Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:00, s8evq wrote: > > How would you then tag the building and field where Chiro, KSA or > Australian Air Force Cadets youth groups gather weekly. club=??? > > In other words: why does the Scouts movement have it's own club= value? > While, in my opinion, scout is not a ge

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 10:53, Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > > There are distinctions between these two terms, otherwise they would not > be defined separately. > In simple words, a ditch is a small open-air man-made or self-formed > channel in the ground for absolutely any purpose, both lined or unl

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:50, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > The tagging mailing list discusses six alternative ways to represent > the proposed feature. Someone argues that betas don't actually exist. > Someone else insists that betas are really just another kind of bees. > A third person insists that th

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 10:52, Markus wrote: > > Perhaps it would help though, if the status on the wiki page were more > clear and prominent – maybe a different page colour and a status of > 'informal' instead of 'in use' for those non-standard tags. > Just to get into the spirit of things. };-)

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 12:12, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > I like the idea of the "informal" category but isn't that more or less the > same as "proposed"? > The proposal process is formal. It's documented, people scream at you if you don't do it exactly right, etc. Doesn't matter if the tag gets

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 13:23, Sergio Manzi wrote: > "*ad hoc*" (for this) signifies a solution designed for a specific > problem or task, non-generalizable, and not intended to be able to be > adapted to other purposes. > > "*extempore*" (or more correctly "*ex tempore*", "from the time") means >

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

eprecated along with the correct way to do it (multipolygon with an inner area, maybe without any other tag if you're unsure what is there other than not-outer). Informal or ad hoc would be somebody made up a tag for which there isn't already a better alternative and it isn't yet i

Re: [Tagging] status of a tag [was: motorcycle:scale]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 14:24, marc marc wrote: > Le 07.02.19 à 14:58, Paul Allen a écrit : > > Informal is me wanting to tag > > some type of object, being unable to find a suitable tag > > maybe > with low usage : status=Without-a-proposal > with high usage : status=De

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 22:16, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Humm document that it is not known what it is, that the original mappers > fail to respond? > That too. But mainly document that the general consensus is that it is best handled by a multipolygon with a naked area playing the inne

Re: [Tagging] Status values - was motorcycle:scale

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 22:50, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > depreciated - a tag that is being replaced with another tag or other tags. > ITYM "deprecated" unless you're saying the price of the tag has gone down. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing l

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 16:43, Markus wrote: Does a man_made=storage_tank need to be closed? Or do we have (or > require) a tag for open containers, for example open slurry storage > containers [^1]? > Not sure. Depends what you mean by "tank." However, there's a problem with the rendering of ma

Re: [Tagging] tree rows vs individual trees

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 19:19, John Sturdy wrote: > I think it's also comparable to mapping the pylons of a power line and the > line itself. > I would say otherwise. Power lines are strung between pylons. Often, the only clue the line is there is the pylons. Any time the line changes direction

Re: [Tagging] Micronations

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 19:48, Sergio Manzi wrote: But, yes, "there is *something* out there": Google too report the existence > of a "Pitchfork Union" POI [1] [2]. > Google is not immune from vandalism. As this recent report by the BBC shows: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-47118901

Re: [Tagging] tree rows vs individual trees

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 23:47, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > some random examples: > All very neat and planned. Most of what I see around here are much closer together. Sort of like overgrown hedges. Which they might well be. But they're very common, so i think it's deliberate, possibly as a

Re: [Tagging] tree rows vs individual trees

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 00:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > On 11. Feb 2019, at 01:02, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > All very neat and planned. Most of what I see around here are much > closer together. Sort of like > > overgrown hedges. Which they might

Re: [Tagging] tree rows vs individual trees

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 00:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 11. Feb 2019, at 01:24, Paul Allen wrote: > > Many of them are more > than just hedges. > > > there are different kind of hedges, trees may occur within hedges > So far, so good. > > > h

Re: [Tagging] tree rows vs individual trees

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 20:54, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Yep, you see similar rows quite frequently that have been planted like > that, usually to form a wind break. > So they're not by the side of a road and they're not ornamental. That means that, although they are trees and arranged in a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 52 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 09:13, Ulrich Lamm wrote: > Am 12.02.2019 um 05:59 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > > Rules according to the interests of commercial exploiters make our mapping > an unpaid labour for some landlords. > That is the opposite of freedom. > You have the freedom not

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 52 Co-ordinate sets vs. background informations = ODbL vs. CC

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 12:34, Sergio Manzi wrote: > I strongly dissent with the tone of your mail. > That is your right. Even if you are strongly dissenting about somebody expressing strong dissent, it is your right. > Everybody, not only you and the most vocifeferous ones, have the right to >

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 08:56, Markus wrote: > > Btw, i wonder why the wiki lists trash as a possible value for waste=*. Is > trash intended to be only used in combinations, such as > waste=trash;cigarettes? I've supposed that waste=trash is the default for > amenity=waste_bin and amenity=waste_di

Re: [Tagging] waste=trash for amenity=waste_bin/waste_disposal? [Was: Medicine Disposal]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 15:07, Markus wrote: > > I agree, but what about ordinary rubbish bins or containers? Do > amenity=waste_bin/waste_disposal > without a waste=* tag imply waste=trash or should that be added too? > Good question. Without a good answer. Because we also need to accommodate

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 19:05, Markus wrote: > > It might be that drugs that haven't reached their expiration date are > sorted out and recycled, but i don't think that expired drugs get > recycled as they likely get ineffective or even dangerous. > In the UK returned drugs cannot be recycled eve

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 19:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Mo., 18. Feb. 2019 um 19:41 Uhr schrieb Eugene Podshivalov < > yauge...@gmail.com>: > >> There are a lot of straightened rivers and streams all over the world. >> Would it make sense to tag the straightened sections as canal/ditch/

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 22:50, Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > Any river starts as a waterway=stream which is some kind of a wooden leg, > isn't it > According to a sketch in a comedy show from so long ago I can barely remember it, the source of the River Thames was traced to a dripping tap. Which w

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 09:23, Paul Allen wrote: > >> >> According to a sketch in a comedy show from so long ago I can barely >> remember it, the source >> of the River Thames was traced to a dripping

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 03:48, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nothing I could see on the wiki for this. So some guidance would be good. > > Units. > I added a maxstay a few weeks ago and I found info about units at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxstay Units are not explicitly d

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 23:16, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19/02/19 22:03, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 03:48, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Nothing I could see on the wiki for this. So some guidance would be good. >>

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 12:25, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Residential just means it has housing along the road. > That doesn't necessarily work the other way around. My part of the world has a lot of ribbon villages: a small number of houses (typically around 10)clustered along a road connecting

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 12:44, Colin Smale wrote: Even in this case, we should take the trouble to define the syntax for a > duration, in such a way that the definition is reusable and extensible. > Should it be 2.5 hours, or should it be 2 hours 30 minutes? Using only > fractional hours will be p

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 12:59, Sergio Manzi wrote: > Perfect! > > NIH syndrome [1] anybody? > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here > More like "Somebody has already invented the hammer so there's no need for that new screwdriver thing, just hammer the screws in." Fitness for pur

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 22:12, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Is OSM supposed to be for a tight, dedicated group of expert mappers > trying to create the best, most accurate, technically-perfect map the World > has ever seen; or is it for the use of John Doe & Jane Public using OSMAND > & Maps Me o

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 16:42, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > I have never said that residential may only be used in city limits. > I have said that as soon as there is usage for residential purposes > its not unclassified - Thats exactly the terminology from the wiki: > [...] > https://wiki.openstree

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 17:19, Hufkratzer wrote: > > Irrigate with drains? This was the original question of the whole ditch > vs. drain discussion (see > ( > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/042047.html). > > It seems to be a contradiction to what wikipedia explains

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 23:33, Hufkratzer wrote: > On 23.02.2019 18:47, Paul Allen wrote: > > [...] As I see it, ditches are unlined. [...] > > > I googled for "ditch lining irrigation" and got these examples for lined > ditches: > > - > http://www

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 05:28, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is ther a UK page that has these official classifications? They maybe of > use to fit others classifications to. > There is such a page. It probably won't help. It confuses me and I live here. :) https://assets.publishing.ser

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 12:17, Fernando Trebien wrote: > > I don't think a uniform, worldwide highway class standardisation based > on road attributes is possible and satisfactory. But I think a > functional one would be, at least as a guiding principle. > What we currently have doesn't reflect r

Re: [Tagging] Mistagging footways as highway=pedestrian

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 13:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > not working around here (central Italy). We have already tagged a lot of > roads with service=alley in old settlement centres, and legally this is > what they are (oftentimes): legally accessible roads, but physically not. > You may rid

Re: [Tagging] Mistagging footways as highway=pedestrian

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 14:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Do., 28. Feb. 2019 um 14:48 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen >: > >> In my town there are four ways (perhaps more that I have yet to survey) >> that provide access to >> the rear entrance of houses and to garages.

Re: [Tagging] How to map Hostile Architecture? e.g. benches you can't lie/sleep on?

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 15:39, <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote: > Interesting. There is a tag building:architecture. So, if hostile is a > style of architecture that architects recognize for benches, > It is a recognized style of architecture which goes by many names: https://

Re: [Tagging] Mistagging footways as highway=pedestrian

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 17:50, Fernando Trebien wrote: > > Similar to that is the difference between path [1] and track [2]. I've > seen some people argue that the difference is simply width, but the > wiki allows tagging wide ways as path. The actual difference between > them is purpose and funct

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 12:14, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Can you give an example of place where emergency vehicles are > legally forbidden from entering? > Can I point you to an actual, real-world, example? No. Can I give you a scenario? Yes. A bridge wide enough for motor vehicles but a ve

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 00:22, Sergio Manzi wrote: > On 2019-03-02 00:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Being picky, but (at least out here) they're not exempt, they're just > allowed to break them :-) eg in an emergency, an ambulance can go through a > red light, but if they cause an accident by d

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 00:49, Sergio Manzi wrote: What your street code says about the behaviour drivers at a crossing (with > lights) must have when there is an incoming emergency vehicle? > It says they have to pull out of the way but they must still obey all traffic regulations. People have b

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 08:14, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So a documented way of including GTFS link in routes? > Yep. We could just use url=* but I'd prefer to keep that available for other things. Besides, it would probably be a good idea to allow for a link to the operator's time

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 00:06, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 00:21, Paul Allen wrote: > >> On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 08:14, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> So a documented way of including GTFS link in routes? >&g

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 01:41, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 19:42, Paul Allen wrote: > > As I said, I'd prefer not to use url=* because it could be for anything > - a page about the history of > > the bus stop (maybe the shelter is a listed building)

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 17:37, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > If your use case is people using the query tool on > https://openstreetmap.org to follow links to PDFs to plan a journey, > Might be a PDF or a simple web page or a Web 2.0 page with funky effects and even live updates. Sadly, given the s

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 19:07, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > Again, frankly - approximately zero general-purpose apps will support > whatever scheme we could come up with in OpenStreetMap to tag the > situation "this stop is served by a route that has two separate > timetables that are both valid, an

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 17:06, yo paseopor wrote: > Not only parking_space but all the parking you can find in a street, not a > parking lot or a parking place (amenity=parking). I say I need to separate > and zoom the info about parking spaces (but not delimited every place) in > each street. > Pa

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 17:49, yo paseopor wrote: > I mean something like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/675000355 > or https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/675000354 > or https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/67500085 > > Which look, in the editor, exactl

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 18:23, yo paseopor wrote: > I think it is not correct. Parking zones in a street are not > amenity=parking , are they? > Why not? They have conditions of use. This one https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/103703582 even has a ticket machine and you get fined if you park ther

Re: [Tagging] tagging laboratories

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 19:28, Sergio Manzi wrote: > I agree with Volker and I also woul like to underline how in Italian we > use the sister word "laboratorio" (*both com from the Latin "labor, > "work"*) for some craftmanship activity: we call a "laboratorio" also the > places where a goldsmith o

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 02:18, Jmapb wrote: Yo passepor wants to "draw exactly what space is occuping" so in that case > putting the area to the side of the road probably makes more sense, even > though it would prevent a routing engine from actually being able to arrive > inside the parking amenit

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 06:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 5. Mar 2019, at 21:33, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > Routes do exist with more than one operator. > > wouldn’t these simply be tagged as several relations? > I don't know. It's the same route

Re: [Tagging] Pets allowed

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 12:05, wrote: > Pets is probably a bit vague, many hotels will accept pet dogs, but are > less likely to accept cats and extremely unlikely to my pet alligator (no > I don't really own one). > Some holiday cottages accept dogs but place a limit on the number (only one; a m

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 14:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > usually areas end at their actual borders in OSM, so unless you can park > in the middle of the road, it should not be contained in the parking area. > If we usually mapped roads as areas, I'd agree with you 100%. The edge of the area

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 18:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Right, there's this "incompatibility" of the highway graph with the rest of > our data. There are efforts to map roads also as areas though, and sooner > or later this kind of mapping will be established (in built up areas and > particularly

Re: [Tagging] Pets allowed

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 18:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: We should strive for least specific tagging restrictions necessary to > describe what we want. > pet=no (generally no animals allowed) > dog=yes (but dogs are) > bird=yes (birds as well) > parrot=no (but parrots not) > etc. > > For allowance

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 16:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 9. Mar 2019, at 14:03, Paul Allen wrote: > > But there could be roads adjacent to two sides of a parking > space, only one of which actually connects to it and the router could > guess wrong. > > >

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

On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 20:51, Jan S wrote: > > I'm looking forward to your comment! > > See the proposal at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Police_facilites > Under "Rendering" you say "Typical police stations, i.e. places where one can get in contact with the police usual

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 06:03, Alessandro Sarretta < alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote: On 09/03/19 17:18, Paul Allen wrote:om > > what I see on the map >> > > you're totally misunderstanding the reality... > That's entirely possible. Which was kinda

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 13:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 10. Mar 2019, at 14:24, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > But maybe I'm wrong > > and there are vast hordes of people interested in precise areas of > parking spaces and almost > > nobody actually

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

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 18:45, Sergio Manzi wrote: no problem maintaing the currently defined terminology "prison" and > "operator", for me: as I said it was a bit of hair splitting and as I hit > the send button I also asked myself if maybe "jail" was an americanism (*I'm > Italian, I spent some

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

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 22:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 10. Mar 2019, at 14:13, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > Which of all those get mapped as police and which get mapped as military > will need to be > > figured out at some point. > > > IMHO

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

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 23:32, Jan S wrote: How about police=detention as a more generic term then? > Works for me. Having done some more digging, it seems the constant euphemization of English means that, these days, the cells are called a custody suite in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 17:18, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Mar 11, 2019, 4:32 PM by pelder...@gmail.com: > > you can use landcover, it has about 160K uses now by 6000 users > > 6000 users? How you know that? > I'm pretty sure overpass-turbo can do that. I can't figure out how you ask it to do tha

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 00:51, marc marc wrote: When one shop is replaced by another, I always keep the old name with > old_name even if no one else uses it to designate the new store. the > primary purpose is to prevent someone from re-encoding the old store > with an older source than mine. > I

Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 12:17, Marc Gemis wrote: > What if some friends say we'll meet next year again in front of the Whizzo. > In the meantime, the Whizzo closes and is replaced with a restaurant > Eatwell. > If they can then search for the old name it's useful, because they > might not be overl

[Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

I've hesitated to ask this question for months now: what's the consensus on superroutes? Going by all I can find on the wiki, forums and past discussions, they're highly controversial. One wiki page mentions them and says don't use them. They were either never well documented on the wiki or some

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 13:29, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 13/03/2019 13:18, Paul Allen wrote: > > I've hesitated to ask this question for months now: what's the > > consensus on superroutes? > > In what context are you asking the question? I can think of examples

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 15:38, s8evq wrote: > > I have not seen anybody on this mailing list defend the usage of method > (2). Can I ask the question: why it is in the wiki? > Because somebody put it there. Oh, you wanted the ultimate cause not the proximate cause. The thing about the wiki is t

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 16:27, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > And you're just envious because the voices won't talk to you! > I really hate it when people can figure out my inner motivations. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 22:42, Jo wrote: > I think we should move to subrelations for bus routes at some point. > Actually doing it is somewhat tricky. We'd definitely need editor support > to show that a route which consists of subroutes is continuous or not. > Not a big problem. Not compared w

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 03:44, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 14/03/19 01:02, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > One problem that I don't see a solution for in PTV1, PTV2 or "we don't tag > it PTV3" is a stop > that is ignored on the first pass bu

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 11:21, Tony Shield wrote: Am I right in thinking that a superroute is a sequence of ways and > relations of ways? > I'm not 100% certain. The documentation on the wiki isn't entirely clear. I suspect some of it may have been scrubbed by those who dislike the concept of su

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 15:09, Jo wrote: > I would definitely want routes to be composed of subroutes which are > shared with other routes, > I see that as less than useful for any route I know of. But I suppose it's a matter of how short a subroute you're willing to put up with. I probably wou

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 16:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 14. Mar 2019, at 16:49, Tony Shield wrote: > > > > Can they currently be edited with JOSM? > > > of course, you simply add a relation as member to another relation. > Can you? It's not clear to me from the documentation that I c

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 19:23, Peter Elderson wrote: > Op do 14 mrt. 2019 om 18:17 schreef Paul Allen : > >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 15:09, Jo wrote: >> >>> I would definitely want routes to be composed of subroutes which are >>> shared with other routes, >

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 22:34, marc marc wrote: > a route_master isn't a superroute, isn't it ? > it's a collection off all variant of a "single" route > and not several part of one route like superroute for E-network > That's how I understand it. But I may be wrong. > > route_master are well

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 22:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > There are indications that at least 2 other secret groups operating in osm > are suspicious about the plans for a new group and are planning to covf > +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openst

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 23:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 20:34, Lorenzo Stucchi > wrote: > >> >> Since no more doubts were presented >> > > I'm sorry, but I think every post in reply to your proposal has raised > doubts, > + 1 Except I'd have said they were serious

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 23:37, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19/03/19 10:26, Paul Allen wrote: > > > Except I'd have said they were serious doubts, along the lines of "DON'T > DO THAT!" > > But let him put it to a vote, if he wants to. I

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 10:00, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote: > > Remember that all the ideas are related to map in the Amazonian forest an > area where nothing is mapped and the map is empty. > The fact that nothing has yet been mapped there is not an excuse for inventing new tags when other tags exist.

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 14:13, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > And I'm not even Muslim ! > That makes two of us. I'm an infidel. An omni-infidel. It doesn't matter what faith somebody is, I am not of that faith. I have learned from Muslims and confirmed in literature that this > tagging scheme is

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 17:05, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > > The case I have in mind is where the mosque is a complex of several > buildings - such as the building for ritual ablutions, a separate prayer > building for women, the outside prayer ground for days of large > gatherings, the toilets etc

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 17:41, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 23.03.2019 18:19, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > Until you mentioned outside prayer, the obvious solution to a building > complex would > > be a multipolygon. > > No, there is no MP needed. As there are sev

Re: [Tagging] Is there any use of shop=general/general_store not covered by shop=convenience/supermarket/country_store?

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 14:36, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > In situations matching your description I think that either > shop=supermarket or shop=country_store would fit. > There used to be a shop near me which wouldn't really match country_store, convenience, variety, or hardware. It sold a biza

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

On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 17:25, Silent Spike wrote: > > However, I would ask for some clarification on what you mean by "special > support to process it". As surely in both cases there is a new tag to be > processed that identifies one of these businesses. > If you go with leisure=playground + pla

Re: [Tagging] historic=archaeological_site with site_type=rock_art, rock_painting definitions

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 06:47, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Within OSM 'we' could adopt that rock_art is where both carving and > painting are used together? That would distinguish it from either of the > above. > > > There are some 22 uses of site_type=rock_art, I think most of them wou

Re: [Tagging] Horse mounting steps compared to horse walker

On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 19:23, Tony Shield wrote: and have confidence that this historic grade II mounting block will fit > into the schema? Its not presently in use as it is in a school yard. > I don't know about the schema, but whatever tags you settle on, don't forget to add: heritage=2 herita

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 18:29, Topographe Fou wrote: > > Access=adherents is a non-sens. You don't have to be a customer to enter a > shop (you may become one, but only after you entered), same for most of the > places of worship when you are not an "adherent" (which by the way is hard > to prove/u

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 20:25, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: That is quite poor argument, someone believing map data so blindly would be > dead soon > anyway. > You're right. People aren't that stupid. Except the drivers who blindly follow their GPS up dead-end goat tracks or over cliffs because the

Re: [Tagging] amenity=place_of_worship | Re: Mapping of indigenous sacred / ceremonial sites

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 at 22:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > haven’t we written somewhere in our terms that the information isn’t > reliable? I’m quite sure we have. Some people have to be told that coffee > is hot, kittens must not be dried in the microwave and map data may contain > errors. > S

Re: [Tagging] Comments on documenting winter speed limits tagging

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 at 07:39, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Yes, but this tag is neither new nor basically unused (maybe "popular" > would be be better > than "used" in my sentence) > De facto? -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org htt

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Grain Storage Centre

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 at 16:51, Cédric Mélac wrote: > Yes, this is exactly that ! I didn't know how it was called in English. > Thank you a lot for your fast answer ! I think I should change the tag > name for "industrial=grain_elevator" according to the English Wikipedia > page : > What is meant b

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Grain Storage Centre

On Sat, 6 Apr 2019 at 00:14, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The whole area ? .. well landuse is what I'd use. lauduse=agricultural? > I'd say landuse=agricultural applies strictly to farms. Growing crops, raising animals, that sort of thing. A grain storage facility is stretching thin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Key:golf_cart

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 00:22, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Please comment: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:golf_cart > You may want to take Peachtree City, Georgia into account in your proposal. It has an alternative transportation network of golf cart paths. People

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Key:golf_cart

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 13:28, Paul Allen wrote: [Replying to myself because I'm getting forgetful in my old age.] One of the golf cart paths on OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/62097657#map=17/33.38928/-84.59475 -- Paul ___ Tagging ma

Re: [Tagging] golf_cart=permit? | Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Key:golf_cart

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 13:41, Rory McCann wrote: > On 10/04/2019 14:28, Paul Allen wrote: > > You may want to take Peachtree City, Georgia into account in your > > proposal. It has an alternative transportation network of golf cart > > paths. People must obtain and dis

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Key:golf_cart

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 16:32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 10. Apr 2019, at 14:28, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > People must obtain and display permits > > on their carts to use the paths. Accordingly, somebody has tagged > several footpaths there > > w

<    5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   >