Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Food sharing

expect in this facility. I want to start voting in a few days. Does anyone have any additions or comments? Best regards Markus (ToastHawaii) Von: Markus Peloso<mailto:mar@outlook.com> Gesendet: Freitag, 28. Februar 2020 10:36 An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools<mailt

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

yes from the description, like the public_bookcase, when someone makes a proposal. As I understand, "blessing boxes" are more about food like a free pantry. I agree I also think this is not a good name for this proposal. Markus Von: Philip Barnes<mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk> Gese

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

donation of goods" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/donation_of_goods - Some mappers tag blessing boxes with new amenity=give_box tag https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/RAA Best regards Markus (ToastHawaii) ___ Tagging mailing list T

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

ill start voting in a few days. Best regards Markus Von: Martin Koppenhoefer<mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Februar 2020 12:00 An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

the last / newest entry and coping the value from the oldid parameter in the url. Best regards, Markus Von: European Water Project<mailto:europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. Februar 2020 12:15 An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] How to map an OpenStreetMap map?

Thanks for the idea. I love it. :D https://priceless.zottelig.ch/#offers=trip%2Fopenstreetmap https://priceless.zottelig.ch/#offers=trip%2Fopenstreetmap=50.556607%2C12.6785266 Von: Rory McCann Gesendet: Samstag, 29. Februar 2020 12:00 An:

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

sharing food and it is some kind of social service. Markus Von: Jmapb<mailto:jm...@gmx.com> Gesendet: Samstag, 29. Februar 2020 06:34 An: tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators On 2/26/2020 4:32 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer w

Re: [Tagging] Clarify explicit abstention when voting on a proposal

lament.ch/de/über-das-parlament/archiv/wahlen-im-rueckblick/bundesratswahlen/2019-12-11 Please excuse the confusion. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Food sharing

be added to the POIs without being on the list. Best regards, Markus Von: Hauke Stieler<mailto:m...@hauke-stieler.de> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. Februar 2020 19:41 An: tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Food

Re: [Tagging] Clarify explicit abstention when voting on a proposal

no votes > and ratio of yes to no votes. +1 for option 1 Markus aka SelfishSeahorse ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Food sharing

Thanks, Markus, for your feedback. I agree with you, network fit better then brand. I remove charity I think it is not usefull because it do not fit. The little free pantry is more about food for people in need. My intention was to document this with charity=yes. Best regards Markus aka

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Food sharing

Thanks, Markus, for writing this proposal. I like the proposed tag. Just two minor things regarding tags that can be used in combination: - brand=* Optional. Name of the brand or network of the facility if there is one visible. eg. I would change this to network=* as it seems to fit better

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Food sharing

regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

Hello Markus Thank you for starting this discussion. I have plans to start a feature propose for food sharing. I found four tags that people use for food sharing social_facility=food_sharing, amenity=food_sharing, social_facility=community_fridge and recycling:food=yes. https

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

tags, we would need yet another one for non-cooled > food, so this is a bad idea in my opinion. > > So, I suggest: > amenity = give_box > food = only > refrigerated = yes Not perfect, but way better than amenity=recycling or amenity=socia

Re: [Tagging] Public refrigerators

lities together in amenity=reuse or similar, but with already 5,538 uses of amenity=public_bookcase it's probably too late. Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Public refrigerators

k? Thanks in advance for your feedback. Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

describes what I’m looking for I will search for “donation”. 3.) I add a section with tagging examples. Best regards, Markus Von: Hauke Stieler<mailto:m...@hauke-stieler.de> Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Februar 2020 18:45 An: tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/in-kind_donation For a place that takes in-kind donations. Hi I describe a tag for shop and amenity that takes in-kind donations. I'm interested in your opinions. Best regards, Markus ___ Tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting closed - give box

ed. Talk:Proposal_process#Clarify_whatever_explicit_abstaining_is_the_same_as_no_vote<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposal_process#Clarify_whatever_explicit_abstaining_is_the_same_as_no_vote> Best regards, Markus ___ Tagging mailing list

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

; if you want another name. Please give a clear statement. I will only count "yes" and "no" as part of the total. It is also helpful if you vote "yes" and give a clear comment about the name. Currently my second choice would be "free box". Best regards,

Re: [Tagging] How to tag an utilitarian fountain?

_fountain * amenity=fountain * man_made=water_well * man_made=water_tap * natural=spring Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

the status to approved :D. Best regards, Markus Von: Markus Peloso<mailto:mar@outlook.com> Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Januar 2020 09:42 An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org> Betreff: Feature Proposal - Voting - give box https://wiki.openstreet

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

Thanks for that. Now it's clear for me. +1 from me for drinking_water:refill_scheme I found three national programs (with maps) that I think are related to this tag. - https://refill.org.uk/refill-schemes/ - https://refill-deutschland.de/ - http://www.fillitup.ch/karte.html Von: European Water

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - give box

, Markus Von: Markus Peloso<mailto:mar@outlook.com> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2020 21:26 An: tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - give box https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box A sm

Re: [Tagging] Tagging ideas for a non-profit ”course center”

Hello Jyri-Petteri Paloposki Maybe amenity=coworking_space combined with operator:type=private_non_profit fits for a place like that? Best regards, Markus Von: Jyri-Petteri Paloposki<mailto:jyri-petteri.palopo...@iki.fi> Gesendet: Samstag, 18. Januar 2020 00:13 An: tagging@openstreetm

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

Hello Stuart Can you describe the difference between free_water and drinking_water better? Based on the wiki drinking_water means free potable water. Best regards, Markus Von: European Water Project<mailto:europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. Januar 2020 22:09 An: t

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

gt; discussion, My point was that the different uses of disused: and disused=yes may not be as problematical ("tagging for the renderer") as they seem, but that there seem to be valid reasons for it. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.

Re: [Tagging] How to revive a tag proposal?

l_mill Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

move them or i prefix them with was: . For example, building=commercial + disused=yes on the area and was:shop=supermarket + name=* on a node within. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now used as a pub still remains a building=church. Therefore, for a disused building, i'd leave the building=* tag and add disused=yes. (The alternative tagging using lifecycle prefixes, disused:building=*, isn't rendered.) Regards M

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

ings for multiple vehicle classes, i would recommend to tag it as follows: amenity=parking access=no bus=customers hgv=customers Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Special traffic signs - still highway=traffic_signals?

to allow or facilitate passage for the bus or tram https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals I'm going to adjust the documentation for the normal state of these special case of traffic signals, as they may be off or blinking yellow. Regards Markus _

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

with suggestions on how this boxtypes could be handled with existing tags (the goods tag is already taken). I want this tag to be more specific then the reuse tag. I do not want to cover all existing variations with it. IMO someone like food boxes for example deserve their own tag. Von: Markus Peloso

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

straction for OSM, I think we can use the same tag. free_box would be my second choice. I would like to solve it democratically. In two weeks I would like to vote on give_box. If you prefer free_box then vote against it and write it in the comment of the vote. Then I change it and do a se

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Givebox

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 and the

Re: [Tagging] nomoj de internaciaj objektoj / nazwy obiektów międzynarodowych / names of international objects

local name: "Note that OSM follows the On the Ground Rule. Names recorded in name=* tag are ones that are locally used, especially ones typically signposted." [1] For places where it's impossible to identify a local name, the name tag should not have been filled out (or a

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

the building=* way (also because of inheritance to objects within), if entrances have their own numbers, tag it on the entrance=* node. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

? designated seems to be orthogonal to yes/no/private/customers/visitors.... Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

over 3 million amenity=parking would be accepted. As for the areas within a parking facility, we could use something similar to building:part: for example amenity=parking_facility:part if the parking facility is tagged amenity=parking_facility.

Re: [Tagging] depreciate recycling:metal in favor of recycling:scrap_metal

bicycle frames). What about recycling:small_metal_items? By the way, am i right that recycling:cans is for both tin and aluminium cans (and thus implies recycling:aluminium)? Or is it only for tin cans? Wishing everyone a happy new year! Best regards Markus __

Re: [Tagging] footway=crossing in detailed tagging

oth examples, the cycleway is physically separated from the footway by a row of trees except at the crossing. Therefore mapping them as separate ways makes sense. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] footway=crossing in detailed tagging

eway. The way from the right lateral end of the cycleway to the centre of the sidewalk could be mapped as footway=link or, for simplicity, you could extend the footway=crossing to that point. (Tell me if this was unclear and you need a diagram.) Regards Markus

Re: [Tagging] Business names in capital letters

oubt most people would even recognize it. If > written out, The Countries Best Yogurt, people probably would recognize it > either. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2304474733 for an example. TCBY is an acronym, therefore it should of cour

Re: [Tagging] footway=crossing in detailed tagging

re: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-November/thread.html#49311 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-December/thread.html#49527 Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Business names in capital letters

yms. I think this makes sense because it doesn't give these names more importance than other names in title case. By the way, newspapers do the same. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/li

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

area specifically (e.g. as footway=connection), but not the part of the track inside the road area? Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (changing_table:location)

/pipermail/tagging/2018-December/041650.html [2]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-January/041884.html [3]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting result - Pedestrian lane

pedestrians have priority over cyclists?), i think a separate tag like foot_cycle_lane=left/right/both would make most sense. Another possibility were pedestrian_lane:bicycle=designated, but this would imply that a shared foot and cycle–lane is a subtype of a pedestrian lane. I'm

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting result - Pedestrian lane

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:06, Marc Gemis wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:36 PM Markus wrote: > > > > In my opinion, footway[:left/right]=lane isn't a good idea for the > > following reasons: 1. footway=lane is a contradiction, as a lane (part > > of a road/path)

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting result - Pedestrian lane

thanks to the (unfortunately rather few) people who took part in the vote. Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

crossing ... not the best example of accessible and safe pedestrian infrastructure ...) Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

ing node for the cycle lane as it is part of the carriageway of Via Egidio Forcellini. This is different form the sidewalk that is interrupted by the unnamed one-way road. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

is only used to connect the roads or paths to make routing possible. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

street way. [2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/536404830 [3]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_foot=46.93737%2C7.44928%3B46.93757%2C7.44893 Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

me some examples for these two points? [1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/893450790 [2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/506223281 [3]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/518400616 Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

order to make way for oncoming traffic. [1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/47.04825/8.30513 [2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/682152784 Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 13:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > the issue with steps being represented too long is not related to the > proposal of adding a specific subtag. I generally map highway=steps only for > the (approximated) actual projection of the steps (first to last riser of > each

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

g/way/416303537 Thanks you all for your feedback so far! Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 23:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Markus > > Will this fix the "error" of "Footpaths are disconnected from other roads"? It may, but this really depends on the situation. Could you give me examples?

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 23:40, Allroads wrote: > > All waylines inside a area:highway=footway footway=sidewalk is a > highway=footway footway=sidewalk > When there is a connection to the road, inside the area:highway=footway, > footwalk=sidewalk is till the barrier=kerb. I'm unsure if this is a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 04:24, Clifford Snow wrote: > > First off I like this proposal and agree that it be applied more broadly. > However there is a difference between a motorway=link (and similar) and a > footway=link. A motorway=link is a physical feature unlike a footway=link. A >

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:footway%3Dlink Definition: to link steps or a sidewalk with a road Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Pedestrian lane

/Pedestrian_lane Definition: a marked lane on the roadway, designated for pedestrians Thank you in advance for taking part in the vote. Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 02:48, John Willis via Tagging wrote: > > I use “unmarked crossing” for all connections of sidewalks where they > dead-end and have to be connected into the road. If there's a second sidewalk or a pedestrian lane on the opposite side of the road, this may make sense. But

Re: [Tagging] shop selling trucks

cles? It seems we don't have one, but it may make sense to use shop=utility_vehicle or something similar. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

ful to do so for footpaths or any path or road that connects with another. But i probably wouldn't prevent people from doing so. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

ppers seem to use this scheme too (already 743 uses and only every 7th is from me). https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:footway%3Dlink Best regards and a nice weekend to all of you Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 14:15, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 00:23, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> >> from the description, light meals aren’t a hard requirement, or it could be >> seen as satisfied by selling cakes (or ice cream cups in the case of cuisine >> =ice_cream): > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

esource during these international comparisons: > https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/page05.cfm. > The FHWA defines standards in the United States. Thanks. The content of this page seems to be identical to this PDF document by the FHWA i ment

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 11:55, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Is there some consistent difference how > this two tags are actually used? Unfortunately i can't answer your question (too little amenity=ice_cream and no shop=ice_cream around where i live), but i just discovered that 349, that's 15.2%,

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 18:21, Paul Allen wrote: > >> However, shop=ice_cream says to take home, not to take away. > > > Then the wiki is unclear and misleading. And it looks like somebody has > taken an > alread-misleading page, decided it was a synonym of amenity=ice_cream and then > made it

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 17:56, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > nitpick: tag is without underscore > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:takeaway Sorry and thanks for correcting me! Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 17:00, Paul Allen wrote: > > Me neither. But that's a bit of a false dichotomy. It isn't just eat on > premises or take home. > There's also take away. As in an ice cream van on a fixed pitch. Rather > common at the > seaside. Or a kiosk selling only, or mainly,. ice

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

Otherwise, it seems to make sense to deprecate shop=ice_cream in favour of the more used amenity=ice_cream. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

On Tue, 5 Nov 2019 at 18:25, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > This a well-known (small) problem that from time to time turns up in OSM > discussions. And then the discussion fizzles out again. Which is also a well-known problem ... I guess that bicycle=no almost always means that *driving* a bicycle

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

terested to see a law discriminating particularly against > pushing bicycles. https://www.ansa.it/english/news/general_news/2016/10/25/venice-bans-pushing-bikes_e4ad7248-970e-49a8-b9a1-73efe5716101.html And there are some elevators at the train station in Bern where it's not allowed to take bicycle

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 at 20:37, Clifford Snow wrote: > > I like your proposal but think it needs to clarify the difference between a > pedestrian lane and a shoulder [1]. In the US, most (many?) states allow > pedestrians to walk on shoulders if there is no sidewalk/footway, with the > exception

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 at 22:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > currently your proposal is a description of the physical appearance of the > feature, but for highways what is needed are usually functional and legal > definitions. A cycleway is a way designated for bicycles, a motorway excludes >

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

Hi everyone, Following the recent discussion about pedestrian lanes (marked lanes on a roadway, designated for pedestrians), i've now written a proposal page for a new key pedestrian_lane=*: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pedestrian_lane Best regards Markus

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

ps://www.mapillary.com/map/im/i-yuqBv2liMpsG4mWNyiew Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 18:14, Tobias Knerr wrote: > > In general, I don't think the definition of OSM keys should > automatically duplicate all nuances of the English dictionary, > especially ones that many non-native speakers will be unaware of. It isn't a nuance of one English dictionary. I've

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

On Sun, 20 Oct 2019 at 19:52, Jan Michel wrote: > > I also prefer this kind of tagging. I don't see a reason to invent a > fully new tag for this - it is an area meant just for pedestrians just > like a sidewalk. [...] I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Switzerland vehicles are allowed to

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

ne. Why not inventing something different for a different feature? :) [1]: As well as some less useful values like "this" (156 uses!?), "bad", "both;right", "right;none", "10" or "forest". :D Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

ile a pedestrian lane doesn't. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

e=fossgis_osrm_foot=36.40695%2C139.33347%3B36.40655%2C139.33423 Cheers Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

road markings cycleway=lane. So it only seems logical to also make the same distinction for sidewalks and pedestrian lanes. Thank you in advance for your replies. Best regards and have a nice Sunday, Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 17:51, Vɑdɪm wrote: > > OK. Any more comments or we better go for a vote? It's a detail, but i think that leisure=sunbathing_area (or leisure=sunbathing_place) were a more descriptive tag than leisure=sunbathing. Besides, most leisure=* values are nouns. Regards

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Utility markers

al edit that added the tags to the {{vote}} template, thus disabling the template. I've fixed it by removing the tags. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 22:00 Peter Elderson, wrote: > But where pedestrian crossing is not allowed at all, as in the case I > described, two ways tagging does not give this routing problem. > No, but it's again not the only solution: the information that crossing the road isn't permitted can also

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

ere are many places without pedestrian crossings. Therefore pedestrian routing wouldn't work where a road with painted lane separation is mapped with two ways. I wish you all a nice weekend Markus > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org h

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

with two separate ways, a routing engine would make pedestrians do a detour (possibly a long detour), even though they could just cross the street. [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/change Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing lis

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

gs. To your second question: i think that local mapping deviations make our map less usable. I would prefer if people who think that a rule doesn't make sense don't simply ignore it, but discuss it on this global mailing list. Regards Markus _

Re: [Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 18:37, Markus wrote: > > The problem here is that pedestrians are routed along the highway=* > way and, as you wrote, tram tracks are usually (unfortunately) mapped > as separate ways. Consequently, the railway=crossing node is > disconnected from th

Re: [Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways

d from the highway=* way with the highway=crossing node (that is, on another way). Therefore a router doesn't know that trams also pass this pedestrian crossing (except if pavements and pedestrian crossings are mapped as separate ways, which, however, has other dra

Re: [Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways

Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

tags together form a complete address (a single addr: tag only gives part of an address), while a single contact: tag already is a complete contact information. Thus i think the addr: prefix makes more sense that the contact: prefix. Regards Markus > ___

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 20:43, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > On 04.10.2019 19:10, Markus wrote: > > While orchard=meadow_orchard is the most used way of tagging a meadow > > orchard (2 748 uses), there > > are also 668 uses of the other subtag meadow=meadow_orchard. That mean

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

opinion, high usage doesn't guarantee that the tagging is sensible. Markus > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging meadow orchards

from mappers that they define which land use is more important than the other. However, such a choice is arbitrary. Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

  1   2   3   4   >