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

2018-07-24 Thread Leo Gaspard
per route. I believe that will > attract many new mappers to add their public transport routes. > > Thank you for your opinion, and I would very much like to discuss how can we > make mapping routes simpler. If you're in Milan these holidays, come to my > talk on Sunday morning, and

Re: [Tagging] Documentation issues of PT tagging schemes

2018-07-24 Thread Leo Gaspard
On 07/24/2018 11:17 PM, Jo wrote: > The whole point of wanting to move to a simpler tagging scheme is to become > able to write simple to understand documentation. From what I understood (so, second-hand information) PTv2 can be used with as few objects and tags as PTv1, so it's not inherently

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

2018-07-24 Thread Leo Gaspard
My point of view, as a beginner in OSM who still hasn't understood how PTv1 and PTv2 are supposed to work (and thus didn't read this specific proposal, take this as generic comments on PT tagging in OSM): 1. Beginners are already at a loss, introducing a third (!) tagging scheme will just make

[Tagging] area:highway=* (was: Re: landcover=asphalt ; landuse=highway)

2018-07-13 Thread Leo Gaspard
the actual asphalt surface. > > Thanks, Bryan > > > >> On Jul 13, 2018, at 9:36 AM, Leo Gaspard wrote: >> >> These tags has already been put forth in the landcover proposal [1], but >> I was just pointed to [2] where a user complained (rightfully) that the &

[Tagging] landcover=asphalt ; landuse=highway

2018-07-13 Thread Leo Gaspard
These tags has already been put forth in the landcover proposal [1], but I was just pointed to [2] where a user complained (rightfully) that the shape of the road on OSM mismatched the shape of the actual road. As a consequence, I think we should add the `landuse=highway` in the list of

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging

2018-06-08 Thread Leo Gaspard
On 06/08/2018 02:37 PM, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > On 08-06-18 13:37, Leo Gaspard wrote: >>   * for all objects with natural=wood, add landcover=trees >>   * for all objects with landuse=forest, add landcover=trees > > Why not consider documenting that natural=wood and landuse=for

Re: [Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging

2018-06-08 Thread Leo Gaspard
On 06/08/2018 10:29 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > (a) some people would be against any given mass retagging. > > So how to distinguish ones with broad support, sufficient to do that from > ones that should not be done? Well, basically tags are a kind of protocol, between the tagger and the

[Tagging] Tools and mass-retagging (was: Re: The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag)

2018-06-07 Thread Leo Gaspard
On 06/08/2018 01:29 AM, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote: > I wouldn't mind if all the existing tags were replaced tomorrow with a > brand new set of "intelligently-designed" keys.  And I wouldn't mind if > these keys were enforced from now on.  And I wouldn't mind that I would > have to relearn all the