Re: [Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

I can see how an area such as a parking, a churchyard or pedestrian area can be tree lined. A node feature, not so much. Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 14 aug. 2020 om 01:08 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > I’ve set up an initial documentation page for the t

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 25 jul. 2020 om 22:43 heeft Allroads het > volgende geschreven: > > The earlier mentioned, > bicycle=leave > This is for me, leave the bicycle behind at the sign. > More native English speakers can give a comment on that? If you're not

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

Op 25 jul. 2020 om 22:43 heeft Allroads het volgende geschreven: > So, now we need also a hard yes. That you must bring a bicycle with you. That's an attribute of the bus service/transfer, not the road, I think. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagg

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

Op za 25 jul. 2020 om 13:07 schreef Andy Townsend : > > (re adding guideposts to route relations) > > On 21/07/2020 22:18, Peter Elderson wrote: > > I think the Why question comes first. Why do people in OSM map anything? I can't see any reason why I'd want

Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging

Op vr 24 jul. 2020 om 22:53 schreef Tobias Knerr : > On 24.07.20 14:13, Peter Elderson wrote: > > In comparable cases (non-OSM, but comparible checking schemes), I do not > > record the date it has been checked, I record the future date when it > > should be checked (again).

Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging

er to confirm the suggested future check_date or enter a better one. Easy overpass queries can find objects past the check_date. Easy maps can show objects past the check_date. It's all much simpler than searching possibly complex history. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op do 23 jul. 2020 om 18:08 schr

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

bicycle=leave Vr gr Peter Elderson Op do 23 jul. 2020 om 23:32 schreef Mike Thompson : > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:34 PM Matthew Woehlke > wrote: > > > > > > > ...but then your horse is a passenger in a vehicle. Otherwise that would > > be like sa

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

bicycle=leave Vr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 22 jul. 2020 om 17:36 schreef Tod Fitch : > > > On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Jmapb wrote: > > If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the > idea of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) th

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

I think the Why question comes first! Best, Peter Elderson Op di 21 jul. 2020 om 21:47 schreef Andy Townsend : > On 21/07/2020 20:37, pangoSE wrote: > > > > Andy Townsend skrev: (21 juli 2020 13:31:45 CEST) > > > >> I've also been trying to add these

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

Sure! I was just sidestepping about the parking lot example. Best, Peter Elderson Op di 14 jul. 2020 om 18:34 schreef Volker Schmidt : > Sorry to keep riding this horse, but many of my examples have areas, ways > and nodes as members, so they cannot be described by any kind of polygon.

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

to ways, borders to ways and other stuff you really should not do if you want to keep the map unbroken. Best, Peter Elderson Op di 14 jul. 2020 om 18:05 schreef Peter Elderson : > Just two outers is a regular use of multipolygon. > If the tags of two areas are the same, you can represent

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

multipolygon. Major renderers support this. One parking lot on two sides of a road is perfect for this method. Best, Peter Elderson Op di 14 jul. 2020 om 16:55 schreef Lionel Giard : > Wouldn't a multipolygon with just two outers solve that parking case? >> Best Peter Elderson &

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

That's OSM in a nutshell. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 13 jul. 2020 om 23:24 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer > het volgende geschreven: > >  > > sent from a phone > >> On 13. Jul 2020, at 23:16, Peter Elderson wrote: >> >> As I understand it, it is soil

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

As I understand it, it is soil. That is something. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 13 jul. 2020 om 23:09 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 13. Jul 2020, at 22:36, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > > The Ata

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

Wouldn't a multipolygon with just two outers solve that parking case? Best Peter Elderson Op ma 13 jul. 2020 om 21:02 schreef Lionel Giard : > I also saw it used for parking lot that are completely separated (like on > two sides of a big highway) but still part of the &qu

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

Route=foot, route=hiking, route=bicycle, route=piste, route=inline_skates, route=canoe, route=horse. modality may be a wrong word? It's used in Nederland to mean transport mode, including walking. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 13 jul. 2020 om 20:29 schreef Paul Johnson : > What is a recr

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

around the world, for recreational routes of all scopes and modalities, even though countries have very different administration and maintenance systems from completely central to distributed and chaotic, and different for most modalities. Best, Peter Elderson Op ma 13 jul. 2020 om 18:51 schreef

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

I can't see how that applies to recreational route networks in Europe. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 13 jul. 2020 om 15:33 heeft Paul Johnson het > volgende geschreven: > >  > > >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:04 AM Peter Elderson wrote: >> Sounds to me th

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

damage than good, even if it were possible. Just "consistency" is not worth it. Is there a more compellent reason? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op zo 12 jul. 2020 om 16:49 schreef Mike Thompson : > Hello, > > According to the wiki[0], it seems that the network tag has different >

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

recreational routes onto the new consistent scheme without breaking current rendering and processing, if you can do it, let's talk again! Mvg Peter Elderson Op 13 jul. 2020 om 00:18 heeft Paul Johnson het volgende geschreven:  Disambiguation. US:FS:Hood and US:FS:Ozark are two diff

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

Maybe just tag network=nfn then? Can be applied in any country. Details see oprator and ref. How two distinguish two roads hundreds of miles away from each other? Hm... that is a hard question... Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 13 jul. 2020 om 00:33 heeft Clay Smalley het > volgende gesc

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

now the current operator or provider. Peter Elderson > Op 12 jul. 2020 om 23:41 heeft Mike Thompson het > volgende geschreven: > >  > > >> On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 9:53 AM Peter Elderson wrote: >> Aren't Interstate and US evident from the geographic extent as w

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

rarchy. Feel free to try though. Best, Peter Elderson Op zo 12 jul. 2020 om 21:04 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 12. Jul 2020, at 20:32, Mark Wagner wrote: > > > > The US has two national highway netwo

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

ns. Does not confuse me. At all. Best, Peter Elderson Op zo 12 jul. 2020 om 16:49 schreef Mike Thompson : > Hello, > > According to the wiki[0], it seems that the network tag has different > meanings and possible values based upon if it is applied to a route > relation where route=

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

me, not by discovering all routes and turn restrictions are broken. Just a consideration, if it doesn't break anything it's fine. Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 16:50 schreef Matthew Woehlke < mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>: > On 10/07/2020 10.36, Peter Elderson wrote

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

Question: does it break anything? I am thinking about existing relations of various kinds. Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 16:17 schreef Matthew Woehlke < mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>: > As some of you may recall, I'm working on a project to do traffic > simulation wit

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

indicate that it is bare soil. All in all, I think natural=bare_soil is the best option, and that it fills an important gap in the mapping of Earth's surface. Question: How sure can you be from satellite imagery or aerial photography that an area is actually bare soil? Best, Peter Elderson

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, being a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter. To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil. Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year? Best, Peter Elderson

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Organic without any mineral, would you still call that soil? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 11:55 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > ta

Re: [Tagging] Name for new wiki pages about roles of members in route relations?

s. For example: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Tagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations#Roles Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 26 jun. 2020 om 17:22 schreef Tobias Knerr : > On 25.06.20 19:46, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Should individual pages for these roles be l

Re: [Tagging] Name for new wiki pages about roles of members in route relations?

What would be a proper example page for this? The after-proposal-cleanup-procedure suggests the key:highway page, but that does not seem appropriate for a role set. Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 26 jun. 2020 om 13:25 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

For the record, I think a transfer role is a generic solution for the issue raised here, applicable to the cable car transfer and other types of transfer in routes, but I will not propose a new role value any time soon. Anyone who wants to do it has my support, though. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op

Re: [Tagging] Are rowboats covered by "boat=*" or "canoe=*"?

Networks for canoes use network=lpn|rpn|npn|rpn where p stands for paddling. Hm, I fear that only complicates the matter... Vr gr Peter Elderson Op di 23 jun. 2020 om 14:05 schreef Niels Elgaard Larsen : > Joseph Eisenberg: > > The wiki page Key:boat <https://wiki.openstreet

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

This <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles#Transfer> is the talk page section I wrote about a week ago, for future consideration. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 19 jun. 2020 om 14:33 schreef Peter Elderson : > I think a bicycle rout

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

he bicycle route relation, it should alway check the ways themselves for access, no matter what the route relation says. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 19 jun. 2020 om 14:02 schreef Francesco Ansanelli : > Dear Volker and Peter, > > I agree with you both... > The question was born for a

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

and belong to a transfer section, all at the same time. A relation member cannot have the forward|backward role, but it could be both transfer and one of the approved basic role set. This complication can always be solved within a relation hierarchy, though. Best, Peter Elderson Op do 18 jun. 202

[Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting result - Recreational Route Relation Roles

a textual clean-up and add links to relevant feature pages? Best, Peter Elderson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Compliments and thanks to the "iD people"!

chapter!) Best, Peter Elderson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

well-trodden path This is the path to the cliffs. It will be several days before snowploughs clear a path (through) to the village. They followed the path until they came to a gate. So this https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.9940387923&lng=4.707510424794445&z=17&focus=photo&pK

[Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Recreational route relation roles

ndwork for things to come. Best, Peter Elderson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Thanks, I will have a go. Probably it's not that hard. Best, Peter Elderson Op ma 1 jun. 2020 om 11:49 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > > > Jun 1, 2020, 10:03 by pelder...@gmail.com: > > > Just a reminder: in a few days vo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

discuss a solution first, than see the issue as comment in a no or abstain vote! Best, Peter Elderson Op wo 20 mei 2020 om 13:33 schreef Peter Elderson : > Please review and comment on this proposal: > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_re

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

, no matter how lacking the additional tagging is. Last resort would be ignoring it. If basic tagging means that renderers and routers start to ignore mapped ways, that would be bad indeed. Best, Peter Elderson Op zo 31 mei 2020 om 17:37 schreef Daniel Westergren : > As I recall, a long t

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Daniel Westergren: > And a path should never get surface=paved, asphalt or similar, because > then it's not a path, but a footway or cycleway. > Sorry that's too strict. I often can't tell from the pavement what the use or access is. Lots of paths get an asphalt layer for ease of maintenance, tha

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Section numbers in hiking routes

fine with me. I think other details sometimes found in the name tag should not be in the displayname. Most of what I have encountered belongs in the note, comment, description and fixme tags. Best, Peter Elderson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Richard Fairhurst: > highway=mountain_path works for me for tagging mountain paths. > Along that line, to retag all the unpaved highway=path's in Nederland with something more specific, we would need at least forest_path, dune_path, heath_path, grass_quai and peat_path. highway=path in Nederland

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Warin: > Local to me the 'Great North Walk' is signposted in many different ways. > > e.g. > Post with directional arrows > http://thegreatnorthwalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ww_photo_Looking-into-Mulbinga-Street.jpg > Some of these posts have no name plate so those may not be recognized by >

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Section numbers in hiking routes

by the operator. The tag could be applied to all officially segmented routes with section refs. Best, Peter Elderson Op zo 24 mei 2020 om 10:18 schreef s8evq : > First example: > > Superrelation GR5 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4580796) > consists of the following 8 relati

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Section numbers in hiking routes

YM routes tagged as superroute? Or all routes with relation members? Peter Elderson Op za 23 mei 2020 om 21:08 schreef Jo : > By the way, superroute relations in JOSM now show continuity correctly if > the last node of the last way is the same as the first node of the first > w

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Section numbers in hiking routes

outes with very different attrbutes and tagging styles. But I think it does not hurt either. That issue can be addressed later! Peter Elderson Op za 23 mei 2020 om 20:47 schreef Kevin Kenny : > > For now, I just want an alternative for the section/segment/leg numbers > or refs that ar

Re: [Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

, which in turn will help mappers to do the right thing. Peter Elderson Op za 23 mei 2020 om 20:29 schreef Kevin Kenny : > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 1:46 PM Yves wrote: > > While the original question was about a good tag to record the section > number, whick look like a reference, I woul

[Tagging] Fwd: Section numbers in hiking routes

tags. I just need a nice and intuitive tag to copy the ordering information to. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op za 23 mei 2020 om 19:59 schreef Jo : > oh, I'm mapping public transport too much. I actually did mean to write > superroute. > > Jo > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 7:44 PM

Re: [Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

Hold on to your hat In the name tag I will store...The Name Of The Route! Op za 23 mei 2020 om 18:18 schreef Jo : > In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly? > > Polyglot > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Elderson > wrote: > >> I am trying

[Tagging] Section numbers in hiking routes

secondly its an ordering and sorting mechanism. Sometimes sections have their own name. I see that a lot in international (super)routes. Any ideas how to do this without (ab)using the name tag? Is there a proper tag that springs to mind, or should we invent one?

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Tomas Straupis: > 2020-05-23, št, 04:51 Jarek Piórkowski rašė: > > See also: not rendering roads or hamlets in very sparsely populated > > areas because we have one map style which needs to accommodate central > > European densities. > OSM-Carto is a very well done DATA VISUALISATION. It is n

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Sounds like rendering for the mapper...don't know if that's as bad as the other way around Op vr 22 mei 2020 om 16:07 schreef Andrew Harvey : > > > On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 22:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> May 22, 2020, 13:55 by andrew.har

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

riants are more important. But again, that's a different discussion. Best, Peter Elderson Op do 21 mei 2020 om 17:50 schreef Volker Schmidt : > > > > Critically those things say there is a trail here, but don't say where the >> trail goes as part of a route, so

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Is it ok for you to leave that discussion out of this proposal? Let's say: if it is decided that there is a route with additional sections verifiably belonging to the route, this role-set can be used in the route relation to indicate the purpose of the special sections. Vr gr Peter Elderson

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

To my understanding, signposting is one way of waymarking. I've now changed the text to "signposted or otherwise waymarked". Hope that's English? I checked the dictionary for the terms, they are correct, I think, but it didn't mention what people actually call it aroun

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

I will remove the black trail example, it is confusing because the illustration does not show why it's wrong. Best, Peter Elderson Op do 21 mei 2020 om 06:42 schreef Andrew Harvey : > > > On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 12:35, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

e can vary a lot but usually is about a POI, a viewpoint or something else worth the extra miles.I hope the idea comes across now. Best, Peter Elderson Op do 21 mei 2020 om 06:41 schreef Andrew Harvey : > > > On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 12:31, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

I think that is the general idea. It can be shown on the map and as object info. WMT also uses the hierarchy in te information panel. Best, Peter Elderson Op wo 20 mei 2020 om 14:52 schreef Daniel Westergren : > Right. Naming conventions is a minor issue and not what this proposal is >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

d are unusually complex, I know. We also have fallen into the habit of (ab)using the name tag to indicate the hierarchy and the roles. I would like to address that later as a separate issue, unless somebody else beats me to it. For now, let's concentrate on this basic role set. THe RFC is open

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

the talk page and/or here. Please note that this proposal is meant to get a basic role set approved and documented. Thanks for helping to finally get this done! Best, Peter Elderson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https

Re: [Tagging] RFC - role values for members of recreational route relations.

@s8evq I will strike "alternate" from the proposal. Of course, data consumers might still accept it if there is significant usage. Then I will start the "official" proposal and voting process. Best, Peter Elderson Op ma 20 apr. 2020 om 09:47 schreef s8evq : > I think th

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

My view is that a route should have an indication on the ground. A sign, a trailhead, something. No verifiable indication whatsoever, then it's not a route. The length or the number of ways in the route does not make a difference to me. Best, Peter Elderson Op di 12 mei 2020 om 18:28 sc

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

Can you give an example where you think it's wrong? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op di 12 mei 2020 om 04:17 schreef brad : > I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short > trails/paths. This is wrong isn't it? Do you suppose that folks are > doing this to get bette

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

cking can be applied. As usual with measures, unit may follow the value, where m is default. Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 8 mei 2020 om 10:04 schreef Marc Gemis : > > 2) Use ele:datum=unknown as a clue that the data is not that high > > quality. > > or make that the default, s

Re: [Tagging] Is there any tagging scheme for carillons already?

olved, because there is no pause between the pieces. I would tag the tower, not the carillion.I bet carillion lovers have their own lists of carillions with locations and attributes, to be displayed as a layer over a nice and clean OSM map. Best, Peter Elderson Op wo 6 mei 2020 om 17:58 schreef

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

. The hazard then follows from the proximity. Best, Peter Elderson Op wo 6 mei 2020 om 15:49 schreef : > Hmm okay, convinced. I only hope noone else comes with that topic later > again then, but to me it's ok. > > -- Lukas > *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 06. Mai 2020 um 14:15 Uhr >

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

If you know the elevation in one system, can the elevation the other systems be derived from that? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 4 mei 2020 om 20:05 schreef Mark Wagner : > On Sun, 3 May 2020 14:16:09 +0200 > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > >

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

Thanks for explaining why my android phone says I am at +38m (+/- 3) in my backyard when in fact it is at Dutch sea level -4.4m. Best, Peter Elderson Op ma 4 mei 2020 om 02:39 schreef Greg Troxel : > Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > > > I’m asking for comments on > https://wiki.op

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

How is this access preference indicated? (If it's by speed, I wouldn't be allowed even when running... yesterday I barely managed 6,7 Kmph on a trail run). Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 1 mei 2020 om 22:38 schreef Mike Thompson : > Hello, > > We have a trail [0] around here w

[Tagging] RFC - role values for members of recreational route relations.

tive feedback on the proposal in order to get to the basic starting role set we can agree on. Shoot! Best, Peter Elderson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

eword display version for rendering would be nice to have. Just a quick fix of one problem for one target user group (renderers). Does no harm to any other target user group. It does not force anyone to change the processing, but benefits the ones that implement it. Best, Peter Elderson Op

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

rsion for rendering would be nice to have. Just a quick fix of one problem for one target user group (renderers). Does no harm to any other target user group. It does not force anyone to change the processing, but benefits the ones that implement it. Best, Peter Elderson Op do 2 apr. 2020 om 2

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

Sorry if this appears twice - I got a bounce message first time. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 1 apr. 2020 om 12:50 schreef Peter Elderson : > Suggestion for rendering: > > What about osmc:name=* > > I know, doesn't exist, but it's a logical companion of osmc:symbol. >

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

x27;s. As with osmc:symbol, it's not mapping for the renderer, but mapping for rendering. Implementation rule for the renderers: if exists osmc:name , else . Best, Peter Elderson Op wo 1 apr. 2020 om 12:23 schreef Richard Fairhurst : > Yves wrote: > > Inevitably, the current situation i

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

s just that when I remove the names and refs, they disappear from those maps. Best, Peter Elderson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

routes by name, even though the names contain hyphens, comma's, colons and round brackets. Best, Peter Elderson Op zo 29 mrt. 2020 om 22:29 schreef Richard Fairhurst : > Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > > These days I wonder if it wouldn't be better if we introduce a > > tag tha

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

ntain. Best, Peter Elderson > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

rt to remove them from existing name tags. I was under the impression the note=* tag is for mapper's notes about the object. I would think the best tag for a descriptive text would be the description=* tag. Question about the ref=* tag: should a ref be something visible along the route

Re: [Tagging] Number of route relation errors very much reduced

POC. (As long as the directions are held as separate routes. The backward/forward role system in routes is a ginormous PITA to me.) Best, Peter Elderson Op ma 23 mrt. 2020 om 11:56 schreef Andy Townsend : > On 23/03/2020 10:38, Peter Elderson wrote: > > > > I am very happy to rep

[Tagging] Number of route relation errors very much reduced

were an online relation editor even remotely capable of what the JOSM relation editor can do, I would certainly prefer that. It would not have to be built into ID. Editing routes "any time, any place" without having to carry a laptop around would be a step forward for m

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

I get the impression that consensus and general adoption will not be reached during my lifetime. Good luck with it, I'm out! Vr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 11 mrt. 2020 om 12:13 schreef alan_gr : > John Doe wrote > > I don't understand why the critics of PTv2 seem to think sto

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

;t properly maintain sizeable ordered relations with Id, let alone hierarchies of relations. Best, Peter Elderson Op di 10 mrt. 2020 om 20:20 schreef Richard : > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 04:07:02PM +0100, Peter Elderson wrote: > > > I wouldn't know. It seems strange to me that e

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

best serves their purpose. Best, Peter Elderson Op ma 9 mrt. 2020 om 12:50 schreef Paul Allen : > On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 00:18, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >> > editors would have to take similar precautions with nodes. Not >> impossible, but it would take time to appe

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

route along the stops and other waypoints. Best, Peter Elderson > Op 6 mrt. 2020 om 23:52 heeft Andrew Harvey het > volgende geschreven: > >  > I think if people want to save the full route with way members, that should > be allowed. > > If someone wants to do a first

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

John Doe : > 06-Mar-2020 20:39:30 Peter Elderson : > > > > [...] Is it a significant burden to include a router with a renderer? > > I wouldn't know. It seems strange to me that established routes have to > be re-routed to display or use them. How can you be sure the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

> Wouldn't that imply that a chart of PT lines in, say, a city, region or country would need to route everything first, then render instead of just render the route from OSM? > > Seems so. Is it a significant burden to include a router with a renderer? > I wouldn't know. It seems strange to me th

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

If I understand this correctly, your proposal turns route relations into routing relations. Wouldn't that imply that a chart of PT lines in, say, a city, region or country would need to route everything first, then render instead of just render the route from OSM? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

attached to the main trail. A renderer could well decide to render excursion same as main, while excluding the excursions from the exports and calculations. Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 6 mrt. 2020 om 06:23 schreef Jmapb : > On 3/5/2020 9:27 AM, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Do you know t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Op 5 mrt. 2020 om 23:18 heeft Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven: > On 6/3/20 1:27 am, Peter Elderson wrote: >> Do you know trails with detached sections? We have some in Nederland, on the >> islands. Doesn't fit in the proposed role scheme, I thi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Do you know trails with detached sections? We have some in Nederland, on the islands. Doesn't fit in the proposed role scheme, I think. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 4 mrt. 2020 om 23:09 schreef Kevin Kenny : > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 4:02 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > > Maybe som

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

ecause it would take much more time, maintenance and tooling. I don't foresee mappers in Nederland to do it that way, but in other countries putting everything in one big relation is more common. Best, Peter Elderson Op wo 4 mrt. 2020 om 15:58 schreef Kevin Kenny : > I certainly agree in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

these may or may not have a role for that one section... Can't be easy. Best, Peter Elderson Op za 29 feb. 2020 om 23:10 schreef Peter Elderson : > I think the proposal is not ready for use or for voting, but there does > not seem to be much progress. > > > The basics are cle

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

might think “hey, that’s neat!” and start using the roles. Middle case, renderers test it and give useful feedback for a better proposal. If this proposal would lead to different roles, I could simply alter the roles in the course of regular route maintenance. Peter Elderson Op vr 28 feb. 2020 om

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

lines or something, but exclude those from calculations and main export. Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 28 feb. 2020 om 12:29 schreef Andrew Harvey : > I agree with Peter, it'll probably be better to start with the basics, get > that approved so at least there is some improvement, then m

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

elevation profiles and export). Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 28 feb. 2020 om 11:07 schreef s8evq : > Hello everyone, > > What is the status of this proposal? Should we go forward and start voting? > Lots of people have added valuable information and insight. It would be a > pity if th

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

stand, an ushahidi-type of register is better I think. For the cams themselves I see a use case, but the presence or absence of a sign does not seem relevant to me. The overall camera situation is very dynamic, so I do see a problem with coverage, quality, maintenance and actuality. Best, Peter Elders

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >