Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

2020-11-11 Thread Ilya Zverev
Regarding the private_hire, I’m not so sure. We indeed you English spelling for tags (colour, neighbourhood), and that’s okay since it’s consistent. But when instead of just spelling we use a UK-specific legal term, it might be not understood. For example, see village_green. My point is that

Re: [Tagging] Hunting stands, bird and wildlife hides

2019-10-22 Thread Ilya Zverev
019, at 10:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > Am Di., 22. Okt. 2019 um 09:35 Uhr schrieb Ilya Zverev <mailto:i...@zverev.info>>: > Hi folks, > > Today we were looking for a tag to mark this structure: > > http://not.textual.ru/zverik/2/5/some_hide.j

[Tagging] Hunting stands, bird and wildlife hides

2019-10-22 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi folks, Today we were looking for a tag to mark this structure: http://not.textual.ru/zverik/2/5/some_hide.jpg Searching the wiki gave out FIVE options: - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dbird_hide

Re: [Tagging] Residential=rural, =urban?

2019-04-12 Thread Ilya Zverev
for calculating population density. Ilya > On 12 Apr 2019, at 01:41, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/04/19 19:06, Ilya Zverev wrote: >> You are mostly correct, =rural is for quarter areas (that are bonded by >> streets and have no streets inside) that conta

Re: [Tagging] Residential=rural, =urban?

2019-04-11 Thread Ilya Zverev
You are mostly correct, =rural is for quarter areas (that are bonded by streets and have no streets inside) that contain mostly one- or two-level houses, and =urban is for bigger (~4-5 levels), usually detached apartment buildings. The value of the tag is mostly used to assume height of

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

2018-08-07 Thread Ilya Zverev
Yes. We in maps.me, for example, use them to label continents. It is a strange question, which can be applied to virtually anything in OSM. Potholes — are they useful? Street lamps — are they useful? Island nodes? Tree nodes? Landcover? Paths? Ilya 07.08.2018 10:58, Frederik Ramm пишет:

Re: [Tagging] Documentation issues of PT tagging schemes (was: Re: Public Transport v3 — starting RFC)

2018-07-24 Thread Ilya Zverev
> be, but I can't do it myself because I just didn't manage to understand > in a reasonable amount of time the PT tagging scheme. So I'll have to > rely on you (yes, thou who readeth me) to write it, sorry! > > > On 07/20/2018 10:48 PM, Ilya Zverev wrote: >> Hi folks, >

Re: [Tagging] Use of namespace as a Lifecycle

2018-07-24 Thread Ilya Zverev
Lifecycle prefixes are not for adding historic or future data in OpenStreetMap. Please see http://openhistorymap.org/ for that. These prefixes are in OSM only to avoid mapping mistakes. For example, when a building is visible on a commonly used satellite imagery, but has been demolished, we

[Tagging] Public Transport v3 — starting RFC

2018-07-20 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi folks, As you might've noticed, in the past year there has been growing discomfort with the current Public Transport tagging schema. Of course, it brought order to our route relations, but also introduced a lot of redundant concepts. We've seen a couple proposals aiming to fix some of

[Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

2018-03-28 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi folks, A while ago I've made a proposal to deprecate some public_transport=* tags: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Drop_stop_positions_and_platforms The discussion was very slow, and in general mappers seemed to accept the change. I'd like to push this to voting in a

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

2018-01-10 Thread Ilya Zverev
Selfish Seahorse wrote: > The course of the route is determined by the order of the stops in the > route relation. Therefore forward/backward roles would be redundant. But stops are not mandatory in public transport routes, unlike highways/railways! Ilya

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - PTv2 Improvements wrt Rapid Transit

2017-12-10 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi Muramoto-san, Subway Entrances and Exits If I can walk into subway station through an underground shopping mall, where could be a subway entrance? Most likely on the doors of a shopping mall. This is out of scope for the proposal and should be described on the "railway=subway_entrance"

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - PTv2 Improvements wrt Rapid Transit

2017-12-09 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi, You may remember the "Metro Mapping" proposal, which was too complex for some, and tried to explain the rapid transit mapping in its entirety. That was not a regular proposal, which put off a lot of people. So I am doing the second take, now only with parts that actually change things.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

2017-11-18 Thread Ilya Zverev
marc marc wrote: what do you think of the different issues raised? whether your proposal is adopted or rejected, it will be difficult to implement. Would it not be better to cancel the current vote in order to improve the proposal with the problems raised ? Did you read the Talk page? I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

2017-11-18 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi, I'd like to remind you to read the Metro Mapping proposal and to leave your verdict in the Voting section. There is a week left until the voting is closed. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Metro_Mapping There are a few votes that are obviously based on authority,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

2017-11-10 Thread Ilya Zverev
marc marc wrote: > with so many modifications, it would have been useful in my opinion to > call for comments a second time before the vote. I even think that a > 15-day vote to make the current mapping of the majority of the big > stations INVALID is a bit short. I posted news about the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

2017-11-10 Thread Ilya Zverev
José G Moya Y. wrote: > How do you map this situation: > You can enter with wheelchair to Pacifico Metro Station metro line 1. > You can enter with wheelchair to Pacifico Metro Station line 6. > You can't go with wheelchair from line 6 to line 1 (or vice versa) without > paying > your metro fee

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

2017-11-10 Thread Ilya Zverev
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sorry for asking so late, but why should we deprecate mapping subway stations > with a relation or a way and insist on nodes? There are already a significant > number of stations mapped like this. I would also not write: "The location of > the node is irrelevant."

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Metro Mapping

2017-11-10 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi everyone, After six weeks of discussion and improvements, I am happy to start the voting on my proposal about mapping metro stations and lines: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Metro_Mapping Note that the proposal mostly compiles mapping practices already in use and

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Rivers Classification

2017-10-16 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi everyone, Two months ago I suggested a way for tagging river size, from small to major. It is a very simple proposal, offering just three tags — river=small, =big and =major — and some numeric thresholds for these. Since it hadn't attracted many comments, let's do a vote on that. I'm pretty

[Tagging] Mapping metro interchanges

2017-10-04 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi, As you know, I'm interested in formalizing the metro stations mapping. Interchanges are an important part of subways, and there are many different types of these. For example, sometimes there are two different stations with different names that are linked by an underground passage. Or

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Fixing wiki* -> brand:wiki*

2017-10-03 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi, I have elaborated on my thoughts on the correct ordering of key parts: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Zverik/diary/42430 You can invert your arguments and still be right: "wikipedia:brand is the wikipedia link for the brand, hence it is the right order, the same as with ref:brand :

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Fixing wiki* -> brand:wiki*

2017-10-02 Thread Ilya Zverev
Sorting tags should not be an argument in this. You can sort by any letter you like. I'd prefer to have all wikipedia links grouped, not all brand-related links. Also, would you retag all "ref:brand" to "brand:ref"? All "source:geometry" to "geometry:source"? Also, I've got a taginfo database

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Fixing wiki* -> brand:wiki*

2017-10-02 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi folks, One question: why brand:wikipedia and not wikipedia:brand? Should we now use brand:ref, en:name, maxspeed:source instead of the regular order? http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52002801 http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52529386 etc. Ilya

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of Subway Stations

2017-09-25 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi Michael, Am 2017-09-24 um 10:49 schrieb Ilya Zverev: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Metro_Mapping I don't understand what's the aim of your "proposal". There are almost no new tags. Is it intended as a write-up of what could and should be mapped and tagg

[Tagging] Mapping of Subway Stations

2017-09-24 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi, I had a task of extracting subway infrastructure from OpenStreetMap, and I found out that some things cannot be mapped at all (e.g. interchanges), and some are unclear or mapped differently in different countries. Please consider this proposal that clarifies tagging and mapping of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - River Classification

2017-08-30 Thread Ilya Zverev
> I originally thought i'd stay out of these discussions on importance tags for > rivers (because in the end i don't think there is anything to be gained from > it) but this is just too good an opportunity, in particular to ask a former > Saint-Petersburg resident: So the Neva: >

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - River Classification

2017-08-29 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi everyone, After a proposal about waterways classification by Daniel Koć, I decided to make an alternative one. To me, using subjective values and criteria for classifying rivers is a better way, since it can work in any country regardless of the official classification. It could be adjusted

Re: [Tagging] Notary Office

2017-02-07 Thread Ilya Zverev
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > to me office=notary seems ok as a tag, I'd prefer it over the office=lawyer + > subtag tagging, they are sufficiently distinct, and I see no point in > implying they are a subclass of lawyers which they might be or not. Office is > a tag that is already finegrained

[Tagging] Notary Office

2017-02-07 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi everyone, Recently I found that JOSM uses different tags for notary offices than I'm used to. Turns out, there are two competing tagging schemas: * office=lawyer + lawyer=notary: introduced in wiki in 2010, number of uses gradually rises to ~1000. * office=notary: introduced by accident in

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+import)

2016-08-02 Thread Ilya Zverev
Frederik Ramm wrote: As written on the imports list, I think that separate mapping of sidewalks will not, and should not, be the norm; In Russia it has been the norm for a long time. Not that we have mapped every sidewalk, but using the sidewalk=* tag is frowned upon. IZ

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person

2014-10-14 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi! I've noticed today there is an epic voting battle on the fields of wiki. Hundreds of mappers came to state their disapproval of person relation type. I wonder how many of them actually mapped one, or even seen such relations. I found some of them in 2011, and posted an entry in SHTOSM about

Re: [Tagging] admin_level on nodes: wiki vs practice

2014-05-13 Thread Ilya Zverev
Dear community, WTF? admin_level on place nodes surely duplicates admin_level tag value from one of relations which contain that node, but is that a bad thing? Did you try to calculate admin_level for a place in osm2pgsql database? I've spent two hours now trying to construct and optimize an SQL

Re: [Tagging] admin_level on nodes: wiki vs practice

2014-05-13 Thread Ilya Zverev
Sorry, two facts that I forgot to check before sending the last mail. 1. There are 63762 place nodes with an admin_level in the database, and ~330k other nodes with this tag. I guess it's too late to forbid using the tag on nodes. 2. It's Berlin that was edited, not London:

Re: [Tagging] admin_level on nodes: wiki vs practice

2014-05-13 Thread Ilya Zverev
Martin Koppenhoefer: admin_level has no real definition in the wiki what it is supposed to express: the key link redirects to boundary=administrative: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:admin_level#admin_level ... Now there is also a key capital that can tell the administrative

[Tagging] The Turn Lanes proposal and center turn lanes

2012-01-18 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi! During the voting three people stated concerns about center turn lanes being unsupported by the proposed tagging scheme. I agree that those lanes are vital for rounting, but also I consider them irrelevant to the proposal. A quote from the FAQ: Turn lanes tags deal with the one-way part of

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Turn Lanes

2012-01-09 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi! Three months ago I've prepared a proposal for turning lanes, and now, having mapped some of those lanes, I consider it appropriate: simple, but powerful enough. So, after a slight polishing, the voting on it is opened -- and will continue till the end of the month. I'd be glad to answer

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Turn Lanes

2012-01-09 Thread Ilya Zverev
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Turn_Lanes Just started looking at it, and I was confused by PSV (though now I know). Perhaps expand the acronym and provide a link to a detailed definition, i.e. the access page. These aren't common where I live, though it's good to know how

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Turn Lanes

2012-01-09 Thread Ilya Zverev
Martijn van Exel: While it looks well thought out in general, I am missing the case of the US style center turn lane, which is a continuous center lane marked by a yellow line that is designated for vehicles turning off of OR onto the main road.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

2011-10-18 Thread Ilya Zverev
bkmap: When we already have numbers for the track positions, why we do not use them thus? So the data consumer knows the location without the lanes:location tag. lanes=4 lanes:turnleft=3;4 lanes:merge=1 lanes:through=2;3 I considered this notation, but it has many drawbacks, the major one

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

2011-10-18 Thread Ilya Zverev
bkmap: It is not too late to change this. We must change about 11+2+7=20 tags worldwide if we consider to modify the notation of the lanes:*:tag. I'm strictly against global retagging. And it's impossible to unambigously resolve number of lanes to lane numbers in most of those cases.

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*

2011-10-12 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi. The proposal for marking building entrances with entrance=* tags was discussed a year and a half ago, but didn't really go anywhere: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/entrance Notice that there is a conversion mentioned in it, from deprecated building=entrance.

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*

2011-10-12 Thread Ilya Zverev
So, how about proposals to replace tags globally? For example, after this proposal is accepted, we could start voting on mass-retagging entrances, so 1) it's official; 2) most data consumers get to know about the change and adjust their software accordingly? With this we could make a precedent

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

2011-10-11 Thread Ilya Zverev
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I wonder if in this case: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/6/69/Simpleuklanes.jpg it would not be better to draw 2 ways (and add a relation to say that you could - against the traffic rules or maybe as a pedestrian - cross the street from one way to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

2011-10-11 Thread Ilya Zverev
Martin Koppenhoefer: how would the data consumer know, where the lanes are? E.g. a lane to turn left might also be right of the through-lanes, and this is crucial for routers to give good indications. Specially for data consumers and advanced mappers there is a section in the proposal

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

2011-10-10 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi! lanes:directions tag was bad, and I acknowledge that. Yesterday we finally chose a good alternative for it: lanes:X:location. It denotes the location of lane group for X. Self-evident example: lanes:merge:location=left. This tag removes some of mine doubts about the proposal, and I hope,

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

2011-10-09 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi! I've changed proposal a bit: now lanes:directions (still no good alternative to this tag, despite long discussion in russian forum) values are separated by commas, not semicolons: l,s,sr. This was done because a semicolon is used to enumerate simultaneous, not consequent, values (so

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

2011-10-06 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi! Following discussions in this list and in couple of forum threads (and since there are some eager nav software programmers that wish to use the first proposal they see), I studied all of the proposals for tagging turn lanes and made a compound tagging scheme, which is not hard to use, but

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

2011-10-06 Thread Ilya Zverev
e.g. trunk_turnlanes:left:forward=1 meaning that from this point we have a left turning lane till the next intersection with a trunk highway ('forward' or 'backward' being relative to the osm way direction as usual). So, are you suggesting to use :forward/backward on nodes? I don't think that

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Turn Lanes

2011-10-06 Thread Ilya Zverev
Peter Wendorff wrote: Some remarks have been mentioned here already, why this proposal is not well designed. Another one is, that it's tackling the lanes-problem, but not solving it. You propose something for turning lanes - but again restrict it to cars. It was not my decision, but was the

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - direction tag and relation

2011-08-26 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi! Since there were no comments for two weeks, I've pushed both proposals to voting stage. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/direction http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Directional_node IZ ___ Tagging mailing

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Directional node

2011-08-09 Thread Ilya Zverev
Fundamentally, I think we need to remember that OSM is not intended to be a true representation of the world, but rather a logical representation. So why do we have tags for road signs and trees and colours then? The direction that a bench, or a sign faces is not significant from the

[Tagging] Requirements for proposals and voting to be valid

2011-05-11 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi. Right now I've had a wtf moment. As some of you remember, there was a proposal for water=* tag. It was discussed, voted upon and approved by 16 to 3 votes. But now there are some enraged wiki editors, one of whom erased the whole voting section and reverted status to Proposed. And the

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

2011-04-16 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi! Since there were no comments for the last week, I've initiated a voting on the water=* proposal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details IZ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Proposed Feature - Public Transport - Voting

2011-04-04 Thread Ilya Zverev
I guess I can answer some of the questions. 1. In the provided links I can see all the street names in German. Do you have any examples of uses outside of the German cultural raum? We in Russia have created several routes using this schema. For example,

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

2011-04-04 Thread Ilya Zverev
Dave. F wrote: But also in this proposal I point out that waterway=riverbank does not differ much from natural=water, and suggest to map it with natural=water + water=river. This means you have multiple keys for river (water waterway). It also means your using river to describe two different

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

2011-04-01 Thread Ilya Zverev
Dave F. wrote: Aren't most of these in use already? water=river A body of river, which is currently mapped as waterway=riverbank. You seem to be unaware of waterway=river. Please refer to his for a complete tagging guide: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

2011-04-01 Thread Ilya Zverev
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:35:37 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: what natural=water on an area means. Is this area a lake, a pond? We have no means to determine that now. could you expand what a pond is? I get several translations for this, ranging from natural to

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

2011-04-01 Thread Ilya Zverev
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:55:06 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: So looking at wikipedia also for lake I found that basically the main difference between the two is the size but also, how deep it is. If it were only the size this tag would not be needed, because unless you

[Tagging] New proposal: water=*

2011-03-31 Thread Ilya Zverev
Hi. At some point we've been fed up with fixing name=Pond and such, so I guess it's time to be more specific about what natural=water is. I suggest a new detail tag, water=*. It's pretty straightforward, but there are some deprecations (which at this point can't deprecate anything because there