Re: [Tagging] [OKFILTER] Re: Mapping generic sheds

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 9:09 PM, Johnparis wrote: > I agree with you, Dave, about "shed roof", but I have very often > seen/heard the term "shed" used regardless of the type of roof in the USA. > > If one or two people can fit inside, it's a shed. If you can fit a car in,

Re: [Tagging] [OKFILTER] Re: Mapping generic sheds

On Sat, May 5, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Peter Elderson wrote: > If it has a selling counter it's a kiosk? (*ducks behind sandbags*) > :-) > Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the ducks of war. (Why else would the ducks be behind sandbags?) :) -- Paul

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 8. May 2018, at 11:26, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Perhaps, if we reach a conclusion here, the documentation may need

Re: [Tagging] Conflicting wiki docu for aerialway=goods and aerialway=station

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > According to the tag definitions for aerialway=goods [1], the endpoints > should be tagged with aerialway=station, but according to the station wiki > page [2], the tag requires passenger transport. > I'm

Re: [Tagging] Conflicting wiki docu for aerialway=goods and aerialway=station

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote: > I think that was Martin's point. OSM tags and values aren't in Dutch > I took the Dutch to be an example that at least one other language makes a similar distinction to English in that stations are for people, not

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > Dave Swarthout writes: > > In the UK, there is a notion of A/B/C roads, and then unclassified. I > gather this means they are part of the network but not declared one of > A/B/C. > Not quite

Re: [Tagging] brand=* necessary?

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > > A "name" is what something is "called" by "others." Which "others" are > considered, is the real debate here. Is it the council? Is it the residents > within 100m? Is it a tourist who doesn't speak the local

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 11. May 2018 19:16 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual > barrier. > > > You are free to organize resurvey of over 7 million places where ;anes=*

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > As Thilo had pointed out, removing off-topic info from the Wiki is not a > documented activity of the DWG > It's not? Hm... https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group says: DWG members perform a

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> You forgot an important condition. ALL of these changes must take place >> AT THE SAME &g

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:25 PM, wrote: The real world is never as nice and tidy as the data models we try to make > of it. > Indeed. Many years ago I encountered two places in the UK (one in Scotland, one in England) where a road which had three lanes across

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual > barrier. > > It does not sound that way to me. It sounds to me like there is a very real problem in redefining, in an INCOMPATIBLE way, a tag

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

I'm not on the DWG. I'm just a mapper who reads this mailing list. On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Thilo Haug wrote: > would you say this picture is "off topic" ? > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag: > aeroway%3Dspaceport=1519060#Pictures > Yes. WILDLY off

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission of > bicycle lane tagging orthagonal to other lanes gives off by x problems for > lane guidance, where x is the number of bicycle lanes. > All

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Nick Bolten wrote: > I agree that capacity:*=yes isn't as information-rich, it's just the > convention listed on the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key: > capacity. > Not the convention but A convention. More precisely, an option:

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Nick Bolten wrote: > Would it be too deeply nested to have capacity:disabled:ramp=yes/no/#? > I don't know about being too deeply nested, but if you consider it hierarchical I'm not happy with the implied semantics that capacity takes a yes/no

Re: [Tagging] Conflicting wiki docu for aerialway=goods and aerialway=station

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 5:51 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > The U.K. has (or had) many places named 'Goods Station'. > I sit corrected. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 9:06 PM, marc marc wrote: > > node public_transport=plateform for the waiting area > + > relation type=route route=walking_bus > yes duck tagging... it is a PTv2 :) > So if it walks like a bus, looks like a bus and quacks like a bus then it's a

Re: [Tagging] opening_hours:sign=no - RFC

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: My entire motivation for making this tag is to record this data > > in machine-readable form. I want to make my detector of things to survey > to stop suggesting opening hours that are not worth surveying. > My

Re: [Tagging] opening_hours:sign=no - RFC

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > If I drive / walk past & see Papa Luigi's Pizza Shop, with no other info > visible, I go home, search for Papa Luigi's in this suburb, & get their > website, which gives you their phone number, opening hours,

Re: [Tagging] opening_hours:sign=no - RFC

On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:23 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24/05/18 08:26, Paul Allen wrote: > > [Getting opening hours from websites] > > Most websites have some copyright thing .. that makes some nervous. > I usually only tag things that inter

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:48 AM, Peter Elderson wrote: > > The only use case I can imagine is when a roundtrip has one ore more > access ways which are included in the route relation. But even then, what > is the purpose? > I would say that roundtrip=yes on route A->B->A

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Peter Elderson wrote: > In that case it is a service-thing rather than a route-thing. Is it > generally used like that? > The wiki just mentions the co-location of start/endpoint of the route. > > I'm going by what I've encountered in

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: > Looked it up, of course. Definitions are not that clear-cut. Generally, > round trip means that you return where you came from, some definitions say > along the same route, some say mostly along the same route but not

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 25. May 2018 20:39 by craigw84+...@gmail.com: > > I agree but I have no good idea for a tag name. Can you propose something? > mobile_amenity=* maybe. Or mobile=yes + amenity=*. I think I prefer the latter,

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I attempted to improve definition, and I ended with > > "shop that is completely or almost completely dismantled outside its > opening hours." > What I have used in the past, because it was suggested to me by

Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26/05/18 17:18, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > So ... why have seasonal? > > Because it may be useful for data consumers (and sometimes routers) to know, for example, if water is present only during winter. It helps in

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: When applied to a route, I would leave out that it is the same vehicle, > because when you book or buy a round trip, most of the time you have a > different vehicle for the return trip. > You've strayed into the

Re: [Tagging] marking missing opening hours signs

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Seems OK, but I still prefer opening_hours_sign=no - it seems simpler. > These days, wouldn't opening_hours:sign=no be the preferred way to go? Also, it's possible that the hours are on the site's Farcebook page

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > Just look at the issues related to landcover for carto-css on github, > e.g. https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2548 > > [...] > * not enough instances > And if it gets used a lot the argument will be that there are

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: A 'benevolent dictator'. > > Let us know if you find one. > He's called Linus Torvalds. Unfortunately, he's too busy with Linux to be able to take control of OSM. And some people object to his use of expletives. If somebody

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 07/06/18 23:00, Peter Elderson wrote: > >> I think landuse=forest should remain intact, for cases where forestry is >> actually how the land is used. >> So the tag is not deprecated, it's just applicated more consistently. >> > > So

Re: [Tagging] wall and block that aren't a barrier

> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/ > Rehbrunnen_04.jpg/800px-Rehbrunnen_04.jpg > It strikes me that the water container was modelled after a horse trough. Some public fountains with that form may even have originated as horse troughs (and some may even be used as such

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Yves wrote: > I would expect a 'lounge' in an hotel as a cosy bar. > Or some sort of posh tea room. The word "lounge," to me, very strongly implies the supply of some sort of service that one has to pay for, and it is not a place one can use without a purchase.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Yves wrote: > I don't necessarily want to get rid of the word lounge, but an > amenity=airport_lounge leaves very little doubt about what it is. > Actually, it does leave doubt. Airport lounge as in waiting room? A place with seats and (maybe) a coffee

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 3:20 PM, wrote: > > At Stations > > The First Class lounges are open Monday to Friday and are a great place to > work or relax while you're waiting for a train. They offer complimentary > refreshments, WiFi, fax and phone services are available. > Again, these are NOT

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Yves wrote: Given the definition of an airport lounge given earlier (a waiting room > reserved for business or first class, operated by airlines company... ), I > think the concept is fairly concise. > Yes, the concept is concise. As is my response: why bother?

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Anton Klim wrote: > > Hence why I set out with just amenity=lounge, not realising how many > conflicting meanings people assign to the word, which is why it probably > won't work. > I know you have already said you think a waiting room is different from your

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:51 PM, François Lacombe < fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote: Could someone confirm that point to point or GPON fibre networks are > connected to a telephone exchange building too? > I think that's a reasonable assumption that will rarely be incorrect. Fibre was first

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not > > consistently used by a single organization for anythin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 12:07 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: Are you sure that's a British English term? It's not one I've heard in > regular use* in 25 years of working on and off with telecoms companies in > the UK or a few other places around the world. It may be that the people > that I was

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Bryan Housel wrote: > from https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5088 > > *Proposal:* > I’d like to drop `covered=booth` as a suggested tag, as it’s superfluous. > If the telephone feature has `booth=yes` or `booth=K6` you know it’s a > booth. Then we’re

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > >> > Would it be feasible to say that building=yes is a default (except, > perhaps, for rock_shelter, sun_shelter) and that mappers are expected to > place an expected building=no on the exceptions? > Tags are not hierarchical, let alone

Re: [Tagging] New GitHub tagging repo "osmlab/osm-tagging" - was: emergency=lifeguard

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Others have qualms about signing up to an American social network platform > just > to participate in OSM discussions (remember - if the product is free, you > are the product). >From what I have read, others in the IT community have

Re: [Tagging] New GitHub tagging repo "osmlab/osm-tagging" - was: emergency=lifeguard

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Just to comment on the Microsoft side angle here. Inasmuch as history has > been very unkind to Microsoft with respect to their treatment of open > source communities and technologies in the past (Linux, Mozilla, etc.), > I wouldn't

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have set up 2 new proposals for waiting facilities, waiting room and > waiting area. > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_area > and

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I didn't want to quibble and am seriously trying to understand you. To me, > a "group of trees" means a few trees, say starting from 3 to maybe 20 or > maybe even 50 on the extreme end, usually something lower than 10. > A group is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Stephen Doerr wrote: My experience may be different from yours, but no one I know talks about a > 'waiting room' in an airport. The general waiting area is quite often > referred to as the 'departure lounge', in fact > Yeah, you're right. However, for general

Re: [Tagging] emergency=fire_alarm_box

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 3:50 PM, wrote: > And many other places, yes… that’s why I was surprised to see that > emergency=stop_button has only been used a single time worldwide and there > don’t seem to be any other similar values in the emergency key. > The thing about emergency stop buttons is

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Jo wrote: > Thanks for looking into this. I had already stopped caring about it and > resorted to simply double tagging everything. Ilya Zverev even proposed to > simply drop the "new" public_transport scheme and revert back to >

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Erkin Alp Güney wrote: > Does it have any stops in the street it reverses into? Not that I've seen. But if somebody asked to get off there I'm fairly sure that most of the drivers would permit it. And since it backs as far as a bench, I'm also fairly sure

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: open_air_vendor and outdoor_vendor are also problematic as my intention > > was to include also vendors that operate under roofs and I expect that in > > some places there are pernament shops that are outdoors. > I'd say that open_air

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 8:38 PM, Jo wrote: > I have also mapped many routes with loops, lollipops/spoons where the same > ways are traversed multiple times. But I had not encountered a route where > the bus needs to do parts driving backwards. I think this is mostly avoided > because it's

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > A few days ago I helped Paul Allen with mapping some bus routes. > For which, many thanks. I have a few more questions about that route (I'll contact you privately), because it's *weird* > During one of

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: > Still thinking... > If in British English round trip just means you start at A, go to B, do > all kinds of things in between or not, then later return at A, no matter if > it's via the same route or a different route,

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: > Well, for PT I have no opinion whether tagging roundtrip is applicable. > But how would you tag the London hop-on tours... Again, no opinion. > After having a quick look at some of them, then roundtrip is not

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: > I do a lot of one-day walking trips with groups... they actually fit quite > nicely with your descriptions. The route usually ends where it starts. You > have a fixed order of POI's, one or more planned stops at fixed

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: > If I understand you correctly, in British English round trip is not about > the route at all, it is about the journey, the service and practical > arrangements. While American English adds the actual route and the

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 26. May 2018 10:56 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > It should be now covered by > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ > street_vendor%3Dyes#Definition > I mentioned this on the discussion

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

It's bad form to follow up to your own mail, but... On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Mateusz Konieczny < > matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote: > >> 27. May 2018 15:20 by pla16...@gmail.com:

Re: [Tagging] RFC proposed water property key 'ephemeral '

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Adding intermittent=yes to seasonal=yes adds no usefull information > either. > > That depends how you interpret it. Which would depend, to some extent, how it was documented. The seasonal=yes says it is non perennial

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Jo wrote: The odd thing about this route is that it serves 1 stop at the start of > this cul-de-sac then continues and turns around. There is no other stop at > the end, where it makes the maneuver. > A few things. 1) Once the bus gets to that stop it is then

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: > > So, in this > > case, the route wasn't designed for the benefit of a hot-shot on the > council or for a single person with COPD > > (as others have suggested) but for the benefit of a large number of > people. > > Sorry about that, I

Re: [Tagging] Hamlet is always an unincorporated place in OSM?

Here's how it sort of worked in the UK. A city has a cathedral. Or a royal charter. Or is a big town that feels like calling itself a city. A town has a weekly (or more frequent) market. Or used to have a market. No cathedral. A village has one or more churches. Or used to, before they

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

Ummm, why not use existing tagging and add operator=name_of_local_authority? No need to invent a new tag No need to invent new values specifically to indicate it's municipal. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:50 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: > > > Problem is, landcover is not rendered. Nobody is going to retag for > notrendered. Probably never going to change. > I just checked, since I see grass rendered where I mapped it. When I ask iD for grass it gives me landuse=grass.

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: > No need to tag the operator, it's just how it's collectively known here. > In fact nobody knows or cares who actually takes care of it, as long as it > is kept tidy by people in safety vests leaning on gardening gear and > operating loud

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag (was: Re: British term for municipal greenery?)

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > there is unanimous (?) consensus that landuse is about the usage of land (“For > describing the primary use of areas of land.”) > > how can “grass” fit into a system like this? > Because the grass is there intentionally and is

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:42 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 27 May 2018 at 23:20, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> because they're ephemeral >> > > Or are they intermittent? :-) > I

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:49 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > So for clarification, when there's a market that only operates on eg > Saturday mornings https://www.google.com/maps/@- > 28.0861864,153.4491747,3a,75y,247.72h,87.54t/data=!3m6!1e1! >

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 12:37 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Would you tag the entire area eg https://www.google.com/ > maps/@-28.0641793,153.4386994,81m/data=!3m1!1e3 as outdoor_vendor > though?, or is that considered implicit in it being a marketplace? > My

Re: [Tagging] opening_hours:sign=no - RFC

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 23. May 2018 01:18 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com: > > So you propose opening_hours:unsigned=yes? > We can expand upon this. We can have opening_hours:positive=yes, opening_hours:negative=yes,

Re: [Tagging] marking shop as street vendor

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 4:17 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 27. May 2018 15:20 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > Is there anything missing? > Having had time to think about it, I don't think that removal, dismantling or even partial dismantling are essential characteristics.

Re: [Tagging] Boot cleaning stations

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 9:28 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > They are a form of decontamination. > On the whole, I prefer decontamination to disinfection. What's being removed may not be infectious, such as seeds. Damn, I hate it when somebody else's suggestion is better than mine.

Re: [Tagging] Boot cleaning stations

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Any other ideas as to words to use? > Disinfection? Depends if they're just scrapers or if they include some antimicrobial/antifungal spray/dip. The UK's DEFRA says of foot and mouth disease that farmers must have

Re: [Tagging] shop=discount

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:22 PM, marc marc wrote: > Le 26. 06. 18 à 16:37, Paul Allen a écrit : > > > Ummm, so how do we map real wholesalers, who sell only to retailers and > not > > to the general public? > > maybe something like for=retailer > like it exist fo

Re: [Tagging] shop=discount

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Bryan Housel wrote: `shop=wholesale` is what people are using for stores like Costco and Sam’s > Club: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dwholesale > > Well spotted, I didn't think to look

Re: [Tagging] shop=discount

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > indeed Aldi is the first (at least in Europe) to operate this way. It is > not unlikely the discount store description in wikipedia was influenced by > Germans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discount_store > > and names Aldi and

Re: [Tagging] tagging bicycle charging stations

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I encountered public charging station for electric bicycles. > > How this should be tagged? > > Currently https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity% > 3Dcharging_station > recommends > > amenity=charging_station > bicycle=yes >

Re: [Tagging] shop=discount

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:14 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > To my mind, =discount & =variety are exactly the same shops. While > =variety has a full article, I'd personally think that they should both be > called =discount. > To my mind they're different. Although I wouldn't have chosen

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=racetrack

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi wrote: > > I have already RFC-ed this proposal in 2016 but it remained there. > I would like to go to the voting stage, please check it. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/leisure%3Dracetrack > > My vote is no. Because

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=racetrack

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi wrote: > > The main reason because I excluded non-motorised sports is because many of > them seem to have an already established way of mapping. > All this pages mention sports_centre and stadium as physical tag > combination for related

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Bryan Housel wrote: > > Somebody has already posted a picture to the list of a public phone with > no hood, no booth, and no cover, so > > adding booth=yes to all phones could be an error. > > Are you being deliberately obtuse? > I am not being deliberately

Re: [Tagging] shop=shoe_repair

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > In Australia at least, these sort of "shops" are frequently located in a > kiosk in the middle of a shopping centre, where they repair shoes, cut > keys, do engraving, replace watch & remote batteries etc. > Around here they tend

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 7:43 PM, wrote: > Everything you write is no different between PTv2 and the old tagging > scheme. > > > > FIRST, all the stops, in order. THEN, all the ways that make up the route, > in order. > > > > As far as I’m aware, there hasn’t been a route tagging scheme before

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Jo wrote: > > It's probably best to provide a link to the actual route relation. It's > indeed a complex one. > I'll do it tomorrow. I had a look earlier today and it was either broken before I looked or I broke it while trying to figure out how to use JOSM.

Re: [Tagging] emergency=first_aid_kit

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:53 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: There are fist ad kits .. and first aid kits .. > I now have a scene playing in my head. It's Paul Hogan sneering and saying "Call that a first aid kit? Now THIS is a first aid kit." :) Probably useful enough to map so

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: If you can find out who mapped them then you can at least ask why they > tagged them like that. What information do they think would be lost if > that tag was removed? > I can tell you why I used covered=booth. Because, at the time I

Re: [Tagging] public_transport=platform rendering on osm-carto

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:53 PM, wrote: > So, valid minimal tagging under PTv2 is very simple: > > > > You have one node (if there is no clear platform) or a way (along the > platform edge) or area (the whole platform), which is tagged as > public_transport=platform (plus whatever mode of

Re: [Tagging] emergency=first_aid_kit

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Simon Poole wrote: > I'm actually not quite happy with the whole thing as it would seem to > range from a potentially staffed first aid facility to what you were > looking for, a simple first aid kit. In practical terms that would be a > rather big difference

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:37 AM, Andrew Davidson wrote: > Boothless is also common in North America: > Just to complicate matters, Wikipedia refers to phones with acoustic hoods, even minimal ones, as booths. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_booth It may be just me, but I think

Re: [Tagging] shop=discount

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:29 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/06/18 01:33, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 4:22 PM, marc marc > wrote: > >> >> maybe something like for=retailer >> like it exist for social_facility >&

Re: [Tagging] shop=discount

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > exactly. Wholesale is a different story. Discount shops do not sell huge > packings / wholesale confections with many boxes inside. They might sell > slightly bigger packages (often made on purpose for

Re: [Tagging] shop=discount

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Selfish Seahorse < selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Any objections if I retag Poundland and Poundworld stores as > shop=variety_store? > That's how I would tag them if either of those chains had a presence in the areas I've been mapping. That's how I've

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway strip

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > No strong opinion either, but how are these verified. Is there some sort > of sign? > Give way to low-flying aircraft. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > A closer look at some similar relations (thanks, Kevin) indicates others > have had the same issue and resolved it in various ways. One person left > the water-crossing ways untagged, as I did, another used waterway=river to > mark them,

Re: [Tagging] nautical channels

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > It looks as if OpenSeaMap does map the seamarks that delimit the > navigation channel, but not the channel itself. > The reason I am asking here, is that I detected by chance that navigation > channels in the Venice Lagoon [1] have been

Re: [Tagging] Boot cleaning stations

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 1:57 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30/06/18 10:20, Paul Allen wrote: > > > Footwear_disinfection seems better than boot_disinfection, because you'll > always get some idiot > read "boot disinfection" and decide it doesn't a

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Yves wrote: > > There is a way to avoid tagging the way with the route tag: > > whitewater:section_grade=0 > > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Whitewater_sports#Grades > > I consent your canoe practice on a lake is perhaps far from 'whitewater' >

Re: [Tagging] Canoe route

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 7:04 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > I agree that waterway=river and route=ferry are incorrect and that > route=ferry is slightly less so . > If you register your canoe as a merchant vessel and pay yourself for the trip, it's a ferry! > > But do you mean the untagged ways

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >