Re: [Tagging] Parking Fees

Sorry I phrased my question poorly. Does anyone have an example on OSM of parking tagged with parking fees that vary over time? So I can see the tags used. Thanks Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Clifford Snow Sent: 23 March 2018 21:21 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools

[Tagging] Parking Fees

Can anyone point me in the direction of a car park example with a parking fee that is time dependant, such as first three hours free then next hour £2 .. Thanks Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] furniture maker

That's right Dave. There are quite a few historical differences between a Carpenter, Joiner or Cabinet Maker Carpenters do the “rough” stuff of putting up timber for house construction, typically “first fix” stuff. Joiners are called in for any complex joints or for making window frames, door

Re: [Tagging] Path with permit required for bikes?

done it as Permissive currently. Jonathan bigfatfrog67 From: Richard Fairhurst Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎9‎ ‎February‎ ‎2016 ‎11‎:‎25 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Hi all, An important part of the Pacific Coast Bicycle Route now requires cyclists to get a perm

Re: [Tagging] No Entry Signs

Thanks Heiko, I've changed it as per your suggestion, seems the most elegant way of doing it. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 07/12/2015 14:56, Heiko Eckenreiter wrote: Hi Jonathan, A road that part way down has a no entry sign (excepting bicycles), I would have expected the road o

[Tagging] No Entry Signs

Any thoughts? Thanks Jonathan -- http://bigfatfrog67.me ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Friendliness with attacked mapped places in Paris

+1 Frederik http://bigfatfrog67.me On 14/11/2015 18:35, Frederik Ramm wrote: André, OSM is not a place for condolences in note tags. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but sticking to facts is what keeps most conflicts out of OSM - if something is observable on the ground, we map it, and if n

Re: [Tagging] life ring or life preserver

Yes Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me From: John Eldredge Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎11‎ ‎August‎ ‎2015 ‎22‎:‎30 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Some of the Sherlock Holmes stories make reference to a type of weapon called a life preserver, what an American would call a

Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

I agree with Volker. To me designated meant “what it is says on the roadside signage”. Usually seen where there are unique or special circumstances restricting access. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Warin Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎24‎ ‎July‎ ‎2015 ‎13‎:‎50 To: Tag discussion

Re: [Tagging] Highway proposed/planned distinction

I would say it depends if the untouched land is still in its original use or not. If it is then mark it as planned, if it’s cordoned off waiting for the construction to get there then I would mark it as under construction. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me From: johnw Sent: ‎Thursday‎

Re: [Tagging] Highway proposed/planned distinction

usual planning discussions and are awaiting construction, which can sometimes be many months or years, but will happen, short of a political change of heart. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Volker Schmidt Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎14‎ ‎July‎ ‎2015 ‎18‎:‎38 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

+1 Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Martin Koppenhoefer Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎15‎ ‎May‎ ‎2015 ‎10‎:‎41 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 2015-05-15 1:27 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells

Re: [Tagging] New values for entrance=

why would you not just use the access tag to define who can use the entrance? Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: John Willis Sent: ‎Monday‎, ‎6‎ ‎April‎ ‎2015 ‎02‎:‎50 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Tl;dr: suggesting: Entrance= student

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Jan, That has certainly addressed everyone concerns that I can see. Thank you. Hopefully it fits your requirements and original desires. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Jan van Bekkum Sent: ‎Sunday‎, ‎29‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎21‎:‎47 To: Tag discussion

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

+1 Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Pieren Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎27‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎10‎:‎48 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > We can use tourism=camp_site:non_designated for all cases that the area is &g

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Those look fantastic, would you want to tag those as Wildcamping? Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Jan van Bekkum Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎14‎:‎11 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Fortunately we had those as well: https://plus.google.com/photos

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Examples of Wildcamping: https://www.flickr.com/groups/487310@N25/pool/ Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Jonathan H Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎13‎:‎17 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools If it's there for years then it

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

“Wild” about it. All of these examples can be covered by existing tags. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Jan van Bekkum Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎12‎:‎36 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Non-designated is not necess

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

apped other than as a car park or layby using existing tags. Wildcamping is a very specific activity and shouldn’t made official. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Jan van Bekkum Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎10‎:‎56 To: Tag discussion, strategy and re

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Looks fun, but how did you know you could stay there? Or did you just ask? Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Jan van Bekkum Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎26‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎08‎:‎10 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools To give you a better impression of

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

can't map the absence of something. Stick to defining organised campsites, do not try to bring order to something that by it's very nature is disk-organised. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Jan van Bekkum Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎24‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎0

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

What Forum? Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Andreas Goss Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎18‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎20‎:‎19 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and > vote compared

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

ccess=official? Where’s the problem you're trying to fix? Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Janko Mihelić Sent: ‎Wednesday‎, ‎18‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎11‎:‎30 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 2015-03-18 12:15 GMT+01:00 Martin Ko

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Re: Deleting private objects in private spaces

OSM is visible to all Renderer's to display or not display aas they choose. The OSM database is not the place for private individuals or organisations to store private data. Hope this helps to clarify things. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me From: John F. Eldredge Sent: ‎Tue

Re: [Tagging] Deleting private objects in private spaces

Not sure what you mean by “Private Objects”, anything in the DB is capable of being displayed, depending on whether the Renderer wants to. Nothing is Private in OSM. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: John F. Eldredge Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎17‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

+1 Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Kotya Karapetyan Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎17‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎14‎:‎04 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Dear all, I think we deviated from the original question quite a bit. The point was that the current number of votes proposed

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

I disagree, it's perfectly possible to make a decision on a vote by reading other people’s comments/concerns and if not properly address then vote against. Likewise, you can vote for a proposal even without being party to the discussion. Jonathan ---

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

officially designated campsites, mainly privately run, should be mapped, I feel. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Dave Swarthout Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎13‎ ‎March‎ ‎2015 ‎14‎:‎47 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools There is no mention of one very common

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?

Scene 7. Ext. Prehistoric Planet FORD: You don’t seem to understand… MAN IN CROWD: No, no, no I just - MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: It’s a simple matter! It’s a procedural matter! That’s the point! CAPTAIN: Alright, alright, alright, alright! CHAIRMAN: I’d like to call this meeting to some sort of

Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations

On 23/01/2015 20:53, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: +1 to all of that ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access=designated - what do we think it means?

But how can a tag that tells you to follow official designation signs be meaningless unless what you mean is that such a definition is implicit on all ways? Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 13/04/2014 12:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 11/apr/2014 um 19:02 schrieb Matthijs Melissen

Re: [Tagging] access=designated - what do we think it means?

+1 http://bigfatfrog67.me On 11/04/2014 18:07, Tod Fitch wrote: On Apr 11, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 17:28 +0100, SomeoneElse wrote: Currently, there are 41,000 things tagged "access=designated (1). I can understand what "=designated" means for a specifc t

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

In the UK, particularly Scotland, it's a Bothy! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bothy Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 31/03/2014 04:14, Dave Swarthout wrote: In reading over a proposal in here for apartment sharing that included a list of other tourism keys relating to lodgi

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

e what the distinction may be. In general English usage there meanings rely on context but in this context of describing a base surface to something I would go with dirt to mean a loose surface, unpaved, water permeable, degradable surface. Ground and earth are just too vague to be of any use. Jona

Re: [Tagging] leisure=events

I definitely think there is a need for this, I can think of many places around the UK this could apply to. landuse=events is better than leisure=* Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 09/03/2014 21:31, Tod Fitch wrote: It seems to me that landuse=events is reasonable. Most of the places

Re: [Tagging] tag "covered" questions

:-) Touché http://bigfatfrog67.me On 24/01/2014 10:30, Simone Saviolo wrote: 2014/1/24 Martin Koppenhoefer > > Am 24/gen/2014 um 07:46 schrieb Kytömaa Lauri mailto:lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi>>: > > It's then only natural that they use tunnel=building

Re: [Tagging] Unsuitable?

Very important that we can mark roads that are officially designated as unsuitable for certain vehicles. Don't see a problem with this use of this tag? Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 08/01/2014 17:44, Philip Barnes wrote: These examples are not far from home so I can get some copy

Re: [Tagging] Related: Antarctic territories

emand that Israel roles back it's current borders. Do we map what is on the ground, which seems to be the common argument, or do we map what is widely recognised as the official situation? Sorry for not proffering any answers but more questions ;-) Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 2

Re: [Tagging] Security Gate Post/Cabin

Wikipedia suggests a gatehouse as a medieval construction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatehouse building=gatehouse has been used 19 times, but in what context I don't know. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 08/12/2013 15:39, Philip Barnes wrote: On Sun, 2013-12-08 at 15:28 +0000, Jon

[Tagging] Security Gate Post/Cabin

ned near the barrier=gate etc, however, could be elsewhere on the site, particularly in the example of a Foreman's Office or Site Office in the construction industry. Any thoughts, is it worth a wiki page or subpage of building? Jonathan

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden

:-) http://bigfatfrog67.me On 06/12/2013 12:32, nounours wrote: I think we should tag private backyards with "surveillance=yes", even if surveillance is executed by a satellite et not a surveillance camera. :-) nounours77 Am 05.12.2013 um 18:46 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2013/12/5 Wol

Re: [Tagging] How to tag babycare?

+1 http://bigfatfrog67.me On 03/12/2013 10:56, Pieren wrote: So I would prefer "amenity=changing_table" as an isolated feature or "changing_table=yes" when attached to something else (like "amenity=toilets"). Something similar is proposed here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toilets#Other_p

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Bicycle=use_cycleway

Thankfully I don't live in Germany :-) http://bigfatfrog67.me On 01/12/2013 22:58, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote: Am 01.12.2013 um 22:47 schrieb Jonathan : :-) This whole discussion assumes cyclists obey traffic rules! In the UK cyclists ride where they like! :-) In Italy as well, b

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Bicycle=use_cycleway

, not what they do. Walkers cross lawns wherever they want if that's a shortcut and rules against that aren't enforced strictly, but we don't map any possible shortcut. regards Peter Am 01.12.2013 22:47, schrieb Jonathan: :-) This whole discussion assumes cyclists obey traff

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Bicycle=use_cycleway

:-) This whole discussion assumes cyclists obey traffic rules! In the UK cyclists ride where they like! :-) http://bigfatfrog67.me On 01/12/2013 21:38, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 1 December 2013 10:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I mean that bicycle=no bans bicycles from the road, while

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Or this is how you contact someone via webcam such as with skype (BTW I realise that's not a webcam is but some people call it that) http://bigfatfrog67.me On 01/12/2013 21:39, John F. Eldredge wrote: On 12/01/2013 03:33 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: I think, contact should be restricted to ways o

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Bicycle=use_cycleway

I didn't oppose because "I" don't need it in the UK, I opposed it because I couldn't understand the need for it anywhere or how it solved any problem. However, in this instance I'm prepared to change my vote to abstain. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 01/12/

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

ou'll be grateful there is just one way of spotting them on a map. Jonathan p.s. Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that they're not out to get you! ;-) http://bigfatfrog67.me On 01/12/2013 02:07, John F. Eldredge wrote: On 11/30/2013 11:22 AM, Jonathan wr

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

I would agree, the contact key has not taken off and may fit for phone or fax (although the old way is still more popular) the use for webcam is back to front. Was the original intention to cover video calls like skype? Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 01/12/2013 17:11, Peter Wendorff

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

Yes! http://bigfatfrog67.me On 01/12/2013 14:28, Peter Wendorff wrote: 2) I would use url instead of contact, if it should refer to where the webcams output can be seen, whcih would lead to webcam:url=* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetma

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Bicycle=use_cycleway

You mean the cycle lane is only oneway and so bicycle=no on the road stops bikes both way? http://bigfatfrog67.me On 01/12/2013 00:15, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote: Am 30.11.2013 um 21:25 schrieb Matthijs Melissen : Cyclists shall be required to use the track if the track is running along a car

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

I agree, contact doesn't make sense. webcam:url=http://... is better Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 30/11/2013 23:44, Martin Koppenhöfer wrote: Am 30.11.2013 um 18:40 schrieb Egil Hjelmeland : contact:webcam= is fine, that tell we have a webcam. Do we really need anything mo

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

however it is under it and none of that effects the question of webcams. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 30/11/2013 11:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: what is the logics behind this? We use man_made for technical installations/facilities/structures/devices, a camera is a technical device, re

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

I don't care if it's publicly available or not. Even if it is for the personal and private use of some person somewhere (makes it even more creepy). Surveillance is surveillance, doesn't matter why, where it goes and who has it. It should be tagged accordingly.

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

ey of URL. Let's not re-invent the wheel just because we need a bigger cart. A camera recording a public space is performing surveillance over that space, be it a webcam, police cam, traffic cam or nature cam. It's a camera. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 29/11/2013 22:54,

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

is no control on who sees it and what they use it for, so you can't say it isn't surveillance because that's what it is. This is in keeping with current usage and allows current renderers to capture any newly added "webcams" without recoding. Jonathan http://bigfatfr

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

+1 http://bigfatfrog67.me On 29/11/2013 13:18, Zecke wrote: Am 29.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Egil Hjelmeland: I think we live in different universes. This is the kind of stuff I am interested in: http://webcam.svorka.net/bollen/ http://webcam.sollia.net/image.jpg A webcam is a webcam. This exam

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

7;t matter who is watching just that if they're watching with a camera then it's surveillance. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 29/11/2013 08:15, Martin Vonwald wrote: Have a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance man_made=surveillance

Re: [Tagging] opening-hours off closed

+1 http://bigfatfrog67.me On 28/11/2013 15:32, nounours wrote: Dear André, Also being new to OSM and new to the tagging mailing list, I completely understand your frustration. And I also believe that a lot of people left OSM because even if they try hard, the don't get it right. On the oth

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-GB] Primary or Trunk? PITA?

nk/Primary debate and will think twice about any future questions to these lists. If anybody wants to see OSM flourish and bring in new participants from other walks of life and grow to be a well respected global organisation then think again, some may need to leave before others feel they may

Re: [Tagging] Primary or Trunk?

affic flow. A Trunk road that is a dual carriageway with a maxspeed of 70 mph is very different to a Trunk road that winds around fields and has a maxspeed of 50 mph or less! Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 03/11/2013 00:14, Tom Hughes wrote: On 02/11/13 18:47, Jonathan wrote: I'm

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gambling

Wow, a very well documented RFC! Thanks in advance for your time and effort on this. Will read it and comment where appropriate. http://bigfatfrog67.me On 03/11/2013 12:10, Matthijs Melissen wrote: Dear all, Based on your input during the pre-proposal phase, I have come up with a feature pro

[Tagging] Primary or Trunk?

I know of many "Green" "A" roads that aren't much more than country lanes, they are definitely not "high performance" and I don't feel they should be "Trunk" roads, I feel they should be "Primary&

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres

lar facilities but minus the padding or cafe. The tage of indoor_play needs to be the umbrella tag. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 24/10/2013 12:13, Dominic Hosler wrote: Thanks, I feel a bit silly now, I didn't look hard enough. New page is at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wi

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres

tures? Softplay is just one bit. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 23/10/2013 17:47, Brad Neuhauser wrote: Instead of "soft play", what about "indoor play" (or indoor play area/centre)? 1) it seems to be used as a catch all sometimes, even in the UK (ie - http://www.timeout

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres

Gives you a good idea what they are: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=softplay&client=firefox-a&hs=U7P&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=CSBoUpT_B4S57AbYy4Ao&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=589 Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me

Re: [Tagging] Dress Code proposal

I agree http://bigfatfrog67.me On 23/10/2013 17:00, John F. Eldredge wrote: I think a better approach is to have a tag that links to the venue's web site, which we already have tags defined for. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org ht

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres

On 23/10/2013 14:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Would they qualify as soft play? No, that's a bouncy castle. Soft play is padding, not inflatables. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres

On 23/10/2013 13:22, Matthijs Melissen wrote: In the Netherlands, for example, there are paid and staffed outdoor playing grounds. Currently, I have no idea whether such playgrounds would fall under the English definition of 'soft play'. No. The clue is in the word "indoors" in Dominic's docume

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres

On 22/10/2013 16:43, Dominic Hosler wrote: I have just proposed a tag to use for soft play centres. Looks absolutely fine. There are times when I'd use it on a node when the soft play is just one part of a larger building, but that's pretty much standard OSM practice anyway. Don't worry abo

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres

On 23/10/2013 12:55, Matthijs Melissen wrote: I think the proposal would benefit from a more precise definition. Or you could just tag the ones you find using this perfectly sensible tag and not worry about it. In the UK a Soft Play is a well-recognised and well-defined concept. If that con

Re: [Tagging] Dress Code proposal

On 23/10/2013 12:27, pmsg wrote: Generally, I think it is a good idea to map access restrictions related to dresscode. Similar kinds of access restrictions are: No knife, no camera, no backpack, no cellphone, no food/drinks etc. What about not being allowed in a bikeshed unless you have a bike?

Re: [Tagging] Waterway river vs stream

s a river should be so named? Yet again, I feel that as mappers we spend too much time trying to define the world around us when we should just be describing it, let the renderer and the user define based on their viewpoint. I don't think it is for us to decide when a river is a river and

Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?

down to each individual mapper. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 18/10/2013 11:35, Andrew Errington wrote: On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 01:47:51 Dudley Ibbett wrote: From a tourists perspective it is quite important to know whether it is self catering accommodation or not. It is also important to know whethe

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

Sorry Dan, but bicycle=no means no cycling, pushing a bike is OK. We don't have any way of saying you cannot push a bike except by banning pedestrians as well. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 16/10/2013 10:29, Dan S wrote: Martin, your statement here is the same as the one which fly

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

hanks Stephen for the heads up on such tough restrictions on bike users in the UK, have never seen anything so extreme. But then I've not been to Oxford for about 20 years! Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 14/10/2013 13:23, Stephen Gower wrote: On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:53:04AM +01

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

+1 Totally agree, thanks Robert for a sensible summary. http://bigfatfrog67.me On 11/10/2013 11:53, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On 10 October 2013 15:28, fly wrote: +1 for a separate tag and deprecating bicycle=dismount To make the case for this clearer, consider the following. Ther

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

Yes, many apologies, was a mis-click. Sorry Martin Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 11/10/2013 11:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/10/11 Jonathan <mailto:bigfatfro...@gmail.com>> No, we don't map what is there, we map the implications of what is there. We d

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

http://img.ct24.cz/multimedia/videos/image/646/medium/193542.jpg This example, is clearly a legal statement, however, if you wish to map that then modify the access tag for each section that cycling is not allowed. Although, in this case I can't see how that works, as a pedestrian how do you

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

No, we don't map what is there, we map the implications of what is there. We don't map every speed limit sign or no-entry sign, we map the result of those signs. The signs are there for humans in the real world, we are representing the real world to computers. http://bigfatfrog67.me On 11/10

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

We do appear to have a problem in that in parts of the World the concept of allowing bicycles but not allowing cycling is a reality, however mad that may seem. Likewise, some countries don't care where you go with your bicycle if you're not riding it but other countries don't allow bicycles to

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

into account. I am not in favour of tagging "dismount" for any other reason than a sign (or, possibly, a general traffic regulation). - Original Message - From: "fly" To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:18 PM

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

like the Netherlands, is understandable). Again: this really is not what bicycle=dismount is about. - Original Message - From: "Jonathan" To: Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways However, if there is a

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

Nope, the only difference is a way changes from a way that can contain cycles to a route that can't, it's an access issue. http://bigfatfrog67.me On 10/10/2013 19:18, Mike N wrote: On 10/10/2013 2:13 PM, fly wrote: >What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this >route i

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

If you can't cycle on a way then it isn't a cycleway! http://bigfatfrog67.me On 10/10/2013 19:10, SomeoneElse wrote: Jonathan wrote: I don't see any point in the bicycle=dismount tag, when there is a change in speed limit we don't tag car=slowdown! The only way to tag

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

ave to use some underpass for safety reasons. This is already covered by existing tags and methods. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 10/10/2013 19:03, Mike N wrote: On 10/10/2013 1:55 PM, Jonathan wrote: The only way to tag the effect that the sign has is to change the access tag to exclu

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

on in a country where a bicycle can't even be pushed, which I'm unaware of in the UK, then the access tag needs to be extended to include a "no pushed bicycles" option. In those circumstances can you push a wheelchair or pram or a luggage trolley but not push a bike? Jonatha

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

On 18/09/2013 18:15, Lukas Hornby wrote: > HI, > > Having studied all of the comments, we seem to agree that a tag is > needed, that it is worth tagging. However the ambiguity over plot (which > was the word I used in my proposal and lot (which has been read into > plot) seems to be a sticking poi

Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway

On 18/04/2013 16:22, Steve Bennett wrote: > Disadvantages > - tag clashes, particularly "name=" - is this the name of the bike path, > or of the former train line? The bike path, as per "On The Ground". The path is a *former* railway line, so it no longer has the railway as its *current* name. __

Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna

On 07/02/2013 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > but: there are antennas where the whole structure acts as antenna > (mast=antenna). Maybe this is an example: Yes, but unless you can explain, unambiguously how you identify those vs. other types of mask, you're going to hit a verifiability problem

Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna

On 06/02/2013 20:59, fly wrote: > What we call man_made=mast is still a tower and man_made=antenna should be > mast, > where as antennas are only the transmitter/receiver. To this British English speaker: Tower == any self-supporting structure, irrespective of material or purpose Mast == Usuall

Re: [Tagging] Disused/historic railway stations

On 06/02/2013 00:50, Greg Troxel wrote: > (I > am also curious if a British railroad geek could explain if the OSM > terms seem right to the railfan community.) There was this discussion on talk-gb recently: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-January/014376.html _

Re: [Tagging] non-trivial color schemes

On 20/12/2012 12:10, Stephen Gower wrote: > blazon=barry gules and argent Barry Gules and Argent? Didn't they split up in 1974? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fishing allowed?

On 10/09/2012 12:36, te...@free.fr wrote: > I would like to store information about the legality of fishing a lake, a > river, etc. > Is there already any tag with such a meaning? fishing=yes/no ? -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Tagging mai

Re: [Tagging] sports_centre

On 16/07/2012 10:01, Frederik Ramm wrote: I find that surprising because it seems that sports_centre is even more ambiguous or misunderstood - at least if someone tells me he's going to the gym I know what they mean. It isn't to a British person (probably). Most towns of any size have a municip

Re: [Tagging] dispute about center island in a turning circle

On 13/03/2012 11:57, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > The same is true for overhanging branches and such. You can't rely on > tags to know if an oversize vehicle can turn around. Overhanging branches are not a physical property of the road in the same way the central island is. -

Re: [Tagging] dispute about center island in a turning circle

urning circle. The tree in a bed prevents you using the full width of the circle to turn in. Were you to map that as highway=turning_circle width=10m (say), a 7.5m truck, which would be able to turn in a 10m unobstructed turning circle (eventually), would get

Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett & paving_stones

genuinely be flat stones or cast material, but larger than setts or cobblestones, perhaps over 50cm. In summary: I believe the three classes to be separate and non-overlapping. So I disagree with the wiki edit made, but do think surface=sett is a sensible, verifiable tag. Jonathan. ___

Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?

On 29/06/2011 14:19, Mike N wrote: I don't see these edits as out of line or unusual. It's not so different from the dozens of other projects to create more unified tags so that data consumers have a chance of using the right tag. I suspect the "tags" you're talking about in other projects

Re: [Tagging] Greenery adjacent to roads

On 13/07/2010 11:32, John Smith wrote: On 13 July 2010 20:28, Jonathan Bennett wrote: gardens (and landuse=grass is just wrong. You're using the land *for* grass? What does that mean?) Turf farm? landuse=agriculture crop=grass or crop=turf Nice try, t

  1   2   >