[Tagging] Proposal - Draft: key=osm for aerial imagery and internel objects

Hello, I've created a proposal for imagery objects and other objects that are only used internaly in osm. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/osm Aerial Imagery: --- With the new Bing images many new relations have been created that contain boundaries

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Draft: key=osm for aerial imagery and internel objects

Hi Serge, On Mittwoch, 15. Dezember 2010, Serge Wroclawski wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Werner Hoch werner...@gmx.de wrote: I've created a proposal for imagery objects and other objects that are only used internaly in osm. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Draft: key=osm for aerial imagery and internel objects

Hi Robert, On Mittwoch, 15. Dezember 2010, Robert Naylor wrote: On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:08:37 -, Serge Wroclawski wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Werner Hoch werner...@gmx.de Examples without unified tagging: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1291579 http

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Draft: key=osm for aerial imagery and internel objects

On Mittwoch, 15. Dezember 2010, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Robert Naylor rob...@pobice.co.uk wrote: Also see top of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage Please use this page for recording coverage. Do not use boundary relations. Large, detailed relations

Re: [Tagging] highway=path, path=hiking

Hi, On Samstag, 16. Juli 2011, Steve Bennett wrote: On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:51 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: highway=path, path=hiking doesn't say any more to me than highway=footway on its own would. The distinction is well constructed versus rough, minimal

[Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway

Hi all, the relation type=waterway proposal was written long times ago but never formally approved: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Waterway The relation is widely used as you can see in statistics: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Waterway#Tools It

[Tagging] Converting relation type relatedStreet to assiciatedStreet

Hi there, the relation type page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet. Are there any objection to convert and cleanup the relatedStreets into associatedStreet relations? Often there could be merge several

Re: [Tagging] Converting relation type relatedStreet to assiciatedStreet

Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 11:07 +0100 schrieb David Paleino: On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote: the relation type page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet. Are there any

Re: [Tagging] Converting relation type relatedStreet to assiciatedStreet

Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 12:12 +0100 schrieb David Paleino: On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:56:39 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote: Well, one relation type would be perfect. But for now I think we should try to reduce the different types one by one. Then I propose merging relatedStreet directly

Re: [Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway

Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 22:16 +1100 schrieb Steve Bennett: The proposal looks pretty sensible to me. I just wish there was a meaningful process we could follow. Probably what we really want to do is deprecate any alternative tagging schemes, and direct people to this one. As soon as the

Re: [Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway

Hi Chris, Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 15:53 + schrieb Chris Hill: I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread. There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people are free to use *any* tags they like. There are no such things as deprecated tags, tagging is

Re: [Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway

Am Montag, den 20.02.2012, 20:11 + schrieb Chris Hill: On 19/02/12 23:38, Steve Bennett wrote: On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Hillo...@raggedred.net wrote: I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread. There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and

Re: [Tagging] Names on relations and not component ways

Hi ceyockey, Am Freitag, den 04.01.2013, 08:43 -0500 schrieb dies38...@mypacks.net: I recently created a waterway where I put the name of the waterway on the relation but not on the component ways which are grouped by the relation. This results in the name of the waterway not appearing in

Re: [Tagging] Names on relations and not component ways

Am Sonntag, den 06.01.2013, 16:43 -0600 schrieb Toby Murray: On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Werner Hoch werner...@gmx.de wrote: AFAIR there's currently no relation type that inherits it's tags to the member ways, so that the name tags are rendered on the map. Relations with type

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

Hi, Am Montag, den 28.01.2013, 17:26 +0100 schrieb Tobias Knerr: Nevertheless, there appears to be a trend to merge them into a single area for the entire river via multipolygons. This has been brought to my attention by a recent changeset

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

Hi Paul, Am Montag, den 28.01.2013, 17:47 -0600 schrieb Paul Johnson: On Monday, January 28, 2013, Werner Hoch wrote: There are a few of that monster relations out there: http://www.h-renrew.de/h/osm/osmchecks/02_Relationstypen/planet/bd8a1061c196c9de.html

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

Am Dienstag, den 29.01.2013, 13:25 +0100 schrieb Janko Mihelić: 2013/1/29 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com The Danube river is perfectly adequately made whole by looking for name:en=Danube. Get the computer to do the work, not mappers. What if there is

Re: [Tagging] Wikipedia tag validator

Hi, I'm wondering, if you're aware of WIWOSM: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WIWOSM They provide lists of bad wikipedia tags, too: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WIWOSM#Logging regards Werner ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Reviewing the use of addr:housename

Am Sonntag, den 15.06.2014, 16:02 +0200 schrieb fly: Please, be careful. Not all of the numeric housenames are errors. You have to check them individually or maybe better contact the user and ask for clarification. I've added a feature request for keepright:

Re: [Tagging] relation type for raceways

Hi, Am Montag, den 16.03.2015, 20:04 -0400 schrieb Richard Welty: as i go forward mapping raceways in north america, one of the issues is modeling multi configuration courses such as Watkins Glen and Lime Rock. one solution is to use route relations, and add a new route type,

Re: [Tagging] tributary role in waterway relations: widespread?

Am Montag, den 29.02.2016, 12:01 +0100 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:21:44 +0100 > David Marchal wrote: > > > > > Hello, there. > > > > I wondered: I saw the' tributary' role on some waterway relations; > > while I understand its usage — to represent the

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

Hi, it is an optional tag an it is useful for quality checks of the data. Am Dienstag, den 29.01.2019, 18:37 +0300 schrieb Eugene Podshivalov: > Hi all, > The relation:waterway wiki page recommends using "distance" tag for > "the total length of river in km". Was there any discussion of this >

Re: [Tagging] Waterway tributary role

Hi, Am Samstag, den 13.04.2019, 11:48 + schrieb marc marc: > destination is the opposite, no ? > if river A go into river B : > in relation A : destination=B > in relation B : A with rôle tributary Destination helps human mappers to understand the data. It is optional.

Re: [Tagging] Waterway tributary role

Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 11.04.2019, 13:48 +0300 schrieb Eugene Podshivalov: > Hi all, > Does anyone remember where "tributary" role of waterway relations was > discussed. > It is used quite often in Fance but I could not find any reference on > the wiki. From 2010 to 2012 the mapping of waterway