Re: [Tagging] tunnel=culvert
Hello, On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 11:44:17PM -0700, GerdP wrote: > Now I noticed that the wiki also "allows" to use tunnel=culvert > on a node, On the other hand, the wiki "disallows" to use tunnel=* on a node. > but this is rarely used > (taginfo shows 945 tags on nodes and > 305.000 on ways) > I wonder why. The usage of a node seems to be clearer for me, > at least in those cases where the tunnel is almost as broad as the > road. What would be in the tunnel? the waterway or the highway? how would the layer= apply? > In my eyes it is the same case as with a > railway=level_crossing. We map it as a node (and only as a node). > Did I miss something? In this case, the highway and the railway share the same level. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 08:29:48PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote: To the extent possible I think we should focus on the positive and avoid negative statements about other projects, Why not, if they are true? or over generalizations about those projects. For example Your mapping service is a closed system is both negative and a generalization. There may be some other mapping system service that is also open like OSM that the reader is part of. Perhaps just title that box Closed Mapping Systems Of course there may be, but can you list any other projects aiming to make free maps? on the other hand, wiki could enumerate particular well-known services producing nonfree maps. re: There multiple collaborative mapping services. Each of them is a direct rival to OpenStreetMap in terms of competing for contributors and map editing contributions. OpenStreetMap is better than any other competitor for one simple and very fundamental reason This is not necessarily true. For example, a project may capture data that OSM is not interested in, and therefore it is not a direct rival. Again, it _may_; are there any counterexamples? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 02:00:51PM +1100, David wrote: Been a good discussion on new tags for smoothness=. Time, imho, to ask people to indicate just what they do like. How about a show of hands for one or more of - 1. Numeric tags, perhaps grade1 .. grade8 similar to tracktype. 2. Words that describe the smoothness - glassy -smooth -rough -bumpy - rutted 3. Words that describe the (wheeled) vehicle that might use it - Any_vehicle, city_car_bike, 4x4_mtb, off_road_vehicle, extreme_vehicle, none. 4. Combined: grade1 ... grade8 glassy smooth ... any_vehicle ... extreme_vehicle and grade1;glassy;any_vehicle (or surface_grade=1 roughness=glassy approved_for=any_vehicle). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:56:01AM +0300, Dmitry Kiselev wrote: addr:city=ukrainian city name addr:street=ukrainian street name addr:housenumber=123 Is enough, all kind of translations might be taken from matched street/city as good as any kind of old_names or alt_names Good point. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:11:23PM +0100, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: On 16.01.2015 05:48, Ineiev wrote: On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:53:13PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: you could use polygons (e.g. 2 distinct multipolygons, one for each address), and add a note to inform your fellow mapping colleagues that the overlap is intended (note is not needed but nice). I think this solution has an essential advantage: distinct multipoligons with single addr:housenumbers can go do distinct associatedStreet relations. you can't do it with addrN:; and the mapper may want to use associatedStreet e.g. because it provides a way to specify parallel addresses in different languages (I believe, this feature is used in countries like Ukraine). If we need language versions for the street name, we'll probably need them for city names (Kiyev/Kiyiv) etc. too. So you'll not only need an associatedStreet relation, but also an associatedCity relation. TTBOMK the city/country part of the address comes from the city multipoligon, and it does have an established way to specify localized versions. You can (mis-)use the addrN schema for that purpose: addr:city=ukrainian city name addr:street=ukrainian street name addr:housenumber=123 addr:2:city=russian city name addr:2:street=russian street name addr:2:housenumber=123 Indeed, it would be a misuse. the user of data should be able to identify the language. The number of tags multiplies with the number of street/housenumber combinations, but that may still be simpler than congruent housenumber polygons all of which are member of several associatedSomething relations. I think that the best solution may be: addr:city=ukrainian city name addr:city:ru=russian city name addr:street=ukrainian street name addr:street:ru=russian street name addr:housenumber=123 Agreed; but those would be a bunch of new tags, while associatedStreet is already documented in wiki and hopefully supported by software. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:53:13PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: you could use polygons (e.g. 2 distinct multipolygons, one for each address), and add a note to inform your fellow mapping colleagues that the overlap is intended (note is not needed but nice). I think this solution has an essential advantage: distinct multipoligons with single addr:housenumbers can go do distinct associatedStreet relations. you can't do it with addrN:; and the mapper may want to use associatedStreet e.g. because it provides a way to specify parallel addresses in different languages (I believe, this feature is used in countries like Ukraine). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC Bag shop
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:21:51AM +1100, Warin wrote: But English is not 'clean'. So I would say (in speach) 'a shop for motorcycles' .. but 'a motorcyle shop' so plural then singular. Or'a shop for alcohol' .. but 'an alcohol shop' so singular in both cases. Or 'a shop for shoes' .. but 'a shoe shop' so againplural then singular. IIRC in some textbook I read that in a shoe shop, shoe is not singular, it isn't plural (to say nothing of the Saxon genitive), it's the stem; I'm not sure they were right, though. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service= tag confusion
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:58:20AM -0500, Brad Neuhauser wrote: EDIT: looking into this further, service=tyres|dealer|parts|repair, which are the largest usage of the car repair-service tags (500-1800 uses, depending), all have wiki redirects to the Russian shop=car page ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU%3ATag%3Ashop%3Dcar). In looking at the service=tyres map on taginfo, the majority of usage is in Russia too http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/service=tyres#map Does anyone know someone who could bring this up on the Russian talk list? (or can read the Russian wiki page?) The wiki page says approx. shop=car is where cars are sold; shop=car+service=car_parts|... is where cars and also car parts|... are sold; see also shop=car_repair and shop=car_repair mentions service=tyres (as an undocumented usage). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
