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
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
node networks 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 :
> O
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,
introduce 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
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=*
> > valu
d which not
to use, 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 Fair
y to answer any 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&diff=next&oldid=1897551
>
> http
Since the Dutch 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
he network, 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
> re
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
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
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
> 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
high
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 no
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:
>
>>
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:
>>
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 the
sting 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
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
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 Wed,
se u-turns 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 Nich
ontrol.
I move to 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
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 w
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
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 sidewa
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
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:
>>
>>
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 <
> g
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 n
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 ex
etely 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 Koppenh
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_direc
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
to
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
>>&
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> wrote:
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.com:
&
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>
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
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
> ac
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
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 Koppenh
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
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
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 "Ca
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>:
, 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
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 tra
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 would
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
could tag 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:
>
>
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.
>
ve branches 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:
>
>
>
me, may 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 Ko
ould not profit from
that.
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 wit
>
> 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
absolutely 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.f
Peter 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
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 li
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 thought
mmute/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 <
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
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&layers=C
> this REVe Nord-Sud is for commute/every day cycling
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8664006#ma
> 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
appy to map 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 a
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
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
+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
> he
a new type of network, 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 questio
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 s
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 &q
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
ct. Anyone can make up his or her own
camino. However, when you talk to any one of the organisations, they will
insist that their routes are fixed.
I very strongly prefer only to map routes according to real markings on the
ground, however scarce.
Best, Peter Elderson
Op ma 13 jan. 2020 om 19:
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.
>>
>
eeded. We had some 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
sidewalk=yes?
Best, Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
"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 leav
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
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
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 2
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
und 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 <
florimo
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
c
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
>
+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 some
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
> `
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 provin
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 area=ye
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
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
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.
_
area=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
problems, rethink it and take another path to get to a shared
solution.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op zo 9 feb. 2020 om 03:30 schreef Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> I don't understand why mappers in Zeeland are considered less reliable
> than those in South Holland?
Both options do not support established and documented tagging. The way to
manage this kind of change is to discuss a road to better tagging
while keeping rendering of the established tagging until this has been
accomplished. If retagging is a part of improvement, time should be allowed
to get this
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
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
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
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
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
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
201 - 300 of 634 matches
Mail list logo