Re: [Tagging] sport=shooting_range vs sport=shooting + leisure=pitch

2020-12-20 Thread Jmapb
On 12/19/2020 5:16 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I agree with this, there’s a lot of abuse for “pitch”, and these are not arguments for continuing the line, it’s never too late to learn from past errors ;-) leisure=shooting_range might make sense? There are also 4000 military=range (is this

Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

2020-12-14 Thread Jmapb
On 12/14/2020 3:11 PM, Paul Allen wrote: I'd expect a motel to be set up to handle very short duration (one or two day) at very short notice (turn up and ask for a room) and to offer meals unless there are diners/restaurants nearby... Take a look at https://www.canllefaes.com/

Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

2020-12-14 Thread Jmapb
I've been using tourism=motel for these, if there are no other features that would tip them into leisure=resort. At least In the rural USA, there's a continuum between motels that have an array of rentable rooms in one or two buildings and those where each room is an individual cabin, or

Re: [Tagging] edit war related to tagging of a bus-only major road

2020-12-09 Thread Jmapb
On 12/9/2020 9:36 AM, Michael Tsang wrote: Des Voeux Road Central is considered one of the most important roads in the area which I tagged it as highway=secondary, however another editor has repeatedly changed it to highway=service on the fact that that road is closed to motor vehicles except

[Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

2020-10-15 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 10/13/2020 6:30 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 17:41 Volker Schmidt mailto:vosc...@gmail.com>> wrote: I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a crossing node _and_ a crossing way. This was described as an option on the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

2020-09-04 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 9/4/2020 6:24 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Sep 4, 2020, 18:19 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: node and discovered the shelter_type=rock_shelter subtag, but the map in question didn't render it any differently. Revisiting the site in fair weather, I found a tiny

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

2020-09-04 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 9/4/2020 3:45 PM, Paul Allen wrote: A surveillance cam isn't a "contact" and contact:* is STILL a stupid idea. Oh, and what's wrong with url=*?  Especially as the wiki page endorses it. Nb, the link to the "Surveillance under Surveillance" project that you quoted doesn't mention the url=*

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

2020-09-04 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 9/4/2020 2:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Fr., 4. Sept. 2020 um 19:03 Uhr schrieb Jmapb via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>: On 9/4/2020 11:34 AM, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: > The "See also" section of that page seems to suggest the und

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

2020-09-04 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 9/4/2020 11:34 AM, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: The "See also" section of that page seems to suggest the undocumented tag `contact:webcam` for this purpose. (Mea culpa, contact:webcam is indeed documented on the contact page.) ___ Taggi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:shelter_type=rock_shelter

2020-09-04 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 9/3/2020 11:51 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: I've created a proposal to formalise shelter_type=rock_shelter, while currently in-use, there is disagreement within the community on if this tag should be used and features are commonly mis-tagged. So I'm hoping with this proposal and voting we can

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

2020-09-04 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 9/4/2020 11:08 AM, dktue wrote: Hi, I'd like to tag the link to the (current) JPEG-image of a webcam, but the wiki doesn't state how to do so [1]. Any suggestions how to tag this? Cheers, dktue [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance The "See also" section of

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-08-03 Thread Jmapb
On 8/3/2020 4:36 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 15:29 Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote: ...Regardless, if this general approach is considered valid and workable, then I'd like to propose the following answer to my original question:   * Q) How

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-08-03 Thread Jmapb
On 8/3/2020 6:07 AM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: There is some fuzzy matching, you can expect to work, for example abbreviations like street -> st or even New York -> NY. But going from ref=NY-214 to 'State Highway 214' is already a long stretch that requires special local knowledge. Understood.

Re: [Tagging] RFC: service=? for all highway=service (service=parking needed, primarily, I think)

2020-08-01 Thread Jmapb
On 8/1/2020 8:40 PM, David Dean wrote: Hi everyone, I'm interested in proposing and/or documenting existing tagging approaches of the wiki to ensure that all highway=service ways can have a service=? associated tag. Hi David -- My feeling is that often highway=service, without a service=*

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-08-01 Thread Jmapb
On 8/1/2020 12:51 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Similarly, if you ask someone the name of the road in California with ref="CA 96", they will tell you "Highway 96" or perhaps "The river road". They won't say "Nah, it doesn't have a name, just a State highway number." So in that situation, how

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-07-31 Thread Jmapb
On 7/31/2020 4:24 PM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: Put one of the variants into addr:street and then all the variants as alternative names onto the road. Obviously that stretch of road is referred to under all these names, so this is what we should map. Putting aside the question of *which* variant

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-07-31 Thread Jmapb
On 7/31/2020 1:00 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: I'd go with the official address.  It's not rare to find addresses in the US where what goes on an envelope doesn't match what the street is actually called. Nor is it rare to find the wiki to be wrong Sometimes the official address is unclear.

[Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-07-31 Thread Jmapb
Hi all, what's the best way to tag the addr:street of an address along a highway route? Example, I'm mapping houses and POIs along NY 212: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/411064 Some segments of the route are tagged name=Main Street and the addresses there use Main Street for their

Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging

2020-07-26 Thread Jmapb
Hi Tobias, I've been giving this some thought. My conclusion is that user validation of tags shouldn't be stored in the same database table as the tags themselves. It's clear that as the map data ages, tag validation is going to be a task with parallel and equal importance to tagging itself, but

Re: [Tagging] Map maintenance with StreetComplete - Preferred tagging

2020-07-24 Thread Jmapb
On 7/24/2020 7:12 PM, Cj Malone wrote: OSM does not store edit timestamps for individual tags, only for the object as a whole. Finding out when a tag was changed requires a review of the entire history. I had to do this once when I saw a clear highway=motorway_link tagged as highway=motorway,

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2020-07-23 Thread Jmapb
On 7/22/2020 12:05 PM, bkil wrote: My guess is that the adoption of a dismounted_bicycle=* tag or similar would require significantly *less* work than re-examining all current bicycle=no ways. Yes, I think that would be workable. Nonetheless, I completely agree with you, =no

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2020-07-22 Thread Jmapb
On 7/22/2020 11:34 AM, Tod Fitch wrote: On Jul 22, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote: If this unfortunate tagging practice really needs to be preserved (the idea of retagging so many bicycle=no ways is certainly daunting) then I'd suggest a new key, dismounted_b

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2020-07-22 Thread Jmapb
On 7/22/2020 11:27 AM, bkil wrote: According to OSM wiki history, `bicycle=dismount` is a pretty recent tag, perhaps less than 7 years old. I think `bicycle=no` was invented much earlier. Hence it is you who wants to redefine a well established tag. According to the first version of access=* in

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2020-07-22 Thread Jmapb
On 7/22/2020 10:34 AM, Allroads wrote: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Waterloopbos._Natuurgebied_van_Natuurmonumenten._Informatiebord.jpg - Fietsers op verharde fietspaden en wegen -Bicyclist on paved cycleway and roads. Here is written what is allowed. But more important: Overigens

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

2020-07-21 Thread Jmapb
On 7/21/2020 11:02 AM, Jan Michel wrote: Hi Michal, I would stay with information=guidepost for those. They serve exactly the same purpose, so they should get the same major tag. It's only the way the sign is made that is different. You can add the common tags like "support", "material",

Re: [Tagging] How to tag minor commercial roads?

2020-07-16 Thread Jmapb
On 7/16/2020 1:17 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: I'm wondering what, if anything, I should do with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351516889. It doesn't seem to meet the definition of a highway=residential, but I'm not convinced it is a lowly highway=service, either, but I also can't easily

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

2020-05-14 Thread Jmapb
wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote: Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good mapping practice -- what would be your answer? Always

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

2020-05-14 Thread Jmapb
On 5/14/2020 10:01 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Steve Doerr mailto:doerr.step...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote: On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>> wrote: Regarding the original questio

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

2020-05-13 Thread Jmapb
On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC.  It's time to stop treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata.  If tools /still/ can't deal with this, this is on the tools and their developers now. Sure. Regarding the original question -- in

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

2020-05-13 Thread Jmapb
On 5/12/2020 10:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad mailto:bradha...@fastmail.com>> wrote: OK, but it seems redundant to me.   A trail/path get tagged as a path. There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name.   Why does it need to

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-01 Thread Jmapb
On 5/1/2020 7:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Another idea could be to introduce “running” as a new state of foot, e.g. foot=no foot:conditional =yes @ running I like this, a little less cheeky than conjuring an arbitrary unsigned minspeed for runners. And would be likely interpreted

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-01 Thread Jmapb
On 5/1/2020 4:37 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: Hello, We have a trail [0] around here where walking/hiking is not allowed, but running is. Currently it is tagged foot=yes, which doesn't give the full story. In case you are wondering how such a situation could come about, it is because the land

Re: [Tagging] Footways where pedestrians may only walk in one direction: oneway:foot=yes or foot:backward=no?

2020-04-16 Thread Jmapb
On 4/16/2020 4:46 AM, Paul Allen wrote: On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 at 04:08, Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote: To sidestep your question, oneway=yes on a highway=footway, cycleway or path already implies it's not accessible to vehicles so a oneway tag on any of those

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

2020-04-02 Thread Jmapb
On 4/2/2020 9:29 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:10 AM Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote: My view based on current usage, reading of the wiki and general opinion is that highway=cycleway is meant for any path that is either designed/intended

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

2020-03-15 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 3/15/2020 6:18 AM, Markus Peloso wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in the sense of free sharing. Hi After "Clarify whatever explicit abstaining is the same as no vote" and the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2020-03-05 Thread Jmapb
On 3/5/2020 9:27 AM, Peter Elderson wrote: Do you know trails with detached sections? We have some in Nederland, on the islands. Doesn't fit in the proposed role scheme, I think. Vr gr Peter Elderson See this section of the E10 in Czechia ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5465693 ) --

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

2020-03-03 Thread Jmapb
On 3/2/2020 3:57 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: I'm sure that there'd be a subcategory for 'hiker boxes' as well. http://www.thetrailmaster.com/hike-smart/hiker-boxes-share-and-share-alike/ https://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php/55460-quot-I-found-it-in-a-hiker-box-quot Major long-distance

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

2020-03-02 Thread Jmapb
On 2/29/2020 3:43 AM, Markus Peloso wrote: I find amenity=give_box is different from amenity=food_sharing as a shop=general is different from shop=supermarket. In Switzerland if I go into a supermarket I found products of daily hygiene but the main thing is about shopping for food. True, and

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

2020-02-28 Thread Jmapb
On 2/26/2020 4:32 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 26. Feb 2020, at 08:56, Markus Peloso wrote: The amenity=give_box tag is specific for sharing and reusing none food items. Please do not use it for food sharing +1, although these are somehow similar features from a certain point of view,

Re: [Tagging] man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

2020-02-26 Thread Jmapb
On 2/26/2020 4:59 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: It's also possible to have a functioning petroleum well without any notable surface-level equipment So in that case, there would be no "pumping rig", right? There would just be some pipes and valves the the wellhead, aka a "Christmas tree":

Re: [Tagging] man_made=petroleum_well vs man_made=pumping_rig

2020-02-26 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 2/26/2020 3:54 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: There are some users on the wiki who seem to treat these two tags as near-synonyms man_made=petroleum_well man_made=pumping_rig The later was approved, but the first is much more common. The proposal in 2008 for pumping_rig said "A tag for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

2020-02-16 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 2/16/2020 8:21 AM, Steve Doerr wrote: On 15/02/2020 16:56, Markus Peloso wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/in-kind_donation For a place that takes in-kind donations. My immediate reaction is that this sounds like a very similar concept to 'give box', which was

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

2020-02-06 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 2/6/2020 10:47 AM, Paul Allen wrote: And if they wanted to comment but not vote they'd add their comment to the talk page instead.  Right? Absolutely! If that's what the instructions said. But they clearly say that if you do want to comment, but you don't want to vote, then choose

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

2020-02-06 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
[Sorry for the repost, corrected wiki link below...] On 2/6/2020 5:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Actually, in the past we always have counted every kind of comment (vote yes / no and abstain) as part of the total, which indeed led to the situation that an (explicit) abstention effectively

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

2020-02-06 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 2/6/2020 5:40 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Actually, in the past we always have counted every kind of comment (vote yes / no and abstain) as part of the total, which indeed led to the situation that an (explicit) abstention effectively counted like a no-vote. Are we going to change this

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

2020-02-05 Thread Jmapb
On 2/5/2020 6:21 PM, Lionel Giard wrote: Site relation are more used to put the tag "amenity=university" and all the information only 1 time for the whole university when it is spread across a city or multiple sites. This site relation equal to the amenity=university area under a campus that's

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

2020-02-05 Thread Jmapb
On 2/5/2020 4:36 AM, Lionel Giard wrote: Thus, it seems difficult to find "one" subdivision that will always work worldwide ?! :-) Maybe that we should keep a generic word and allow everything in it (like subdivision=* with the name of "School", "Institute", "College",... if relevant) ? I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

2020-02-05 Thread Jmapb
On 2/5/2020 8:58 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Well, if we count all of those, it is 68% (13/19) which is less than the 74% cut-off. Is it normal to count abstentions as part of the vote total? The proposal template text ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Proposed_feature_voting )

Re: [Tagging] Ski picnic room

2020-02-04 Thread Jmapb
On 2/3/2020 5:55 PM, Warin wrote: On 30/1/20 9:23 pm, MARLIN LUKE wrote: Noticed amenity=shelter. I initially thought about combining it with shelter-type:picnic, but it seems too... "open" for me. Like, not a complete building. I'll use this in the meantime There is

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-31 Thread Jmapb
On 1/31/2020 11:56 AM, Jmapb wrote: They don't have their own street signs, and addresses along them will be 12345 Route 28 (or 12345 State Route 28, or 12345 State Highway 28, or 12345 NY 28... poorly standardized.) There might be a case for removing the name= from these, maybe even tagging

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-31 Thread Jmapb
On 1/30/2020 6:22 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: Uhm. It looks pretty much like any other `highway=unclassified`. The signs say 'Old Route 7' in the style the township uses for rural roads. There are no shields or chaining markers to indicate that it's a state highway. And it's been called, 'Old Route

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate healthcare=pharmacy and healthcare=hospital

2020-01-30 Thread Jmapb
On 1/29/2020 6:14 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: The healthcare=* tags were formally proposed and voted on 10 years ago. Included in that proposal ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=1318635 ) was the idea that dual-tagging some features with both amenity=*/healthcare=* would be the

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate healthcare=pharmacy and healthcare=hospital

2020-01-29 Thread Jmapb
On 1/29/2020 2:23 PM, Andrew Hain wrote: Is it time for another controversial decisions page then? The healthcare=* tags were formally proposed and voted on 10 years ago. Included in that proposal ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=1318635 ) was the idea that dual-tagging some

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate healthcare=pharmacy and healthcare=hospital

2020-01-29 Thread Jmapb
On 1/29/2020 8:50 AM, Lionel Giard wrote: That's clearer when we get all the history thank you Joseph ! :-) I agree with you that the added value of duplicating the key is very limited, so i understand your edit on the wiki. ^_^ IMO, unilaterally deprecating

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

2020-01-28 Thread Jmapb
On 1/28/2020 4:49 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: Be that as it may, there are a great many `highway=path` objects where the intent was `combined foot- and cycleway`. The concept that a `footway` is urban while a `path` represents something more like a wilderness trail is a rather new one to me. (I'm

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

2020-01-28 Thread Jmapb
On 1/28/2020 4:23 PM, Tomas Straupis wrote: Yet for ten years or even more the logic was that if the same way is designated for both pedestrians and cyclists, it cannot be tagged with highway=footway - as it is for cyclists as well, it cannot be tagged with highway=cycleway because it is for

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

2020-01-28 Thread Jmapb
On 1/27/2020 3:53 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote: The same user also changed the Australian tagging guidelines without discussion, which we didn't notice till last October: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-October/013009.html and they were reverted. Didn't notice at the time

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate healthcare=pharmacy and healthcare=hospital

2020-01-28 Thread Jmapb
On 1/28/2020 9:23 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: The pages are nearly identical. Actually, the healthcare=pharmacy page was just made recently by copying the amenity=pharmacy page. Before it was only documented minimally at Key:healthcare I believe the mappers who developed the healthcare=*

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

2020-01-27 Thread Jmapb
On 1/27/2020 12:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>>: And also editing the highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban situations. this seems very strange and is likely the

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

2020-01-27 Thread Jmapb
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.   *  Do not use highway=cycleway on

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

2020-01-21 Thread Jmapb
On 1/21/2020 3:42 AM, Markus Peloso wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in the sense of free sharing. Hi Thanks for the discussion, inputs and improvement to this tag. *I request for

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

2020-01-15 Thread Jmapb
On 1/15/2020 10:26 AM, marc marc wrote: Le 15.01.20 à 16:15, Jmapb via Tagging a écrit : Don't forget about man_made=drinking_fountain! omg, what's the diff with amenity=drinking_water ? the direction of water flow upwards? 348 out of 371 objects also have an amenity tag, which shows

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

2020-01-15 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 1/15/2020 12:55 AM, European Water Project wrote: Would it be appropriate to use the tag "seasonal" for a water fountain (whether tagged as "amenity=drinking_water" or "amenity = fountain and drinking_water = yes" )? Don't forget about man_made=drinking_fountain! J

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-14 Thread Jmapb
On 1/14/2020 9:13 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: Here's how the mappers have seen the tags in question so far, according to Taginfo: oneway:foot=no 1267 occurrences (not all from one region) oneway:foot=yes 89 oneway:foot=-1, 1 occurrence foot:oneway=no 48 foot:oneway=yes 2

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-13 Thread Jmapb
On 1/13/2020 9:43 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 8:21 AM Paul Allen wrote: Not very intuitive but, perhaps in rare cases, necessary. What if the road is one-way to both vehicles and pedestrians but vehicles go from A to B whilst pedestrians go from B to A? You beat me to it!

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-13 Thread Jmapb
On 1/13/2020 9:46 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: Personally, I have no problem with oneway=yes having different implications depending on the value of the highway key. In general I would expect the oneway value to align the predominant use of the highway in question. More

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-12 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 1/11/2020 7:13 PM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 18:18, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/97010406 - It was originally a vehicle route but was changed to pedestrian with painted bike and foot lanes. For motor vehicles, only emergency

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-11 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that is, highway=footway. If that's correct, oneway=yes can be interpreted as referring to pedestrians on footways (it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - give box

2020-01-07 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 1/7/2020 7:26 AM, Paul Allen wrote: And yet the examples you give are shops, or shelves within shops.  They are NOT boxes.  On those grounds alone, "give box" is a very bad name.  In any case, who is doing the giving to whom? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Give-away_shop uses the generic term

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Givebox

2020-01-06 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 1/6/2020 5:41 PM, Markus Peloso wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Givebox A facility where people drop off and pick up various types of goods in the sense of free sharing. Hi Based on the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Reuse

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-09 Thread Jmapb
On 12/9/2019 3:43 AM, Peter Elderson wrote: I have walked many "Camino" sections in Italy. The "checkpoints" are just stamps, you can get them at many shops, hotels, restaurants, tourist info points and the like on the way. They will stamp anything for anyone who asks. There is no register,

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-08 Thread Jmapb
On 12/8/2019 6:44 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: Could you envision a node passed by two hikes, and being a checkpoint for the one and nothing special for the other? Camino de Santiago ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/153968 ) comes to mind. Hikers doing the whole route carry passports

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-07 Thread Jmapb
On 12/7/2019 11:52 AM, s8evq wrote: On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 10:30:37 +1100, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: For nodes .. think the roles of ways should be done first, but some thoughts for later proposal/s. Are they necessary? In my limited experience mapping hiking routes, I have not yet

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

2019-12-06 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 12/6/2019 1:28 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: I think the "forward" and "backward" don't belong in a role of a relation. Oneway=yes on a way should be enough. In the Wiki discussion it is said that if there is one little "oneway" way in a big branch, then all the ways in a branch should be checked

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – notary

2019-12-04 Thread Jmapb
On 12/3/2019 3:26 PM, Sebastian Martin Dicke wrote: I often found offices of lawyers, which are notaries, too, and office sharings of lawyers and notaries. To tag this appropriate, I wrote a proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/notary Definition: Notary services

Re: [Tagging] shop selling trucks

2019-11-16 Thread Jmapb
On 11/16/2019 12:21 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I have found a shop that sells Volvo and Volkswagen commercial vehicles (large trucks). Looking in the wiki, it suggested the tag shop=car should/could also be used for this, but I find it puzzling. How would someone looking at the map

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2019-11-07 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 11/7/2019 2:09 PM, Mark Wagner wrote: On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:26:14 + marc marc wrote: ere possession of a bicycle is forbidden can you share the a picture of this traffic sign ? It's a sign for a state natural area rather than a federal wilderness area, and the situation is a little

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2019-11-07 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 11/6/2019 3:08 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: bicycle_pushed=no? bicycle_pushed is more clear for someone encountering it for the first time - bicycle=total_ban is a bit confusing Especially as in some places access for bicycles may be "never" (explicit "no bicycle" signs) or "only during

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

2019-10-22 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 10/22/2019 10:36 AM, Ilya Zverev wrote: I understand the reasoning, but I don’t see how can I follow the “truth on the ground” principle. Are there any guidelines on choosing the correct tag? For some reason people don’t write its purpose on a side. And again, images in three of these pages

Re: [Tagging] Amenity=Gambling & adult_gaming_center tagging conflict

2019-10-21 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 10/17/2019 1:01 AM, John Willis via Tagging wrote: Also, how do you specify which games are offered? gambling=pachinko is in the wiki, but what about adult_gaming_centre? is gambling=* the default way to define what games are offered at such facilities? that seems to be vague or missing.

Re: [Tagging] theme it is for me then | Re: How to map Irish pubs?

2019-10-14 Thread Jmapb
On 10/14/2019 6:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: There are in some areas pubs that would merit a brand tag (maybe it is generally common), they have the beer logo aside their name on the sign, beer mats, menus, glasses , sunshades, everything can be branded (it could happen they’re “recycling”

Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

2019-10-08 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 10/8/2019 6:20 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: I was wondering about the same thing, because you've then also got Country & Western, German, any & all varieties of Gay ... ? Bit of an awkward one, but there are pub's in Northern & Inland Australia that white people are NOT welcome in (& I'm

Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

2019-10-08 Thread Jmapb
On 10/8/2019 4:37 PM, Rory McCann wrote: What's the best way to tag an Irish pub? Not just a pub in Ireland, but a specifically themed "Irish Pub" (which are usually outside Ireland)? There's ~300 instances of `cuisine=irish`, which would make total sense for places which (also) serve food.

Re: [Tagging] "not:brand" to mark a shop that isn't part of a chain?

2019-09-19 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 9/14/2019 10:53 AM, Tim Magee wrote: I would absolutely agree with this use case. Especially for cases such as the regularly mentioned Burger King. If somebody from out of town is either traveling through or armchair mapping they could be confused. If they are using the ID editor, it suggests

Re: [Tagging] Designated spots for dogs to wait

2019-08-20 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 8/20/2019 4:57 AM, Andrew Davidson wrote: On 20/8/19 6:24 pm, John Willis via Tagging wrote:      So let's standardize on a tag: amenity=hitching_post hitching_post=dog ? Interestingly, one of the items they sell is a green 30x30cm marker to go on the sidewalk in front of the pole -

Re: [Tagging] key educational

2019-08-16 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 8/16/2019 10:56 PM, Warin wrote: I think the key:educational maybe better used later for schools, colleges, cram schools etc. The (dormant) proposal for these was education=school|university|tutor|cram_school etc.

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

2019-08-16 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 8/16/2019 4:59 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: a long route may go through several colour changes but will be signed with its own marker at principal junctions. (Where I map, there are only a handful of long-distance routes affected by this: the Long Path, the Highlands Trail, the Finger Lakes Trail,

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

2019-08-16 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 8/16/2019 2:40 PM, s8evq wrote: The table with the tagging scheme for the hiking/foot routes is getting there: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_scheme_hiking_walking Just a few more small things that need to be decided on. Hi s8evq, nice progress! Just gonna prattle about

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

2019-08-15 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 8/15/2019 10:11 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Anyway, just a property like "service:bicycle:repair=yes" and a name would not work, IMHO No indeed, I wouldn't recommend it as a stand-alone feature tag. But as extra tag to a shop or amenity, it think it would help. Also note that for

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

2019-08-15 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 8/14/2019 6:45 PM, dcapillae wrote: Obviusly, «amenity=community_centre» Sounds correct. For anything that's not a bicycle shop but still does bicycle repairs (I've seen cafes, car repair shops, outdoor shops, and even a church with this service), consider just adding the

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

2019-08-13 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 8/13/2019 4:50 AM, s8evq wrote: Currently, there are four tagging scheme tables describing how walking (or hiking) routes should be tagged. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Walking_Routes https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhiking

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

2019-08-13 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 8/13/2019 12:14 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: Alas, we can't do what Google Maps does, and aggregate the private information of everyone carrying a cell phone to measure current traffic speeds. That appears to be how Google's router makes its decisions. Of course we used to have something along

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of bullrings

2019-08-04 Thread Jmapb
On 8/4/2019 7:09 PM, dcapillae wrote I have asked the OSM community in Spain and it seems that some mapper prefer "building=bullring" instead of "building=stadium". I think the right tag is "building=stadium" because we use this tag for stadiums, no matter what type of stadium they are, and a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of bullrings

2019-07-31 Thread Jmapb
On 7/31/2019 1:19 PM, dcapillae wrote: leisure=stadium sport=bullfighting (in use) Hi Daniel -- definitely this one: leisure=stadium + sport=bullfighting.  You might also want to use the building=stadium tag, if the stadium occupies the entire building in question (assuming it's in a building

Re: [Tagging] Test prep centres and cram schools as amenity=prep_school?

2019-07-08 Thread Jmapb
On 7/7/2019 11:01 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: TL:DR I think we can use amenity=test_prep or amenity=cram_school for most of these. An alternative from British English would be amenity=tuition, but I think this might not work in many dialects of English? -- I did

Re: [Tagging] shared planter where you can harvest for free

2019-07-05 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 7/5/2019 3:08 PM, Paul Allen wrote: I read joost's comment as "The operator of this map object is a specific private citizen" not as a redefinition of "operator." Hah, probably. Regardless, I do think that Les Incroyables Comestibles/Incredible Edibles fits better under the brand key, or

Re: [Tagging] shared planter where you can harvest for free

2019-07-05 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 7/5/2019 12:18 PM, joost schouppe wrote: Operator is actually "a specific private citizen" What's the source of this definition? On the English wiki, operator is "a company, corporation, person or any other entity who is directly in charge of the current operation of a map object." J

Re: [Tagging] Use bbq=yes/no or barbecue_grill=yes/no with campsites?

2019-07-05 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 7/5/2019 10:56 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I don't think it would be necessary to combine "bbq=no" and "bring_own_bbq=yes" - if a feature such as a leisure=picnic_site is tagged "bring_own_bbq=yes" that is sufficient. The tag "bbq=no", like most tags with value "no", can be omitted. This is

Re: [Tagging] one feature one element

2019-07-05 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 7/4/2019 11:17 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: We've also had problems with features tagged "tourism=camp_site" or "landuse=meadow" plus "barrier=hedge" or "barrier=wall". Is the barrier supposed to be an area or a linear feature in this case? I can see the confusion here, but I think this rule

Re: [Tagging] Test prep centres and cram schools as amenity=prep_school?

2019-07-05 Thread Jmapb via Tagging
On 7/5/2019 2:16 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: So, what's a better term for a test prep centre, cramp school, or tutoring office? There the rarely used tag office=tutoring, but that doesn't quite cover a place like Kaplan or Kumon - https://au.kumonglobal.com/ - https://www.kaptest.com/

  1   2   >