Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Groundskeeping Shop
I am not sure I understand this proposal, the term is completely new to me. Why would I not search for either garden equipment or lawnmowers if that is what I need? Phil (trigpoint) On Tuesday, 12 March 2019, lamplighter wrote: > This proposal is to create the tag shop=groundkeeping > > Description > A shop selling groundskeeping equipment, equipment service and supplies for > groundskeeping to businesses and homeowners. > > Please see the proposal page at > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/groundskeeping > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Sent from my Sailfish device ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pets allowed
On Thursday, 7 March 2019, Paul Allen wrote: > > Many shops and a few restaurants in my town display a sign somewhere saying > that dogs > are allowed. > Some pubs make dogs very welcome by providing biscuits and water bowls. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Sailfish device ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pets allowed
Pets is probably a bit vague, many hotels will accept pet dogs, but are less likely to accept cats and extremely unlikely to my pet alligator (no I don't really own one). Maybe search for dogs rather than pets. Obviously dogs=no will only apply to pets, registered assistance dogs are covered by the law of the country, in the UK a hotel/pub/restaurant is not allowed to refuse assistance dogs. I assume the same is true throughout the EU. Phil (trigpoint) On Thursday, 7 March 2019, Cascafico Giovanni wrote: > Hello ML! > > how can I tag and hotel (or whatever) that allows pets? Besides, semi-OT, > if hotel offers babysitting, is childcare=yes ok? > > I briefly googled in OSM wiki and couldn't find. If already answered, > please forgive me. > -- Sent from my Sailfish device ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Sidewalk Tagging for Routing
On Tue Nov 24 13:40:38 2015 GMT, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: > > > > Sidewalks, unless they are physically separated in some way are an > > integral part of the highway. Sidewalk tags can allow a router to, maybe > > prefer, roads with sidewalks but there a lot of cases where this would > > just be plain annoying. A pedestrian simply needs to be told to follow > > the road, they are quite capable of deciding which side to walk, where > > to cross and whether it is simply easier to walk on the road. > > > > > Then we do not have an answer for Clifford's original question: how do > you tag sidewalk characteristics for wheelchair users: such as kerb, > slope, width, surface ? Especially when tagging is done by novices ? > I was thinking that, not easy but important. We do need to do this, just not so that it breaks normal pedestrian routing. I guess the things that need mapping are: drop kerbs - Probably a highway node, sidewalk:drop_kerb=left/right/both. We will need to map driveway drop kerbs too as these will be crossing point too. width - very important as many sidewalks are singlefile for walking. sidewalk:left:width=0.6, or 1.5 etc kerb height - Again important, different heights are barriers for different people, different wheelchairs. sidewalk:left:kerb_height=10 cm. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Trolltags
On Fri Sep 4 18:40:55 2015 GMT+0100, John Eldredge wrote: > Not to mention the amount of horse dung you are willing to have your bike > wheels fling up onto you. Many bridleways see very little horse traffic so its not often a problem. Mud however, lots of that. Phil (trigpoint) > > -- > John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com > "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot > drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr. > > > > On September 1, 2015 4:59:34 AM p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: > > > On Tue Sep 1 10:49:56 2015 GMT+0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> > >> I unsure about highway=bridleway+bicycle=designated but given that it > >> appears 2 129 times worldwide it is likely that is also may be > >> considered as mistake. > >> > > Makes sense to me, bicycles can legally use a bridleway in England/Wales. > > Practicality will depend upon surface, type of bike and recent weather. > > > > Phil (trigpoint) > > -- > > Sent from my Jolla > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Trolltags
On Tue Sep 1 10:49:56 2015 GMT+0100, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I unsure about highway=bridleway+bicycle=designated but given that it > appears 2 129 times worldwide it is likely that is also may be > considered as mistake. > Makes sense to me, bicycles can legally use a bridleway in England/Wales. Practicality will depend upon surface, type of bike and recent weather. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
On Fri Aug 28 23:10:59 2015 GMT+0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > Am 28.08.2015 um 17:07 schrieb Andy Townsend : > > >> On 28/08/2015 15:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> horse=designated > > > > That's an access tag. Are you saying that access tags convey physical > > characteristics somehow? > > > this is explicitly a synonym for bridleway. It says that there is a sign > bridleway. Whether the sign is reliably indicating that the way is suitable > for riding a horse might depend on the region you are in, and also on weather > conditions (rain, ice etc), but it is not different to any other > highway=bridleway which also might cause problems for horse riders in some > (supposedly rare) occasions You can, in England /Wales also walk or ride a bike on a bridleway. Your choice of bike is important in most cases, a town/road racer will not last very long. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=religious & Monastic schools
Precinct is used around cathedrals, does that work? Phil ( trigpoint) On Fri Aug 21 11:53:52 2015 GMT+0100, Andreas Goss wrote: > In first though landuse=religious was supposed to be for all religious > institution and include more than a church yard. > > Now I read... > > > landuse=religious is specifically meant for the area used by a religious > > facility and it's supporting or directly related amenities used for > > practicing the religion - not merely land that happens to be owned by a > > religious entity. Likewise, Facilities such asamenity=school or > > amenity=hospital that are not part of a primarily religious complex, or are > > not primarily a place of worship, but merely operated by a religious entity > > are represented with different tagging schemes > > Does this mean a school run by a monastry even on their grounds would > not be included in landuse=religious? > > Is this this now really just become a replacement for churchyard to > include more religions? Bascially limited to the area around a place of > worship? > __ > openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 > wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Describe explicitly that values of highway tag do not imply anything about road quality (except highway=motorway and highway=motorway_link)
On Wed Aug 19 18:36:05 2015 GMT+0100, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > > Note that it afffects also highway=path - in that case some/many > > people are convinced that there is some kind of difference of implied > > quality between highway=path and highway=footway. > > > I tend to see the distinction as this: > It depends where you are. > highway=bridleway > foot=no > bicycle=no > horse=designated > motor_vehicle=no In the UK a bridleway is also for foot and bicycles. Although you usually need a trail or mountain bike to cycle on one. > > highway=footway > foot=designated > bicycle=no > horse=no > motor_vehicle=no > > highway=cycleway > foot=no > bicycle=designated > horse=no > motor_vehicle=no Again in the UK you can walk on a cycleway, but not in Germany. > > highway=path > foot=yes > bicycle=yes > horse=yes > motor_vehicle=no > Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Local highways classifications
On Fri Jul 17 09:36:05 2015 GMT+0100, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:23 AM, wrote: > > > On Thu Jul 16 15:06:34 2015 GMT+0100, Richard Mann wrote: > > > For those interested, the issue appears to be that the Poles can have > > > multiple routes on one road section (fine, just like the Americans, use > > > relations), but also the same route number can get used on a series of > > > roads of different classification. So route 2 goes from Germany to Warsaw > > > as a motorway, then becomes a trunk, then a primary. > > > > > That happens in the UK, on whos road system OSM road classification is > > based, too. > > > > Many A roads switch between trunk and primary, or even vanish for a > > section where the route is a motorway. The A5, passing Telford, is a > > classic example. > > > > It doesn't do something like A5(M)? > The section through Telford was built first and was going to be, but it opened as the M54. http://pathetic.org.uk/lost/a5m/ The section of A5 between Telford and the M6 has been de-trunked to encourage traffic to use the M54. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Local highways classifications
On Thu Jul 16 15:06:34 2015 GMT+0100, Richard Mann wrote: > For those interested, the issue appears to be that the Poles can have > multiple routes on one road section (fine, just like the Americans, use > relations), but also the same route number can get used on a series of > roads of different classification. So route 2 goes from Germany to Warsaw > as a motorway, then becomes a trunk, then a primary. > That happens in the UK, on whos road system OSM road classification is based, too. Many A roads switch between trunk and primary, or even vanish for a section where the route is a motorway. The A5, passing Telford, is a classic example. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Pet Relief Areas"
On Wed Jun 10 09:32:26 2015 GMT+0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I prefer leash_anchor over lead_hook because it is more generic and easier > to understand. > Leash is AE, lead is BE. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (US:DMV)
On Tue Jun 9 16:26:36 2015 GMT+0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > you can use them universally for payments of government taxes and fees, > typically you have to stick them onto forms or other documents to make them > valid. > Tax_stamp sounds good, I have never heard of a UK equivalent. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (US:DMV)
On Tue Jun 9 16:06:40 2015 GMT+0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-06-09 14:37 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson : > > > How would you tag a shop that sells tax stamps and licenses, but is not a > > government office, and does not provide other services? The Oklahoma Tax > > Commission uses such a system throughout the state (authorized "tag > > agents") to save people the hassle of having to drive down to their office > > on the capitol mall in Oklahoma City. > > > > In Italy you can buy tax stamps at the tobacco shop. > Your case can be a shop=tax_stamps_and_licenses? How do people call it? > Is a tax stamp some sort of vehicle tax? Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Self serve and full serve gas stations
On Tue Jun 9 13:23:05 2015 GMT+0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-06-09 13:48 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes : > > > > While I agree that fueling only is minimum service and not full > > > service, around here (Europe) minimum service is always cheaper than > > > self because there is someone who does work for you, while in self you > > > will do it and nobody has to paid for it (there might no even be any > > > staff at the gas station, and you'll pay in advance at a machine). > > > > In the UK your card is pre-authorised, usually to GBP99, you cannot > > easily prepay for an unknown amount. > > > > > The charge to your card is made after you have filled the car, with the > > amount of fuel you have bought. > > > > payment in advance is possible with "GCHQ-save" cash as well, no > compromising plastic needed ;-) > Why worry, the ANPR cameras will get you anyway. Do they give change? Otherwise how do you know how much to prepay? My own car I have an idea, within 4 litres but when filling a hire car (which must be returned full), I haven't a clue. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (US:DMV)
On Mon Jun 8 15:48:01 2015 GMT+0100, Andreas Goss wrote: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_and_Vehicle_Licensing_Agency > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Motor_Vehicles > > amenity=driver_vehicle_licensing_agency > > Seems a bit long and while it's the name of the agency in the UK it also > describes what it does very well. Maybe without acency? Using + isn't a > good idea, right? > > amenity=driver_vehicle_licensing > > Or is there a more general term so we could subtag this in case some > countries don't combine it. > Sounds reasonable, there are local offices in the UK, or at least in GB. Or amenity=licensing, driver=yes, vehicle=yes. This could then expand for other things requiring a license, shotgun=yes? Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (US:DMV)
On Mon Jun 8 15:48:01 2015 GMT+0100, Andreas Goss wrote: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_and_Vehicle_Licensing_Agency > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Motor_Vehicles > > amenity=driver_vehicle_licensing_agency > > Seems a bit long and while it's the name of the agency in the UK it also > describes what it does very well. Maybe without acency? Using + isn't a > good idea, right? > > amenity=driver_vehicle_licensing > > Or is there a more general term so we could subtag this in case some > countries don't combine it. > > __ > openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 > wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deprecating wikipedia Tag
On Mon May 25 14:29:21 2015 GMT+0100, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:08 PM, André Pirard > wrote: > > > I already replied that I wonder what's the idea behind that enforcement. > > Why wouldn't Wikidata be used "also" rather than "instead"? Is it really a > > goal of OSM insisting to destroy Wikipedia? > > > > So when people stop linking to Wikipedia, Wikipedia will be destroyed ? Or > do I miss something here ? > I think a lot of us mappers are going to need a lot of convincing, wikipedia tags, in common with other osm tags, are human readable. When reviewing changes I do not see a number that is meaningless without following the link, and even then the wikidata page looks pretty meaningless. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging
On Fri May 15 10:41:00 2015 GMT+0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-05-15 1:27 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > > to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff and is a building. True, but a pub is much more than a business . It is as much a community centre as a business, the customers are an essential part of the formula. It is one of the P's that make a village a viable community, Post Office, Primary School and Pub. Pubs rely upon customer commitment and participation for darts, dominoes teams, to collect glasses, take a turn behind the bar.when its busy, to greet and pass time with strangers who come in. It is way more than a shop, probably the best example of an amenity there is. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] On appointment restaurant
I would tag that as amenity=events_venue. Phil (trigpoint ) On Wed May 13 15:26:45 2015 GMT+0100, André Pirard wrote: > Hi, > > Either opening_hours=on_appointment is missing or amenity=restaurant > lacks a tag or an explanation. > > It is a restaurant indeed, but only hired for private group events like > marriages. > It is not an amenity=community_centre but it's also what you call a > craft=caterer. > > How do I map that? > > BTW, here it is next to an attached building > <http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/344739636> and I left the "previous > version" separately around it. > Does anyone know a good garbage detector software? > Is there a "map repairer of the month" nomination? > > > addr:city=Dolembreux > > addr:housename=Le Normandie > > addr:housenumber=21 > > addr:postcode=4140 > > addr:street=Haie des Chênes > > amenity=restaurant > > building=yes > > contact:email=i...@malherbes-normandie.be > > contact:phone=+32 4 368 72 35 > > contact:website=http://www.malherbes-normandie.be > > craft=caterer > > name=Le Normandie > > operator=traiteur Malherbes > > takeaway=yes > (no ad intended) > > TIA, > > André. > > > > > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Maxspeed
On Wed May 13 09:02:18 2015 GMT+0100, Ross wrote: > Not the way I read their email. > > However there is already provision for: > > maxspeed: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed > > and > > maxspeed:advisory > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory > > > So I'd suggest that maxspeed is the "legal speed limit" as per the wiki > and all others are a sub set of this. > To clarity slightly, I would say the legal speed limit for cars and motorcycles. Cars towing trailers/caravans , buses and hgv's need to be tagged separately, i.e. maxspeed:hgv, maxspeed:bus. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Roads with motor vehicle access limited to residents of a specific town
On Mon May 11 10:03:48 2015 GMT+0100, André Pirard wrote: > On 2015-05-10 15:33, Volker Schmidt wrote : > > We do have here roads where access with motor vehicles is limited to > > residents plus residents of the town, where the road is. > > Example: http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/H5QZAcvCLQBwhbF4u2mq7w (zoom > > in to read the details) > > > > How do I tag such situation? > Same (as "we") in Belgium. Specifically (as exception to access > restrictions): > "Excepté circulation locale" (must stop within with a reason to go) > "Exceptés riverains" (local residents (no river needed ;-) )) > I have always read that as the equivalent to the UK 'except for access'. I know the literal translation is residents, but a delivery driver or a friend visiting would be allowed to drive there. I would use access = destination in these cases. Phil ( trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed tag shop=wholesale
On Sat May 9 02:10:38 2015 GMT+0100, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:13 PM, Matthijs Melissen > wrote: > > > Note that we also have shop=trade. It would be good to make the > > difference between both tags clear (of deprecate shop=trade, which I > > wouldn't oppose). > > > > "trade" is an attribute. > > Any type of shop (plumbing, electrical, lumber, restaurant supplies) could > be trade focused. > Such shops do not cater to walk in consumer traffic, and may be hostile to > customers > who come in without trade knowledge. > In the UK , wholesalers such as Booker and Makro do not allow you through the door without documentation proving you are registered as a business. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camps
On Wed May 6 23:21:41 2015 GMT+0100, David Bannon wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 11:09 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: > > > > A resort is usually a town whos primary purpose is tourism. A resort > > is not operated by a single company, and access is not restricted. > > Resort should probably be avoided due to totally different meanings > > between BE and AE. > > > OK Phil, I was not aware of that difference. So that leaves us wonder > what to call those UK Holiday Camps ? Leave it to the UK people I > guess. > There are not many left, they were of their time. In the UK context tourism=holiday_camp would work. Look on YouTube for hi-de-hi for an example of a British holiday camp set in the 50s. Actually my only reference to an American resort is Kellermans in Dirty Dancing) also set in the 50s. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camps
On Wed May 6 11:49:39 2015 GMT+0100, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: > > > > > ... very specific British connotations associated with > > > holiday_camp. > > > > Yes, I would consider the british holiday camps would be better called > > resorts (?). The permanent building being the clue. > -1 > > A resort is usually a town whos primary purpose is tourism. A resort is not > operated by a single company, and access is not restricted. > Sorry, sent that before I was ready. Resort should probably be avoided due to totally different meanings between BE and AE. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camps
On Wed May 6 00:08:17 2015 GMT+0100, David Bannon wrote: > On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 09:44 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: > > > > It seems to me that the obvious generalisation, which would cover > > camps organised for profit and by non-profits would be > > leisure=vacation_camp. > > I don't think 'vacation' or 'leisure' are good terms at all. A lot of > people use the camp grounds we are talking about who are not on > vacation, retirees, itinerant workers, travellers. These grounds are > 'mostly' open throughout the year in my part of the world. > > tourism= means people are there because they want to be and I think that > excludes refugee and military camps. Scout camps a bit grey It also excludes a lot of hotels :) > Maybe the key is that people don't stay there indefinitely ? > > > ... very specific British connotations associated with > > holiday_camp. > > Yes, I would consider the british holiday camps would be better called > resorts (?). The permanent building being the clue. -1 A resort is usually a town whos primary purpose is tourism. A resort is not operated by a single company, and access is not restricted. > > > > In general I would use any derivative of "resort" : it is a word which > > has far too many meanings. > > Did you mean to say "avoid the use of " there ? > > So, in summary, why are we discussing abandoning or supplementing > tourism=camp_site ? > > David > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tag -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Wed May 6 08:23:34 2015 GMT+0100, SomeoneElse wrote: > On 06/05/2015 03:54, David Bannon wrote: > > Anyway, the issue is, perhaps confusion in some minds about =camp_site > > and =caravan_site. Most (but not all) camp_sites will also take > > caravans and RV's. But Tourism=caravan_site is for the caravan ONLY > > type of place. > > Here (in the UK) I'd differentiate such places locally as to whether > they appear to be "mostly" for tents or caravans (there tend to be fewer > motorhomes - what the Americans call RVs - over here than caravans). > Another differentiator might be the organisation that the site is part > of. If it's "The Caravan Club" it's more likely to be mostly for > caravans than tents. However there seems to be more overlap between > camping and caravanning organisations and sites now than there used to > be, so in some cases either tag could apply equally. > +1 One of the biggest issues I see is that the mapper has to choose between tourism=caravan_site and tourism=campsite, when the vast majority of commercial sites cater for both. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - opening hours default PH off
On Thu Apr 30 16:40:25 2015 GMT+0100, Michał Brzozowski wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Robin `ypid` Schneider wrote: > > Hi everyone > > > > As noted by "Ein Mapper" on [the current weekly task in Germany][1] it > > would be > > convenient to have an implicit "PH off" added to most opening_hours values > > during evaluation. I had not thought about this before but now that I do I > > agree > > more and more that this makes sense and wrote a proposal [2]. Any thoughts > > about > > this? > > Don't be German-centric :-P (I know that basically everything closes > on public holidays in Germany). It really is another hoop to jump > through, another thing that we impose on data consumers of this > already potentially (edge cases) very elaborated tag. And while a > notion of SH/PH is rather well defined for a mapper in given country, > default closure in these days may be not. Another table to maintain. > It really makes more problems than it solves: is PH off supposed to > apply also to 24/7 features? E.g. convenience shop vs an outdoor ATM. > +1 You would also have to define which public holidays, in the Uk Christmas Day and Easter Sunday have restrictions, other public holidays are at the businesses discretion and will vary from year to year. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lost and found
On Tue Apr 28 15:46:18 2015 GMT+0100, Florian LAINEZ wrote: > 2015-04-28 1:01 GMT+02:00 johnw : > > > so amenity=lost_and_found + lost_and_found=yes seems good to me, > > > > It seems like a duplicate information to me. The second key doesn't give > any additional information and is therefore not useful. > > 2015-04-28 10:57 GMT+02:00 : > > > This type of facility is usually called 'Lost Property' or a lost property > > office. > > > There is a difference between english american and the british language. I > guess you're english ;) > There is a difference, and I am British and so is the language of OSM tagging. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lost and found
This type of facility is usually called 'Lost Property' or a lost property office. amenity=lost_property would work here, or lost_property=yes could be added where it is a secondary function of something else such as an information desk. Phil (trigpoint ) On Tue Apr 28 00:01:07 2015 GMT+0100, johnw wrote: > Usually a mappable lost & found is for a large theme park (or large public > complex - even large train stations) - so it would be a mappable node at high > zoom levels. > > There is a tiny tiny table at my community center that has had the same > pencase and scarf for 8 months. But it is a mappable point if I really wanted > to. > > But most of the time the place would be a mappable node - like at Disneyland > or an airport, but occasionally it is part of an office, so > lost_and_found=yes would be useful for which stationmaster’s office or > service counter at the giant station has the lost and found. > > so amenity=lost &found works well. Tourism is wrong, as it is for non-torust > places (most large train stations in Tokyo (which are a block or two long) > have a lost and found somewhere. > > so amenity=lost_and_found + lost_and_found=yes seems good to me, > > Javbw > > > > On Apr 27, 2015, at 10:15 PM, Florian LAINEZ wrote: > > > > Hi, > > How would you tag a place where all the lost and found items are collected? > > Suggestions: > > lost_and_found=yes > > amenity=lost_and_found > > office=lost_and_found > > I don't like amenity=lost_and_found because it can't apply to already > > existing amenity POI like amenity=post_office. And the fact is that such an > > amenity can actually be the place where the lost and found items are > > collected. > > > > It's not really a very popular topic for now ... > > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=lost_and_found#values > > <http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=lost_and_found#values> > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > -- > > > > Florian Lainez > > @overflorian <http://twitter.com/overflorian> > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
That makes much more sense, and as you say, maps the physical characteristics. The letters seem like specialist knowledge that few people will be aware of. Phil (trigpoint ) On Thu Apr 23 13:11:46 2015 GMT+0100, Florian LAINEZ wrote: > Thanks for the feedback. > I am not expert at all on the topic therefore I am open to describe with > literal description. > I just double checked in my office (in France) and couldn't find easily any > "literal" mention. One the other way the class A and B were clearly > mentioned. > Therefore I think we will have to create a conversion table. > > I tried to find an international standard for classes but couldn't find any. > Therefore what if, instead of mentioning the combustible (e.g. ordinary > combustible) we mention the powder. > After all, in OSM we try to describe the physical elements themselves, not > the use of them. > > Therefore I propose the categories mentioned here > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher#United_Kingdom that are : > water, foam, dry powder, Carbon dioxide (CO2), Wet chemical, Class D > powder, Halon 1211/BCF > An example would be fire_extinguisher_class=water instead of > fire_extinguisher_class=ordinary_combustibles > > 2015-04-23 11:57 GMT+02:00 : > > > On Thu Apr 23 10:38:13 2015 GMT+0100, Florian LAINEZ wrote: > > > Hi, it's the first time I write to this mailing list, I am a french > > > contributor interested in train stations. > > > > > > I want to describe more precisely an extinguisher and I have seen the tag > > > emergency=fire_extinguisher that is used de facto. > > > What about adding some details regarding the type with > > fire_extinguisher=A > > > for an extinguisher class A? > > > > > > Please comment my proposal on the discussion page > > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:emergency%3Dfire_extinguisher > > > Have a good day > > > > > > > > Class A, B seems a bit confusing. I would not be able to map this without > > reference to the wiki. > > > > I have just checked the office extinguishers and can instantly see one > > powder and one foam. Neither is labelled with a letter. > > > > Phil (trigpoint ) > > -- > > Sent from my Jolla > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > > -- > > *Florian Lainez* > @overflorian <http://twitter.com/overflorian> > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
On Thu Apr 23 10:38:13 2015 GMT+0100, Florian LAINEZ wrote: > Hi, it's the first time I write to this mailing list, I am a french > contributor interested in train stations. > > I want to describe more precisely an extinguisher and I have seen the tag > emergency=fire_extinguisher that is used de facto. > What about adding some details regarding the type with fire_extinguisher=A > for an extinguisher class A? > > Please comment my proposal on the discussion page > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:emergency%3Dfire_extinguisher > Have a good day > > Class A, B seems a bit confusing. I would not be able to map this without reference to the wiki. I have just checked the office extinguishers and can instantly see one powder and one foam. Neither is labelled with a letter. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier
On Wed Apr 15 05:32:13 2015 GMT+0100, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Dave Swarthout > wrote: > > > I don't think they are all that common Bryce but I have seen them. And > > that is a controlled situation. This is a normal street! It would be good > > to be able to alert drivers about something like this when using a GPS for > > guidance but I'm not sure there's a good way to do that. > > > > I can think of two dozen off the top of my head, within local parks and > parking lots. There are probably thousands > in just the city I live in. > > But I agree that on a normal road that's kind of extreme! I agree it is extreme as it prevents emergency vehicles using the road in the opposite direction and affects wheelchairs, which are pedestrians and not normally affected by a oneway. As for reversing into a parking space.. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier
On Wed Apr 15 05:32:13 2015 GMT+0100, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Dave Swarthout > wrote: > > > I don't think they are all that common Bryce but I have seen them. And > > that is a controlled situation. This is a normal street! It would be good > > to be able to alert drivers about something like this when using a GPS for > > guidance but I'm not sure there's a good way to do that. > > > > I can think of two dozen off the top of my head, within local parks and > parking lots. There are probably thousands > in just the city I live in. > > But I agree that on a normal road that's kind of extreme! > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier
On Tue Apr 14 07:16:54 2015 GMT+0100, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Dave Swarthout > wrote: > > > Take a look at this nasty device that prevents traveling the wrong way on > > a oneway street. I've seen several of these here in Istanbul. Some have > > signs to alert motorists but this one does not. It is unmarked in any way. > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:One-way_barrier_IMG_7111.JPG > > It is surely a barrier of some sort yet it does allow traffic to flow > > unimpeded in one direction. Traffic_calming doesn't quite get it either. > > LOL > > > > These are very common in the USA on parking lots. Often the entrance road > will be shut after hours, > but the exit gate left open allowing motor vehicles to exit. "Do not back > up, severe tire damage" is the usual sign. > Likewise in the UK, have never seem one on a public highway though. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops
On Thu Mar 19 12:46:02 2015 GMT, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > I would prefer a different tag as I would not like the lemonade table to be > rendered in the same way as a regular filling station. The tag shop=gas > with subtag would be better. > I would expect shop=gas to sell bottled gas for camping Gas as you have used it is American, the English is petrol. However I can see nothing wrong with amenity=fuel, that is what it is in that part of the world . What turns amenity=fuel into a regular filling station is the building=roof. Phil (trigpoint) > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:46 AM Andrew Errington > wrote: > > > I think they should remain as amenity=fuel (I have visited Thailand and I > > know what you mean). Local people will know what to expect, but for > > clarity perhaps subtags should be used to add detail and differentiate > > between a filling station and a "lemonade stand" selling fuel. > > > > On Thursday, 19 March 2015, Lukas Sommer wrote: > > > >> In Benin (Africa) these shops exist also – mostly only a table with > >> some big bottles with fuel. > >> > >> 2015-03-19 9:18 GMT, Dave Swarthout : > >> > I want to float an idea to get your reactions. Here in Thailand, and > >> > especially in rural areas, there are hundreds of shops that sell motor > >> fuel > >> > in small quantities. Most of the population drive motorbikes which are > >> used > >> > for every sort of transport imaginable. They have a tiny petrol tank, > >> > perhaps 4-5 liters, therefore a short range; they need frequent > >> fill-ups. > >> > To meet this need local individuals have set up small sheds or kiosks > >> from > >> > which they hand pump the small quantities needed. Some shops sell fuel > >> by > >> > the liter bottle, often a whiskey bottle. Such shops are poorly marked, > >> > seldom have any signs indicating their presence and typically offer no > >> > other services. If you live in the area you will know where the fuel > >> shop > >> > is, otherwise they're almost invisible > >> > > >> > At any rate, we're looking for a way to tag these fuel shops in such a > >> way > >> > that they become visible in OSM (and on our GPS units), and will not be > >> > mistaken for a full size fuel service station. Current tagging practice > >> is > >> > to tag them with amenity=fuel and a made up name, for example, Bike > >> petrol > >> > or Drummed fuel. The people doing this are aware of the fact that such > >> > tagging isn't strictly correct, but they understandably want to be able > >> to > >> > find those shops should they run out of fuel. One problem with this > >> > Thailand-centric approach, is that other data consumers are unaware of > >> it. > >> > Another is that the informal names are multiplying rapidly and one > >> mapper's > >> > drummed fuel is another's barreled fuel and another's Bike petrol. > >> Where it > >> > will end is anyone's guess. > >> > > >> > I'm suggesting an addition to the values of the shop key: shop=fuel or > >> > perhaps shop=motor_fuel > >> > > >> > My goal is to standardize the tagging so that at some point these shops > >> can > >> > be eventually rendered on Garmin compatible downloaded maps and hence > >> made > >> > visible. I have done this for my custom Garmin maps and find it a real > >> > asset. > >> > > >> > Here is a photo of such a shop in my neighborhood: > >> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABarreled_fuel_shop.jpg > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Dave Swarthout > >> > Homer, Alaska > >> > Chiang Mai, Thailand > >> > Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Lukas Sommer > >> > >> ___ > >> Tagging mailing list > >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >> > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways
You should show them RichardF's cycle.travel site as a different way of rendering OSM, and it shows old railways. Phil (trigpoint ) On Mon Mar 9 16:18:39 2015 GMT, ael wrote: > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:14:58PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael: > > > Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on > > > ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey > > > and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data. > > > > Wrong! You have corrupted data because you have changed tags to values > > which are wrong. What about people who want to calculate the length of > > the railway network including disused tracks which have not been removed > > yet (and therefore are easy to reactivate)? > > That is ludicrous. I have changed a few metres only. The error bars on > my surveys of several km of abondoned railway will far exceed that. > > > The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism. > > That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM. I did the surveys. Very > carefully. I tagged corectly as far as I knew at the time. I only > changed a very small section on a couple of bridges to explore the > rendering and was unaware of this hornets' nest of bickering. And > consulted this list. Another mapper who has given no source has added > 1/2 km or more of track that I am fairly confident no longer exists: I > intend to try to survey to confirm or refute, but it is on private > ground. He also added an entirely ficticious section of railway right > across what is now a dual carriage way and other developments. That > might perhaps be near vandalism, although I suspect that he was a novice > perhaps looking at an historical route, perhaps without realizing that > he was modifying the database. > > Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work > to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute. > > > Well, if these people do not like OSM because /one/ OSM-based map does > > not show a couple of bridges, it is not bad if they do not use OSM. OSM > > is a database and no map! Please explain this if they ask why osm.org > > does not show bridge X. > > Many are likely to be complete novices, and even drawing that > distinction at their first brush with the project might put them off. > If I still give the talk after this reaction, I will pitch as best > I can to the audience. If they are at the right level, obviously > I will explain and illustrate the distinction between the data base > and rendering. But that may be way over the heads of some local > politicians. Or not. > > ael > > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways
On Mon Mar 9 15:49:01 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse wrote: > > To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue > > and it was summarily closed: > > > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641 > > That was not a pull request, but a bug report, and it happened to be a > duplicate bug report so it was closed with a reference to the earlier > bug report. > > We have decided not to render abandoned railways, but we haven't taken > a decision on how to render standalone/abandoned bridges. > Most are not standalone, but part of embankments/cuttings which are significant navigational features. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways
An example using a local uk map is http://binged.it/1x8GAHx Phil (trigpoint ) On Mon Mar 9 15:16:54 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael wrote: > > I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group > > including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering > > using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned > > railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that they will be > > singularly unimpressed if prominent major bridges on the local lanes > > are missing. > > Do you have an example of how local maps render these bridges? > > > So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet? > > Yes, it was pointed out to you already: > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320 > > But as mentioned, developer time is limited. Although bug reports are > useful, writing a pull request is typically a quicker way to get > desired rendering on the map than filing a bug report. > > -- Matthijs > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] custom road ref shields
* Richard Welty [2014-11-27 11:09 -0500]: > actually, specifying the shield with a URL for an svg file was an older > approach. And, I should note, one that I consciously did not use. I believe it was Richard Weait who pointed out that grabbing an arbitrary image, chosen by someone else, off of the Internet and using it in a rendering might not be the greatest idea... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] custom road ref shields
* johnw [2014-11-28 13:11 +0900]: > > On Nov 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > > the basic scheme doesn't require anything new or unusual in > > route relation tagging, just care and consistency. > > I look forward to seeing his RFC page then ^_^ Well, the point is that you can render the shields using existing tagging standards. No RFC necessary. :) > That looks really good. Some graphic designers need to remake the > shields for icon size (bigger lettering, details ignored), but the > system of putting on the roads looks great. As Richard noted, I kind of view my rendering as a proof of concept, and as long as I was going for PoC, why not go for really high fidelity to the roadside signs? If I ever have a decent chunk of time to spend on this again[0], I might look into simplified renderings for a lot of things. > My question about multiple relations was about roads that would have > more than one “symbol.” Maybe i didn’t see it,b ut all of thsoe roads > seemed to have 1 shield apiece, but I’m wondering about roads that would > need multiple shields next to each other. That's handled. In Paul Johnson's link: http://bl.ocks.org/ToeBee/raw/6119134/#16/36.0448/-95.7380 the Muskogee Turnpike has both the turnpike symbol and the SH-351 symbol. > For example, State Highway 163 through downtown San Diego is part of the > California highway system (so it gets a green ovalish “163” symbol), and > is part of the CA scenic road system - so it would also get the small > yellow flower icon as well. If it were tagged appropriately and if I had put in shields for the California scenic road system, it would show up with both shields. Here's something similar in Maryland, where MD-128 carries part of Maryland's Horses and Hounds scenic byway: http://bl.ocks.org/ToeBee/raw/6119134/#14/39.4955/-76.7845 > As a next step, phil’s work looks great! Thanks! Toby Murray is also due some big thanks; he got this rendering set up on a reasonable public-facing server. [0] I haven't had a lot of time for OSM stuff in general lately, and I've got a backlog of stuff that ought to be done with the renderer (not least of which is a bunch of Ohio county route information that Minh Nguyen's sent me). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial
On Fri Nov 07 2014 07:30:30 GMT+ (GMT), Colin Smale wrote: > > > I would not expect the landuse value of the municipal bus company's HQ > to change if the bus company was privatised... Only the ownership will > have changed, nothing else. Actually, as the buildings are probably > leased from a property company anyway, even that would stay the same. > Just the shareholders of the company would different. > > So I would suggest "civic" or "government" or whatever should only be > applied where the activities taking place there are actually "civic > administration" - council meetings, committees, births/deaths/marriages, > highways,. i.e. the core business of a local authority as defined in > law. Sidelines like running transport companies or sports grounds are > not "landuse=civic" to my mind. +1 I totally agree Colin, it would be equally ridiculous to tag schools or parks as civic. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Release openstreetmap-carto v2.23.0
If staff are available 24/7 I would call that a hotel. Phil (trigpoint ) On Thu Oct 30 2014 13:24:02 GMT+ (GMT), Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014-10-29 21:56 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dguest_house as currently > > defined > > fits "private residence where a single bedroom is made available to > > tourists". > > > > It is even mentioned - "ranging from purpose-built guest houses > > to family-based Bed&Breakfast" > > > > > btw.: that wiki page seems to have other issues as well. What is the > reason to exclude places with staff available 24/7? Can't they be guest > houses any more? What is the tag for a guest house with staff available > 24/7? > > I agree that a guest house (the ones that I know in Germany that are called > like this) and a bed and breakfast are (or can be) different kind of > accomodation places. > > cheers, > Martin > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
On Mon Oct 27 2014 12:10:25 GMT+ (GMT), Richard Welty wrote: > > > i have no idea what usage is in the UK The UK uses the standard Vienna Convention system of a red triangle being a warning and a red circle being a prohibition. A height limit in a red circle means vehicles over the height are prohibited. Height is given in metric and imperial in most cases, although imperial only signs do exist. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sport= non-physical tags and the exceptions people come up with...
On Thu Oct 23 2014 14:03:57 GMT+0100 (BST), Richard Z. wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 01:46:45PM +0100, Philip Barnes wrote: > > I like this tagging, but as an ex-diver I do feel it needs some > > expansion. > > > > compressor=yes/no > > To indicate whether there is air available to refill tanks or not. > > this would be mostly covered by > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dscuba_diving > and > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddive_centre > > What other places would you attach scuba_diving:filling* to? Would add it to dive shops, tourist accommodation which caters for divers may too. Phil(trigpoint ) > > > recompression_chamber=yes/no > > To indicate if there is a recompression chamber on-site. > > nothing like hyperbaric chamber mapping on OSM yet? > > Richard > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] man_made=bridge
I like this proposal too, would it be possible to extend it to tunnels or would that require a similar proposal? Phil (trigpoint ) On Mon Oct 13 2014 11:12:00 GMT+0100 (BST), Lukas Sommer wrote: > I like this proposal. > > I would add the requirement that the highways/railways/paths that go over a > bridge have to share a node with the outline area. > > Lukas Sommer > > 2014-10-10 14:44 GMT+00:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > > > man_made=bridge as proposed on > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/man_made%3Dbridge > > is in my opinion a good tagging scheme, I started work on displaying it in > > a > > default style ( > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/436 ). > > > > But I noticed that there was never a vote to recognize it as an approved > > tag. > > > > I plan on starting vote in the near future, so it may be a good idea to > > check this > > proposal for potential problems. > > > > See also https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/436 > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no
Toll? I assume that means the same in US English as in UK English? You really have to pay to use cycleways? How is the toll collected and enforced? Phil (trigpoint ) On Sun Sep 21 2014 23:36:04 GMT+0100 (BST), Paul Johnson wrote: > Along with this, I really hope renderers start computing surface=* and > toll=* values for ALL ways. I say this since "surface=asphalt, > highway=cyclway" is an exceptionally rare combination in the midwestern US, > but "highway=cycleway, surface=gravel, toll=yes" is not. > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Pee Wee wrote: > > > -1 > > > > A renderer/router is perfectly capable of deciding what he thinks is > > paved/unpaved. He can decide whether he calls gravel / fine_gravel paved or > > unpaved. Do not leave the decision paved/unpaved up to the mapper. Map > > what you see. As you may have guessed I prefer surface=asphalt over > > surface=paved since the last one could mean that it is gravel. > > > > Cheers > > PeeWee32 > > > > 2014-09-21 2:49 GMT+02:00 David Bannon : > > > >> > >> yes, agree strongly. Surface= is a good tag, provides important info but > >> it is far too fine grained. Someone setting up a route cannot be > >> expected to sift through all the possible values. > >> > >> Similarly, we may well have a chance to get the renderers to respect a > >> clear, on/off tag like the proposed and show it on the maps too. > >> > >> I see no problem with both tags being used. > >> > >> I think sometimes we put too much detail in the database and risk making > >> the data unusable because of that. Mention making the data usable, we > >> see charges of "tagging for the renderer". But this is important, I have > >> detailed life threatening issues resulting from unclear maps. This > >> proposal will provide valuable, dare I say "usable" info for consumers ! > >> > >> David > >> > >> On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 23:42 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote: > >> > Hello all, > >> > > >> > I've posted the below message on the forum, and have been directed > >> > from there to this mailing list, thus re-posting it. > >> > > >> > Idea > >> > > >> > 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 > >> > doesn't describe this key, instead redirecting Key:paved to the > >> > article about Key:surface. > >> > > >> > Rationale > >> > > >> > Currently, the surface key is being used as a way of saying that a > >> > given highway is paved or unpaved, but often the value for the surface > >> > key is not a generic paved or unpaved, but a specific surface type is > >> > given.This is of course very useful for describing the particular > >> > surface type a given highway has. However, in some cases, a simple > >> > information on just whether a highway is paved or not, would be very > >> > useful. One such case would be navigation software – if a user chooses > >> > to avoid unpaved roads, the software can check the value of the > >> > surface key, but in practice most (all?) of the navigation software > >> > only checks for a subset of all the possible values the surface key > >> > can have. This leads to incorrect (in terms of what the user expects) > >> > navigation when, for example, the surface is set to some value that > >> > describes an unpaved road, not recognized by the navigation software – > >> > if the software assumes that all highways are paved, unless explicitly > >> > stated otherwise (by recognized values of known keys), then, in > >> > consequence, it assumes that the road in question is paved. > >> > > >> > If the paved key was widely used, then the navigation software would > >> > have a simple and clear way of checking whether a given road is paved > >> > or not. The default value of the paved key for highways could be yes, > >> > so that it would be consistent with the assumption that highways in > >> > general are paved. > >> > > >> > I don't mean that we should stop using the paved and unpaved values > >> > for the surface key – I
Re: [Tagging] University accommodation (was Re: Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory)
Dormitories are rooms with multiple beds, usually bunk beds and associated with youth hostels, certainly not suitable for student accommodation where there is typically one student in a room, maybe two but they are certainly not dormitories. Phil (trigpoint ) On Sat Sep 20 2014 23:12:24 GMT+0100 (BST), Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > On 9/20/14, Dan S wrote: > > 2014-09-19 15:52 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr : > > I still prefer (d) though if building=dormitory becomes widely > > accepted then I guess I shall have to swallow that loss for British > > english! > > Wouldn't be the first time if ever: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dsoccer > > That said, to me dormitories may also apply to other institutionalized > housing such as housing for staff of a manufacturing plant. Although I > admit that dormitories are primarily for students in my understanding. > This ambiguity can be resolved by careful definition in the Wiki if > ever people accept *=dormitory. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] University accommodation (was Re: Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory)
Dormitories are rooms with multiple beds, usually bunk beds and associated with youth hostels, certainly not suitable for student accommodation where there is typically one student in a room, maybe two but they are certainly not dormitories. Phil (trigpoint ) On Sat Sep 20 2014 23:12:24 GMT+0100 (BST), Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > On 9/20/14, Dan S wrote: > > 2014-09-19 15:52 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr : > > I still prefer (d) though if building=dormitory becomes widely > > accepted then I guess I shall have to swallow that loss for British > > english! > > Wouldn't be the first time if ever: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dsoccer > > That said, to me dormitories may also apply to other institutionalized > housing such as housing for staff of a manufacturing plant. Although I > admit that dormitories are primarily for students in my understanding. > This ambiguity can be resolved by careful definition in the Wiki if > ever people accept *=dormitory. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] University accommodation (was Re: Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory)
Students accommodation is neither tourism or guesthouse, I would have gone for hall_of_residence. Phil (trigpoint ) On Sat Sep 20 2014 14:46:17 GMT+0100 (BST), sabas88 wrote: > On 19 Sep 2014 16:54, "Tobias Knerr" wrote: > > > > On 19.09.2014 14:22 Dan S wrote: > > > for buildings: building=residential + residential=university + > operator=* > > > OR > > > for sites: landuse=residential + residential=university + operator=* > > > > > > Note that the same scheme seems to me to work well for building and for > landuse. > > > > > > I thought this had been discussed on tagging recently, but I can't > > > find it, all I can find is the RFC for amenity=dormitory, currently > > > used 263 times. (I will add that "dormitory" is certainly a little odd > > > from a British English point of view, notwithstanding the comments > > > already made to the RFC.) > > > > That proposal now suggests amenity=student_accommodation, precisely > > because of the oddness involved with the term "dormitory". > > > > Personally, I prefer using the amenity key rather than building or > > landuse. Landuse lacks the implication that this is one distinct > > facility, and building values are not supposed to represent usage, but > > how the building is built. > > > +1 > I tagged some student residences as tourism=guest_house previously, but > they aren't buildings (some are apartments inside buildings, but owned by > the local government agency for student services). > > Stefano > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] interpolated housenumbers on single objects
On Wed Aug 20 2014 15:27:06 GMT+0100 (BST), Janko Mihelić wrote: > I'm trying to find a way to photograph sideways from my bike and send > photos to Mapillary. The day should be shiny with a lot of light so I don't > have to go to slow, and the camera should be mounted just right so I don't > lose too much numbers. > Then when the photos are on Mapillary, anyone can map the address numbers > in them (and shops and everything else). > Three more cameras and then you have an openstreetview. Cool. Phil (trigpoint ) > Janko > > > 2014-08-20 14:19 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole : > > > IMHO mapping house numbers while on a bicycle is one of those things > > that simply doesn't really work, contrary to other things that work well > > (road signs etc). Not that it couldn't be done, but the technical effort > > required to do so is significant (aka in the direction of googles > > streetview tricycle) and you still end up with having to post process, > > which again takes more time than doing it properly (at 1st glance > > slower) in the fist place. > > > > Simon > > > > > > Am 20.08.2014 13:52, schrieb Ilpo Järvinen: > > > On Wed, 20 Aug 2014, Simon Poole wrote: > > >> Am 20.08.2014 12:11, schrieb Ilpo Järvinen: > > >> ... lots of stuff from past experiences ... > > >> > > >> There is no reason not to immediately enter the address data, preferably > > >> as entrance nodes if the building outlines exist, if they don't, placing > > >> an address node at an appropriate place is far easier if you are > > >> actually standing/walking past the building in question. > > >> > > >> All the address surveying I've done in the last couple of months has > > >> time wise been dominated by the time it takes to walk from building to > > >> building. > > > > > > Nice, but how would you do positioning of such nodes while cycling past > > > the buildings? :-) > > > > > > I could make only trivial notes (to a draft SMS to be exact but that > > > won't work with too fancy phones with touch keyboards though ;-)) that > > > heavily depended near-term memory because the time available to mark > > > individual address (or entrance) is very limited. Also, almost no time is > > > "wasted" while moving from address to another. I was rather happy to > > > have occassionally a short break in sequence to catch up/relax (or could > > > use even higher speed, i.e., collect more addresses per time unit). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > Tagging mailing list > > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - nudism
The usual english term applied to beaches is 'clothing optional'. Phil (trigpoint) On Tue Aug 19 2014 11:54:21 GMT+0100 (BST), Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am 19.08.2014 09:37, schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > > > >> > >> Is it reasonable to define that it defaults to no? I am worried about > >> another obvious tag (nudism=no) appearing everywhere. > > > this is entirely dependent on the culture, but I agree that in the region I > map nudism=no can safely be assumed to be the default. > > Maybe a more generic tag like dress_code would also catch these places? This > was already proposed some time ago IIRR. Besides restaurants or beaches the > dress code tag might also apply to other places, eg in Italy for most > religious places you are expected to have your shoulders covered and shorts > are often not allowed (eg monasteries and churches). > > It could also be interesting sometimes if nudism is obligatory or clothing is > admitted as well > > > cheers, > Marti -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - nudism
Naturism is the preferred term for nudism, as naturist is the preferred term for a nudist. Nudust/nudism are not normally used terms for clubs or beaches. The proposal should be changed to Naturism. Phil (trigpoint ) On Tue Aug 19 2014 00:18:04 GMT+0100 (BST), John Packer wrote: > Heiko, > > You added the key naturism=* to the proposal. > Is this also being voted on, or is the proposal just mentioning there are > some uses of this other key ? > > > 2014-08-18 20:08 GMT-03:00 Heiko Wöhrle : > > > Hi everybody, > > > > i'd like to readdress an old draft from Xan, that has never been voted but > > is nevertheless in use. > > > > Please feel free to comment the slightly changed proposal: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Nudism > > > > Best regards, > > Heiko > > > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key
cuisine = crisps in a pub :) The nearest in English for gelateria is ice cream parlour. Phil (trigpoint ) On Mon Aug 18 2014 14:00:07 GMT+0100 (BST), Simone Saviolo wrote: > 2014-08-18 13:41 GMT+02:00 John Packer : > > > I'm not sure what is a gelateria. > > Couldn't this be tagged simply with amenity=cafe + cuisine=ice_cream ? > > > > Pretty much the same way as a pub could be tagged amenity=restaurant + > cuisine=burgers + alcohol=yes. > > Regards, > > Simone > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Vending: Cards for Prepaid mobile phone
I agree with Martin, we should avoid the detail of how the topup is applied and would go for the British term topup, rather than credit. Credit has implications of borrowing money. Shops and filling stations will sell topups for other things, as well as mobile phones, such as gas and electricity. Mobile phone topups can often be bought from ATMs too. Not 100% sure, but I may have already tagged this. I would propose that we use the following tags on shops/filling stations /ATMs and other places I haven't thought of. topup =mobile_phone tooup=gas topup=electric Phil (trigpoint) On Fri Jun 27 2014 19:43:34 GMT+0100 (BST), Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > Am 27/giu/2014 um 20:20 schrieb Andreas Goss : > > > > in a retail store by purchasing a "top-up" or "refill" card at retail. > > These cards are stamped with a unique code (often under a scratch-off > > panel) which must be entered into the phone in order to add the credit onto > > the balance. > > > I probably wouldn't focus on the material details which may vary from country > to country and rather then "card" or "voucher" would opt for "credit", eg in > Italy there are dedicated machines that print the code on the fly. > > cheers, > Martin > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Signal-controlled roundabouts
* Martin Koppenhoefer [2014-06-17 16:43 +0200]: > you can find big roundabouts with traffic lights in most of the big > European cities, another reason (besides the controlling the motorized > traffic) is to let pedestrians (and sometimes cyclists) cross. I know of a traffic circle (here: http://osm.org/go/ZZd4GvISp--) that has a traffic light on the non-freeway entrance. The light stops entrants to the circle from that direction when there's too much of a queue on the freeway offramp. I'd still consider it a roundabout, though. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name
* Friedrich Volkmann [2013-08-09 07:28 +0200]: > I also dislike the suggested special member roles: The positioning > of the label depends on the font size, the free space, the map > section and zoom level etc. and should therefore be determined by > the renderer. I tend to think of label nodes as hints for the renderer that provide it with information it cannot derive on its own. The canonical example, I think, is a town where it makes sense to place the label over the "town center", which residents of the place can usually identify easily, but which may not necessarily match the geometric center (or centroid) of the town's border. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway (was: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways)
* Steve Bennett [2013-04-20 00:25 +1000]: > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: > > a) If the trail meanders a little from side to side (where the old > > railway would have just gone straight), I match the way to the trail > > and trust that the semantics of "this used to be a railway" remain > > intact. > > Interesting. I can't think of any around here that do that - must be a > cultural thing. I don't think I've seen it all that much, but the College Park Trolley Trail outside Washington DC is an example: http://osm.org/go/ZZc1mvedD- . The trolley went straight, but the trail, which is (last I saw it) largely unpaved and really more for foot traffic than bikes[0], wanders a lot more from side to side than the rails did. [0] So I'm not sure I understand its current tagging, but it's been a while since I was there in person, so maybe they've made it more bike-amenable. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway
* Mike N [2013-04-18 12:56 -0400]: > However I have learned that the abandoned rail lines should not be > removed - they magically regrow, so I allow them to remain as they go > through hillsides which have long been bulldozed down and through blocks > of buildings which have long since replaced the railway. If there's still a trace of the railway left, even if only in a hedge or property line, I'll leave the abandoned railway. If nothing remains (as in http://osm.org/go/ZZfEbI0G , where the land was bulldozed and a mall built), I'll retag the way railway=dismantled, which seems to be the accepted tag for such things. It doesn't show up on the main map, but it's still there for specialty maps and railfans. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway (was: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways)
* Steve Bennett [2013-04-19 01:22 +1000]: > 1) A single way: "railway=abandoned | highway=cycleway | name=Blah Rail > Trail | surface=unpaved" (usually with a cycle route relation as well) This is basically how I tag them, with the following additions: a) If the trail meanders a little from side to side (where the old railway would have just gone straight), I match the way to the trail and trust that the semantics of "this used to be a railway" remain intact. b) If the trail diverges significantly from the old railway (to take a detour or something similar), I make a separate ways for the trail and old railway. An example is http://osm.org/go/ZZfEh16SR-- , where the trail was diverted to better cross the road or http://osm.org/go/ZZfEbCqE , where a mall was built in the path of the old railway. c) If there are still rails present, even if they definitely qualify as railway=abandoned, I use two ways, like http://osm.org/go/ZcJqM34YW- (not my work, but a decent example). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power proposals
* François Lacombe [2013-03-14 18:52 +0100]: > Foremost, areas must reflect land occupation. If 2 different operators' > plants are contiguous in reality then areas must be contiguous too. > > Do you have any example which can illustrate such situation in the wiki? I know of a couple. In Maryland, the Dickerson Generating Station, which is privately owned and uses coal and oil is directly adjacent to the Montgomery County Resource Facility, which is owned by the state and burns trash. OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.20497&lon=-77.45533&zoom=15&layers=M Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickerson_Generating_Station The reverse situation gould, I guess, be illustrated with something like Maryland's Chalk Point Generating Station, where there are multiple generators some distance away from each other. It's pretty clear in this case, though, that they're all part of the same facility, so I don't know how illustrative it might be as an example. OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.55211&lon=-76.69028&zoom=15&layers=M Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_Point_Generating_Station ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - age groups in schools
* Svavar Kjarrval [2012-11-25 00:08 +]: > The RFC process has started for my proposal to tag the age groups > schools offer education for. More information is on the wiki page. > > The proposal is at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/age_group . I happen to think the existing ISCED proposal is easy to use and provides more relevant information than the age groups proposal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ISCED I've been using it for a while now as I tag schools. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
* Andrew Errington [2012-10-24 14:49 +0900]: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM, David ``Smith'' wrote: > > using something like "ref:unsigned=OH 315C" to mean "this road is part of > > Ohio state route 315C but the signs don't say so" sounds perfectly sane to > > me. > > It doesn't sound sane to me. Either the road has the reference, or it > does not. I don't think it's relevant whether it's included on a sign > or not. I think it's incredibly relevant whether it's included on the sign. I suspect that the vast majority of people who use maps with reference numbers on them use those maps for navigation. I think such people would primarily be interested in signed reference numbers, because it's pretty hard to navigate by unsigned ones. Thus, there should be some difference in the tagging of signed and unsigned reference numbers. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. :-) -- Larry Wall ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] name of river/admin area
* David ``Smith'' [2012-09-03 18:51 -0400]: > In my part of the US, nearly every river is of the form "the X River" and I > would expect to see it that way on maps, leaving out the "the" which is > used in forming sentences but not generally considered part of the name. > In Michigan there's the River Raisin for some reason, and I would expect to > see those two words in that order on maps. Then there are rivers so large > and famous they are almost geographical features apart from mere rivers: > The Amazon, The Nile, The Thames, The Hudson, The Mississippi… the next > that comes to mind for me is The Potomac, but now we've probably crossed > that blurry line where the Potomac River sounds more appropriate. I live near the Potomac River, and I think people here mentally think of "River" as part of its name, even if sometimes (maybe a little more than half the time) it gets dropped for brevity. A similar thing happens with road names: I live near the intersection of Scotts Level Road and Old Court Road, people understand what you mean if you say, "Take Old Court to Scotts Level,"[0] but the full names of the roads do have the word "Road" in them. I fully agree that there's no way to set a global standard; it should be left to the locals, who know the features best. [0] Because the names are still unambiguous. The next larger road is Reisterstown Road, which goes to the town of Reisterstown. Most people will refer to it as "Reisterstown Road" even if they drop the "Road" from other road names, since "Reisterstown" by itself refers more commonly to the town, not the road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Rails with trails
* SomeoneElse [2012-07-03 13:37 +0100]: > Phil! Gold wrote: > >As I understand it, NE2 was looking for a tagging scheme that > >would allow for searches to find trails on a railway grade. > > That might not have the desired effect in all cases: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.068937&lon=-4.077433&zoom=18&layers=C I would submit that an explicit tagging scheme such as the one NE2 suggests would handle that case quite well, because most people would not tag the Llanberis Path as a rail trail. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Rails with trails
* Steve Bennett [2012-07-03 17:22 +1000]: > For the original question of how to tag a "rail with trail" (I've also > heard the term "railside trail"), is it not sufficient to simply map > the two ways separately? Example here: > http://osm.org/go/uG4lkKxG?layers=C As I understand it, NE2 was looking for a tagging scheme that would allow for searches to find trails on a railway grade. Searching for rail trails is obviously easy; just look for railway=abandoned with a relevant highway= tag. But as things stand now, searching for railside trails is hard; you have to find a pair of ways, one tagged highway= and the other tagged railway=, that are roughly parallel to each other. That's a very complicated search to make, even working from a geodatabase. Adding another tag to the trails would make such searches much more feasible. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Rails with trails
* Nathan Edgars II [2012-06-27 12:59 -0400]: > But another popular kind of rail trail, a "rail with trail", cannot > be found in this manner. [snip] > Does anyone have any ideas for tagging? The simplest would be > something like rail_with_trail=yes or maybe railway=adjacent. Either of those would work. Between those two, I'm inclined toward railway=adjacent so the search would be something like "highway=(path|footway|cycleway) and railway=(abandoned|adjacent)". Another possibility would be to use rail_trail=yes, which would apply to any rail trail. It would be implied by a non-motor-vehicle highway= tag and railway=abandoned, but could always be specified to be unambiguous. ___ Talk-us mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Turning circle with island or turning loop (was Re: (Mini)Roundabout: examples
* Martin Vonwald [2012-05-15 15:23 +0200]: > I added highway=turning_loop to the last example and noted, that it is > under discussion right now. > > It would really help a lot if the major renderers would support this, > as well as junction=roundabout on a single node. Otherwise I'm afraid > the acceptance would be rather low. When I get a chance, I'll work on a patch to the main stylesheet. I'm in the middle of importing a planet file at the moment, so I can't do any rendering work until that completes (and I don't know how long it'll take; I had to move from small, fast disks to larger, slower ones so I'm attempting a full-planet import rather than the US extract I'd been using, which means I have no idea how long it'll take). -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- All science is either physics or stamp collecting. -- E. Rutherford --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Turning circle with island or turning loop (was Re: (Mini)Roundabout: examples
* Martin Vonwald [2012-05-15 14:11 +0200]: > Now the only issue remaining is: how? Right now I see two solutions: > 1) highway=turning_circle and turning_circle=island or traffic_calming=island > 2) new tag like e.g. highway=turning_loop [snip] > I would really like to get more opinions from the people using > turning_circle right now for places with islands. I usually map loops explicitly, but I have occasionally tagged such places as highway=turning_circle when I wanted to indicate that there was something there, but didn't want to spend the time drawing a bunch of loops. In such cases, I've used turning_circle, because it seemed the least-incorrect tag available. I think I'd prefer highway=turning_loop. It seems simpler to use one tag rather than two, since in this case, you could argue that a turning-area-with-an-island is not really a subtype of a turning-area-without-an-island. (Though you could address that by saying that the two cases are highway=turning_circle, turning_circle=island and highway=turning_circle, turning_circle=open, with the assumption that a missing turning_circle tag implies turning_circle=open.) I don't think it would be too hard to add a rendering for highway=turning_loop, so if it gets general approval and no one else beats me to it, I'll try to put together a patch against the main rendering for it. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- o \ o / _ o __|\ / |__o _ \ o / o /|\| /\ ___\o \o|o/o/__ /\ |/|\ / \ / \ | \ /) |( \ /o\ / )| (\ / | / \ / \ --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] OSMI layers in JOSM
* Martin Vonwald [2012-04-25 10:28 +0200]:
> I'm trying to view the OSMI layers in JOSM. The all-knowing,
> all-seeing trash heap pointed me to this (german) article:
> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=9315
>
> There it is recommended to use the following link in JOSM:
> http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/view/routing/wxs?REQUEST=GetMap&SERVICE=wms&VERSION=1.1.1&FORMAT=image/png&SRS=EPSG:4326&STYLES=&LAYERS=unconnected_minor1,unconnected_minor2,unconnected_minor5,unconnected_major1,unconnected_major2,unconnected_major5&;
>
> This works like a charm, but with the limitations, that one has to
> adjust the resolution manually. Also I seem to be unable to get this
> layer transparent. In the article one wrote to add TRANSPARENT=TRUE to
> the link, but I can't get this working.
Not sure tagging@ is the best list for this, but...
Here's what I use for my OSM Inspector WTFE view:
wms:http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/views/wtfe/wxs?FORMAT=image/png&transparent=true&VERSION=1.1.1&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&Layers=wtfe_line_created,wtfe_line_modified,wtfe_line_created_cp,wtfe_point_created,wtfe_line_modified_cp,wtfe_point_modified,overview_low,overview&SRS={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}
In particular, my URL contains "/osmi/views/", while yous has
"/osmi/view/". That might be a source of problems.
> Has anyone a hint for me how to get this layer transparent? Is there
> any possibility to autoadjust the resolution?
You can't automatically adjust the resolution, but you can right-click on
the layer in the "Layers" window and select "Change resolution". What I
often do is work at two (or sometimes three) specific resolutions, set two
layers of the same WMS to the two different resolutions, and switch
between them with "Zoom to native resolution" from the same right-click
menu.
As the mapping resources I use become more available in either tiles or
AcGIS REST (which I can turn into tiles with tilestache), I've been
transitioning more to using tiled backgrounds, which do change resolutions
automatically (though there are still glitches there).
--
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
If there's nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the
universe.
-- Beverly Crusher ("Star Trek")
--- --
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
That was my point, any footpath or cycleway following a motorway should be treated as a separate way. After more careful thought, the only UK instance of a path following a motorway, that I am aware of, is the old Severn bridge, and they are on different decks. Phil On 12/04/2012 14:11 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 12. April 2012 08:33 schrieb Philip Barnes : >> What are you asking? A sidewalk is almost always a separate physical way >> (if not, it's a shoulder, except on minor urban streets with flush >> sidewalks and no curb). > > In the Netherlands I have sometimes seen cycleways paralleling > motorways, some 20-30 metres away, and on long estuary bridges there is > often a cycleway but beyond that motorways never have a sidewalk. I guess that in all of these Dutch cases there will be a guard rail separating the cycleway from the motorway, so there is really no doubt these should be mapped distinctly. On the other hand I wouldn't call this a sidewalk. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Extension of the "payment:*" keys
I should add that the most useful key would be: cards_accepted:amex As a general rule, everywhere accepts debit cards, non-foodie pubs are cash only. The helpful tag would be amex as so few places accept it, and all of my business expenses should be on my corporate amex card, usual routine is to walk in to several resturants and walk out again, until I find one that will take it. Phil On 11/04/2012 13:35 p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: Debit cards are accepted in most shops, but not usually accepted in pubs. The point I was making is that Aldi and Lidl accept debit cards but not credit cards. Phil On 11/04/2012 13:10 Simone Saviolo wrote: 2012/4/11 : > You also need: > > payment:debit_cards for shops such as aldi and lidl. Would you mind to clarify that? Debit cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debit_card) are accepted in most shops, not only Lidl. I'm not sure I understood what you meant. Thanks, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Extension of the "payment:*" keys
Debit cards are accepted in most shops, but not usually accepted in pubs. The point I was making is that Aldi and Lidl accept debit cards but not credit cards. Phil On 11/04/2012 13:10 Simone Saviolo wrote: 2012/4/11 : > You also need: > > payment:debit_cards for shops such as aldi and lidl. Would you mind to clarify that? Debit cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debit_card) are accepted in most shops, not only Lidl. I'm not sure I understood what you meant. Thanks, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Extension of the "payment:*" keys
You also need: payment:debit_cards for shops such as aldi and lidl. Phil On 11/04/2012 11:09 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 10. April 2012 20:55 schrieb John Sturdy : > (1) a "payment:cards" key, intended specifically for use with the > value "no", to indicate that a shop / pub / whatever doesn't take > electronic payment; the mostly used keys are: payment:credit_cards payment:account_cards > (2) a "payment:other" key, intended specifically for use with the > value "no", to indicate that a shop / pub / whatever takes only the > forms of payment that have been listed with other keys. you could also tag: payment:cash=only and no other key would be needed. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer
I am wondering what happens where there are no crossings, or outside of built up areas where there are no sidewalks. Phil On 11/04/2012 11:32 John Sturdy wrote: On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am 10. April 2012 22:01 schrieb Komяpa : >> It's possible to have pedestrian routing without separate ways for >> sidewalks, but it's nicer when it shows you where you can actually >> cross the road. > The thing is that you can generally cross any road at any spot, as > long it is not impossible or too dangerous ;-), i.e. in most of the > cases you can simply cross the road if your destination is right on > the other side for example. I think that in some countries this is illegal. > With explicit footways your router will > send you to the next crossing and tell you to cross the road there and > then come back. This is probably useful information for blind people. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes
* Richard Weait [2012-03-13 10:30 -0400]: > adding a tag for banner=Alternate/Business/Truck is my least-favourite > option of those above. Why? > increasing specificity on the network tag like network=US:US:Alt > follows the original intent of the network tag. It also offers the > least surprise to naive consumers of the data. So you get the reverse questions from NE2. };> We (so far) mostly use the network tag as a hierarchy of ownership, not containment: the US:MD network is for Maryland's roads and Maryland is in the US, but its roads are not members of the "US" network. Does it make sense to double up on the meanings of network tags, so that, say, US:NJ:Business would be a business route that's a member of the New Jersey state highway network, but US:NJ:CR would be a county road that's not a member of the state network? Is it still easier for data consumers if they have to differentiate between those two cases? Compared to the scenario where we add a modifier tag for special routes, data consumers already have to consider two tags to work with route relations. Would adding a third make a difference? -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Frederick! He's eating a screw! -- "Eat-Man '98" --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes
* Nathan Edgars II [2012-03-11 22:30 -0400]: > It also makes the most sense to put it in the ref tag. Otherwise > there's inconsistency between an alternate signed as US 1 Alternate > and one signed as US 1A (with the suffix in the shield). In each > case I'll also use the modifier tag (modifier=Alternate/A). But US 1A and US 1 Alternate are signed quite differently. From the perspective of a driver on the road, the US 1 Alternate signing is much more obviously a variant route of US 1. (US 1A even has its/their own page on Wikipedia, while the US 1 Alternates are listed with the other special routes on the "Bannered routes of US 1" page. Not that Wikipedia dictates our actions, but it's indicative of other people's thinking on the matter.) Note that I'm not strictly disagreeing with you. I do personally like the separate network, ref, modifier tagging approach a little more than the others, but I also don't consider myself to have that extensive an understanding of road networks, either in the US or worldwide. I mostly want to see what sort of community consensus there is here, so the data consumer I'm working on will work in a reasonable way. I'd hoped to have feedback from several people, but since you're the only person who's responded so far, you get all the questions. :| -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- If I'm drunk and tell you to grab my wrist, don't. -- Keith Engle, Aikido blackbelt --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes
I'd like to solicit some thoughts on the tagging for special routes (commonly known as bannered routes)[0]. In route relations, it's customary to separate the network and the reference number. How do or should special routes fit into that? I'm torn between three views and I'm not sure which of them is the best fit for the way people think about special routes in a general sense. Let's consider one of US Route 1's alternate routes[1]. We can think of it as: * An independent route within the US Highway system whose reference number happens to be alphanumeric. network=US:US ref=1 Alternate (but people might use ref=1 Alt, because that's what's on some of the signs) * A route within the subset of the US Highway system consisting of alternate routes: network=US:US:Alternate ref=1 * A route related to the main US Route 1, but with an additional tag indicating that it's a bannered offshoot: network=US:US ref=1 banner=Alternate I'm partial to the idea of separating the banner from the reference number, but I'm not sure how any of these ideas mesh with the understandings of people with more experience with road networks than I have. tagging@ is included because I'm not sure how global a practice this sort of thing is, even though it's quite common in the US. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_route [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bannered_routes_of_U.S._Route_1#Alternate_routes -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Wow, I'm being shot at from both sides. That means I *must* be right. :-) -- Larry Wall --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway
* John F. Eldredge [2012-02-19 14:13 -0600]: > I take it, then, that there are some watercourses tagged as streams, but > named XXX River, and there are some watercourses tagged as rivers, but > named XXX Stream or XXX Creek? It's what I've done, based on my understanding of the tag documentations in the wiki. So I've done things like tagging the headwaters of the Potomac River[0] as waterway=stream and tagging the quite broad Willis Creek[1] as waterway=river. [0] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.20647&lon=-79.47779&zoom=16&layers=M [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.6956&lon=-78.7731&zoom=14&layers=M -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- NO COMPILER DETECTED ERRORS. -- VM/CMS VS/PASCAL compiler message indicating sucessful compilation --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)
* Nathan Edgars II [2011-08-31 08:50 -0400]: > There's a third possibility - the unincorporated suburb or exurb > that nevertheless has a defined boundary, since it's planned or > controlled by one company. I think Columbia, Maryland is this way It is. Additionally, Columbia could benefit a lot from the proposed place=neighbourhood tag, because it's composed of several (twelve, I think) separate "villages", each of which has its own village center with retail, commercial, and recreational facilities to serve the surrounding residences. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- ⊦:.α,β∈1.⊃:α∩β=Λ.≡.α∪β∈2 -- Theorem 54.43 from _Principia Mathematica_, which proves that 1+1=2 --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Use of place=suburb (was Re: RFC: place=neighbourhood)
* Martin Koppenhoefer [2011-08-31 14:33 +0200]: > No, suburb is actually not necessarily outside the city (in OSM), it > is used for central districts as well. I've often been confused by the suburb tag and maybe someone can clear it up for me. The tags place=city, place=town, place=village, and place=hamlet are mutually exclusive; if a spot is in a place=village, then it's not in an adjacent place=town. It seems to be that place=suburb is regarded as hierarchically below place=city (at least); if a spot is in a place=suburb, it could also be in a place=city. Is that a correct understanding of the tag's usage? Could the proposed place=neighbourhood tag within a place=town or place=village be analogous to place=suburb within a place=city? (Assuming I'm correct here, I guess place=neighbourhood would strictly be hierarchically below place=suburb, so a suburb could comprise more than one neighborhood.) -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- eat Depends: cook | eat-out. But eat-out is non-free so that's out. And cook Recommends: clean-pans. -- Seen on #debian --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: place=neighbourhood
* Martin Koppenhoefer [2011-08-30 17:01 +0200]: > Waiting for comments especially for the aspect, that you could apply > this tag to all kind of settlement fractions including commercial and > industrial (and of course mixed) areas. I guess the wording > "neighbourhood" does suggest other. The proposed semantics exactly match a number of areas I've mapped in my area, which makes me happy with it. (e.g. a planned community that is part of an unincorporated area (that I've tagged place=village, I believe) where the planned community comprises several separate, named residential areas plus a couple recreation areas and a retail area.) -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- I object to doing things that computers can do. -- Olin Shivers --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tags for neighborhoods / subdivisions
* Josh Doe [2011-05-10 23:27 -0400]: > Either way I think we need to allow for admin_level or something > similar to permit nesting of neighborhoods. I know, let's use relations! (Now I have two problems...) But seriously, what about a very simple "contains" relation? A given relation would have one member (node or way) with role "parent" and one or more members (nodes or ways) with role "child". This would solve the hierarchy problem without assigning arbitrary numbers. A given entity could, of course, be a child in more than one relation, if a neighborhood spanned more than one containing place. I do think that this sort of thing should only be used if spatial relationships don't work: i.e. one or both related entities are nodes. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Lensmen eat Jedi for breakfast. --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
* Ed Hillsman [2011-04-02 22:26 -0400]: > With regard to routing, sidewalks on college campuses, in parks, and > in cemeteries may be interior to a large area bounded by streets, > and as a result some may not have an associated street to use for a > name. I don't think those would qualify as "sidewalks" for purposes of this discussion, since the two proposals both only consider pedestrian walkways that run along and adjacent to roads. If a walkway doesn't have those characteristics, it would just get tagged as highway=footway (probably with surface=paved), and given a name= only if it has its own, distinct, name. > Would it work to add a tag "associated_street" and then simply list the > name of the street? For example, highway=footway, > associated_street="East Fowler Avenue". This might not be a bad idea. It makes the association without using a relation (about which there have been concerns raised regarding the complexity of handling, both for mappers and data consumers). > A value of "none" could be coded if the sidewalk does not parallel a > street. I think that the absence of the tag could reasonably be assumed to be equivalent to "no associated street" but, like oneway=no, it doesn't hurt to have an explicit value for that case. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law! --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
* M∡rtin Koppenhoefer [2011-03-21 18:03 +0100]: > The main purpose of detailing sidewalks is IMHO to be able to add > further details, which might be interesting for the users of the > sidewalk. I think that one very good reason for adding sidewalks is simply to allow better routing for foot traffic. A great many sidewalks run parallel to roads without any complicating obstacles or barriers; for those, not only is this proposal completely sufficient, but it is gives mappers a very simple way to map them. > All of these details are not possible to enter following this > proposal. As soon as you tried to enter more detail (using complicated > tags like sidewalk:width:right=0.7m) you will have to split the > street-highway even if it is not concerned itself, because of surface > changes or width changes on one of the sidewalks. I would not support this proposal to the *exclusion* of mapping separate ways. Rather, I would support this proposal as the simplest way to add sidewalk data with the understanding that if a mapper wishes to add further detail to the sidewalks that they do it via the separate-ways method. But I think that a simple tagging approach that covers a great number of common cases is worth using. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- No cow's like a horse and no horse like a cow. That's one similarity anyhow. -- "Similarity (Commutative Law)", Piet Hein --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Metropolis
* Steve Bennett [2011-01-19 15:17 +1100]: > I suggest we investigate something like a general prominence=* tag, > with values of 1-10. I wouldn't be opposed to this, but I keep thinking a two-tiered system like the Ranally City Rating System[0] might be a better approach. You'd have one axis for general importance, like the Ranally System's numbers, where 1 corresponds to national or global importance and 4 corresponds to local importance; and another axis for a place's relative standing within its region. [0]: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ranally_city_rating_system As an example, in Maryland we have Washington DC and Baltimore, which have similar populations and are both at least national-level hubs, but DC is the more important of the two. There's some subjectivity in a scheme like this (but no more, I think, than determining whether a highway is primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. in most places outside the UK), but the first axis should be relatively objective and the second axis shouldn't be a problem for people living in the region to decide on. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- "What is your name, barbarian?" "Who are you calling a barbarian?" snarled Hrun. "That is what I want to know." -- _The Color of Magic_, Terry Pratchett --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Paper streets?
* Richard Welty [2010-10-19 15:25 -0400]: > tiger seems to have spots where there are streets that developers planned > but never built. i see them from time to time. The problem there is that proposed roads have been recorded as actual roads. If people want to record proposed roads as highway=proposed, I don't think that's a problem, since they're much less likely to be taken as actual, usable roads. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- I think that's easier to read. Pardon me. Less difficult to read. -- Larry Wall --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] How can the US get its stuff together? (was Re: Response to A critique of OpenStreetMap)
* Richard Fairhurst [2010-10-14 10:47 -0700]: > I think you could largely sum up his criticisms in two broad headings: > >1. US OSM contributors need to get their shit together >2. European maps don't look like American ones I'm trying to see what sort of consensus exists on some of the issues from 41 latitude's post. I've sent an email to the talk-us list[0] asking for feedback and discussion. I encourage anyone who's interested, particulary people who map in the US, to contribute to the discussion on that list. [0]: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2010-October/004361.html -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds. -- _Decrypting the Puzzle Palace_, John Barlow --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Layer=* tags disappearing
* M∡rtin Koppenhoefer [2010-10-12 18:11 +0200]: > Layer's range is from -5 to 5. How true is that these days? It's still in the JOSM presets, but a) I don't see any reason in principle that should be true, and my reading of the Mapnik rendering rules seems to indicate that any number of (integer-based) levels would be rendered correctly. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- I do not like broccoli, and I haven't liked it since I was a little kid, and my mother made me eat it, and I'm president of the United States, and I'm not going to eat any more broccoli. -- George Bush --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Advice on names for disused/abandoned railways?
The railway portion of the US TIGER import seems to have used the owner of the railroad for the name= tag. (And the owners appear to have been collected over the course of decades, so the current data doesn't reflect a lot of mergers and splits, but that's a separate issue.) As I come across these, I've been moving TIGER's name= value to the operator= tag, since that seems more approprate. I've also been adding the names of the rail lines when I can determine them. I mention this both for context and to see if anyone has any comments on this particular course of action. My question is about disused or abandoned railways. TIGER generally has the last owner in the name= tag, which is as wrong as it is for active railways. The operator= tag no longer seems appropriate, however, since no one's really operating these railways any more. It would be nice to preserve the name of the previous operator somewhere; are there any conventions around this? (If I were creating tags out of whole cloth, I'd probably use last_operator= or operator:last=.) The actual name of a disused or abandoned railway seems a little iffy, too. The names are mostly assigned by the operators and may be renamed or reassigned periodically, so if a railway used to be called "X" by its previous operator, there's an argument that once it's been abandoned it's no longer named "X". Any thoughts on what could be done here? To make things a little more concrete, the Western Maryland Railway used to have a railroad line that ran along the Potomac River in (among others) Allegany County. They called this portion of their rail network the West Subdivision. The West Subdivision was abandoned and the rail pulled up in 1975. In 1983, the Western Maryland Railway merged into the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (which subsequently merged into CSX Transportation). Although the rails are gone, some of the rail infrastructure remains, mostly bridges and tunnels. I'd like to tag what remains as, "This was the West Subdivision of what was at the time the Western Maryland Railway." Suggestions welcome. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- ATTENTION: Despite Any Other Listing of Product Contents Found Hereon, the Consumer is Advised That, in Actuality, This Product Consists Of 99.99% Empty Space. -- Journal of Irreproducable Results, v36 #1 --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Relation for saying "x is attached to y"?
* M∡rtin Koppenhoefer [2010-08-30 17:40 +0200]: > 2010/8/30 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : > >> - "these objects express the same thing as that object but in more > >> detail" (eg, one line representing a pair or more of train lines) > > in this actual example you don't need relations but can do as with > streets (lanes-tag). I'm not sure on the best syntax though: should it > be tracks=4 or lanes=4? The latter is less correct regarding the > language but doesn't require additional tags. There is a proposal for a tracks= tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Multiple_Tracks -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army. -- Edward Everett --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Is power=generator like landuse=* or building=yes?
When people use power=generator, which is more common: tagging just the building where the generator is housed, or tagging the entire facility (including coal pile, gas tanks, offices, rail yard, etc.)? Whichever one you do, how do you mark the other one, if at all? -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- 1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law! --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Parking for businesses..
* Anthony [2010-05-18 20:47 -0400]: > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tyler Gunn wrote: > > Almost all of these types of parking lots will have some kind of > > notice that tow-away is enforced for unauthorized parking. So the general > > idea is you're free to park there, ONLY if you're visiting the businesses > > serviced by the lot. > > Access=destination? No, the public has no right of access. I thought the description of access=destination matched this scenario fairly well. You're saying that it only applies if the road is publicly owned? (i.e. a strict reading of "right of access" rather than "you're allowed to be here if...") -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- All programmers are playwrights and all computers are lousy actors. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Playground tag proposal - voting
* Erik Johansson [2010-05-14 18:29 +0200]: > If you tag highway=footway with bike=yes then you don't make it > exclusively for bikes. So if you tag a playground with baby=yes > shouldn't that just mean that there are some baby specific toys there, > and baby=no that there aren't any big structures for babies. > > Perhaps adding a baby=exclusive? Could that be unified with other access designations? 'baby=designated' or 'baby=official'? -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment
* Jonas Minnberg [2010-05-14 16:39 +0200]: > What about bordering buildings - ie buldings sharing walls but having > different addresses/uses ? Is it better to draw the as a single area or as > separate but with shared nodes? I feel that separate ways that share nodes along the joint wall makes the most sense from an accuracy standpoint. It allows you to tag the appropriate areas with the building's address and type, which can be useful, since the renderers can color different building types differently. I osciallate on how much I do this, though. For dense commercial/retail areas, I might make distinct ways for the largest buildings (a supermarket in a strip mall, for instance) and just a few other ways that encompass all the smaller buildings; for example: http://osm.org/go/ZcIoRxTbc- . For residential areas, I often don't even bother with the buildings; because they're so small, they take a lot of time to make. There are examples in the residential areas just east of the shopping center I linked above. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- The router thinks it's a printer. -- BOFH excuse #118 --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fast food vs. restaurant vs. cafe
* Alan Mintz [2010-05-04 09:47 -0700]: > I generally regard fast_food as a place where you have to walk up to a > counter and order your food. Even if they do bring it out to your table > when ready, they will not generally come back to refill your drinks or > bring additional courses. Tips are not expected. With those criteria, what distinguishes fast_food from cafe? -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- /* (I do not understand this) */ -- arch/sparc/lib/rem.S --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
