Re: [Tagging] Tagging small areas of bushes, flowers, non-woody perennials, succulents, etc

2020-02-09 Thread Peter Elderson
=yes, which is the established tagging. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op zo 9 feb. 2020 om 03:35 schreef Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > In the discussion about `barrier=hedge` areas, it is clear that > mappers want a way to tag small areas of bushes and shrubs, and no

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-07 Thread Peter Elderson
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging : > If you think that there is broad support for landcover proposal - feel > free to > start vote on the landcover proposal. > How about changing established tagging for hedge areas - was there a proposal? What did it propose? I must have missed it somehow.

Re: [Tagging] barrier=hedge

2020-02-07 Thread Peter Elderson
Well, I'm not so good with overpass turbo, but this query gives an impression: [out:json][timeout:25]; ( way["barrier"="hedge"]["area"="yes"]({{bbox}}); ); // print results out body; >; out skel qt; When I run it on different parts of Nederland and Belgium, it finds many hedge areas in most

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-07 Thread Peter Elderson
Christoph Hormann : > On Friday 07 February 2020, Peter Elderson wrote: > > E.g. if a solution would be to tag hedge areas as natural=hedge > > or landcover=hedge, then the change path would be for the renderer to > > temporarily render the old AND the new tagging, so mappers

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-07 Thread Peter Elderson
Christoph Hormann : > I originally was under the impression that > use of barrier tags as a secondary tag for landuse polygons etc. was > consensus among mappers based on the fairly large use numbers for that > (>350k) Correct. > but it quite clearly isn't. Yes it is, but an explicit

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-07 Thread Peter Elderson
oseph Eisenberg : > 2) Many hedges which were mapped like areas are currently missing > `area=yes` tags. In this comment > ( > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3844#issuecomment-582692389 > ) > you can see that over 90% of the `barrier=hedge` closed ways in a > Dutch

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-06 Thread Peter Elderson
Joseph Eisenberg : > The Netherlands has been claimed as a place where barrier=hedge areas > are used properly and are necessary. I have already downloaded one > whole provicne, Zeeland, which has quite complete landcover and > landuse mapping due to an import. In Zeeland there are 149 uses of >

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-05 Thread Peter Elderson
+1 Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 5 feb. 2020 om 16:37 heeft Jeroen Hoek het volgende > geschreven: > > On 05-02-2020 16:10, Paul Allen wrote: >> 4) Where the only tags are barrier=hedge + area=yes then render >> as before, a hedge that has area. > > There are so

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

2020-02-05 Thread Peter Elderson
Are there many correctly tagged features with the combi barrier=hedge & area=yes where area=yes could be meant to specify something else than the hedge? Most polygon features are implicit areas, I think? Peter Elderson > Op 5 feb. 2020 om 16:22 heeft Jeroen Hoek het volgende >

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-25 Thread Peter Elderson
Florimond Berthoux : > No, I'm not talking about cycling on a sidewalk (I don't know why you > thought that ??), I discuss continuous sidewalk and continuous cycleway > together because it's the same layout, the same problem. > Ok, my bad. Separate tagging for continuous sidewalk and continuous

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-25 Thread Peter Elderson
a roundabout, it still has crossings with the roads.which can and often will differ, so IMO the crossing nodes would carry the attributes. Well, I have given my thoughts, good luck with the proposal! Best, Peter Elderson Op za 25 jan. 2020 om 17:28 schreef Florimond Berthoux < florimond.be

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-25 Thread Peter Elderson
Florimond Berthoux : > With a table the pedestrians have to cross the road, it is the opposite > for the continuous sidewalk that's why I'm in favor to add a new value > traffic_calming=continuous_sidewalk > Well, any crossing involves different ways crossing each other, and should be considered

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-24 Thread Peter Elderson
highway=give_way would not map the situation, just the priority. Maybe it's just me, but I think highway=give_way is an unclear tag. Who gives way to who, in what direction? I think it is better to tag it as a type of crossing. Can be rendered, can be routed. Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 24 jan

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-24 Thread Peter Elderson
Same thing in Nederland. Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 10:55 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > In Germany, this is how the beginning / end of living streets work: > > http://www.gablenberger-klaus.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/K-Spielst

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-24 Thread Peter Elderson
So for pedestrians, you would add a node on the blue line where it crosses the centerline of the sidewalk tagged highway=crossing, crossing=? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 24 jan. 2020 om 10:48 schreef Marc Gemis : > I made a quick sketch: > > https://photos.smugmug.com/OSM/Sc

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-24 Thread Peter Elderson
"for instance in France a car driver crossing a sidewalk must give way > to others" says the wiki page. Presumably this is a different legal > case than at a crosswalk in France. > In Nederland, if traffic has to cross a sidewalk to get onto a road, it must give way to all other traffic when

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-23 Thread Peter Elderson
sidewalk=yes? Best, Peter Elderson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-23 Thread Peter Elderson
discussion on this, but no solution was found. Best, Peter Elderson Op do 23 jan. 2020 om 21:11 schreef Florimond Berthoux < florimond.berth...@gmail.com>: > Hello, > > How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ? > In order to solve this question I created a wiki page to sum up my firs

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

2020-01-15 Thread Peter Elderson
TING Best, -- Peter Elderson Op wo 15 jan. 2020 om 22:54 schreef Paul Allen : > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 21:17, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > I would not consider disused=yes to be >> deprecated for physical objects like >> building, adits, quarries etc. >> >

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-12 Thread Peter Elderson
Sorry, but this is not a useful classification for bicycle routes in Nederland. Best, Peter Elderson Op zo 12 jan. 2020 om 17:34 schreef Florimond Berthoux < florimond.berth...@gmail.com>: > Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 22:22, Peter Elderson a > écrit : > > > > Florimond B

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-11 Thread Peter Elderson
Peter Elderson : > Florimond Berthoux : > >> So I propose to use for bicycle route >> bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb >> >> > I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in > Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "t

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-11 Thread Peter Elderson
Florimond Berthoux : > So I propose to use for bicycle route > bicycle:type=trekking/road_bike/commute/mtb > > I don't think commute is a type of bicycle? Trekking maybe, but here in Nederland they call a lot of bicycles "trekking" when they are really just city bikes with a few extra gears and

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-11 Thread Peter Elderson
, e.g network:type=commuter_network (tagged on the commuter routes) comparable to network:type=node_network. Best, Peter Elderson > Op 11 jan. 2020 om 19:35 heeft Volker Schmidt het > volgende geschreven: > >  > I would like to return to the initial question of this thre

Re: [Tagging] hiking and foot route relations - is there any consistent difference?

2020-01-11 Thread Peter Elderson
+1 If don't see this as a problem. If more clarity is needed, add tags for specific aspects. E.g "vigour" scale if one exists. Boot type recommendation scale, where 1=flipflop and 10=hoverboots. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 11 jan. 2020 om 14:59 heeft Joseph Eisenberg > het vol

Re: [Tagging] Rare route values route=inline_skates and route=running

2020-01-10 Thread Peter Elderson
For Nederland: yes and yes. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op za 11 jan. 2020 om 06:23 schreef Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > The tag route=inline_skates was added to Map features, but it has > only been added a few times in the past 4 years. > > Are there actually

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-10 Thread Peter Elderson
Andy Townsend : > Peter Elderson wrote: > > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven > > > >> I think; > >> Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes. > >> Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
such detail. So I have no objection to > there mapping, I will never use it nor map it. > > > On 10/1/20 7:36 am, Peter Elderson wrote: >> I don't see why it's not a type=route route=bicycle. Bicycle routes do not >> have to be exclusive or any particular type of roa

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
> You don't need signpost to have a route. I disagree. If there is nothing on the ground, there is no mappable route. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
Florimond Berthoux het volgende geschreven: > >  > Ok, you need examples : > this Eurovelo 3 is for tourism > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9351172#map=12/48.8454/2.4130=C > this REVe Nord-Sud is for commute/every day cycling >

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
I don't see why it's not a type=route route=bicycle. Bicycle routes do not have to be exclusive or any particular type of road, just signposted as a bicycle route. You can tag extra attributes of course. Best, Peter Elderson Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 21:15 schreef Richard Fairhurst : > Jo

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
/everyday cycling, ande the other way around. I do not foresee significant mapping of these purposes. Best, Peter Elderson Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 15:08 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > Am Do., 9. Jan. 2020 um 10:41 Uhr schrieb Florimond Berthoux < >

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-07 Thread Peter Elderson
together in a parent relation. The roles in routes discussion would then apply, too. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op di 7 jan. 2020 om 20:52 schreef Marc Gemis : > AFAIK, routes such as the Krekenroute in Belgium as signposted with > https://images.app.goo.gl/bFnEWw7FVoyfq83x8 (although I t

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-07 Thread Peter Elderson
joost schouppe : > Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes for > driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in France Are these routes waymarked as special routes? > ___ > Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations

2019-12-23 Thread Peter Elderson
Elderson Op ma 23 dec. 2019 om 08:52 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 22. Dec 2019, at 16:43, Peter Elderson wrote: > > > > A linear walking route marked in both directions is not a roundtrip. > You'

Re: [Tagging] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations

2019-12-22 Thread Peter Elderson
clear what it means if a PT-route is mapped as a roundtrip? Is this information really used? Fr gr Peter Elderson Op zo 22 dec. 2019 om 15:34 schreef marc marc : > 3 240 (10%) objects with rountrip=3 also have public_transport:version=* > ex https://www.ratp.fr/plans-li

Re: [Tagging] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations

2019-12-22 Thread Peter Elderson
> > If following the route marking you will get back to start... It's a circular > route. > As previously stated you could find marking on both directions and be a > single line straight and then reverse. > With old wiki definition this is Roundtrip=no... Now it is Roundtrip=yes > Seems sane to

Re: [Tagging] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations

2019-12-22 Thread Peter Elderson
t. FrGr Peter Elderson > Op 21 dec. 2019 om 15:31 heeft marc marc het > volgende geschreven: > > I always thought that routrip=yes was an alternative when there is no > start and end point to enter in from=* to=* key. > Otherwise circular routes with a known start/end point

Re: [Tagging] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations

2019-12-19 Thread Peter Elderson
be seen as a roundtrip, because the 'transport' takes you back to back to to starting point. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 20 dec. 2019 om 04:21 heeft Graeme Fitzpatrick het > volgende geschreven: > >  > > > >> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 10:37, Martin Koppenhoefer >>

Re: [Tagging] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations

2019-12-19 Thread Peter Elderson
and shortcuts. For automated checks closed_loop=yes might come in handy. If the tag is there but the route is not a true closed loop, it needs maintenance in OSM. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 19 dec. 2019 om 22:40 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer > het volgende geschreven: > >  > >

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2019-12-14 Thread Peter Elderson
A router should never assume that a route tag overrules a way or node tag, for access. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op za 14 dec. 2019 om 15:43 schreef Volker Schmidt : > > > > Adding a bicycle=dismount is OK I suppose, but I'm unsure there's really >> a problem. > > This

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles - transport

2019-12-14 Thread Peter Elderson
it with the transport mode. So the network tag for the section would remain for example ncn, and add a tag to indicate it's e.g. a train transfer. Fr Gr Peter Elderson > Op 14 dec. 2019 om 09:17 heeft Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende > geschreven: > > Where a hiki

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2019-12-13 Thread Peter Elderson
We happily add ferry transfers to hiking routes. Nobody has been found trying to walk on the water. Nobody that we know of... Fr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 13 dec. 2019 om 20:39 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > sent from a phone > > On 1

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-13 Thread Peter Elderson
An approach always links something to the route so yeah, fine with me. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 13 dec. 2019 om 14:29 schreef John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > > On Dec 13, 2019, at 2:20 AM, Michael Behrens > wrote: > > > > I wo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-12 Thread Peter Elderson
I think in terms of this proposal, a waymarked link is an approach? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op do 12 dec. 2019 om 11:21 schreef John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Links - as in a relation role value “link” - as in small pieces of trail > that link some other

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-09 Thread Peter Elderson
, do they need a member role? If so, would "checkpoint" and "trailhead" be acceptable and useful role values? Would it be acceptable/useful for mappers to include a node in a route relation with a "checkpoint" role without any

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-09 Thread Peter Elderson
Yes I know... I trust nobody will rely on OSM for their life, unless the rescue service itself checks and guarantees that the data is 100% correct and complete. But it's nice if they are mapped. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 23:25 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: >

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-09 Thread Peter Elderson
not to worry! I also know a trail along a national border which features hundreds of numbered border stones. Maybe add a milestone role? Fr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 22:40 schreef Jmapb : > On 12/9/2019 3:43 AM, Peter Elderson wrote: > > > I have walked many "

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-09 Thread Peter Elderson
Jmapb : > On 12/8/2019 6:44 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: > > > > > Could you envision a node passed by two hikes, and being a checkpoint > > for the one and nothing special for the other? > > Camino de Santiago ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/153968 ) > come

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-08 Thread Peter Elderson
with an icon even if not tagged. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 01:11 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 09/12/19 10:44, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Ok, just asking to make sure. > > > As an overview most hiking things are on > https://wiki.op

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-08 Thread Peter Elderson
I am now convinced it is useful to have a oneway=yes tag for a route indicating it's not allowed or possible to go the other way. As for routers, I would still expect a router to check all the ways and nodes for access. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 00:36 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-08 Thread Peter Elderson
Ok, just asking to make sure. Could you envision a node passed by two hikes, and being a checkpoint for the one and nothing special for the other? Would a checkpoint need to be a node of a way in the relation? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 00:16 schreef Kevin Kenny : > On

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-08 Thread Peter Elderson
Is a checkpoint a feature in itself? Fr gr Peter Elderson Op zo 8 dec. 2019 om 23:48 schreef Kevin Kenny : > On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 12:29 PM Jmapb wrote: > > On 12/7/2019 11:52 AM, s8evq wrote: > > > In my limited experience mapping hiking routes, I have not yet come >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-08 Thread Peter Elderson
Sarah Hoffmann : > On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 11:54:08AM +0100, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Also, i guess backward and forward roles are for ways only, the other > > roles are more suited for relation members. Or not? Could I enter all the > > ways of a 3 Km medieval castle exc

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-07 Thread Peter Elderson
these be assumes to be accessible and signed in both directions if no oneway tag and no signed_direction tag are present? Fr gr Peter Elderson Op za 7 dec. 2019 om 17:38 schreef s8evq : > > On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 01:09:37 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wr

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-07 Thread Peter Elderson
gr Peter Elderson Op za 7 dec. 2019 om 13:22 schreef Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > There are some hiking routes > signposted with allowing travel in one > direction and forbidding in the opposite. > > > 7 Dec 2019, 13:04 by pelder...@gmail.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-07 Thread Peter Elderson
Cannot be legal for a pedestrian route, I think. So practical. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 7 dec. 2019 om 10:53 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer > het volgende geschreven: > >  > > sent from a phone > >> On 7. Dec 2019, at 04:36, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrot

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-07 Thread Peter Elderson
into a 'collection' route relation. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 7 dec. 2019 om 04:36 heeft Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende > geschreven: > >  >> On 07/12/19 14:09, Andrew Harvey wrote: >>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 13:07, Martin Koppenhoefer >>> wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-07 Thread Peter Elderson
And, I would interpret the route direction for pedestrians as a suggestion, not an access restriction or physical restriction. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 7 dec. 2019 om 04:11 heeft Andrew Harvey het > volgende geschreven: > >  > On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 13:07, Martin Koppenh

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-07 Thread Peter Elderson
Martin Koppenhoefer : > On 7. Dec 2019, at 01:51, Peter Elderson wrote: >>> >> I think a simple oneway=yes on a hiking route relation could say it's >> signposted for one direction. > > I would prefer being more explicit in the tag name, e.g. > sign_direction=

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-06 Thread Peter Elderson
different from cycling routes, which tend to have many sections where the route directions use different sets of ways. I think a simple oneway=yes on a hiking route relation could say it's signposted for one direction. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 7 dec. 2019 om 01:12 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer &g

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-06 Thread Peter Elderson
Andy Townsend : > Michael Behrens: > > > There is no unique way to tag roles in hiking route relations > > I'd suggest making it clear that that table is currently for way members > only - it doesn't mention node members (start, end, marker, etc.). This > may be deliberate, or you just haven't

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)

2019-12-04 Thread Peter Elderson
Volker Schmidt : > On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:42, Sören Reinecke via Tagging < >> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: >> >>> This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key. >>> >> > (For deprecating a key that is used 1 504 275 times with another one with > the same meaning you

Re: [Tagging] Barrier=berm

2019-11-28 Thread Peter Elderson
How about use=* /* Answers the question: what's the use of this thing? Well, the use=* Fr gr Peter Elderson Op do 28 nov. 2019 om 09:53 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > Am Do., 28. Nov. 2019 um 01:23 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick < > graeme

Re: [Tagging] How to correctly name a forest

2019-11-27 Thread Peter Elderson
Sound like a magical infinite multipolygon to me. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 28 nov. 2019 om 00:06 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer > het volgende geschreven: > >  > > sent from a phone > >> On 27. Nov 2019, at 23:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> >&

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

2019-11-23 Thread Peter Elderson
Looks good. I think mapping the lowered kerb separately for simple exits is a bit overdone. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op za 23 nov. 2019 om 12:28 schreef Allroads : > I worked out a visualisation image. > From the situation I linked in my earlier post. > > https://i.postimg.cc/jqJS

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

2019-11-23 Thread Peter Elderson
do hope the proposal passes quickly. FrGr Peter Elderson > Op 23 nov. 2019 om 02:36 heeft Nick Bolten het volgende > geschreven: > >  > I'm a big fan of this proposal and like others I think it could be useful in > many scenarios. Expansion beyond connecting sidewalk

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

2019-11-14 Thread Peter Elderson
Messages are sent with Reply-To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" So simple reply should be enough, that's what I do and it works. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op do 14 nov. 2019 om 11:46 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > sent from a ph

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-25 Thread Peter Elderson
I would say no, because the roundabout signs are not there. It's just an ordinary crossing with traffic control signage and markings. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 25 okt. 2019 om 10:38 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > There was once a normal crossing of 4 ways,

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-24 Thread Peter Elderson
make this this restriction less strict: if there is traffic control by static signs or markings, it's also a junction=roundabout. This is visibly verifiable by any mapper, and would retain the requirement of priority for traffic on the roundabout over traffic entering the roundabout. Fr gr Peter

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-23 Thread Peter Elderson
on narrow junctions including narrow mini-roundabouts. I guess that is why navigation systems keep telling me to "try and turn around", without telling how and where. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 23 okt. 2019 om 15:58 schreef Paul Allen : > On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 14:35, Jez Nicholson >

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-23 Thread Peter Elderson
Can you provide the legal basis for that? So far I have only found documentation saying there is no such legal restriction in the UK. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 23 okt. 2019 om 15:10 schreef Philip Barnes : > > > On Wednesday, 23 October 2019, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > On We

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-23 Thread Peter Elderson
rotaries. Most of these are tagged as roundabouts anyway. U turns are allowed unless there is a traffic sign saying you can't. In short, mini-roundabouts are just regular junctions in Nederland. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 23 okt. 2019 om 11:26 schreef Philip Barnes : > There is also the r

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019-10-14 Thread Peter Elderson
places with a pilgrim sign. And yes, all the locals know it and will point you to it. You'll get complete local history lectures with it, which I would not record in OSM though :) . Vr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 14 okt. 2019 om 09:38 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 14/10/19 18:

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019-10-14 Thread Peter Elderson
brad: > There are several variations and gpx tracks available on the net for the > great divide route. There are also many websites which discuss the route > and show maps. It's in the public domain. > > I've looked at the info for the Great Divide MTB-trail without any prior knowledge. On

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019-10-12 Thread Peter Elderson
work like that. But, just documentation on a website or a book describing a route: I would oppose that. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 12 okt. 2019 om 04:27 heeft John Willis via Tagging > het volgende geschreven: > > > >> On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Phyks wrote: >>

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

2019-10-11 Thread Peter Elderson
possibilities where in fact crossing is not feasible, even dangerous. That would be worse for a router than the opposite, because it might put people in danger. Routing a detour is the lesser evil. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 11 okt. 2019 om 21:05 heeft Markus het > volgende geschreven: > >>

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

2019-10-11 Thread Peter Elderson
are mapped separate. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 11 okt. 2019 om 15:27 heeft Kevin Kenny het > volgende geschreven: > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:21 AM Snusmumriken > wrote: >> My assumption is that pedestrian routing engine would stick to >> sidewalks and crossings and

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

2019-10-11 Thread Peter Elderson
> Op 11 okt. 2019 om 11:22 heeft Philip Barnes het > volgende geschreven: > > Not just the driver. Routing software can be used to determine which vehicle > can give the quickest response. > > Phil (trigpoint) I would never trust OSM data for emergency routing or any purpose requiring

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

2019-10-10 Thread Peter Elderson
Why would it be inferior? Visually, you mean? Or would navigational problems arise? There already exist roads with some parts physically separated halves and other parts combined halves, does that give problems? Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 10 okt. 2019 om 15:01 heeft Snusmumriken > het vo

Re: [Tagging] Draft: landuse=open_defecation vs landcover=open_defecation vs open_defecation=yes

2019-09-23 Thread Peter Elderson
Defecation is a landuse. The implied landcover would be landcover=shit Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 23 sep. 2019 om 18:38 heeft Bob Kerr via Tagging > het volgende geschreven: > > Hi, I have a last draft for tagging open_defecation > > See > > https://wik

Re: [Tagging] mesh bicycle network

2019-09-12 Thread Peter Elderson
only for maintenance en checking network integrity. I think the network in Bremen is a preference route system. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op do 12 sep. 2019 om 22:49 schreef Hubert87 via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > To summarize: > - (highway) Use lcn=yes on the highway; (my

Re: [Tagging] mesh bicycle network

2019-09-12 Thread Peter Elderson
, I think it's OK too. We have the means. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op do 12 sep. 2019 om 12:01 schreef Volker Schmidt : > I see similarities of this approach with the hiking paths of the alpine > clubs, but with the important difference that the routes do not have a > reference. > A

Re: [Tagging] mesh bicycle network

2019-09-12 Thread Peter Elderson
route mappers came up with the network:type tag to explicitly map network systems (i.c. node_network), and since we have discussed how to tag a preference route system for trucks in Amsterdam last year, I will ask on the Dutch OSM forum how they feel about this idea. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op do 12 sep

Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

2019-09-10 Thread Peter Elderson
questions arising from this. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op di 10 sep. 2019 om 19:49 schreef s8evq : > I see that network:type=node_network has been added to the wiki: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:network%3Drwn=next=1897551 > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/

Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

2019-09-05 Thread Peter Elderson
, is by looking at an attribute of the routes. A node network router also needs to distinguish exactly which ways to use, so has the same need. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op do 5 sep. 2019 om 07:00 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > On 5/9/19 2:42 am, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Pe

Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

2019-09-04 Thread Peter Elderson
Richard Fairhurst : > Peter Elderson wrote: > > The network values identify transport mode and scope of routes, and > > these "dimensions" also apply to node networks. We do not want to > > add another dimension (configuration type) to the network=* > >

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

2019-09-04 Thread Peter Elderson
a new key as a namespaced variant: network:type=*. If this is still confusing: feel free to suggest better names and values to indicate that a route belongs to a network system of the node variety. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 4 sep. 2019 om 18:33 schreef s8evq : > Why don't you continue t

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

2019-09-04 Thread Peter Elderson
Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 4 sep. 2019 om 16:30 heeft Simon Poole het volgende > geschreven: > > >> Am 04.09.2019 um 15:59 schrieb Peter Elderson: >> Thanks for the illustrations! >> >> network=* gives geographical scope (local, regional, national,

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

2019-09-04 Thread Peter Elderson
in OSM if they are implemented, without reserving a mode/scope network=XXn tag which may be already in use for regular routes (conform the wiki's about routes). Please feel free to offer other solutions! Fr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 4 sep. 2019 om 14:53 schreef s8evq : > On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:56

[Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

2019-09-03 Thread Peter Elderson
Op zo 1 sep. 2019 om 12:35 schreef Andy Townsend : > On 29/08/2019 15:52, Peter Elderson wrote: > > LS > > With the arrival of cycling node networks, the Dutch, German and > > Belgian mappers decided to claim (hijack) the network value rcn for > > those node networks

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dehesa

2019-08-31 Thread Peter Elderson
It appears to be a specific type of farmland, so landuse=farmland + farmland=dehesa would say it all and disrupt nothing. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 31 aug. 2019 om 12:25 heeft Diego Cruz het volgende > geschreven: > > Hi Cristoph, > > Thank you for your feedback, it's reall

Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

2019-08-29 Thread Peter Elderson
present the bottom line. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op do 29 aug. 2019 om 18:56 schreef s8evq : > > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:52:47 +0200, Peter Elderson > wrote: > > > We are currently discussing in the three communities how to coreect this > > exception and return rcn and rwn to their

[Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

2019-08-29 Thread Peter Elderson
? What did we forget? Shoot! Fr gr Peter Elderson ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New proposal draft to simplify the mapping of farm buildings (stables)

2019-08-28 Thread Peter Elderson
live in a "stal" as long as their brain is rewiring for adulthood. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 28 aug. 2019 om 13:29 schreef Paul Allen : > On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 08:29, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> > On 27. Aug 2019, at 23:00, Paul Allen wrote: >&g

Re: [Tagging] Garmin waypoints and routes (was: "Roles of route members" and before that "Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking")

2019-08-28 Thread Peter Elderson
, then perform the ingenious trick with routing where members of the relation get very high weight, then write the result back (to JOSM, not OSM). Advanced sorting! Fr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 21 aug. 2019 om 20:46 schreef Peter Elderson : > I have to correct myself: I thought OsmAnd rea

Re: [Tagging] landcover dune or land form dune

2019-08-25 Thread Peter Elderson
, they behave naturally, as they are intended to do. Plants grow, trees grow and multiply, animals settle in, sand blows and gathers, water rises, flows and lowers, just as when the feature was indeed natural. Key natural is fine there. Fr gr Peter Elderson > Op 26 aug. 2019 om 06:21 heeft Jos

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

2019-08-25 Thread Peter Elderson
Joseph Eisenberg : > > While some have suggested that uses of the landuse=* key like > landuse=grass, landuse=village_green and landuse=recreation_area lead > to misuse of the landuse=* key, the landcover=* key appears to be even > more problematic. The problem is one particular user. The

Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

2019-08-24 Thread Peter Elderson
Valor Naram het volgende geschreven: > > We need a system to prevent or instinct the usage of two or more tags for one > purpose. I suggest the following behaviour: > 1. Negotiating which key can be considered as official. Who will negotiate, what do they have to negiate with? What office

Re: [Tagging] Garmin waypoints and routes (was: "Roles of route members" and before that "Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking")

2019-08-21 Thread Peter Elderson
an impression of the density of the walking trail system in the Netherlands. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op wo 21 aug. 2019 om 23:34 schreef Volker Schmidt : > > > On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 20:48, Peter Elderson wrote: > >> I have to correct myself: I thought OsmAnd really performed routing

Re: [Tagging] Garmin waypoints and routes (was: "Roles of route members" and before that "Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking")

2019-08-21 Thread Peter Elderson
goes there. But it can route you to the start of your track, and when you go off-track, it routes you back on track. All the more reason why the gpx should be a correctly ordered single chain. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op di 20 aug. 2019 om 16:57 schreef Peter Elderson : > Andy Townsend : > &

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >