tagging style, not specific model what happens when Rome start using new model of fountain in a given style? but in general I support this idea, just key seems wrong. Oct 11, 2022, 15:17 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Use model=* to describe fountains > > https://wiki.ope

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

I see no value in approving de facto key. Maybe there would be value in deapproving historic=battlefield Also, is "are of historic interest" mismatches how historic=wayside_shrine historic=memorial many historic=wayside_cross are used. Oct 11, 2022, 15:15 by martianfreeloa...@posteo.net: > Hell

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Oct 11, 2022, 15:39 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Le 11.10.22 à 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : > >> I see no value in approving de facto key. >> >> Maybe there would be value in deapproving historic=battlefield >> >> Also, is "are of hist

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Oct 11, 2022, 15:31 by martianfreeloa...@posteo.net: > > > On 11/10/2022 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> Also, is "are of historic interest" mismatches how >> historic=wayside_shrine >> historic=memorial >> many historic=w

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

No, as long as meaning is not being changed. Oct 11, 2022, 15:29 by martianfreeloa...@posteo.net: > Thanks. Do you see a problem with approving a de facto key? > > > > On 11/10/2022 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> I see no value in approving de facto key.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Oct 11, 2022, 17:05 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Le 11.10.22 à 16:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : > >> do not attempt to have nice definition for all keys >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Counterintuitive_keys_and_values > > I find the advice ver

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Oct 11, 2022, 20:34 by m...@evancarroll.com: > these polygons don't add any value: they're not describing  what things are, > and they're frequently incorrect > You mentioned https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1101484647 Why it is supposed to be wrong? Are there additional objects not mapped in

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Oct 11, 2022, 21:42 by m...@evancarroll.com: > I just don't see the value even if everything was done right. > That is simply utterly irrelevant. Even if you do not see value of mapping area:highway=* or shops or detail of individual trees or opening hours or bicycle parkings or landuse or glacie

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Oct 11, 2022, 21:28 by cliff...@snowandsnow.us: > As Andy suggested, contact the mapper with your concerns. I've have had good > luck dealing with Lyft in the past and appreciate their edits in my area. > Though note that it appears that this Lyft mapping is 100% fine and done as expected. I w

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Oct 11, 2022, 22:12 by m...@evancarroll.com: >>> I just don't see the value even if everything was done right. >>> >> That is simply utterly irrelevant. Even if you do not see value of mapping >> area:highway=* or shops or detail of individual trees or opening hours >> or bicycle parkings or l

Re: [Tagging] camp sites in Haiti

I think that retagging confirmed to be existing refugee sites and deleting clearly invalid data would be better than turning it into more camouflaged suspect data. Oct 12, 2022, 11:59 by annekadis...@web.de: > > I left 3 fixmes, even tried one in French, just in case. > > > Anne > > On 12/10/202

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Oct 12, 2022, 11:59 by martianfreeloa...@posteo.net: > > > On 12/10/2022 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> we do not need the historic key to be “approved”, it is already there, any >> definition we put in the wiki should reflect how the tags are actually used. >> Approving a definition

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Oct 12, 2022, 19:56 by m...@evancarroll.com: >> But in some places, >> mappers have been more rigorous about respecting each building's >> architectural origins. >> > > This is all 100% new to me.  Where is it documented that a "shop" in a > detached house should be mapped as a detached house,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Oct 12, 2022, 16:23 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Le 12.10.22 à 13:15, Sebastian Martin Dicke a écrit : > >> If there is an aircraft standing on an airstrip which has been >> decommissioned yesterday (or thirty minutes ago), is it considered properly >> to tag them as historic=aircraft? >> > > I th

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Oct 13, 2022, 10:36 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 16:25 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel <> g...@lexort.com> >:  > >>   a several-acre parcel with >> a house and some trees is still landuse=residential on all of it, >> > > > it depends, if this means a big residential garden or oth

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Oct 14, 2022, 03:31 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 13 Oct 2022, at 21:50, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> Field is landuse=farmland - also when zoned as industrial area or scheduled >> for >> residen

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Oct 14, 2022, 09:58 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > On 13/10/22 02:42, Evan Carroll wrote: > >>> There is such a thing as mixed use with our local authorities, >>> residential+commercial. I wouldn't think residential and industrial mixes >>> because of noise and pollution, at least in theory. >

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

Oct 13, 2022, 10:15 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment .. 'we' need a solution > first before even thinking of depreciation. > I described what I found/considered at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deprecate_man_made%3Ddrinki

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

Oct 15, 2022, 10:05 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > > > On 14/10/22 22:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> >> >> >> Oct 13, 2022, 10:15 by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> I see no point in depreciating anythin

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Oct 15, 2022, 09:51 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > On 14/10/22 23:40, Greg Troxel wrote: > >> Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 13/10/22 02:42, Evan Carroll wrote: >>> > There is such a thing as mixed use with our local authorities, > residential+commercial. I wouldn't

Re: [Tagging] Hvad stiller vi op med tour de France ruterne?

Oct 15, 2022, 20:00 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > for OpenHisctoricMap or other, why not ? > so let's "archive" it on OHM before deleting it from osm > Archiving it in OHM is completely independent from cleaning it from OSM. No longer existing objects can be deleted, and waiting for OHM contribut

Re: [Tagging] dinosaurs

Oct 16, 2022, 17:30 by annekadis...@web.de:Is there a way to > implement a warning into the editors not to combine > "archaeological_site" with dinosaurs? I will replace the few I found > with geological=palaeontological_site > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:geological%3Dpalaeontological

Re: [Tagging] Use of crossing:island where crossings and islands are mapped separately

Have you tried writing to them using changeset comment? Oct 17, 2022, 20:17 by r...@hubris.org.uk: > The same user whose edits gave rise to the post below appears to have decided > to "standardise" crossing tagging on crossings in Newham, most of which I > have surveyed and mapped, with the fo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - man made=evaporation tower

Oct 20, 2022, 21:52 by ajt1...@gmail.com: > On 20/10/2022 20:36, Illia Marchenko wrote: > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/man_made%3Devaporation_tower >> >> чт, 20 окт. 2022 г., 22:25 Illia Marchenko <>> >> illiamarchenk...@gmail.com>> >: >> >>> Please gi

Re: [Tagging] Window tinting?

Oct 21, 2022, 02:22 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 at 05:58, Andy Townsend <> ajt1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> There are a few dozen examples in taginfo: >> >> >> >> >> >> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=tinting#values >> >> >> I'd pick one of those examples.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site

review of proposed changes and greater chance that problems with a new tagging will be spotted boost to documenting version preferred by proposal on wiki editors of various OSM-related software gave some weight to such approvals, though it varies and some ignore it completely Oct 22, 2022, 15:2

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site

Oct 22, 2022, 15:09 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: >> >> Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about >> the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key >> from site_t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

Nov 4, 2022, 12:59 by annekadis...@web.de: > > I also noticed that the > inscription> key is used a lot where it should be > > description> . I think that's the "fault" of the iD editor form for > historic features. The > inscription> field only makes sense for > memorials I

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Deprecate man made=drinking fountain

Voting has started! See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deprecate_man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain for the proposal In addition to regular vote: can you mention whether https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fontanella_Bolsena.jpg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:D

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Post_Historic_District Nov 4, 2022, 16:38 by annekadis...@web.de: > > I wasn't aware bicycle parking and sign posts are considered historic > now. :P > > On 04/11/2022 15:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> &

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Deprecate man made=drinking fountain

mapper of a > particular water fixture determine what to tag it. > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 11:48 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> Voting has started! >> >> See >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Prop

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

se those in Europe >> would just consider the sign to be a little old. >> >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 11:56 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>> >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote: >> >>> https://en.wiki

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Or have "cannot start vote for month after last one started"? What would you count as "inflight proposals"? What about proposals that are intended to be in permanent draft status (I did it with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=2139256 as I intended to document situation without p

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

Nov 5, 2022, 02:16 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 4 Nov 2022, at 13:17, Marc_marc wrote: >> >> our "sister" project (wikipedia) has no problem defining what is an anecdote >> and what is "relevance from a historic viewpoint", >> I don't see why we should have any i

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1

1) there was no consensus even among people who voted in that old proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=589962 2) there was no consensus among OSM community at that time 3) proposal process is useful to get review of proposal and thorough nitpicking and criticism, and to make

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1

Nov 6, 2022, 01:11 by robin.bu...@gmx.de: > >   > > >   > > "Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging" tagging@openstreetmap.org – 6. November 2022 > 00:24 >   > >> >> 1) there was no consensus even among people who voted in that old proposal >>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1 - General comment

Nov 6, 2022, 13:27 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > A very general comment:- > > I very seldom consider voting on proposals, but I did want to look over > this one. > > However, when I logged into the wiki, there seemed to be no easy way > to find current proposals nor to identify those with act

Re: [Tagging] Easy way to find proposals [was: Healthcare]

Note that any proposals from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Archived_proposals will be skipped in this listing. Nov 6, 2022, 18:13 by zelonew...@gmail.com: > You should bookmark this site to keep track of proposals: > > https://osm-proposals.push-f.com/ > > Ideally this should proba

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Street vendors

My main problem is that this proposals wants to create vending=* equivalent for every single shop value, with values that are in general different. That alone seems to be not worth all benefits that this proposal can bring. Nov 7, 2022, 06:28 by map...@t-online.de: > > Hi all, > > >   > > > I >

Re: [Tagging] Possible merge of marine_rescue & lifeboat_station tags?

Nov 7, 2022, 00:27 by jm...@gmx.com: > > On 11/6/2022 6:18 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > >> >> I definitely agree that it should be emergency=, ratherthan >> amenity=. I must also admit to a slight personalpreference for >> =marine_rescue :-), but the vast majority

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Street vendors

As alternative, I would suggest use either > (i) street_vendor=* with values similar to values of the shop=*, for example > amenity=street_vendor & street_vendor=snack; or > (ii) made values of vending=* similar to values if the shop=*.   > > пн, 7 нояб. 2022 г., 13:01 Mateusz

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site

Oct 24, 2022, 11:12 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 23 Oct 2022, at 22:15, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> personally it seems to me that it has chance of being a good idea >> > > > which one, depre

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Street vendors

Nov 7, 2022, 23:43 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 7 Nov 2022, at 20:57, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> >> If we really don't have one already, it might be worth looking at how to map >> stalls in general as I cudl see a lot of similarities. >> > > > I mapped some of them

Re: [Tagging] Possible merge of marine_rescue & lifeboat_station tags?

Nov 7, 2022, 23:05 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 20:03, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >>> >>> >> >> What about such stations on freshwater lakes and on rivers? Is "

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Street vendors

There are also places with someone operating shop from their truck. They would travel on assigned times through valleys and stop in from of each house. They would sell (at very slight markup) products, allowing people to travel just 50m-200m from their house rather than getting kilometres to sh

Re: [Tagging] Possible merge of marine_rescue & lifeboat_station tags?

Nov 9, 2022, 00:19 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > Looking at some of the "inland" examples shown on OT, I wonder if they should > actually be tagged as a "lifeboat-station" at all, or whether they would be > better shown as a lifeguard base? > MOPR and MOPR Giżycko station specifically for examp

Re: [Tagging] Possible merge of marine_rescue & lifeboat_station tags?

i.html > > (Either that, or the previous mapper made a mistake! :-)) > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at 09:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> Nov 9, 2022,

Re: [Tagging] Possible merge of marine_rescue & lifeboat_station tags?

I think so? Nov 9, 2022, 07:45 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > Thanks! > > Once again, would =lifeboat_station cover them? > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at 16:38, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrot

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Yes, using site relation in addition to actual object breaks this rule and it is undesirable (and site relations in general are problematic). It would be also problem with type=site site=camp_sites and similar trying to hide duplication. Is there some reason why this camp sites cannot be mapped a

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Nov 10, 2022, 21:21 by li...@fuchsschwanzdomain.de: > Marc_marc wrote: > >> taking one random exemple : >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13012999#map=19/49.12702/10.86422 >> according to the parking name=*, the parking may be include in the >> tourism=site_camp >> > > Yes but this is

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Nov 10, 2022, 21:49 by li...@fuchsschwanzdomain.de: > Yves via Tagging wrote: > >> Site relations are often used to models thing that aren't spatially >> joined, like windfarms, universities... I can easily imagine it's >> reasonable to use them for campings in some corner cases where a singl

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Nov 12, 2022, 14:22 by li...@fuchsschwanzdomain.de: > Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> So >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13012999#map=19/49.12702/10.86422 >> site relation is including nearby restaurant and shop? >> > > Right! > >

Re: [Tagging] amentiy=donation_centre?

that is for place giving clothes, not collecting them it does not mean that they collect them (and even with place collecting and giving located at the same place they may have separate opening hours or other detail) Nov 14, 2022, 13:59 by antoniomade...@gmx.com: > It seems good. > It even has

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

20 lis 2022, 17:06 od dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 20 Nov 2022, at 02:27, Matija Nalis >> wrote: >> >> Because, someone has to do that summarizing work for extra channels to make >> sense, and it is IMHO only fair that would >> be proposal author (expecting that EV

Re: [Tagging] species:language to loc_name:language

Not sure how change proposed in the second paragraph solves what you mentioned in the first. It also goes against established meaning of loc_name loc_name:en is for English local name of a tree, not for English name of its species (this is rarely used as local names are rarely in multiple langua

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

Mapping standard location of lifeboat mooring or lifeboat station location seems entirely fine. (I am person who added this claim to wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:building%3Dhouseboat&diff=1931553&oldid=1797928 ) 27 lis 2022, 02:03 od graemefi...@gmail.com: > In regar

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation

29 lis 2022, 00:18 od dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Crossing=zebra is about a zebra crossing, it implies also vertical signs- in > some jurisdictions and some conditions at least - and it implies that there > aren’t traffic signals. > "no traffic signals" applies also only in some jurisdictions

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation

29 lis 2022, 22:55 od dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 29 Nov 2022, at 09:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> "no traffic signals" applies also only in some jurisdictions >> > > > If there

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >