Re: [Tagging] building=stands or building=grandstand?

I fear we have been a bit too quick. It looks as if stands and grandstand are different terms for seating around a sports pitch. The Wikipedia page "Stadium" refers several times to "stands" when it talks about seating in a stadium. And the Wikpedia page "Bleacher" is about "bleachers or stands",

[Tagging] emergency bays - which side?

The tag highway=emergency_bay as node is in use 3700 times, even though it is still only a proposal. How do I indicate the side of the road the EB is serving in the case of a bidirectional road. I could see two valid approaches: direction=forward|backward emergency_bay=right|left It seems that

Re: [Tagging] Emergency pull-offs

highway=emergency_bay On 31 Dec 2017 3:53 a.m., "Andrew Harvey" wrote: I'm mapped these as highway=service, interested to hear if anyone has been using a different tag, possibly combined with service=? On 31 Dec. 2017 1:45 pm, "Albert Pundt"

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

... also a dismantled (or razed) railway is often mostly still "there". Have a look at this relation and follow its course on satellite photos. You will see that it is nearly completely still "there", not as railway, obviously, but as

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks and cycleways as tags vs as extra lines and StreetComplete

Two nice examples of complex cases, which in my view would be best tagged using the cycleway=lane tag *and* separate foot- and cycle-ways (both are at present not yet correctly tagged in OSM) mapillary.com/map/im/kRr5NPEzjLiwDsHWdAL-aw (from

Re: [Tagging] Way access mismatch relation route=bicycle

I suppose Osmose uses the country specific tables in [1] The table for Belgium states that bicycle=no is implicit for "highway=trunk". Hence the short way in question would need to have the additional tag "bicycle=yes" for bicycle routing to pass along that cycle lane. The road signs out there

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalks and cycleways as tags vs as extra lines

Filtering out separate cycleways that accompany roads would be plain wrong. A bicycle router should get me on cycleway (and off the road). Double tagging, i.e. cycleway=track on the road plus a separate parallel highway=cycleway is only undesirable. I remove the redundant cycleway=track when I

Re: [Tagging] access=yes|permissive allow all transport modes

Please remove the access=yes it's not irrelevant, it's plain wrong. With the present tagging, e.g. horses appear to be allowed as they are not explicitly forbidden. > I also think that this type of errors is so unimportant that I also > > would not bother with fixing them and I would rather use

[Tagging] How to tag combined foot-cycle lane

How to tag a combined foot and cycle lane on one side of the street? See: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uvWA5aKAsGo9-etO1KyGIhzcZlGyFqHh/view?usp=sharing Same question for a segregated fo a segregated foot-cycle lane with bicycle onw-way on one side of a oneway road in the opposite direction.

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC 2 - Pressurized waterways

There is another type of a combination of open waterway, underground waterway, and pressurised waterway/pipeline: a siphon (see [1]). This is a frequent situation here in northern Italy. They came in all sizes, and there are hundreds of them around here. The technical trick with these is that the

Re: [Tagging] Cycling "service area"

I would prefer a tag structure of the type highway=service _area (or highway=services ?) vehicle_type=bicycle; motorcycle; car; agricultural; hgv; motor_vehicle (with default vehicle_type=motor_vehicle?) attendant=yes|no I have come across a number of (manned) service places where different

Re: [Tagging] Cycling "service area"

highway=service_area > service _area=bicycle, hgv, horse, > > As I said, I think we need multiple value possibility for this, hence semicolon separator ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling "service area"

Access tags are something different. You may well have a place were you can drive to with your car, but the service is only for bicycles On 18 February 2018 at 19:49, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.

Re: [Tagging] Cycling "service area"

The common use of "bicycle=designated" is the equivalent of ( "bicycle=yes" plus some kind of official vertical sign) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Cycling "service area"

8 February 2018 at 16:16, John Willis <jo...@mac.com> wrote: > > > Javbw > > > On Feb 18, 2018, at 10:44 PM, Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > what's the difference between a service area on a road that is tagged > with highway=services an

Re: [Tagging] Cycling "service area"

Taking a step back: what's the difference between a service area on a road that is tagged with highway=services and one that is tagged amenity=fuel (with the corresponding additional tagging for food, ATM, ... ? Is the difference only the number of carriageways? single carriageway > amenity=fuel;

Re: [Tagging] cycleway:both=no in StreetComplete

Wish for the New Year: a world where all streets have cycleways and hence cycleway=no is a useful tag to indicate the few exceptions. More realistically, cycleway=no is useful to indicate that someone has verified there is no cycleway. For example to indicate that the large sidewalk that is

Re: [Tagging] emergency bays - which side?

Similar tagging scheme, yes, but with a big functional difference, that is, they appear on single-lane roads and can be used in both directions, independently of the side of the road they are on. My starting question was specifically for emergency bays on two-lane roads where, typically, you could

Re: [Tagging] emergency bays - which side?

Emergency bays and bus bays are physically very similar, i.e. a short piece of an additional lane on a road. Unfortunately the two tags highway=emergency_bay and bus_bay=both|left|right use very different approaches to describing essential the same physical arrangement. bus_bay=both|left|right

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark to get the gist. There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite, ordinary low water marks) which are based on the regular tides in the area. A flood mark

Re: [Tagging] Put the name in sidewalks and cycleways

We have already a tag for footway/foot-cycle-ways/cycleways that indicates that the way is a sidewalk/sidepath: - footway=sidewalk for footpaths ( 881747 in taginfo) - path=sidewalk (1090 in taginfo) or path=sidepath (790 in taginfo) for foot-cycle-ways - cycleway=sidepath (2450 in

Re: [Tagging] healthcare : nurse <> nursing_home <> nursing

I would expect that there are countries where nurses dispense basic medical care from a surgery-type of location. On 5 August 2018 at 16:16, Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Philip Barnes > wrote: > >> In my experience a nurse is not a mappable object. >> > > You win the

Re: [Tagging] Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

I would make the distinction bub from a map-data end-user's point of view: can I walk/drive up to the place and obtain a permit on the fly, with or without paying a "fee". The on-the-fly payment may include payment of membership of some kind on first entry, or similar arrangements. If access

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a residential bridge building

I left out the references to the wiki page: [1], which clearly shows a bridge building, similar in structure to the one I mapped, only much bigger. It straddles a motorway and houses a huge car park. "My" bridge-building is smaller, straddles a park and is inhabited (residential), but the basic

[Tagging] Tagging a residential bridge building

How do I correctly tag a building that is a bridge (building=bridge) and is also residential (building=residential), This is a single-storey building containing some flats that connects two multi-storey residential buildings (it's partially visible in the Mapillary image [1]) You can see my

Re: [Tagging] Put the name in sidewalks and cycleways

> Generally properties on the main highway are often a more useful > representation than dedicated ways, but if you go into details it can be > better to have a dedicated way (or you will have to split the main highway > into lots of tiny fragments just because of properties of the sidewalks >

Re: [Tagging] nobrand

In my part of Italy most, if not all have brand signs, but not "big" brands. Please be careful, when importing not to overwrite those "small" brand signs. How reliable are the import data anyway? On Thu, 23 Aug 2018, 14:55 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 23/08/18 19:32, Cascafico

Re: [Tagging] Lake or Pond

... or a reservoir, as Warin points out. On 20 July 2018 at 11:46, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > > The description in the (OSM) wiki states: "A pond: a body of standing >> water, man-made in most cases, that is usually smaller than a lake." >> > This definiti

Re: [Tagging] Lake or Pond

The description in the (OSM) wiki states: "A pond: a body of standing > water, man-made in most cases, that is usually smaller than a lake." > This definition is different from the Wikipedia definition: " A *pond* is a body of standing water

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

te. > > But misses out on the mtb! > > Presently tagged > network=nwn > route=mtb;hiking;horse > > While the semi colon is discouraged ... these cases appear to be > exceptions. > > > > On 02/09/18 19:02, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > There are routes out the

[Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

There are routes out there that can be used by bicycle and on foot. Up tp now I have classified them as one or the or the other, tagging according to the prevalent use. This is unsatisfactory and, strictly speaking, not corresponding to the principle of on-the-ground-truth. I would like to

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

mixed foot-cycleways anyway. Volker On 2 September 2018 at 11:26, Yves wrote: > Why don't you Tage separate relations? > Yves > > Le 2 septembre 2018 11:02:39 GMT+02:00, Volker Schmidt > a écrit : >> >> There are routes out there that can be used by bicycle and on foot

Re: [Tagging] Spanish "manors"

In the Veneto region of Italy there are about 300 Venetian Villas tagged as "historic=manor" plus "manor:type=venetian_villa" [1] This could be a model, as the historic function of those villas was most likely very similar to the ones listed in your post. [2] [1] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/A3H

Re: [Tagging] Specchietti

razie Volker >> Massimo >> >> >> Il giorno ven 6 lug 2018 alle ore 17:16 Volker Schmidt >> ha scritto: >> >>> Secondo il sito >>> https://www.poste.it/cerca/index.html#/risultati-spedizioni/2IUP0009879404 >>> dovrebbe essere stao cons

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - Voting - Pressurized waterways

I would suggest to have something similar for the thousands of water pumping stations here in the Veneto region of Northern Italy (Po valley), and most likely hundreds of thousands world-wide. Not sure if it makes sense to put it in the same proposal. Certainly some components are identical at

Re: [Tagging] Campaniles tagging

There is more to this. What's the difference between "campanile" and "bell_tower" (independently form the tagging scheme)? Hint: the English Wikipedia redirects to the Bell Tower page (no indication that a "campanile" is free-standing) The English wiki page for "man_made=campanile" says: "A free

Re: [Tagging] Cafe run as outreach project

This is a tricky issue. I expect not all of them to be happy to publicise that fact. We have here in Italy many businesses or amenities that are run by social cooperatives [1] that employ people with special needs. From the Wikipedia article it seems that similar forms are common in Belgium. In

Re: [Tagging] Cafe run as outreach project

Marc, to be clear, if a project clearly advertises it, they indicate they wish it to be known. My point was only to be cautious about adding it without having checked that the project in question wishes this to be known. Unfortunately our society includes all sorts of weird people. I am German

Re: [Tagging] Cafe run as outreach project

o/ clearly states > >> "people with an handicap" > >> https://www.mechelen.be/eetcafe-t-ass-2 It mentions people with a > >> form of autism (it is worded more nicely in Dutch) > >> > >> there is nothing hidden in the two cases I wanted to map. But i

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

I would like to come back to the original point of no-U-turn relations where there are no (vertical) road signs. This [1] is one of the incriminated junctions. For me it is clear from the horizontal signing 8white lines, that this is a no-U-turn situation (or only-straight-on, if you prefer that

Re: [Tagging] Small gate only for foot access

access=no foot=yes On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, 10:56 e.rossin...@alice.it, wrote: > Hi, excuse me, how can I correctly tag a small gate only for foot access? > > barrier=gate and then which other tag can I use? > > Thanks very much. > > --enrico > > >

Re: [Tagging] Identifying language regions

> In the officially multilingual areas people are tagging multiple > > languages in name: eg https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/47207 > > It is one of the ugliest form of tagging for renderer, unfortunately > many people believe that it a good idea. > ... but it is the name as reported on the

Re: [Tagging] tagging cycleable city-models focused on simulating road network

I have struggled with this here in Italy. Maybe we should try to promote amenity=traffic_park - see [1] - eve though it only has three hits in taginfo so far. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_park On 23 April 2018 at 09:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > On Sun, 22

Re: [Tagging] tagging cycleable city-models focused on simulating road network

'), but I think that's just > for promotion, it sounds more child-friendly in Dutch. > > There are variants for categories from toddlers to professional > truckdrivers. I would use amenity=traffic_park and if needed another key > for specification of type. > > 2018-04-23

Re: [Tagging] highway=stop and highway=give_way to traffic_sign=stop and traffic_sign=give_way

Your logic is correct. But in OSM it is common practice that several tagging schemes for the same situation coexist. This is one of them We have 40 highway=stop and 4000 traffic_sign=stop. I would leave it as is, at most adding in the wiki that there are two dfferent approaches. It seems that

Re: [Tagging] Carpet hangers

And on similar line: I have seen several public carpet washing places in Finland, like this one: [1], located here: [2], but not on the map. [1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/voschix/41139585421/in/dateposted-friend/ [2] https://osm.org/go/01xhtNkQw-?m==2528474 Happy Easter On 31 March 2018 at

Re: [Tagging] wetap specific tags

The automatic "source=wetap" is not correct. If you check with the app that a fountain is working, and that sets source=wetap, this is factually wrong. Also the concept of source=whateverapp is not correct, when whateeverapp is a tool to enter data which come from the user of the app. So in most

Re: [Tagging] wetap specific tags

to keep the ACA route description up-to-date) On 23 March 2018 at 14:19, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2018-03-23 14:09 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt <vosc...@gmail.com>: > >> And this raises the obvious question: Do we have any way of tagging &q

Re: [Tagging] Culverts and Fords

The layers tag in OSM is only to enable the renderer to display/draw crossing OSM elements correctly. The element with the higher layer value is drown over the ones with lower layer values. In the case of the ford the waterway and the highway are on the same layer and share a node, which

[Tagging] nautical channels

How to map a nautical channel [1] ? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_(geography)#Nautical_channels ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Upcoming removal of power=station and power=sub_station in the standard style

Regarding sub_station, there seems to have been a revert three month ago of the results of a maproulette task sub_station > substation. according this changeset comment on one of the sub_station nodes in my area: "revert mechanical edit of

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

It is generally a bad idea to store data twice in different places. Any database expert will agree with that. It's a simple question of data maintanance. OSM is being suffocated with imports/insertion of data that are maintained outside OSM, and hence needs regular re-import or manual update:

Re: [Tagging] 2 meaning for crossing=zebra

Re: marking= zebra Problem is that the zebra stripes can have different meaning in different countries. In Italy it can mean, depending on the context: "foot-only" or "foot-and-bicycle". In addition we also have additional non-zebra signing for bicycles. It would be much better to distinguish

Re: [Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

The description for Edinburgh University applies equally for many of the older universities all over Europe, including "my" local one, University of Padova, Italy. It's not present in OSM as a single entity (e.g. site) but as same fourty separate amenity=university buildings, scattered over the

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

> Just for interests sake, if a route is tagged as both foot & bike, what > would it render as? In OSM, cycle paths are blue, while foot paths are red. > In OSMAND, cycle paths are blue dashes, foot paths are black dots. > I am talking abut route relations and not about ways. Bicycle and hiking

Re: [Tagging] routes with double use hiking and bicycle

(retransmission without photo) > How many routes are ciclopedonale in Italy? I have seen one in 8 days of >> cycling though Northern Italia, and it was a way or connection rather than >> a marked/named route. >> >> Mvg Peter Elderson >> > > Good

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Toll Gantry

A toll_bridge [1] is a bridge for which you have to pay to pass, highway=toll_bridge should be a highway that is a toll-bridge, not a mechanical structure that is installed above a road to check the passing traffic. This would be a gantry [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gantry_(road_sign) [1]

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Toll Gantry

gantry=traffic_signals | speed_camera | automatic_toll_collection | ... On 22 September 2018 at 23:01, Colin Smale wrote: > On 2018-09-22 22:50, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > A toll_bridge [1] is a bridge for which you have to pay to pass, > highway=toll_bridge should be a highway th

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

This is an interesting proposal, but it needs a lot of thinking before we can consider it a working proposal. Here is my lost of *additional points* that need clarification. 1) The problem exists in the same way also for other routes like: route=road|foot|hiking|bus|trolleybus|tram|mtb| So the

Re: [Tagging] RfC - tagging whatever power line is isolated as attribute

In the proposal there is a statement: " it is impossible to check whatever power line is insulated during survey without closely approaching power line" I thought, that the distinction is very easy; insulated cables don't need insulated suspension. Insulated suspension is very easy to see. Or am I

Re: [Tagging] Link roads between different highways type

In reality this varies from case to case and from country to country. The important part is that the access rules are correct, and explicitly tagged, where needed. The general rule, i.e. to use the higher-level tagging takes largely care of this, as normally the higher-level road class has more

Re: [Tagging] Glamping

um 12:49 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt < > vosc...@gmail.com>: > >> That's the one I have come across: >> https://www.glampingcanonici.com/en/ >> > > > this one could also be seen as kind of hotel (or kind of camp site) > _

Re: [Tagging] Glamping

;ws==CjwKCAiAmO3gBRBBEiwA8d0Q4kLe6RrOsrLt6umW3vGK7xLiDKt5On74GRtXHe26KwNUm3Cw-YZZKhoC2zcQAvD_BwE> That should provide examples. On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 12:46, Volker Schmidt wrote: > That's the one I have come across: > https://www.glampingcanonici.com/en/ > > > On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 12:13

Re: [Tagging] Glamping

That's the one I have come across: https://www.glampingcanonici.com/en/ On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 12:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Do., 20. Dez. 2018 um 11:53 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt < > vosc...@gmail.com>: > >> How to tag an acommodation that offe

[Tagging] Glamping

How to tag an acommodation that offers hotel-type accommodation in semi-permanent tents? How to tag the single tents? (See Wikipedia) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Glamping

I think I could tag "my" glamping place as amenity=camp_site by extending the tags for camp site I notice that it has tagging for static caravans and cabins, but not for static tents, which is a frequent feature anyway at many camp

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

I would go one step further, an say that there is essentially no functional definition of the difference between a generic "motel" and a generic "hotel". In fact many of the "hotel"s I have stayed in, mainly in the USA, were "motel"s according to the criteria given in the proposal. What one could

Re: [Tagging] Building names, historical/original owner?

> I have a question about `name=` and variants of names. I've been reading a > lot of local history and in the architecture/history world, houses are > generally named for the first resident that they were built for. E.g. > "Johnson house" and are referred to in this way even after many

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

if it is a religion related operator, I usually also add religion and > denomination tags, i.e. in your Caritas example it would be > religion=christian > denomination=catholic > I would not be sure how to handle this: Are these "access" tags, in the sense that (in the example) the kindergarten

Re: [Tagging] Imagery variations/misalignments in iD - which to use?

Let me just inject that the wavy-roads problem is also present at Big G. Go have a look at https://www.google.com/maps/place/Primolano/@45.9501667,11.7245655,732m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4778e912d5d438bb:0xa9e8d85e1a0a7260!8m2!3d45.965432!4d11.7009884 Back to the argument of the thread:

Re: [Tagging] How to tag access restriction on interstate highway crossovers?

What about access=emergency ? On Sun, 30 Dec 2018, 22:31 Xavier > By "interstate highway crossovers" I mean small bits of road that > connect the two carriage ways of a US interstate highway and are signed > as "Authorized Vehicles Only" (at least in Virginia they are signed > this way). > > An

Re: [Tagging] crossing=cycleway as a node

On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 12:05, yo paseopor wrote: > Hi! > > Now I'm tagging with the more detail I can some cycleways in Catalonia. I > do al the ways, and I cut and mark all the crossings. I do this with the > formula > highway=cycleway > cycleway=crossing > as a way (like I do other times with

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

"building=church" is a building that has the characteristics of a church, but to indicate its use as a (christian) church it has to be tagged with "amenity=place_of_worship" plus "religion=christian" I would assume that the default is "access=private" as the priest/pastor/... has the power to

Re: [Tagging] Intermittently unprotected cycle track

Tagging of properties of the track should be no problem: cycleway:left=track cycleway:left:width=3 cycleway:left:surface=asphalt ... On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, 12:01 Tobias Zwick, wrote: > Hi Richard > > I'd tag this situation with cycleway=track/lane/shared_lane on the road > itself. I don't see

Re: [Tagging] Intermittently unprotected cycle track

On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, 16:14 althio, wrote: > Route relation membership cannot be clearly and separately applied > with namespacing, it requires a separate objet [1]. > I do not see any problem with that. I have been including roads with cycleway=lane routinely in bicycle routes. > > > ... or

Re: [Tagging] tagging laboratories

:15, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 2:51 AM Volker Schmidt wrote: > > > > ... and then there are big research centres that are called > "laboratory". Like LLNL or Los Alamos National Laboratory. > > The two near me (GE Global Research Center; K

Re: [Tagging] tagging laboratories

... and then there are big research centres that are called "laboratory". Like LLNL or Los Alamos National Laboratory. On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, 06:08 Kevin, wrote: > In general at my university we usually talk about "wet labs" vs "dry > labs", mostly in regards to hazardous materials. > >

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 20:09, Fernando Trebien wrote: > I think Lone Pine [2] would be interesting to discuss because it > doesn't have any major routes linking larger places passing through > it. The highways leading to it are currently highway=residential and > should probably be

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 20:17, Fernando Trebien wrote: Actually access=* gets overridden by any other more specific access > tag in the access hierarchy [1]. So access=no+foot=permissive means no > access to everyone except pedestrians, which are explicitly > authorized. > > [1] >

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

I second Martin. No "oneway" key in this case. On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 21:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 14. Mar 2019, at 11:43, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > > > > or oneway=signed if you think it clashes with the legal > > restriction tags). > > > or

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

Just my five €cents: My experience with the massive imports in Veneto is, under many aspects, negative. I have tried in vain to stop or revert them. There are a number of problems, just to list a few basic ones: - we import perisahbale data which are at best remotely related to what should

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 15:45, Sergio Manzi wrote: > Have mappers walked along the whole world coastlines? Have they descended > all world's rivers by canoe? > No, these are examples where imports make sense as these are feature that change slowly (normally) Have all Mumbay, New York, Rome,

Re: [Tagging] Tagging professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

> > On 07/03/19 18:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > They could go into OHM on a year by year basis? > There is an old proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/historic_event but it has not been approved. I think this type of event-related track should go into any of the many

Re: [Tagging] Tagging professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019, 08:57 Richard Fairhurst, wrote: > They don’t belong in OSM for the reasons you state, > I strongly second this statement. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

AFAIK <100 nodes don't fall in import category. >> > I see 586 blue elements on the umap, or am I missing something? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

These tags need a revision of definition to eliminate ambiguous or unclear definitions (selecting as far as possible the mainstream practises) and then a careful plan on how to retag the remaining cases. Main problem will be that armchair mapping will in many cases not work for lack of street

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

Nodes on ways do have an "inherited" direction (unless they are end nodes) The wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_sign says: " You may use traffic_sign:forward =* to specify that this particular sign affects vehicles moving in

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

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 08:55, s8evq wrote: > ... What about route=bicycle. The same problem exists there for a lot of > the network=lcn routes. But the wiki doesn't mention anything. I think the > same logic applies there, or not? > oneway=yes for bicycle|foot|other routes to indicate that the

Re: [Tagging] mapping large memorial objects that roads pass through.

The minimum that is needed is a layer=1 for the torii itself as it is above the road, not at the same level. On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 03:34, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:08 PM John Willis via Tagging > wrote: > > > > I understand about tunnel=building_passage for ways that

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

Sorry, I am getting confused here (I am listening in as I frequently map bìcycle routes). The "oneway" tag would only make sense on a loop-shaped route. And only if there are only ways and no nodes like signposts ecc, and if there are no branches, and only if all members of the route were oneway

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

have the feeling that we have discussed this before. On the fly I find these two hreads: [Tagging] Wastewater Plants [Talk-de] Klärbecken... (in German :-( ) Volker On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 17:43, Markus wrote: > Hi list, > > Does a man_made=storage_tank need to be closed? Or do we have (or >

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

... and just to make this even trickier: The access tag is (in most cases) about legal access, and not about is-it-a-good-idea-to-route-a-pedestrian-along-this-road access. That has to be underlined. In my part of the world most roads, even with a lot of traffic and without sidewalk are legally

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

I am sorry, this is not the correct approach. We have here plenty of streets in other categories (unclassified|teritery|secondary|primary) without sidewalk where it is perfectly legal for pedestrians to use the road. This does not say whether it's safe to walk on them. If people now start putting

Re: [Tagging] what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 17:50, Paul Johnson wrote: > It's recommended that bicycle and foot get tagged explicitly where there's > no obvious global default (like footway, path, cycleway and motorway). > Where can I find this recommendation ? I had found only these default access tables:

[Tagging] what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

In the context of cycling-related tagging there is an issue which I would like to bring up. This regards the tag combination highway=path and bicycle=yes. Access tags generally are about legal access (with a few exceptions which do not apply here) "highway=path" implies "bicycle=yes" (in most

Re: [Tagging] What is the role of "role=guidepost"

examples, where a guidepost in a route relation has a role that is neither nor "guidepost. On Sat, 13 Apr 2019, 11:09 ajt1...@gmail.com, wrote: > On 13/04/2019 09:52, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I have only now detected this (optional?) role value in route relations. > >

Re: [Tagging] what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

"an armchair mapper should add access=unknown to the tagging" > > I certainly don't do this when mapping from aerial imagery, and > neither of the editors that I've used (ID and JOSM) have suggest > adding "access=unknown" to a newly mapped path. > Thinking about this, I would say it's wrong.

Re: [Tagging] what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

@Mateusz I just got alerted that you added a paragraph on the wiki Page OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions in which you state: " Note that explicit tagging of access repeating what following tables imply may be

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

A side remark. Triggered by comparing abandoned palces with abandoned railways (and smilar), a ghost town with (some) buidlings still standing should be abandoned: ... a ghost town without trace on the ground should be tagged with razed: ... or dismantled: ... , but not with abandoned: ...

Re: [Tagging] What is the role of "role=guidepost"

paign=sig-email_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 20:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 13. Apr 2019, at 12:06, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > > > But your example is different. You put the

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >