Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

While there may be personnel at a ranger station that have law enforcement authority, that will not always be the case, and in any event, law enforcement is probably not the primary function of most ranger stations. If every facility where law enforcement personnel were stationed were tagged

Re: [Tagging] incline default unit ?

For example, a 45° slope is the same thing as a 50% slope. Not to get too technical, but I believe that a 45 degree angle is equivalent to a 100% grade [1] Mike [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_(slope) On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:02 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote: It has

Re: [Tagging] incline default unit ?

My apologies if it was my post that got this off track. I think the original point was, if % is the default unit, should we actually be putting the % in the tag? My view is that it is not required, but putting it in causes little harm. Mike On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Ronnie Soak

Re: [Tagging] incline default unit ?

, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.uswrote: On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.comwrote: I think the original point was, if % is the default unit, should we actually be putting the % in the tag? My view is that it is not required, but putting it in causes little harm

[Tagging] Taginfo for specific geographies

I would like to find all of the tags that are used over a user specified geography (could be a country or a bounding box). Is there anyway to do this for geographies other than those listed here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taginfo/Sites Mike

Re: [Tagging] Taginfo for specific geographies

for? http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/ Matthijs On Nov 25, 2013 11:34 PM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to find all of the tags that are used over a user specified geography (could be a country or a bounding box). Is there anyway to do this for geographies other than those

Re: [Tagging] natural=cloud

I am hoping this has something to do with it being April 1st On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: On 1 April 2014 18:08, Pierre Knobel pierr...@gmail.com wrote: I just wanted to mention a new tag I created yesterday:

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

It is also a significant loss of detail because you reduce the length of the bridge to 0 Maps are abstractions. They don't represent reality precisely. In most cases we already reduce the width of roads to 0 as they are not represented by areas. The question should be whether the value of the

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

the value of increased precision ceases to grow, and may even decline. On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-04-02 18:16 GMT+02:00 Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com: It is also a significant loss of detail because you reduce the length

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

a real world object that does. Also, in many cases the width tag is is not used on roads. On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote: We aim at precision/accuracy (IMHO, at least I do), 1) How much precision/accuracy? No real world measurement or recording

[Tagging] path vs footway

I am editing trails in a US National Park of which I have first hand knowledge. Nearly all trails in this area have been tagged highway=footway although most of them are open equally to foot traffic and horse traffic. Any reason to leave them as footways? The wiki suggests that path is more

Re: [Tagging] Pathways with steep vertical slopes, accessed via climbing chains

Is this the type of thing you are talking about: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata Mike On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:28 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: Went hiking on mt Miyogi yesterday in Gunma, and like other steep mountain parks, sections of the trail were near

Re: [Tagging] path vs footway

Thanks for everyone's comments. Based upon the information you have provided I believe these trails best fit highway=path as long as the appropriate access tags are added. I will also use informal=yes when appropriate as well as indicate surface type and smoothness. For those few cases where the

[Tagging] hitch rack for horses

How should one tag a hitch rack? This is a place to tie horses. For example, at a location where a rider may want to dismount and continue on foot because the way ahead is not suitable for horses. I searched the wiki, but didn't find a suitable tag. Mike

Re: [Tagging] hitch rack for horses

Nop, Is it amenity=hitching_post that you are suggesting? I see a German language page on the wiki[1] that mentions it. Mike [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Reiten On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 4:14 PM, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: Asked around with the same question and it came down to

Re: [Tagging] man_made=adit_entrance

I'm a native speaker of English and I only came across the word adit relatively recently. To me it seems obscure and technical - but I understand that in other parts of the world it's common. In the US the term adit appears on at least some USGS 7.5 minute topo maps. The ones I have explored

[Tagging] length=

I have noticed a length tag used on some linear ways [1]. It seems that this is redundant, as the length could be calculated from the geometry itself. It could also be the source of future errors should someone split the way, for example to add more detailed tagging, such as varying smoothness.

Re: [Tagging] length=

Here I diverge. If the hedgerow is an improtant part of the landscape then I'd map it .. even if it is not at your required level of 'accuracy'. Reason: it is the relationship between the objects on the map that is important rather than the absolute accuracy of any one object. +1

Re: [Tagging] length=

Thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts. I personally recommend to use the length key while mapping street cabinets as nodes. Agree, length makes sense on nodes The way in OSM is only a (sometimes not precise) drawing of an existing feature and can be different from the reality.

Re: [Tagging] length=

E.g.: a 17-degree mapped mountain road or San Francisco street's will get its actual length a 5% bonus compared to its real-life counterpart. True, but such roads are not very common (17 degree ~= 30%). There are a few short streets in places like San Francisco that are this steep. In these

Re: [Tagging] barrier=net ?

I have been tagging the vertical netting at golf courses as barrier=fence In some cases there is more or less horizontal netting, and in that case I agree that barrier=fence does not fit. Mike On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:41 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: There are 544 uses of barrier=net, and I

Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type

It certainly seems to me that palm trees are different enough from what I usually consider to be a broad-leafed tree to warrant their own leaf_type. +1 Palms are their own group of trees distinct from broad-leaved trees or conifers and it makes sense to tag with a different value. Mike

Re: [Tagging] addr:interpolation on highway

I think this type of information has value. Even if every building on the street also has its own address, this allows an application to find the approximate location of an address for a building that at the time of the survey had not been built. The necessary information can often be found on

Re: [Tagging] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?

Some of the parts about OSM seems to be in the spirit of the project, although I would word some of it a bit differently. To the extent possible I think we should focus on the positive and avoid negative statements about other projects, or over generalizations about those projects. For example

[Tagging] SHAPE_Leng, SHAPE_Area, GIS_ACRES

I am encountering the tags SHAPE_Leng, SHAPE_Area, GIS_ACRES on US National Forests. If I am making other edits to the OSM element in question, can these be deleted? Converted to some other tag? Thanks, Mike ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] SHAPE_Leng, SHAPE_Area, GIS_ACRES

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: If there's a primary key from the original source, that has some value, do leave that. I don't think there is, but I will make sure to leave it if there is. Also take a look to see if the shape could be

Re: [Tagging] SHAPE_Leng, SHAPE_Area, GIS_ACRES

Clifford, Thanks, if there are no objections, I will delete the next time I am making other edits. Mike On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote: I am encountering the tags

[Tagging] waterway=stream oneway=1

Is it really necessary for a way that is tagged waterway=stream to also be tagged oneway=1? Isn't this implied? Please see this example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306529208 note it appears that after I originally entered the way its direction was reversed (i.e. it now flows uphill).

Re: [Tagging] waterway=stream oneway=1

The oneway tag doesn't indicate the flow direction but is a restriction that applies to boat or ship traffic on the waterway. The waterway in question is far too small for any traffic, even canoes or kayaks would find it impossible to move as it is very narrow. I suspect that the tag in

Re: [Tagging] waterway=stream oneway=1

, Mike Thompson wrote: Is it really necessary for a way that is tagged waterway=stream to also be tagged oneway=1? Isn't this implied? oneway indicates that traffic is restricted from traveling the other direction. I suppose this might happen in a busy canal system, but on virtually any stream

Re: [Tagging] oil binding agent?

The term (at least one of the terms) used in the US is oil absorbent For example: http://www.autozone.com/shop-and-garage-tools/oil-absorbent/moltan-33-lbs-granular-oil-grease-water-and-coolant-absorbent/690875_0_0/ I have seen it used in garages and auto repair shops, but never stored along

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a weigh station / bridge ?

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Gerd Petermann < gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Well, the word amenity seems to imply some kind of pleasure (at least the > translations that I found do so), > There are a lot of other amenity tags that are not necessarily pleasurable, such as

Re: [Tagging] Postindustrial Castle

Here is another example[1], and its website[2]. This one is in Colorado US. historic=castle doesn't seem appropriate as it was built in relatively recent times. [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/71070599 [2] http://www.bishopcastle.org/ On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Jaume Figueras i

[Tagging] Lights other than highway=street_lamp

How are lights other than street lights, such as those used to illuminate the playing field at stadiums, tagged? Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Lights other than highway=street_lamp

e scheme's primary key, light_source=*, is currently used 2854 times: > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/light_source > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> How are lights other than street lights, such as those used t

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > Cliffs are never truly vertical. A bird's eye view from above will show > that. If they are steep enough they could be modelled as a line, but in > general we should allow for a polygon, with a high side and a low side.

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Grasping at straws .. the elevation of a mountain is given as its peak. If > there is consistency within the map then the elevation of all objects > should be their maximum height. > Sort of. By convention (in general

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > FWIW, for most usages of these ele values it doesn't really matter if a > value is 20 meters more or less, they are used to get a rough idea, not to > be used in calculations where a meter more or less is

[Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

I am editing in Colorado, US in a rural part of the state. I do have first hand knowledge of the area. It looks like someone has gone through and changed many ways tagged "highway = residential" to "highway = track." For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6152252#map=16/40.7825/-105.1985

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: > > Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> > wrote: > >> > >> How did

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > > > How did all the elevation data get into OSM in the first place? > The elevations of peaks in the US came from the GNIS import. In turn the GNIS elevations came from the National Elevation Dataset (NED) [1], and it

Re: [Tagging] Marking climbing proposal as "in use"

I am not opposed as I think it is a good starting point, but I have these comments: "Crags" are only small areas My understanding from 15 years in this activity is that a "crag" is a small area as explained here [1]. At least in the US, no one would refer to El Cap [2] as a "crag" yet it is

Re: [Tagging] Marking climbing proposal as "in use"

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org> wrote: > Anders Fougner wrote on 2016/01/29 10:06: > >> Den 29.01.2016 02.21, skrev Mike Thompson: >> >>> What one person may aid, another may free (I am using "free climbing" in

Re: [Tagging] Marking climbing proposal as "in use"

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org> wrote: > >> Mike Thompson wrote on 2016/01/28 17:49: > > Climbing areas, including crags, are hierarchical in organization and > suitable for representation as a relation > > Interesting idea,

Re: [Tagging] Defining tag 'natural=wood' ...

landuse and landcover are two different things, and I submit they should be mapped as such. One indicates how the land is being used, and the other what covers it. Obviously they are related, but they are not the same. In regards to "landcover" it should not matter whether the trees were planted

Re: [Tagging] Tagging scrapyards, junkyards

In the parts of the US where I have lived (Midwest, West) these would be called "Auto Salvage" if they mainly dealt with vehicles, although "junkyard" is used colloquially. However, to be consistent, we should use the British English term to be consistent. Mike On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:06 AM,

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some > cases such as medieval building layout it can be incredibly difficult to > work out what roofline belongs to which building. > Yes, it is often

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

Here is an example of what I feel should be discouraged: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404484020 (given that this is part of a HOT project, it is likely to be corrected/improved soon) In this case the individual buildings are clearly visible, and there is non-building space between them.

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:47 AM, joost schouppe wrote: > Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the > building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building? > My feeling is that individual buildings should be mapped. Mike

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Koć wrote: > > > > > Still I think "international airport" in the name hints us something and > is worth using this way or another to indicate importance. > International/domestic/local fares are rather useful and popular > description of

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Elliott Plack wrote: > Thanks for the continued discussion. It seems that one of you removed the > offending landuse that I mentioned in my email yesterday (from an import > that was not attributed). As a result, the tiles have begun to

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+ import)

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Meg Drouhard wrote: > Hello, > > Our team is proposing a standardization of sidewalk tagging conventions in > OSM to simplify pedestrian network annotations and better represent the > physical reality of sidewalk ways. This proposal is

[Tagging] Hot to tag a mortgage broker

What is the recommended way to tag a "mortgage broker", e.g. [1]. These are businesses where one can get a loan to buy a home, but they are not banks. Mike [1] https://www.southerntrust.com/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - snow removal station

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Joachim wrote: > Lorry drivers are usually required to remove ice and snow from their > vehicles. as they pose a safety hazard when falling on the ground. In > order to allow drivers to reach the roof, structures (e.g. made of >

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Viking wrote: > Hi. > To be consistent with the approved and already used tags > amenity=animal_breeding [1], amenity=animal_shelter [2] and > amenity=animal_boarding [3], what do you think about: > > amenity=animal_breeding >

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Viking wrote: > Animal_breeding was discussed and voted here [1] > Nevertheless, in my opinion, it is not appropriate in this application because the purpose of a feedlot is not to breed the animals, but rather to fatten them for market.

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Viking wrote: > @Mike > 1) Ok, cow is the female only: then bovine would be better? Cattle in > English is a term used for bovines only or for other species too? > "cattle" is the correct term[1]. I was mistaken in my original email, "bovine" is

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 09-Feb-17 07:39 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > landuse=farmland > > farmland=feedlot > > produce=cattle (or whatever) + 1 > > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list >

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 09-Feb-17 10:48 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > Along with landuse=farmland and farmland=feedlot, how about produce=beef? > That sidesteps the issue of steer vs bull, etc. > > > Beef .. could be taken as the end product

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > Along with landuse=farmland and farmland=feedlot, how about produce=beef? > That sidesteps the issue of steer vs bull, etc. > Feedlots are just one part of the beef (the meat from the cattle) production process, and

Re: [Tagging] Dead hedge

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > How do you map a dead hedge? > barrier=hedge condition=dead ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power pole extension

Jherome, Thanks for your work on this. I will study this more, but one thing that jumped out is that in one of your examples you stated "phase=2." Having spent some time in the electrical industry (in the U.S.) my understanding is there is no such thing as "2 phase", only single phase and three

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power pole extension

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13-Feb-17 10:25 AM, Tristan Anderson wrote: > > If two-phase power isn't currently in use anywhere, it simply means we > won't see any instances of the tag phases=2, just like how we'll never see > phases=17. It doesn't

Re: [Tagging] Representing "altimetric quotas" in OSM

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > I really don't know if the proper term is "altimetric quota" in English, > sorry. > > What we have are some places where the elevation at some points were > measured. It's similar to man_made=survey_point but

Re: [Tagging] Representing "altimetric quotas" in OSM

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Nelson A. de Oliveira <nao...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > What about just a "ele" tag? > > "ele" without any other attribute is valid?

Re: [Tagging] Orientation of an adit?

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I can just now hear, nevertheless, a chorus asserting that the information > is available by other means and therefore does not belong in OSM. An adit > or a cave entrance (that isn't a sinkhole) pretty much has

Re: [Tagging] Orientation of an adit?

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Zecke <zecke@historic.place> wrote: > Am 10.03.2017 20:04, schrieb Mike Thompson: > > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> I can just now hear, nevertheles

Re: [Tagging] Mapping time zones as geometries (relations)

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > It seems that having a 'group' relation for all the administrative regions > that use a given timezone would be useful. The timezone data itself, of > course, belongs separate, but the group relation would, to

Re: [Tagging] siphon underpass

Not all siphons are not entirely tunnels or culverts: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/329482560 is a siphon, but it still crosses over, not under, US34 and the Big Thompson River. The purpose of the siphon in this case is reduce the length and height of the bridge necessary to support the

[Tagging] Elevation in Feet as part of Peak Names

User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset 50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in feet) to the name tag. For example, he changed "Crown Point" to "Crown Point 11,463 ft."[2] While the wiki doesn't specifically address the issue of elevation as

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:37 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > > I just added my thoughts to the changeset comment. Thanks for commenting. > Generally an "official" (I use the term loosely) trail will be signposted Agree. It will also show up on official park maps, and possibly in official park GIS

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:50 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > It's a trail just for firefighting and rescue to access, but closed to all others, correct? That is not correct. There is no legal restriction on its use for foot travel. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > In the second case: is fire trail illegal No, there are no signs on or near the trail indicating this. Nor are there any signs in the park that going off official trails is illegal (there are a few restricted areas elsewhere in the

[Tagging] Changeset 62867521

Hello, User dvdhns are having a friendly discussion regarding this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62867521#map=16/40.3021/-105.6436 They have some good reasons for adding "(off trail)" to the end of the name to the "Fire Trail", but I don't think they override the rule that

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and access, calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are clearly purpose built for a specific mode and

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:32 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:16 PM Mike Thompson wrote: >> >> >> Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a c

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:53 AM Tod Fitch wrote: > But having values of footway, path, cycleway and bridal way allow a short hand that allows the map users (and renderers) to use a set of assumptions about the way. And it allows mappers to quickly categorize the way. I personally would find it

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 171 Path for all

On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:49 AM St Niklaas wrote: > Hi All, > > > > IMHO it is never a well taken decision to tag a path / bridleway for > walking or pedestrians at the same time. Ill shut up when walking a path > and Equestrians have been using the same trail or path, a horseshoe tends > to

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

>> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use >> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add >> access keys for any other permitted traffic.___ I have never understood the use of tags like "cycleway",

[Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

Hello, I have always been under the impression that the highway tag should be based off of function. Recently I have come across a number of cases where driveways and residential roads were tagged "highway=track" (perhaps because they are unpaved?), e.g. [0]. Before I change these, I wanted to

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 2:45 PM Greg Troxel wrote: > Not really germane to driveways, but a major distinction, at least > around me (ma.us) is that > > a road is a legal thing, with its own parcel > > a track is an agricultural road, or old time logging road, within a > parcel Here in

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 1:28 PM ael wrote: > I would not be comfortable tagging very rough tracks as anything but a track: > if it requires a 4 wheel drive or agricultural vehicle to negotiate. > I think a "road" normally implies navigation with a standard vehicle is > possible. In general that

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > In the rural southern Arizona community where my parents retired the only > real way to tell the difference between a track and a service+driveway+upaved > is whether you end up at a house in a reasonable amount of distance. In all of the

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

Thanks Martin! On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 5:49 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Another idea could be to introduce “running” as a new state of foot, e.g. > foot=no > foot:conditional =yes @ running That makes sense to me. I will wait and see if anyone has any objections or better ideas, and if not,

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

Thanks Jason, On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 4:37 PM Jmapb wrote: > > minspeed:foot? A value of around 6 or 7 (default unit is km/hour) should > separate the fast walkers from the joggers. Of course it's anyone's > guess if there would ever be any software support for this key. Interesting idea. > >

[Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

Hello, We have a trail [0] around here where walking/hiking is not allowed, but running is. Currently it is tagged foot=yes, which doesn't give the full story. In case you are wondering how such a situation could come about, it is because the land manager wants faster traffic (trail runners,

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 1:02 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > > How is this access preference indicated? There are signs that say something like "No Hiking, ... Mtn Bikes, Horses, and Trail Runners Only" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

All, Thanks for the suggestions and discussion. I have implemented Martin's suggestion: foot=no foot:conditional = yes @ running Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:09 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > > However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or > > footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a p

[Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

Hello, Just because a trail is wide enough to accommodate a four wheeled vehicle does that make it highway=track if it was constructed for, and its primary and intended use is for, recreation and not for forestry or agriculture access? Mike ___

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or > footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a police car or > emergency vehicle can fit, generally these are still mapped as >

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:36 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > > Would you also say then that a way tagged as highway=path/footway/cycleway, width=4 would be an error? > > No. Here in Portland, Oregon, most of the "multi-use paths" (mainly cycleways, but also used by pedestrians and sometimes

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:35 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > > May 21, 2020, 19:20 by miketh...@gmail.com: > > So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some similar value)? > > Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:52 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I guess the “if the driveway is too long, make a part of it service”-rule is actually there to help data consumers (if it’s very long it might be worth showing it earlier, assuming you hide driveways earlier than service roads). Isn't

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:15 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Please use full tagging and don't create implicit values after the fact. > We do have the width or est_width tags,tets use them, where they are needed. I agree! For the way in question, I tagged its width (as well as smoothness, max_speed,

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:49 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as a pedestrian road, > > with varied opinions. > Would you also say then that a way tagged as highway=path/footway/cycleway,

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 9:26 AM Philip Barnes wrote: > > I agree with AEL, people who live in there tend to take that into > account when they buy vehicles and tend to own 4x4s. These are all roads which a normal car can navigate. Not everyone that lives in these areas drives a 4x4.

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:24 AM brad wrote: > > I don't agree with calling a 2 track/road a path and I don't think that common usage, or the wiki says this either. It is not really "2 track" as its surface is uniformly graded and covered with gravel from side to side (there are not separate ruts

Re: [Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 4:52 AM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) < robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 21:33, Mike Thompson wrote: > > In specifying access constraints for the roads it manages, the US Forest > service makes a distinction between ATVs

Re: [Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 6:03 PM brad wrote: > For your example, I would just tag it as motor_vehicle=yes.From what > I've seen, If OHV's >50" are legal, pretty much any motor vehicle is > legal. > Actually, I think I have found some examples in the MVUM (motor vehicle use map) file from the

  1   2   >