Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

On 14/10/22 06:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: It seems we are seeing different things, I can’t help if you cannot recognize that the fountain is clearly decorated. It is not just an utility, the wall is a part, isn’t it? Yep.. there is the problem ... 'we' see different things even

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

On 11/10/22 20:03, Marc_marc wrote: Le 11.10.22 à 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : Am Mo., 10. Okt. 2022 um 09:53 Uhr schrieb Davidoskky :     I would propose the deprecation of the value fountain=stone_block     since it could be tagged as fountain=driking, material=stone. There are

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

On 13/10/22 02:42, Evan Carroll wrote: There is such a thing as mixed use with our local authorities, residential+commercial. I wouldn't think residential and industrial mixes because of noise and pollution, at least in theory. Landuse has nothing to do with local authorities or zoning.

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

On 11/10/22 05:39, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote: I feel that writing on this mailing list is not such a good way to find good solutions to problems, while it appears a wonderful place to find problems. Yes, a wonderful way to find problems. Few suggest ways to fix them... I do try to

Re: [Tagging] camp sites in Haiti

On 12/10/22 02:05, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Would it be possible to re-tag those refugee camps in an automated edit? … I'm not even sure if they all still exist 12 years later. It would not be possible, because we do not know if they still exist. So you leave them with an incorrect tag?

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

On 11/10/22 22:38, Marc_marc wrote: Le 11.10.22 à 11:23, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit : On 11/10/22 10:22, Marc_marc wrote: you do not need to have the use of a key "approved for fountains" that would respect the meaning of the approved tag. however it would be useful to discuss/approve the

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

On 11/10/22 23:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 11 Oct 2022, at 13:30, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote: How would you tag this fountain I photographed the other day? The water is not potable, the stream of water cannot be interrupted and definitely is not a decorative

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

On 10/10/22 08:20, stevea wrote: I continue to call "bubblers" (although I personally call them "drinking fountains") emitting a jot of water on button press "water taps," as it is that button press that makes them a "tap." Yes, they are both drinking fountains / bubblers, too, as well as

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Payment denominations

On 10/10/22 11:42, stevea wrote: Such "rules" would be somewhere in the realm of the "policy" of the merchant (or perhaps government agency). On Oct 9, 2022, at 5:25 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 10:12, stevea wrote: Yes, I'm glad to hear this: somebody refusing a

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

On 10/10/22 20:55, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote: If it was fitted with a shower .. then it becomes a shower. If around the pipe on which the tap is present is fitted a fountain .. then it becomes a fountain. Nit picking: Oxygen is a gas .. under 'normal' conditions. Better to use the

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

On 9/10/22 21:08, Peter Neale via Tagging wrote: No, it would not "turn them into taps", but it WOULD mean that a tap is present as part of the structure of the device.  "amenity=drinking_water; tap=yes". If something is fitted with a tap on its outlet .. it is then a tap. If it was fitted

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

On 9/10/22 21:49, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am So., 9. Okt. 2022 um 12:22 Uhr schrieb Minh Nguyen : drinking_water=no is already approved for non-potable water, and there are non-Boolean values and drinking_water:legal=* if you'd like to split hairs. +1 I'd

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

I oppose depreciation of the tag. I would support depreciation of all non-decorative 'fountains'. On 10/10/22 07:56, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: For now I 1) notified people who used added this tag more than once (currently mapped man_made=drinking_fountain are counted) See

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

On 9/10/22 18:37, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 9 Oct 2022, at 08:50, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: I'll be voting no. me too, it is trying to deprecate a handful of tags I am using for fountain classification. Why do people have to “deprecate” other pe

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

On 9/10/22 17:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 at 16:36, stevea wrote: > Disagree, some are are the same feature .. taps can be drinking water .. or 'not suitable for drinking' (legal CYA?), 'recommend you boil' (more CYA?), and 'not suitable for drinking' (you

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

The symbol is of a tap, not applicable to a 'drinking fountain'. A suitable symbol could be a simple drop of water as that does not signify the physical feature? The tag does not distinguish between taps, drinking fountains, a continuous flow from a pipe, a river, a pool, a gutter or a

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

On 8/10/22 22:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 8 Oct 2022, at 12:43, Enno Hermann wrote: It does not make sense to me to use different tags for the same kind of feature, so I generally use amenity=fountain for these with appropriate subtags. it’s not the same kind of

[Tagging] Cloths Lines

While we thinking of water features and how to make some sense of what we have now... I'll raise the subject of a less numerous subject and hopefully less confusing subject for contemplation; cloths lines. Some Russian mappers have crested and mapped amenity=clothes_dryer

Re: [Tagging] RFC - A broad look at fountains

On 7/10/22 23:37, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote: I wish to broadly discuss the definition of fountains and similar objects that have the objective of delivering water (drinkable or not). Everything I wish to discuss in this thread is about man made constructions that transport water through

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

On 7/10/22 09:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 22:00, Davidoskky via Tagging wrote: With all these tags, there is still no way to properly describe a place with a pipe that provides water which is not drinkable and not decorative. Throwing another

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

On 7/10/22 23:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Fr., 7. Okt. 2022 um 13:46 Uhr schrieb ael : Maybe. I guess that if I was starting from scratch, I might have a general tag of water_feature and find choose suitable values to describe these things. then I am happy we do not

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

On 4/10/22 23:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: I am not entirely how to solve various issues surrounding drinking water terminology (help highly welcomed!) but it is now really clear to me that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain Wiki page established

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

On 8/10/22 04:54, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: Hello all, thanks for all your replies and input. It is however a little frustrating indeed that all this only happens after the discussion period - which is not the first time with my proposals. I think rather than voting against, you should

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

ceptions shouldn't be made without a very good reason. On 05/10/2022 12:04, Warin wrote: > > On 5/10/22 08:25, Minh Nguyen wrote: >> Vào lúc 11:54 2022-10-04, Jass Kurn đã viết: >>> I've just noticed there is a bubbler tag being promoted? Whi

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

On 6/10/22 10:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 5 Oct 2022, at 15:26, Jass Kurn wrote: When it should be, as a suggestion, drinking_water:type=bubbler, or drinking_water:type=bottle_refill. these tags are misleading, you are not describing drinking water, hence it is

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation proposal: man_made=drinking_fountain

On 5/10/22 08:25, Minh Nguyen wrote: Vào lúc 11:54 2022-10-04, Jass Kurn đã viết: I've just noticed there is a bubbler tag being promoted? Which appears to be an American English term for a British English drinking fountain. Why promote another term, and use an American English term. What

Re: [Tagging] OSM Wiki

On Mon, 3 Oct 2022, 13:47 Warin, <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: An interesting collective of comments on 'bubbler' from Australia https://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/resources/aus/word/map/search/word/bubbler/The%20Riverina/ On 1/10/22 11:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

On 4/10/22 08:31, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Mo., 3. Okt. 2022 um 10:07 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: I don't think this is a drinking fountain, another mapper does.. what is your opinion? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thum

Re: [Tagging] OSM Wiki

An interesting collective of comments on 'bubbler' from Australia https://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/resources/aus/word/map/search/word/bubbler/The%20Riverina/ On 1/10/22 11:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 1 Oct 2022, at 02:38, stevea wrote: There's water_tap,

Re: [Tagging] Terminology primary feature, main tag, etc..

On 3/10/22 21:14, Marc_marc wrote: Hello, Le 03.10.22 à 07:51, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : power pole + street lamp + stork's nest? having more than one main tag on an object is in my opinion a practice not to be encougered, it's again one feature = one object: you add the

Re: [Tagging] Terminology primary feature, main tag, etc..

ot; or "feature tag". (I think "primary key/tag" is the most popular one) C) We should document what we mean by this. -- Open questions: Q1) Which term should we choose as official term? ("main key"/"primary key"/"feat

Re: [Tagging] Terminology primary feature, main tag, etc..

;feature tag"! ... I have no preference for either of the others, which ever is most understandable/easy to translate should be chosen. . Q2) Should one OSM object hold multiple "primary tags"? (ongoing discussion between Mateusz, Martin, Warin, Marc et al.) Ha! Too complex! Desir

Re: [Tagging] OSM Wiki

On 1/10/22 09:45, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 09:32, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: I would not  expect https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bubbler.jpg to be a water tap, but I am not a native speaker. Yes, quite definitely a water tap!

Re: [Tagging] Terminology primary feature, main tag, etc..

On 3/10/22 19:01, Peter Elderson wrote: A feature is not a tag or a key, it's an object in the OSM database. I don't know which features are primary, secondary, ... and why. Anyway, the term primary feature is not equivalent to main key or main tag. Feature = real world object. Real world

Re: [Tagging] Terminology primary feature, main tag, etc..

On 3/10/22 18:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 3 Oct 2022, at 07:55, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: - primary feature [1] - main key [2] - primary key [3] - feature tag [4] 1) Are these synonyms (except for the key/tag

[Tagging] Is this a drinking fountain?

HI, I don't think this is a drinking fountain, another mapper does.. what is your opinion? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Water_flowing_from_drinking_water_tap.jpg/375px-Water_flowing_from_drinking_water_tap.jpg Not .. not after water quality nor if it is a tap

Re: [Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

On 1/10/22 08:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 30 Sept 2022 at 18:29, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: I would not tag a bubbler as a tap. These were the bubblers that we grew up with at school https://victoriancollections.net.au/media/collectors/57a00a4fd0cdd12104

Re: [Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

On 30/9/22 13:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: I expanded https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap based on discussion here and what I researched while implementing https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/pull/4423 ("How is drinking water provided here?")

Re: [Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

On 29/9/22 18:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 29 Sep 2022, at 09:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: particularly to distinguish different drinking fountain types <#> Am Mi., 28. Sept. 2022 um 10:45 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com&

Re: [Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

On 28/9/22 21:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Mi., 28. Sept. 2022 um 10:45 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: I would not use the tag man_made=water_tap for these. Why not use https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fountain You will note the different tags

Re: [Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

On 28/9/22 18:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Mi., 28. Sept. 2022 um 09:55 Uhr schrieb Peter Neale via Tagging : If the user cannot control the flow, there is NOT a "tap" present. around here, the typical drinking fountain is an iron cast column with permanent flow. There is a water

Re: [Tagging] Is it man_made=water_tap?

On 28/9/22 08:29, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: I would say that regardless of how it's operated - turn handle, push button, lever, foot pedal, auto sensor etc - that if water comes out, it's a tap! Must have the ability to control the flow of the water to be called a tap. Thanks Graeme

Re: [Tagging] Is this continouos flow a water tap?

On 28/9/22 02:59, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: What exactly defines man_made=water_tap? Open/close ability? Must be able to control the flow - so 'on' and 'off' are the two extrems. Top-down water flow (rather than small upward jet of many drinking water fountains?) Is

Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

On 20/12/20 6:32 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Dec 20, 2020, 00:01 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: On 20/12/20 6:45 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Is there some good use for sport=shooting_range? Or is it always preferable to use sport=shooting +

Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

On 20/12/20 6:45 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Is there some good use for sport=shooting_range? Or is it always preferable to use sport=shooting + leisure=pitch? This is a request to review this edit

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

On 20/12/20 9:24 am, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: I've seen these in the US also, but I never knew what they were called.  I understand that the purpose of them is simply to make noise when a car drives over them, as they don't slow you down in any appreciable way like a speed bump/hump. We

Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

On 2/12/20 8:57 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Mi., 2. Dez. 2020 um 10:45 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>>: In the UK it looks like the heath service (NHS) will contact eligible individuals and probably arrange a ti

Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

On 30/11/20 10:21 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 30. Nov 2020, at 10:46, Florian Lohoff wrote: Yes please - I can see planning coming up for vaccinations centers here in Germany and these are not planned in hospitals but in vacant commercial buildings which have loads

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

On 2/12/20 6:41 am, Philip Barnes wrote: On Tue, 2020-12-01 at 17:55 +0100, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Given "in the field they may also look like trails." it seems to not be solvable. How mappers are supposed to distinguish them from normal paths? Humans are animals, mammals to

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 134, Issue 130 animal tracks ?

On 1/12/20 11:29 pm, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 at 11:57, St Niklaas > wrote: A horse track is not a good choice to tend to walk on foot, it already has its own tag bridle way. There is a difference between tracks worn by wild animals and

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

On 1/12/20 9:36 pm, Colin Smale wrote: On 2020-12-01 11:14, Warin wrote: The differences are less than 10m. (The points of the green track are where data exists, the straight lines between those points simply connect the measured points. ) The 'simplify way' in JOSM is normal set

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

On 1/12/20 9:43 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 1. Dec 2020, at 11:18, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: The 'Auto' setting may not be 'optimal' for what you want, but as a compromise between data bloat and resolution/accuracy it maybe better than a fixe

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

On 1/12/20 5:07 pm, Andrea Mazzoleni wrote: Think your confusing two terms; resolution, accuracy I understand that you mean, but check this detail: https://ibb.co/7ycFW5J At least my impression is that the 1Sec is also more accurate. It's obviously only a single test, and the recording

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

On 1/12/20 11:06 am, Casper Van Battum wrote: I believe access=no would apply for this specific situation, in the sense that the organization mentioned doesn't want people walking on the trails. I'm guessing it's either protected land or private property these trails are on. Since the

Re: [Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres

On 1/12/20 12:24 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 30. Nov 2020, at 12:56, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: I would assume the location of these mass vaccination centers would be widely publicized and the locations identified. Do they need further identifi

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

On 1/12/20 10:36 am, Lukas Richert wrote: I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in my area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but it is allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes significant shortcuts so allowing routing

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

AM Andrea Mazzoleni mailto:amadva...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 12:27 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote: If the intention is to indicate the error/accuracy/uncertainty then tag/state that.

Re: [Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres

On 19/11/20 6:59 am, Tom Pfeifer wrote: With the first Covid-19 vaccines getting approved, many municipalities are planning facilities for administering mass vaccination. In Berlin, the two former airports Tegel and Tempelhof are planned, along with some sports facilities. This raises the

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

On 30/11/20 8:45 am, Andrea Mazzoleni wrote: Hi, I bought a tracking device that supports GPS dualband (also called dual frequency) for high precision mapping, and I'm wondering if I can put this information in the "source" tag. The intention is to make future mappers consider the device

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

On 27/9/20 5:51 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: I am a bit dubious about value of updating fire=perimeter It is something that changes extremely quickly, we should not encourage people to survey perimeter of ACTIVE fire, OSM is doomed to be strictly worse source of fire perimeter than

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

On 31/8/20 8:25 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: Keep it simple, if the simple solution does not limit you. Agreed. I see no reason why a way as a member of a simple route relation could not have the role 'transport'. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] tagging for fairgrounds

On 28/8/20 8:05 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 at 05:31, Richard Welty > wrote: again in the US, state and county fairgrounds are permanent facilities which function as event space when the fair is not actually going on. the

Re: [Tagging] Hands Off !, respect my (our) space

On 25/8/20 11:37 pm, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 25/08/2020 06.04, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 06:38, Warin wrote: Off list. It looks like you accidentally Bcc'd the list. It looks like Warin tried to send it to "80hnhtv4agou---" without noticing that address is

Re: [Tagging] Hands Off !, respect my (our) space

Off list. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TAGGING LIST. Desist. On 25/8/20 12:50 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote: In ID, on your profile page is, Other nearby users, and the home location, map the point is other locals based on my (our) edits know where we (I) live, but come 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - kerb=regular

On 22/8/20 12:56 am, Supaplex wrote: I see that I have probably chosen an unfavorable solution to solve the problem described. Many seem to accept the basic problem: There is only one qualitative category for all kerbs with a height of over ~3 cm, although in reality there is a significant

Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

On 15/8/20 10:54 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: But what do you do for a place, called a Camping Ground, that is a big area of grass, mostly without defined "pitches" & where you can camp anyway you like: sleep in your car; on the ground; in a tent / camper trailer / caravan / motorhome?

Re: [Tagging] tourism=caravan_site versus tourism=camp_site: camping with a tent

On 15/8/20 4:49 am, Hidde Wieringa wrote: Good day, I am having trouble with the tourism tags caravan_site and camp_site, specifically for the use case of finding a place to camp with a tent (so not a caravan or a camper van). My goal is to differentiate the two tags. Both tags allow

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Re[2]: PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

... unless someone improves them. Monday, August 10, 2020 9:33 PM -05:00 from Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: On 11/8/20 9:25 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote: one of the points that i talked about, that no one has answered yet is what about someone not local w

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Re[2]: PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

On 11/8/20 9:25 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote: one of the points that i talked about, that no one has answered yet is what about someone not local who just puts 400 + unverified stops on platforms and there all wrong. If you find something wrong - correct it. If the things mapped

Re: [Tagging] PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

heavy after that. 2020-08-10 09:20 skrev Warin: [...] Why is the front of the vehicle (bus, train, ferry.. and possibly others) mapped? Would it not be better to map the thing most usefull to most people? That would be where passengers get on/off, on multiple exit vehicles like train

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops

On 8/8/20 8:29 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I still believe shop=bubble_tea is suitable, as these are specific shops where you can get only bubble tea. Although bubble tea is something to drink, I would rather think of it as a specific kind of sweets, than as a shop where you can get a

Re: [Tagging] PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length

On 8/8/20 10:54 am, Andy Townsend wrote: Hello, This is a question that actually arose out of a "how to tag" argument that's come to the attention of the DWG in the USA, but it's actually easy to describe in terms of data in the UK that I'm familiar with, so I'll do that.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

On 4/8/20 7:17 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Everyone, the voting period for natural=bare_ground is still open for 4 more days. I would recommend voting "no" on the current definition, unfortunately. As mentioned above, the current definition is far too broad, and could easily be construed to

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

On 2/8/20 5:41 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 2. Aug 2020, at 03:55, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Much easier to tag the numerical height of the curb as this avoids the confusion of words, particularly with different languages, cultures and cl

Re: [Tagging] kerb=regular vs. raised

On 31/7/20 12:42 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: In Indonesia, Costa Rica, Peru and Mexico, it is common to find 30cm kerbs in older neighborhoods. In Nicaragua there were some that were at least 45 cm high, in Leon or Granada. Tropical countries with heavy rainfall often do this to avoid

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - UPRN & USRN

On 27/7/20 5:58 am, Rob Nickerson wrote: Hi all, Mappers in the United Kingdom are looking to agree two tags for mapping 'Unique Property Reference Numbers' and 'Unique Street Reference Numbers'. To support this effort I volunteered to create the relevant proposal pages on the wiki. To

Re: [Tagging] Farmlands subject to rotation of crops

On 22/7/20 12:53 am, Michael Montani wrote: Dear all, I wanted to check with you which is the best way to map farmlands subject to rotation of crops. An example could be of a farmland used for general crop in one part of the year and left it at rest for the remaining part of the year, being

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

On 21/7/20 9:04 pm, Michal Fabík wrote: Hi, in some parts of the world, it's common practice to paint guidepost information (destinations, distances etc.) on rock faces, trees, walls and similar existing surfaces, rather than use purpose-made plates attached to a pole. (Example:

Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

On 23/7/20 6:42 am, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 22/07/2020 16.32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Mi., 22. Juli 2020 um 21:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke: Right now the only option seems to be to model the lot as two separate entities, one which excludes the motorcycle spaces, and one which is

Re: [Tagging] Edited the wiki for building=terrace

On 18/7/20 3:29 pm, Skyler Hawthorne wrote: Hi everyone, A couple weeks ago, I started a thread regarding how to tag terrace buildings when the entire building has a name. I proposed an alternative tagging scheme to handle such cases, and others where it's clear that the building is one

Re: [Tagging] Intermittent highways?

On 15/7/20 5:07 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 15. Jul 2020, at 00:49, Justin Tracey wrote: If the festival is held at some date expressible using the opening hours syntax, you could use the "open hours" tag[0] or add conditions to the "access" tags I would not

Re: [Tagging] Intermittent highways?

I too would suggest opening_hours. Seasonal is related to the climate and the climate does vary from one year to the next and may be why the tag has a 'loose description'. An annual festival is not usually held for an entire climatic season, so I would not use it for them. Similar argument

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

Most Australian deserts cannot be mapped as a consistent land cover but as a patchwork combination of differing land covers. As such mapping the land cover is a time intensive task and given the usefulness of such information compared to other priorities is not something that would be done any

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

On 10/7/20 9:30 pm, Peter Elderson wrote: Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, being a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter. To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil. Wouldn't there always be some kind of

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On 9/7/20 12:44 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 8. Jul 2020, at 16:17, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Really? If Alice and Bob each own 50% of "Fairview Heights Apartments", you would expect that there are legal property records indicating exactly which half of said complex is

Re: [Tagging] Is there any case of valid numeric addr:housename - for example addr:housename?

On 30/6/20 11:16 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 30. Jun 2020, at 15:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Is there some chance that any of them is valid? IMHO not, these are likely autocompletion bloopers. Highly likely these are errors. However it is not

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

On 20/6/20 9:35 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 20. Jun 2020, at 00:59, Joseph Guillaume wrote: I just wanted to emphasise that this proposal isn't really about whether to tag qanats - it's about whether to tag them with man_made=qanat or waterway=canal+canal=qanat.

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

Normal OSM access is assumed to be access=yes, where some access is restricted then in OSM it should be marked *=no. So where a train forbids bicycle transport then bicycle=no should be applied or some local default of bicycle=no on trains be documented. Locally to me some trains require the

Re: [Tagging] charging stations

On 15/6/20 10:26 pm, Paul Allen wrote: On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 at 10:29, Johannes Werner via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: cable=yes/no/length seems like a great idea. It does however not solve OPs problem that a cable is not a socket. However, a cable at a charging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle_parking=? for stands where handlebar is used to hold bicycle in position

On 16/6/20 4:30 am, Hidde Wieringa wrote: Good evening, In the region where I live there are 657 objects tagged with amenity=bicycle_parking, of which 457 have no bicycle_parking tag at all. I would say that classification of the bicycle_parking is undertagged in general.  Under tagged,

Re: [Tagging] nhd tags - documentation page review

Try https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/3382975 ~ 10 years ago. On 15/6/20 7:52 am, Jo wrote: If you enabled expert mode, you can download from Overpass directly into JOSM. Polyglot On Sun, Jun 14, 2020, 23:29 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

On 14/6/20 10:59 pm, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer: == Warin, can you give an example for something historic that is not there any more in reality and should be removed from OpenStreetMap? Through all the years I have never encountered anything like this mapped

Re: [Tagging] Should we map things that do not exist?

On 15/6/20 1:09 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: Regarding power lines: it is helpful mapping razed power lines as razed and not removing them completely, because in many cases some of the satellite pictures still show the towers, or at least the concrete foundations. This way you avd resurrection.

Re: [Tagging] Charging stations

On 15/6/20 1:37 am, patata wrote: Currently socket:type1 and socket:type2 are not clarifying if the station has a cable or we must bring our own. Since the connector is not necessarily a socket, Agreed. it is being discussed on our telegram group https://t.me/openchargemap to change all

Re: [Tagging] Replace the "DecoTurf" value

On 13/6/20 7:03 am, Steve Lee wrote: "DecoTurf" is not a common name, but a brand name. It  is also not a genericized trademark. We may need a broader term to classify surfaces. "Hardcourt" seems to be used exclusively for tennis courts, literally does not refer to a certain material. However,

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

On 10/6/20 11:12 pm, Paul Allen wrote: On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 02:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 9/6/20 9:30 pm, Paul Allen wrote: From those, it appears that the condition is free-form text except for cases like o

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

To me in OSM a 'path' has always been too narrow for a motor car (4WD or not) to pass. If it is wide enough for a car then it is not a 'path' in OSM so they must be tagged in some other way. Descriptions of 'path': On 10/6/20 5:53 am, brad wrote: "If a path is wide enough for

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

On 9/6/20 9:30 pm, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 09:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote: But :conditional = yes @ some text does not meet the specification of :conditional as per the wiki. From https://wiki.openstreet

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On 9/6/20 6:46 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 9. Jun 2020, at 03:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Similar for Roamn and Saxon sites, if there is something present today, map it... nothing there then nothing on OSM, put it in OHM Warin, can you give an e

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

On 9/6/20 1:10 pm, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 22:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: On 8/6/20 10:14 pm, Paul Allen wrote: access=no access:conditional=yes @ (above water) Conditional key does not look to have text base entry ... might be better t

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >