Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

2020-06-04 Thread Greg Troxel
stevea writes: > We agree. The issues are both around the different behavior of the > (Carto) renderer when both landuse=residential and natural=wood are > combined (and there are highly complex ways they can be and are > "combined" in the OSM database), and around how mappers understand >

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

2020-06-02 Thread Greg Troxel
stevea writes: > As I mentioned to Doug I exchanged a couple of emails with > user:jeisenberg (a principal contributor to Carto) about what was > going on with some examples of this, and Mr. Eisenberg explained to me > (in short) that it is a complicated ordering (or re-ordering) of > layers

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-08 Thread Greg Troxel
On 2020-05-08 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: It could be useful when mapping something like a building. You could establish a certain elevation as local zero (e.g. the elevation of the ground floor) and have all other levels based on this. It is something that could also not be needed

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-08 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > I was not aware there weren't any meaningful differences (when comparing > some official height references to the German DHHN92 those in wikipedia.de > with delta information all are within 1m besides Belgium DNG/TAW, which is > -2.3). Thanks for looking into this.

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-08 Thread Greg Troxel
Colin Smale writes: > As I mentioned before, the national datums of the Netherlands and > Belgium differ by over 2m, which for everything connected to water is > very significant. Waterways often form the border, with bridges that > cross the border. You cannot use a map/chart (at last for tidal

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-08 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > Am Fr., 8. Mai 2020 um 03:26 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > >> The notion of "local" has the same problem, and it is also a poor choice >> of words in that in surveying, "local", refers to coordinate systems >> established

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-08 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > Am Fr., 8. Mai 2020 um 03:22 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > >> 3) Look up the data sheet and mark it as ele:datum=NGVD29 or >> ele:datum=NAVD88 as it turns out. > > IIRR, in another mail, you wrote that the difference between these 2 is >

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-08 Thread Greg Troxel
Peter Elderson writes: > Why not use a datum:value pair? > > ele=[datum:]value > > datum: is optional. If you don't know, just leave it out. Data users can > assume locally signed or known. Becuase, as I have said many times and no one seems to be listening, in OSM we have said that we use

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-07 Thread Greg Troxel
Joseph Eisenberg writes: > Is there a reason to use this new tag ele:regional instead of ele:local=* > which is already mentioned on the Key:ele page? The notion of "ele:regional" is semantically wrong, because there is no way to map a particular lcoation to a single vertical datum. The notion

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-07 Thread Greg Troxel
Mark Wagner writes: > What about regions where two or more reference systems are in common > use? If I copy an elevation from a USGS benchmark and put it in > "ele:regional", how does an end-user know if it's a recent benchmark > measured in NAVD 88 or an older benchmark measured in NVGD 29?

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-07 Thread Greg Troxel
Simon Poole writes: > Am 04.05.2020 um 15:19 schrieb Kevin Kenny: >> Elevation as height-above-ellipsoid, unless you're using it in the >> intermediate results of a GPS calculation, is nonsensical. > > However if you read the argumentation on the Altitude page that was > exactly the reasoning:

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-04 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > So the question is how we can solve this. We could discourage the use of > the "naked ele" and encourage to always use a more specific subtag, e.g. But is there significant amounts of data that have ele as ellipsoidal height, more so than the prevalence of somewhat

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-04 Thread Greg Troxel
Volker Schmidt writes: > I am not an expert, but it looks as if the Wiki page Key:ele > is not up-to-date. > I thought that WGS84 uses the EGM96 Geoid, named "WGS84 EGM96 Geoid". > Hence there should be no difference between WGS84 and EGM96

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-04 Thread Greg Troxel
Basically I think the whole elevation as height above ellipsoid is mostly a huge misunderstanding, and I wonder how much support there is for it. My memory matches what Martin pointed to: ele= is "height above sea level". And, given that layman's terms description, and that OSM is using WGS84,

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-04 Thread Greg Troxel
Following up to myself, a few things I didn't have time to say last night. Once we accept that the base notion of ele= means WGS84 geoid height (meaning the MSL sort of height), and that ellipsoidal heights basically have no place in OSM, then: 0) The entire notion of looking at a sign on a

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-04 Thread Greg Troxel
Peter Elderson writes: > Thanks for explaining why my android phone says I am at +38m (+/- 3) in my > backyard when in fact it is at Dutch sea level -4.4m. Well, I didn't quite. The location API returns HAE.For a program to show that value to a human as "elevation" is buggy. So in

Re: [Tagging] RFC ele:regional

2020-05-03 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > I’m asking for comments on > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ele:regional Two big comments: First, the current wiki documentation about ele and Altitude should be really straigthened out, so that we have a basis for what we are

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

2020-04-30 Thread Greg Troxel
Mike Thompson writes: > I have always been under the impression that the highway tag should be > based off of function. Recently I have come across a number of cases > where driveways and residential roads were tagged "highway=track" > (perhaps because they are unpaved?), e.g. [0]. Before I

Re: [Tagging] Too many different features lumped together under amenity=social_facility?

2020-04-20 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > apart from workshops, it is this overly broad meaning of "social facility" > that doesn't make the tag super useful. In the end you will have to add I agree with this overbroad notion. I am very much in favor of a top-level tag with subtags when all of the

Re: [Tagging] insurance health

2020-04-15 Thread Greg Troxel
On 2020-04-14 21:16, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: OK, but are there any countries in the world where you can would normally buy health insurance in the same place as car or home or life insurance? I don't know. Many countries might not even allow this. If not, then this is a theoretical problem

Re: [Tagging] insurance health

2020-04-14 Thread Greg Troxel
Agustin Rissoli writes: > In Argentina we want to correctly tagging offices of companies dedicated to > what we call prepaid medicine, by paying a monthly fee you access a series > of medical benefits. > We are hesitating between these tags: > > office=health_insurance > It has no wiki, it has

Re: [Tagging] building=public vs. building=civic

2020-04-08 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > While building=public seems defined, I have difficulties with building=civic, > which is according to the wiki public building appears to have its origin as a legal term, and I don't see it as a type of building at all. In the US the term might be "public

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread Greg Troxel
brad writes: > How many trails are there that are not shared use? In my town, most of the town-owned conservation land has rules that say: trails shown on the official map may be used by hikers, bicycles and horses other trails may be used by hikers only So there are a lot that are

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread Greg Troxel
Snusmumriken writes: > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 22:24 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: >> just usually only a certain kind of bicycle. > > Well, that's the problem, if one can't travel on a certain way with a > general purpose bicycle, then it shouldn't be tagged highway=cycleway I agree, and I think

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-29 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > Frankly, I am not really familiar with the situation in North America > (besides some lessons about North American urbanism I have heard 20 > years ago). I am aware there are some developments that imitate 19th > century architecture, so even if many or most of the

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-29 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > sent from a phone > >> On 29. Mar 2020, at 17:23, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> Really it is a place=neighborhood >> with an indistinct boundary, even if there is a bit of eurosquare there. > > the fact there is a neighborhood which

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-29 Thread Greg Troxel
Paul Allen writes: > On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 00:55, Greg Troxel wrote: > >> Paul Allen writes: >> >> > I can think of one US city square which has "square" in the name >> > (not square shaped, though) that is rather well-known. If you >&g

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-29 Thread Greg Troxel
Joseph Eisenberg writes: > "taking "Harvard Square" as an example, > that refers to an area around the road junctions. It includes the > sidewalks, and it includes the businesses and buildings that are on the > roads that border the center, and even includes things that are perhaps > 50-100m

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-28 Thread Greg Troxel
Paul Allen writes: > I can think of one US city square which has "square" in the name > (not square shaped, though) that is rather well-known. If you > can't think of it the ball will drop eventually, at midnight on Dec 31st. But is that a place=square? That is simply an intersection which is

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-27 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > Am Di., 24. März 2020 um 18:23 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > >> So one definition is >> >> a square is an area with an indistinct boundary that is known by a >> placename by most locals. > > I would rather say "distinct&q

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-24 Thread Greg Troxel
[kind of a joke about NY and New England; there is quite the rivalrly] What I take away from this exchange with you is that it is difficult to know what "square" means, and this it is unlikely that people will arrive at similar notions. Around here, squares are not square. (Oral tradition is

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-23 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > Am Mo., 23. März 2020 um 18:47 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > >> We need it for en_US, too, because in the US, at least in New England, >> everybody knows what Square means and it is different from what this >> thread is discussing. > >

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

2020-03-23 Thread Greg Troxel
Tobias Wrede writes: > It seems I have a different understanding of the concept PO > box. Around here if you have a PO box mail is delivered there and you > go yourself pick it up, convenient for people who are rarely at home > or get huge amounts of mail. In more rural areas I have seen letter

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-23 Thread Greg Troxel
Joseph Eisenberg writes: > That is why we need an actual definition of place=square that isn't > simply "a town square", because I need to be able to translate it into > Indonesia, for people who have never seen a European town square. I > suspect that Japanese and Korean will have the same

Re: [Tagging] Updating definition and description of place=square

2020-03-22 Thread Greg Troxel
I just looked at this discussion and am a bit baffled. We do have notions in OSM that tags mean what they are defined, not what the words might mean, but I think this situation is even more difficult. I live in New England, and we have lots of place names "Foo Square". Perhaps the biggest is

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

2020-03-21 Thread Greg Troxel
Joseph Eisenberg writes: > I agree with "addr:mail=*" as a tag to add to guesthouses, shops, > farms and other businesses, as a way to send letters and perhaps small > parcels, which might be delivered to a PO Box or some rural delivery > system, rather than to the physical address of the shop,

Re: [Tagging] Barbecue disposal bins

2020-03-18 Thread Greg Troxel
Graeme Fitzpatrick writes: > Is anyone as irritated as I am by the shortening to 'bbq'. > > Sorry, no - it's a standard term, at least around here! :-) I am irritated by the misuse of barbecue to refer to large class of anything to do with a grill. Barbecue properly refers to cooking at low

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - survey_point:benchmark

2020-03-11 Thread Greg Troxel
"ITineris OSM" writes: > I need help in tagging a special kind of survey points: geodesic towers. Are they called "geodetic" towers? > These are tubular concrete structures, with usual steel triangulation tripods > on their top. Wow, those are pretty big! > They have the precise benchmark

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - survey_point:benchmark

2020-03-10 Thread Greg Troxel
Anne-Karoline Distel writes: > I've been surveying benchmarks for the past four months and I would like I'm glad to hear that. > to propose an alternative to benchmark=yes for survey points: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/survey_point:benchmark > The reason being that

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

2020-02-04 Thread Greg Troxel
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging writes: > Universities may have faculties, that often deserved to be mapped separately. > > For example university may take a large area, possibly disjointed area across > the city > but Faculty of dentistry, Faculty of forestry, Faculty of mathematics etc may >

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

2020-01-27 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > Mateusz, offlist deliberately. While we're at it, could the list admins fix the BROKEN REPLY-TO? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

2020-01-27 Thread Greg Troxel
Jmapb writes: > Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page ( > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ): > >> For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling >> traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these paths. >> >>   * 

Re: [Tagging] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the main Map features page?

2020-01-19 Thread Greg Troxel
Joseph Eisenberg writes: > That tag is probably emergency=suction_point - seems much better to > tag that rather than identifying the whole pond. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aemergency%3Dsuction_point Sounds basically reasonable to me. The page does not make it clear if this is

Re: [Tagging] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the main Map features page?

2020-01-18 Thread Greg Troxel
Joseph Eisenberg writes: > 2) =fire_water_pond " A man made or natural pond with water for a fire > department." 2785 uses > - Remove: This tag isn't verifiable, or else it could be added to any > pond or small lake. It's not much used outside of Germany. Around me, there are things that meet

Re: [Tagging] Public WLAN boxes

2019-12-19 Thread Greg Troxel
Tom Pfeifer writes: > On 18.12.2019 16:26, Andy Townsend wrote: >> On 18/12/2019 15:22, Tod Fitch wrote: >>> In the U.S. it would be called wifi or wi-fi rather than >>> wlan. Anyone know what the British English is? >> In the UK it's also "wifi" or "wi-fi", but wlan is understood and >> has

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2019-12-15 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > sent from a phone > >> On 14. Dec 2019, at 08:02, Francesco Ansanelli wrote: >> >> Thanks everybody for the feedback. >> I've added the bicycle=dismount on the railway. > > if I saw this I would think I’d have to push the bike there, not take a train It seems

Re: [Tagging] disguised communication towers

2019-11-15 Thread Greg Troxel
Greg Troxel writes: > So for your strategy, I would say > > 1) convince mappers that this is important. (Perhaps argue that it's > more important than the vertical_smoothness tag for peopel who ride > bicycles vertically on the tower -- and yes that's a bad joke.

Re: [Tagging] disguised communication towers

2019-11-15 Thread Greg Troxel
Eric Theise writes: > From my morning reading it seems that entities tagged with > > tower:type=communication > tower:construction=concealed > > and either man_made=mast or man_made=tower should cough up cellphone towers > masquerading as cacti, palms, pines, flagpoles, and such. But apart

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

2019-11-10 Thread Greg Troxel
Jan Michel writes: > On 10.11.19 13:51, Dave F via Tagging wrote: >> Hi >> >> Simple question (which I presume has been previously discussed) : >> >> Why the different key tags to describe what are essentially >> synonymous entities? > > One of them takes care to put out fires, the other

[Tagging] the nature of large-scale paid edits (was Re: Service road)

2019-11-07 Thread Greg Troxel
Dave F via Tagging writes: > On 06/11/2019 18:04, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> I think a shared driveway is still a driveway. > > This is the crux. The only distinguishing attribute from what we'd all > tag as a driveway is that's it's shared. > A driveway is designate

Re: [Tagging] Service road - Can it be a driveway if serving multiple houses?

2019-11-06 Thread Greg Troxel
Dave F via Tagging writes: > In the UK, Amazon Logistics are adding useful data from their GPS'd > delivery vehicles. Mainly highway=service as the last part of their > journey to a destination. > > However, one of their contributors removed service=driveway from a > highway=service road. In the

Re: [Tagging] lit=yes/no threshold

2019-07-07 Thread Greg Troxel
Michael Patrick writes: > You'd probably be okay using the 10 lux indicated by the Illuminating > Engineering Society. But considering that the illuminate area is uneven ( a > notion also covered in the standard ) and usually fairly extensive, and > illumination measurement is a technical skill,

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

2019-06-23 Thread Greg Troxel
Paul Johnson writes: > In that example, I think it'd be better to just tag width=* instead of > lanes=*. Perhaps, but then data consumers have to figure how how many cars are supposed to be side by side. That number really is local convention; one road I use is really not wide enough for 2,

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

2019-06-21 Thread Greg Troxel
Joseph Eisenberg writes: > This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings > is not reliable in all of the world. > > In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of > painted lane markings is inconsistent. Often cheap pain is used > instead of more

Re: [Tagging] Verifiability wiki page: "Geometry" section added

2019-04-28 Thread Greg Troxel
Paul Allen writes: > On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 21:23, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> I cannot imagine houses that are several kilometers away being part >> of a hamlet, in a settlement sense. Can you give an example please, >> maybe this can occur in very low density areas? > > Remote farms

Re: [Tagging] Avoid using place=locality - find more specific tags instead

2019-04-18 Thread Greg Troxel
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes: > On 18/04/19 09:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >> >> >> >> But if a locality represents only a historic location that has no >> physical presence today, it is debatable if this is a “real and >> current” feature that is appropriate for OSM rather than a >>

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

2019-04-13 Thread Greg Troxel
Volker Schmidt writes: > Another thing: > Greg writes: > " "highway=footway" has exactly the same > semantics as "highway=path foot=designated". ...Note that both leave > bicycle and horse as > implicit" > I think this is wrong: highway=footway excludes bicycle, or at least the > footway wiki

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

2019-04-12 Thread Greg Troxel
Richard Fairhurst writes: > Volker Schmidt wrote: >> "highway=path" implies "bicycle=yes" (in most jurisdictions) - see the >> proposed Default-Access-Restriction for all countries > > That's not a default that I feel enormously comfortable with. Whatever the > wiki might say, "bare"

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

2019-04-12 Thread Greg Troxel
Joseph Eisenberg writes: > "an armchair mapper should add access=unknown to the tagging" > > I certainly don't do this when mapping from aerial imagery, and > neither of the editors that I've used (ID and JOSM) have suggest > adding "access=unknown" to a newly mapped path. I only add

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

2019-03-23 Thread Greg Troxel
Jean-Marc Liotier writes: > On 3/23/19 6:04 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: >> I find the implicit rules really problematic, as we don't have a >> machine-readable repository of them that can be used to processs tags as >> they are to the full logical set of what they mean. >

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

2019-03-23 Thread Greg Troxel
Jean-Marc Liotier writes: > On 3/23/19 5:28 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: >> Jean-Marc Liotier writes: >>> So, no landuse=religious anymore at all and no building=mosque for the >> I don't understand why you think landuse=religious shouldn't be >> present. It seems th

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

2019-03-23 Thread Greg Troxel
Jean-Marc Liotier writes: > So, no landuse=religious anymore at all and no building=mosque for the I don't understand why you think landuse=religious shouldn't be present.It seems that all land used for religious purposes should have that tag, whether it's a smallish lot that just contains

Re: [Tagging] leisure=common replacement for public areas with some trees

2019-03-05 Thread Greg Troxel
leisure=common seems wrong for two reasons: the original notion of town common was land that could be used by all and was owned by the town or somehow public. A bit of land that is grass in an urban area does not fit this. town commons were about grazing or perhaps a meeting place;

Re: [Tagging] Fixing import

2019-03-01 Thread Greg Troxel
Paul Johnson writes: > Honestly wouldn't be a bad idea for highway=road to be the default type for > bulk imports, especially after the TIGER fiasco. Another view would be that if an import seems like it should be highway=road, then it isn't good enough data to import.

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-03-01 Thread Greg Troxel
Mateusz Konieczny writes: > Mar 1, 2019, 8:48 PM by ba...@ursamundi.org: > >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 13:57 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com >> > > wrote: >> >>> Feb 27, 2019, 7:31 PM by >> ba...@ursamundi.org >>> >> : >>>

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

2019-03-01 Thread Greg Troxel
Sergio Manzi writes: > The typical roles of the Coast Guard (/or whatever is called in > different countries/) is maritime borders control and maritime law > enforcement. This is why it's hard. Border control is sort of military and law enforcement is mostly police.

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

2019-03-01 Thread Greg Troxel
Graeme Fitzpatrick writes: >> The Border Patrol and other immigration people I would >> sort into police. They arrest people, rather than treating them as >> prisoners of war (Geneva convention again). > > So would a Border Patrol / Customs office be tagged as a Police station? That's a hard

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

2019-03-01 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > I wonder what we call "police" in OSM. > > The wiki does not offer a lot of guidance (France aside): "A police station > is a building where police officers and other staff work and are dispatched > from, and where suspects and evidence are collected and processed."

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-23 Thread Greg Troxel
Peter Elderson writes: > I was thinking further about the idea that came up here: deduct road type > from the landuse=residential. It's different than current usage, and I dont > think it is feasable. I did not mean "deduce road type". What I meant is that if a road is at the lowest level of

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-22 Thread Greg Troxel
Florian Lohoff writes: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified > "Public roads of low importance within town and cities that are not > residential may also be highway=unclassified." > > Residential roads are by definition: > >

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-22 Thread Greg Troxel
Jan S writes: > Am 22. Februar 2019 17:59:28 MEZ schrieb Paul Allen : >>Residential areas, to me, are >>named localities. > > That may be true in Western Europe, but in many places in other parts > of the world there may be areas of residential use that are not named > or only have, sometimes

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-20 Thread Greg Troxel
Sergio Manzi writes: > One thing I'm quite sure, anyway, is that "unclassified" should mean > just that: "/it doesn't fall in any other classification OR we don't > know cr.p about it (we know there is a road there, but we don't know > how it is)/". But it doesn't mean that in the UK. It means

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-20 Thread Greg Troxel
The real problem is that if unclassified is more important than residential, what to do with roads that do not merit unclassified but do not have primarily residential landuse? As I see it, in the United States unclassified and residential are equally important. However, this is likely to be

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

2019-02-15 Thread Greg Troxel
Tobias Wrede writes: > Think of all the residential roads in cities that get a higher class > tagging because of their function in the road network. They are mostly > not different from hw=residential in regards to foot=y/n. And also the > many roads outside built-up areas have mostly no

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

2019-02-14 Thread Greg Troxel
Joseph Eisenberg writes: >> The question asked is "Is this street accessible for pedestrians here?". >> It doesn't ask for the user's opinion on how safe it is. >> > > I believe this is the wrong question. It should be “Are pedestrians legally > prohibited from walking along this road?” Agreed.

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Greg Troxel
Here's a perhaps-radical set of comments and suggestion: in any building, there is a set of names (which often but not always look like numbers) for levels. These are evident in the elevators (buttons inside, matching values outside) and in things painted on walls, on room numbers. etc

Re: [Tagging] Highway=*_link roads at Y-junctions and roundabouts?

2018-12-16 Thread Greg Troxel
Joseph Eisenberg writes: > While checking the rendering of highway link roads (eg motorway_link, > primary_link, tertiary_link), I noticed that in some cases these tags > are used when a road splits in a Y-junction, for example before a > traffic circle / roundabout. In some areas these are the

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Population during mandatory evacuations

2018-11-12 Thread Greg Troxel
Minh Nguyen writes: > (Crossposted to the talk-us and tagging lists.) > > Due to the ongoing Camp Fire in Northern California [1], the place POI > for the town of Paradise got tagged with population=0 before the > change was reverted. Following some discussion about this changeset in > OSMUS

Re: [Tagging] New rag to draw node name with rotate angle

2018-11-10 Thread Greg Troxel
Dave F writes: > On 10/11/2018 14:46, Greg Troxel wrote: >> Dave F writes: >> >>> Every tag is for the renderer, otherwise all maps would be black lines >>> & dots. As your link clearly states: >>> /"Don't deliberately enter data *incorrec

Re: [Tagging] New rag to draw node name with rotate angle

2018-11-10 Thread Greg Troxel
Dave F writes: > Every tag is for the renderer, otherwise all maps would be black lines > & dots. As your link clearly states: > /"Don't deliberately enter data *incorrectly* for the renderer" > / > > The tag 'layer' is purely to aid renderings. That's not true. It represents things being

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

2018-10-26 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > sent from a phone > >> On 26. Oct 2018, at 01:57, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> for all things which are not buildings and basically exist to support >> antennas, and avoid the tower/mast word choice, which is pretty clearly >> co

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

2018-10-26 Thread Greg Troxel
SelfishSeahorse writes: >> For an example of something used in communications (an American thing, >> but totally normal and other countries surely have equivalent things >> with the same characteristics): >> >> http://www.rohnnet.com/rohn-65g-tower >> >> which says right there can be up to

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

2018-10-25 Thread Greg Troxel
Graeme Fitzpatrick writes: > A mast is a tall, slim structure supported by guys, usually with external > access only This reliance on guys does not align with engineering reality. guys are needed depending on forces/loading, and there can be unguyed masts, that are exactly like guyed masts

Re: [Tagging] Power=cable for low voltage lines?

2018-10-19 Thread Greg Troxel
marc marc writes: > Le 18. 10. 18 à 15:01, Greg Troxel a écrit : >> the idea that people that don't understand the >> power system can tell the difference doesn't really seem right to me. > > so how can my wife add a "this electrical cable" despite she has >

Re: [Tagging] Power=cable for low voltage lines?

2018-10-18 Thread Greg Troxel
François Lacombe writes: > Le mar. 16 oct. 2018 à 00:20, Greg Troxel a écrit : > >> So I don't see how we can make "insulated" a big deal in tagging, >> defining the top-level tag, rather than being a detail to add when >> known. > > I agree with

Re: [Tagging] Power=cable for low voltage lines?

2018-10-18 Thread Greg Troxel
Mateusz Konieczny writes: > In my case I am interested in differentiating major power lines and > minor power lines without further details. > > Given power=liner and power=minor_line scheme existed before I joined > OSM and is really popular I guess that I am not alone. I find the wiki sort of

Re: [Tagging] Power=cable for low voltage lines?

2018-10-15 Thread Greg Troxel
François Lacombe writes: > Basically in power language, a line is not insulated while a cable actually > is. A difficulty here is that mappers cannot tell a protective covering from insulation. I was at an open house of my power company recently and they had a mockup of a distribution line, of

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

2018-10-09 Thread Greg Troxel
Graeme Fitzpatrick writes: > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 03:58, SelfishSeahorse > wrote: > >> There is a risk that towers and masts are defined differently in >> English, but perhaps Martin's idea to combine the two definitions >> would make sense nevertheless. Part of the issue is UK English vs US

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

2018-09-19 Thread Greg Troxel
Philip Barnes writes: > And if the default actually applies, or has it been overriden by local > signage. > > I am not convinced that a default limit helps, if no speed limit has been > surveyed I would prefer that box not to be displayed in my app. > a. It will not give me wrong and possibly

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

2018-09-19 Thread Greg Troxel
Colin Smale writes: > A "maximum" speed does not mean an "advised" speed. If you are driving > at an unsuitable speed, below the posted maximum, in Europe you will not > get a ticket for "speeding" as such but you may get one for "dangerous > driving" or something similar. The obligation to

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

2018-09-19 Thread Greg Troxel
Tod Fitch writes: >> On Sep 18, 2018, at 6:19 PM, Joseph Eisenberg >> wrote: >> >> So on the boundary=administrative admin_level=6 for Rogers County, we could >> have something like maxspeed:type:default=45mph > > Except that more typically there will be different default speed > limits on

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

2018-09-12 Thread Greg Troxel
> Again, I emphasize, this is not a crawler lane or a hill climbing lane. It > is a lane into which one pulls over to allow faster moving traffic to pass. > In fact, Alaskan law demands that any vehicle being followed by 5 vehicles > must, at the first opportunity, allow those vehicles to pass. I

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

2018-09-12 Thread Greg Troxel
Dave Swarthout writes: > Same here. I don't have any objections to either the abbreviation or the > longer form. "smv" just seemed to fit well with the other abbreviations > already in heavy use. > > Does anybody else have input on this? I have significant discomfort with smv and a bit with

Re: [Tagging] delivery areas?

2018-08-24 Thread Greg Troxel
seirra writes: > I was thinking more to the tune of specific things like charity shops > or smaller stores where it may not be standard I think this doesn't belong in the OSM database. If you could get shops to publish an API endpoint with a geojson of their delivery area, we could add that

Re: [Tagging] residents only after hours

2018-08-22 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > sent from a phone > >> On 21. Aug 2018, at 19:31, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> If it's private, then access=yes is arguably not right, as permission is >> granted to the public, vs the public having a right of access. > > &g

Re: [Tagging] residents only after hours

2018-08-21 Thread Greg Troxel
Jmapb writes: > access=yes > access:conditional=destination @ (Oct-Apr: 20:00-07:00; May-Sep: > 22:30-07:00) (ignoring foot/bicycle as that's not the point) If it's private, then access=yes is arguably not right, as permission is granted to the public, vs the public having a right of access.

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

2018-05-26 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > sent from a phone > >> On 26. May 2018, at 10:41, Martin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >> >> I don’t mind, but it isn’t necessary for tag consistency (only if you want >> service to be private) > > > the highway page

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

2018-05-25 Thread Greg Troxel
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: >> and track (for - due to history - public accessible rural driveways) is >> simply driven by reality. > > track is about agricultural and forestry usage, I did not know it required > public accessibility, does it? In my usage (and US

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

2018-05-23 Thread Greg Troxel
Florian Lohoff writes: > I now see increasing usage of service roads as a category below > unclassified. People tagging "smaller roads" in the countryside > as a service roads. I think this is basically wrong tagging. > I find this a little disturbing and now got into an argument

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

2018-05-07 Thread Greg Troxel
Dave Swarthout writes: > But when a highway has an officially assigned ref doesn't that define it as > "classified"? I don't have a large stake in this discussion but it would You would think. But no. In the UK, there is a notion of A/B/C roads, and then unclassified.

  1   2   3   4   >