Re: [Tagging] date not in YYYY-MM.DD format should go into a sufix edtf ?

On 6/5/23 8:12 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote: Having tried to use both formats in both projects, I do think EDTF is the better format overall, and I wouldn't mind seeing it used in OSM. However, the ad-hoc format does have one advantage in being able to express dates in the Julian calendar directly, r

[Tagging] route=raceway?

there is a long stalled proposal for a relation type of circuit for handling motor racing tracks. i suspect it will never be approved, the last time i brought it up there was a general lack of response. but it seems to me that a new relation type is not necessary anyway. probably adding a new subt

[Tagging] tagging for fairgrounds

i've had a little discussion of this over on the slack tagging channel. i'm currently working on some historic World's Fair/Exhibition sites, and also have reviewed a number of fair grounds in the US. we really don't have any tagging specific to these sorts of structured park-like areas that have

Re: [Tagging] tagging for fairgrounds

On 8/27/20 12:35 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > > As is fair.  Without further qualification, I'd interpret "fair" as a > (temporary, mobile) funfair: an annual event with fairground rides, > stalls, etc. I think American usage may tend more towards trade fairs. > > As for mapping the temporary funfair t

[Tagging] relation proposals

it's not obvious from reading the wiki where proposals for relations or modifications to existing relations should go. the long stalled proposal for circuits (race courses) is supposedly in the wrong place, but i have no idea what the right place is. i don't plan to try to revive that proposal, bu

[Tagging] Relations/proposed/circuit

i would like to get a discussion of this proposal started again: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Circuit it fills a need i have and i've been using it in both OSM and OHM. i have made a couple of new comments on the Talk page. right this instant i'm looking at mapping stree

Re: [Tagging] What sport=* for automobile racing?

On 8/30/19 7:49 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > There are 5 uses of sport=autocross, 2 of sport=auto, 1 of sport="auto > racing" (with a space). > > It would be useful to have a specific tag since automobile racing, > motocross and karting use rather different raceways in most cases. > > Perhaps s

Re: [Tagging] What sport=* for automobile racing?

On 9/1/19 12:12 AM, Warin wrote: > > On 31/8/19 9:49 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >> With highway=raceway, the most common tags are sport=motor, >> sport=motocross and sport=karting (and even some sport=rc_car for >> remote controlled model cars). These are specific types of motorsport, >> except f

Re: [Tagging] What sport=* for automobile racing?

On 9/1/19 8:20 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 9/1/19 12:12 AM, Warin wrote: >> >> On 31/8/19 9:49 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >>> There's also some uses of >>> sport=speedway which is also unclear. >> >> Speedway is a oval dirt course that is u

[Tagging] relation types: circuit proposal and an alternative

a couple of months ago, i brought up the circuit proposal again, to a profound lack of interest. it is being used, by myself and others, because it does serve a need. as a reminder the original proposal is here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relations/Proposed/Circuit but in the past c

Re: [Tagging] relation types: circuit proposal and an alternative

On 1/7/20 4:18 PM, marc marc wrote: > Le 07.01.20 à 20:58, Richard Welty a écrit : >> a profound lack of interest >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relations/Proposed/Circuit > > maybe it's due to the funny url for a propal > moving it at the right place m

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

> Am Mi., 6. März 2019 um 14:16 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis > mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com>>: > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 11:52 AM OSMDoudou > <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com > > wrote: > > If there was an explosion due

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

On 3/6/19 5:17 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 16:29, Richard Welty wrote: >> i spent some time looking at a project to build OSM based >> emergency maps. i concluded we needed to do layers of >> information, some of which were appropriate to host in &g

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

On 3/7/19 12:49 PM, OSMDoudou wrote: > I would expect the police would first re-organize the scene to revert > circulation. > >   > > If the house on fire is just a few meters in the opposite one-way > direction, they might go directly, but technically they would break the > law, if I read the ar

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

On 4/5/19 11:19 AM, Cédric Mélac wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Grain_Storage_Centre > Defintion: A large site with many silos and barns which concentrates > crops from farms around before selling at best prices. these are commonly called Elevators in the US. i don'

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On 5/24/19 11:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 15:55 Uhr schrieb Markus > mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>>: > > I personally like the definition by the European Sports Charter > (article 2, paragraph 1a): > >    "Sport" means all forms of physical ac

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

On 2/19/18 3:20 PM, Steve Doerr wrote: > On 19/02/2018 09:00, Philip Barnes wrote: > >> As a native English speaker I have never heard the term Hollow Way, >> however reading the description it seems that this proposal is >> describing what is called a Sunken Lane. > > Might need a bit more researc

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

On 2/19/18 6:37 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 19. Feb 2018, at 22:28, Richard Welty <mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net>> wrote: > >> i know of examples in both italy and the US. the italian ones >> i've seen are older and thus much more sunken than the ones

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

On 5/7/18 10:35 AM, Rory McCann wrote: > On 06/05/18 09:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have >> highway=unclassified >> with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check >> whatever my edit on >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wik

Re: [Tagging] åååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååå

On 6/27/18 9:52 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2018-06-27 15:38 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny >: > > Sometimes it makes sense to do not fully delete OSM elements > representing completely > destroyed objects. > > For example, completely destroyed roa

Re: [Tagging] Let's get (quite) rid of units and their multiples in OSM values

normalization into SI is the sort of thing that engineers and scientists go for, and speaking as a (computer) scientist it has some appeal. but practically it's probably not a good idea in mapping, where i think we should be using local units in an unambiguous manner. if i see maxspeed=40 on a ro

Re: [Tagging] Hiking route abandoned

On 10/1/13 10:56 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > The problem with disused: is the object disappears from the map. > > Your alternative is to leave it "on the map" as it does in fact exist. > Then use "access=" to clarify the status. It might have degraded from > "access=public" down to "access=no" or

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

On 10/7/13 9:12 AM, Janko Mihelic' wrote: > > What if the wind turbine is on the roof of a building > ? That would > still be high (because we tag height from the ground, not just the > height of the wind turbine). Actually, all small wind tu

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On 10/7/13 12:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2013/10/7 fly > > > You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus > ways > with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Either you are allowed to ride > (bicycle=yes/designated) or n

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On 10/7/13 1:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Well, it may vary by jurisdiction, but I would not be surprised if it > were legally enforced in cases where riding the bicycle could be a > safety hazard to pedestrians, and in some cases to the cyclist as > well. I remember seeing such a "cyclists mu

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On 10/8/13 10:32 AM, fly wrote: > In all situation we do not need bicycle=dismount. > > Can anyone state that in her/his country this traffic_sign is official > and not made up by some people ? > well, i can't say official for sure, but the dismount signs posted on the various Hudson River crossing

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

> Georg Feddern wrote: > > Am 07.10.2013 19:13, schrieb Richard Welty: > > On 10/7/13 1:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > > I remember seeing such a "cyclists must dismount" on the > narrow footway of a bridge over the Jame

Re: [Tagging] Telecoms local loops connections nodes

On 11/21/13 12:32 PM, SomeoneElse wrote: > > Likewise if you want to use the correct English term for what you're > calling "Central Office" or "MDF", use "Telephone Exchange". I've > never heard the description "Central Office" before - presumably it's > American only. Exchange is in common use i

Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops

On 11/26/13 4:13 PM, Yves wrote: > Placing online businesses on a world map may be more tricky than you > think ... yes. the concept of a geographic location is sometimes challenging. when the business is running a web store in the cloud and outsourcing the order fulfillment then it's hard to say e

Re: [Tagging] opening-hours off closed

On 11/28/13 11:05 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > > Removed the inappropriate warning and added a hopefully neutral > statement. If something is wrong with the diagram everyone is invited > to a) either fix it or b) add a short note that some special/complex > case isn't covered by the simplified diagr

[Tagging] max{height, width}:physical was Re: How to tag max width at chicane-type bicycle barriers

On 12/3/13 7:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > if you want to tag this on the barrier (node), it might also be an > option to use "maxwidth:physical". This is currently not among the > mostly used tags, but the similar maxheight:physical has some (few) > usage, and it indicates nicely that th

Re: [Tagging] Security Gate Post/Cabin

On 12/8/13 10:39 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > Where I have worked, and industrial sites that I have visited over my > long career, that building is always called 'the gate house'. > > I would suggest building=gatehouse, or gate_house, although neither had > any previous useage :) > same in the US. th

Re: [Tagging] Security Gate Post/Cabin

On 12/8/13 11:14 AM, Jonathan wrote: > Wikipedia suggests a gatehouse as a medieval construction: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatehouse > > building=gatehouse has been used 19 times, but in what context I don't > know. wikipedia is sometimes slightly off the mark. gatehouse (or gate house) is in

Re: [Tagging] how to tag a terrace?

On 12/13/13 9:30 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> Am 13/dic/2013 um 12:10 schrieb Janko Mihelić : >> >> I think there should be a big "building=yes" polygon over the terrace and >> the mansion attached to it (or building=mansion or whatever). Then put a >> polygon over just the terrace, and ta

Re: [Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

On 12/31/13 11:10 AM, Fernando Trebien wrote: > > I've been interested in proposing a change to Carto's style (Mapnik's > main style) to allow visual identification of unpaved roads for any > kind of road, much like the Humanitarian style does, which bases this > decision on values of the surface t

Re: [Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

On 12/31/13 5:54 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote: > On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 7:27 PM, malenki > wrote: > > I wouldn't connect surface=compacted and tracktype=grade1 per default > since compacted roads and and roads with really paved surface (asphalt > or cobblestones)

Re: [Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

On 1/2/14 9:49 AM, Fernando Trebien wrote: > So, which approach is most convenient for the rendering app? > Definitely it's using the tracktype tag, there's only 1 value to be > ever considered. > i really think we should spend less time on rendering and more time simply on accurately and concisely

Re: [Tagging] How to map holiday flats? New tag "tourism=holiday_flat" or extend existing "tourism=chalet"

On 1/2/14 8:31 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I think of the word "flat" as being distinctly British. I have only > rarely heard the word "flat" used to describe and apartment in the > U.S. When I first glanced at the beginning of this thread I thought > the OP was referring to flats of flowers. LOL f

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability

On 1/3/14 6:23 AM, Dan S wrote: > Hi, > > It reminds me quite a lot of opening_hours > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours > Would that be appropriate? > there are different types of trafficability issues. here in upstate NY, we have two types of seasonal road. most are simply unpa

Re: [Tagging] parking conditions

On 1/3/14 7:58 PM, One Hwang wrote: > > I am confused about how to apply a parking tag for the "west side." > Although there are tags called parking:lane:right and > parking:lane:left, I am not sure whether west should be considered > left or right. > > I plan to work with a number of citizens from

Re: [Tagging] parking conditions

On 1/3/14 8:10 PM, One Hwang wrote: > Suppose I wanted to tag to show that parking is prohibited on north > side of Street X. Should I use parking:lane:right or parking:lane:left? that depends on what the direction of the way representing Street X is within OSM. which means that you can't make that

Re: [Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions

On 1/3/14 8:19 PM, malenki wrote: > How else would you describe an asphalted road like this?: > http://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/lidar1.jpg > surface=car_breaker signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mail

Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to "by use"

On 1/13/14 1:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > psv reads "public service vehicle", clearly a use type. "e.g. busses" > is correct as is "i.e. busses and taxis" (but the latter might forget > some other kind of psv). Still this clearly doesn't include any buses > (vehicle class, usually vehicles w

Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to "by use"

On 1/13/14 2:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014/1/13 Richard Welty > >> we may need to spend some time on this. the turn restriction >> plugin for josm uses psv, but seemingly with the implication of >> emergency/service vehicles (not including buses and taxis) for &

Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki: move psv to "by use"

On 1/15/14 2:24 PM, martinq wrote: > because of the JOSM turn restriction plugin? What about changing that >> plugin? > > no, the argument for depreciation was: There is no need for this > artificial group: Grouping taxi (both "in service" as well as not in > service) with only those buses acting a

Re: [Tagging] emergency=yes

On 1/23/14 1:13 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > What might people using the tag 'emergency=yes' have meant it to mean? > And is it a good use? > > It's the #2 tag in a space that has some gems (emergency=aed and > emergency=phone for example). But I'm mystified by the usage. 20,000 > emergency=yes hig

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier

On 2/3/14 6:36 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > When this is done in the USA, the usual case seems to be an entry > restriction on one end of the street. > Why would anything more complicated than an entry restriction be > required in OSM? > Typically it is a sign reading "Do not enter" with a sub-shield

Re: [Tagging] Reliable OSM routing

On 2/9/14 3:11 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > > Some very good points here. . . > > > On Feb 9, 2014, at 10:47 AM, André Pirard wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I left this unsent for some time, so it may duplicate what has already been >> said. >> But it's uttermost important. >> >> >> There doesn't seem to be rou

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - All You Can Eat

On 2/17/14 1:49 PM, Steve Doerr wrote: > On 17/02/2014 18:04, Fernando Trebien wrote: > >> I still think that "opening_hours" as a subtag would be an unnecessary >> specialization that would only be needed rarely. Can you provide an >> example in which you would not be able to represent that inform

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: tag for planetarium

On 2/24/14 5:17 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > > > I would not call it an amenity, which is (to me, native UK English > speaker) something for the benefit/enjoyment of society as a whole (or > at least a large part of it). These days a planetarium is probably for > enjoyment/entertainment (suggesting l

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: tag for planetarium

On 2/25/14 9:08 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > Educational as they might be, it seems that the primary use of planetariums > from what I've seen is to get high and watch laser light shows. I vote > leisure=planetarium. > > clearly not everyone has been there to see the busloads of elementary school kid

[Tagging] origin of some fire_hydrant tagging

i'm wondering if anyone can speak to where the tagging for fire_hydrant:type came from? i'm seeing two issues with it right now. one is that it conflates two concepts that probably should be separated, the physical delivery method, e.g. fire_hydrant:type=pillar and the water source fire_hydran

Re: [Tagging] Pistemap proposal

On 2/25/14 4:27 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > I have a few objections about that proposal: > > landuse=winter_sports > I don't like this way of confining a ski resort. First, > landuse=winter_sports here is used to tag a ski resort. That can't be > right, because a restaurant can be a part of a ski re

Re: [Tagging] origin of some fire_hydrant tagging

On 2/26/14 3:30 AM, Georg Feddern wrote: > Am 25.02.2014 17:08, schrieb Richard Welty: >> i'm wondering if anyone can speak to where the tagging >> for fire_hydrant:type came from? > > AFAIK the Germans are guilty again - and I plea myself for not-guilty. > ;-) > (s

Re: [Tagging] origin of some fire_hydrant tagging

On 2/27/14 4:37 AM, Georg Feddern wrote: > Am 26.02.2014 13:23, schrieb Richard Welty: > >> then the issue is whether we want to modify fire_hydrant:type or >> replace it with a different tag altogether, say fire_hydrant:delivery >> if we keep type, should we replace pilla

Re: [Tagging] origin of some fire_hydrant tagging

On 2/27/14 4:50 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > I also disagree with standpipe, in UK usage a standpipe is an emergency > source of water provided for residents if mains water if off for some reason. > > i have done some more research and asked around, and this is where i'm at: standpipe is ambiguous.

Re: [Tagging] origin of some fire_hydrant tagging

On 2/27/14 2:36 PM, Andreas Labres wrote: > Richard, > > fire_hydrant:type should remain unchanged, as this is negotiated with local > fire > departments here in Austria (as well as Germany). At least this is true for > pillar and underground, those are most common and most important. i now am pro

Re: [Tagging] origin of some fire_hydrant tagging

On 2/27/14 2:56 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Color-coding is likely used by the fire department to signify matters such as > how much water-flow is available. I don't know how standardized these color > codes are, however. > > there are standards published by the AWWA (American Water Works Asso

Re: [Tagging] Fixing wrong opening_hours automatically

On 3/7/14 7:03 AM, Dan S wrote: > > I'm sorry but if it is description-like, then it is free text and > shouldn't be auto-standardised in the manner you propose. You need to > decide if you think it is description-like (== free text, local > language) or formalised (==set of possible labels, britis

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

On 3/13/14 12:02 PM, Georg Feddern wrote: > > So I would get rid of dirt, but keep 'earth' beside 'ground' as a > useful value (smooth walking on hiking trails) . where as for my mapping in the US, dirt is the only one that i use, and common usage is to refer to these roads as dirt roads by pretty

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

On 3/14/14 4:54 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> Am 13/mar/2014 um 22:31 schrieb David Bannon : >> >> We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road > > > agreed, but would you say it has a "dirt surface"? > i certainly wouldn't. i use unpaved as the more generic term, and dirt or gravel when i

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

On 3/14/14 3:11 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote: > Considering that "surface" is loosely defined (it can have any value) > and no rules are imposed on it, I believe that ground and dirt are > acceptable values, but not quite desirable, as their meaning is too > low quality (too imprecise) for applicatio

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

On 3/14/14 4:05 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote: > Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something > more specific than "dirt" ("gravel" is more precise, for instance), it > would be even better. (That's my point: "dirt" is good, something more > is specific such as "compacted", "ear

Re: [Tagging] Access tags on areas containing highway=*

On 3/20/14 6:33 AM, Peter Wendorff wrote: > Personally I would consider routers to be buggy when they ignore > barriers tagged on nodes of the way, while I would accept them not to do > geometrical calculations between areas and ways. > absolutely they are buggy. here is one example from my own per

Re: [Tagging] Issues relating to URIs and tagging

On 4/1/14 1:01 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > I'd be happy to do that; what do others think? While semantically > correct, I think more mapper might understand "URL". is it a URI or a URL? if it's strictly a URL, that's fine, URL as a term is not deprecated, it's merely a subset of URI. but if you inte

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On 4/3/14 6:06 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:49:56PM +0100, Dave F. wrote: >> >> Really? Are you sure you're not just making this up? >> >> Show us where or I'm calling you a fibber. > How much more stupid do you want to get if you don't use the basic > search function. > > htt

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On 4/4/14 5:51 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: > Stop saying GPS. Forget even about aerial imagery. When I had no aerial > imagery in my area, I either did not draw such features (leaving them for > future improvements), or approximate. "The road there is about 6 meters > wide, so I'll draw two nodes abo

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On 4/5/14 4:52 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > You are being asked, is the word "brunnel" one you coined, or is it in use > already by other people? Pointing to a page you wrote is not an answer to > the question. > > it appears to me that brunnel is defined in the GDF (Geographic Data File) forma

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 4/9/14 7:19 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Ronnie Soak > wrote: > >> There can be a way that IS connected on both ends and still is a dead end. A >> road can end in a wall or a fence, where on the other side the road >> continues. >> There may be other tags there (barrier=

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 4/9/14 8:51 AM, Ronnie Soak wrote: > As a means to communicate an intention from one mapper to the next, it > simply is more clear when mapped on the node than on the way. I simply > gave an example where the end of the dead-end way can not simply be > deduced by its geometry. Regards, chaos i h

Re: [Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

On 4/9/14 9:13 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > >> what makes no_exit so special that it needs its own key >> for this purpose? > Once more, it's only useful for QA tools checking highway > intersections geometry where one of

Re: [Tagging] direction=forward/backward on nodes ?

On 4/12/14 5:57 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > > > Have to disagree here. There are plenty of real uses for reversing a > way, and not everyone uses JOSM. > > Colin > > On 2014-04-12 22:43, Janko Mihelić wrote: >> Does anyone else think that the "reverse" tool should be removed from >> editors? The

[Tagging] small change to turn restriction relation tagging

i would like to add emergency (for emergency vehicles) to the list of vehicle types for the except tag. this doesn't seem like it should be a major or controversial issue, but i'd like to hear any objections/suggestions richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consu

Re: [Tagging] small change to turn restriction relation tagging

On 4/22/14 8:03 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 22.04.2014 23:46, Richard Welty wrote: >> i would like to add emergency (for emergency vehicles) to the list of >> vehicle types for the except tag. >> >> I don't think this would cause any problems, so I don't

Re: [Tagging] small change to turn restriction relation tagging

On 4/23/14 10:14 AM, André Pirard wrote: > On 2014-04-22 23:46, Richard Welty wrote : > > i would like to add emergency (for emergency vehicles) to the list of > > vehicle types for the except tag. > Supposing that emergency vehicles can do almost everything (who would >

Re: [Tagging] access=public and access=yes

On 5/11/14 5:48 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> Am 10/mag/2014 um 19:19 schrieb bulwersator : >> >> Is there any difference between access=public and access=yes? > > I am not aware of any, seems synonymous to me in the access context, suggest > to normalize to yes > i concur. richard -- rwe

Re: [Tagging] capital and state_capital: how are they being used in your country?

On 5/15/14 8:57 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Matthijs Melissen > wrote: > >> Some more strange cases: > We could create an additional role (e.g. "capital") when the > "admin_centre" is not the capital (and only in this case to avoid > unnecessary duplicates). some definitio

Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] #5163: paths and tracks rendering indistinguishable: your opinion?

replying to tagging, it's the only one of these lists i'm on On 5/19/14 12:12 PM, André Pirard wrote: > Hi, > > This is about OSM ticket https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/5163: >> The rendering of highway=path and highway=track is barely >> distinguishable. >> For example, many huge width hig

Re: [Tagging] Emergency Access

On 6/15/14 11:07 AM, Andreas Goss wrote: > So I got a bit of work done with the WikiProject Emergency Cleanup, > but now I'm not really sure about emergency access. > > - Is there a difference between service=emergency_access, > access=emergency and emergency=yes(on roads)? > i'm not familiar with

Re: [Tagging] Emergency Access

On 6/15/14 1:22 PM, André Pirard wrote: > On 2014-06-15 17:07, Andreas Goss wrote : >> So I got a bit of work done with the WikiProject Emergency Cleanup, >> but now I'm not really sure about emergency access. >> >> - Is there a difference between service=emergency_access, >> access=emergency and e

Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways

On 6/17/14 5:24 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > The number should be tagged, and I would not expect a data consumer to use > maxspeed tags, they are useful for validation. > there are any number of reasons why a consumer might use a maxspeed tag, the most obvious of them being a routing engine attempti

Re: [Tagging] Basic question about functional classification of highways

On 6/17/14 8:24 AM, SomeoneElse wrote: > > * I've yet to see a bicycle router enforce the "(pedalling) furiously" > implications of > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/10-11/89#pb3-l1g18 , for > example! i think there's a lot of interest in pedestrian and cycling routing, but it still has a

Re: [Tagging] "No abbreviations in names" edge case

On 6/18/14 8:28 AM, Florian Schäfer wrote: > What about the homepage of the city [1]? There it says that "The actual > name comes from the fact that our town site on a strip of Cherokee land > famous for the Oklahoma Land Run. The name stands for *Indian Exchange > Land*". in this case, i'd argue t

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

On 7/6/14 1:55 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > I know of at least two such in the Nashville, TN, USA. One is Nashville > International Airport, with passenger, air freight, and general aviation > usage, as well as a military compound. The other is a former military base in > Smyrna, TN, still cont

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

no need for lots of anecdotes. it is very, very common for National Guard and Reserve units in the US to share airports with civilian services. i could name a bunch, but i don't think it's necessary, we've all seen the military facilities while looking out the windows while our flight is taxiing.

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

On 7/6/14 3:41 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote: > How about using "aerodrome=*" to express how the aerodrome is used by > civilians and then add "military=yes" when the airport is also used > for military operations? > you could potentially broaden it a bit, with military=yes being the generic "i have n

Re: [Tagging] Distinction between amenity=restaurant and fast_food

the common rule of thumb is counter service vs. table service. even so, there are occasional grey areas (e.g., at Hardees you order at the counter but they deliver to your table, still fast food in my book.) and it produces slightly quirky results, for example the most excellent deli Gershon's in

Re: [Tagging] Distinction between amenity=restaurant and fast_food

On 8/3/14 12:52 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On 3 August 2014 15:43, Richard Welty wrote: >> the common rule of thumb is counter service vs. table service > Citation? it's been discussed extensively in the past and that was where the discussion settled. sorry no direct citati

Re: [Tagging] Distinction between amenity=restaurant and fast_food

On 8/3/14 4:19 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > On Aug 3, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > >> Your comment suggests that "fast food" and "restaurant" are mutually >> exclusive; they are not. >> >> Google finds "about 5,110,000 results" for "fast food restaurant", >> with quotes; the first of which is

Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale

On 8/12/14 2:55 PM, Anita Andersson wrote: > > One idea that got proposed was payment:online:bitcoin=yes/no + > payment:offline:bitcoin=yes/no > where online=purchase through website and > where offline=cash register/Point of sale > why not payment:point_of_sale:bitcoin=yes/no payment:offline does

Re: [Tagging] RENDER

On 8/15/14 1:09 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > This is just as bad as HTML 3.2's FONT tags and similar presentational > junk. It's an excuse to add more garbage to the database, and I don't > see the value it adds. The rendering does need to improve and be aware > of new tags, but this doesn't help th

Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

On 8/18/14 9:20 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > So how one should tag in following situations? > > 1) official cycleway > > bicycle=designated or official > This implies in many countries the obligation to use the cycleway if > running parallel to a road official is not in the wiki here: http

Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated

On 8/18/14 9:42 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > 2014-08-18 15:36 GMT+02:00 Andre Engels >: > > > 1) official cycleway > highway=cycleway > > > What about something that is both footway and cyleway (segregated or > not segregated)? > these are common aroun

Re: [Tagging] RENDER

On 8/20/14 8:33 AM, André Pirard wrote: > > Hence, the general consensus is either to tag for the renderer or not > to tag such touristic POIs at all. > It's strange to have to campaign for tagging !!! this proposal completely breaks the model of decoupling the factual mapping database from the da

Re: [Tagging] "floating" or "pontoon" bridges?

On 9/2/14 1:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2014-09-02 17:46 GMT+02:00 Clifford Snow >: > > Then again if I made a pontoon out of concrete, they'd just sink. > > > > > While I generally agree with your agreement, this is not true, ships > can be built out

Re: [Tagging] University accommodation (was Re: Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory)

On 09/20/2014 12:41 PM, fly wrote: Am 20.09.2014 18:32, schrieb p...@trigpoint.me.uk: I would have gone for hall_of_residence. Do not know if hall_of_residence is the right term. hall_of_residence would work. i would have proposed the shorter, less formal term residence_hall which is what

Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

On 09/20/2014 05:42 PM, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote: I would like to suggest making the paved key for highways (and probably other types of elements) official. Taginfo for paved: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/paved#values The above shows that the key is already being used, but the Wiki

Re: [Tagging] name and brand tags

On 09/24/2014 10:22 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: Besides in my experience petrol stations do have a name, it may not be obvious until you are close to the shop. Other than supermarket petrol stations, the name of the petrol station will appear on your receipt, not the name of the oil company. Phil

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On 10/27/14 6:45 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: You are quoting me out of context, leaving the impression that I'd propose to tag the bridge way, this is not the case. I was just pointing out that tagging the way under the bridge makes no explicit reference to the bridge itself, and can lose the implic

Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?

On 10/27/14 6:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-10-27 11:04 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo >: The maxheight=* tag maps the physical limitation, not the sign (which can be absent or even wrong). Tagging maxheight=none really makes no sense. no, the ma

  1   2   3   4   5   >