Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

2020-10-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 28. Oct 2020, at 17:40, Rob Savoye wrote: > > I'm not 100% sure on the best tagging other than maybe parking=yes and > access=emergency is appropriate these really aren’t parking areas, nobody parks there, and you may not, they are rather the opposite, no parking

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

2020-10-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 28. Okt. 2020 um 12:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > access=no should be enough, if parking searcher is not handling > access=no/access=private > it is broken anyway > these areas are usually not access=no, there will be no parking / stopping

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

2020-10-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 28. Oct 2020, at 03:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Thanks, Supa - it's not a concept that I've ever heard of in Australia! maybe you don’t signpost these? Every country has fire regulations for buildings which include guaranteeing accessibility for fire fighters in

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

2020-10-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Oct 2020, at 09:35, Nüssli Christian > wrote: > I wanted to ask you if there's a correct mapping of fire service areas. > That's areas in fire protection guidelines that will be reserved for > emergency vehicles. > > I found quite a few that are tagged as

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Oct 2020, at 08:17, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > > Both approaches are valid because in OpenStreetMap everything is “valid”, but both approaches are not equally good. In this specific case, as soon as landuse=highway is mapped as an area, having connected the adjacent

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-10-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 27. Okt. 2020 um 00:38 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > > On 26/10/2020 23:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > crossing_ref as far as I have understood the tag, is not about the > > type of crossing, > > I think you

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-10-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 26. Okt. 2020 um 17:12 Uhr schrieb Dave F < davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>: > 'Zebra' shouldn't be use on the primary tag 'crossing' > > crossing_ref was created for use within the UK because many parts of the > rest of the world didn't understand what was meant by 'zebra'. It is, after >

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for admission=* tag

2020-10-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
to avoid a lot of relations, I think we should have 2 functions (or pois within the feature): 1. place where you can buy the tickets, and 2. place where the tickets are checked this could also be the same place (e.g. ticket office where you have to pass through in order to enter the POI). Of

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for admission=* tag

2020-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
as an additional datapoint shop=ticket is the only one with significant usage: (15000) https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=ticket#values From its definition, it could also not be suitable (unclear), or maybe it is? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ashop%3Dticket

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Special Economic Zones

2020-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Oct 2020, at 15:24, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > The point is to provide a standard, non-cryptic, foundational tag for such > areas. Perhaps future proposals might further propose tagging for which > level of government has declared the SEZ, or the type of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Oct 2020, at 14:41, Allroads wrote: > > All landuse what is used for legally public roads, laid down in a zoning plan > by the Government "bestemmingsplan" should be called landuse=highway no, because the content of a bestemmingsplan is what is politically

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for admission=* tag

2020-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I think it would be generally useful to add this kind of information, not only when the ticket office is spatially distant from the feature, but in every case where a ticket is needed. An alternative idea could be to use the type=site relation, add the ticket office with an appropriate role to the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Special Economic Zones

2020-10-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 25. Okt. 2020 um 05:34 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano < zelonew...@gmail.com>: > A special economic zone (SEZ) is an area in which the business and trade > laws are different from the rest of the country. Only a small number of > these areas are mapped so far, however, estimates put

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

2020-10-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Oct 2020, at 10:59, stevea wrote: > What I mean by towing_penalty=yes is that it is POSSIBLE that you might get > towed if you exceed the maxstay (or a semantic otherwise > interpretable-from-the-tags). What I mean by towing_penalty=no is that the > particular

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

2020-10-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Oct 2020, at 06:59, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > "confirmed that when people read or hear the generic version of 'man', people > form mental pictures of males" yes, but it does not mean that people think of men when they read “mankind” or “man_made” or

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

2020-10-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I am not usually mapping this detail of parking fees, but from my understanding the above suggested tags would work and could be seen as covered by current state of tagging, no need for a proposal, just use it. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fee%3Aconditional#values as a note, I believe

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Oct 2020, at 13:20, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > > You think you're being original with your proposal, but it's not the case. > Every couple of years someone come along with the same argument. but it’s fair to discuss every proposal on its own. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Oct 2020, at 09:02, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > But you could count the bridge=yes (areas) for number of bridges, and > bridge=yes (ways) for number of bridges with roads crossing them. no, bridge=yes areas could still be properties of polygon objects on bridges.

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Oct 2020, at 06:59, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > Essentially though, they mean the same thing: > man_made=bridge is for areas > bridge=yes is for ways > > Both refer to to say there is a bridge and each assumes each others meaning - > I wouldn't think we would use

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Oct 2020, at 00:55, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > Perhaps the use of man_made could be dropped all together as it is somewhat > superfluous. > > Ie. man_made=bridge is the same as bridge=yes clearly not, we are already using both. man_made=bridge is a feature, and

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 22:17 Uhr schrieb Emvee via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > On 19/10/2020 11:51, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Martin, please do not even think about deprecating a tagging that is > > heavily used.like highway=crossing with bicycke=no|yes|dismount > > I do not call

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 15:04 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > I mean, *everything* is either man made or natural. > if we push this forward, humans are part of the natural world as well. Lets get rid of these dichotomies, and strive for a unified vision of the

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 19. Okt. 2020 um 00:44 Uhr schrieb Robert Delmenico < rob...@rtbk.com.au>: > Some great points here. Good to hear the points of views of all of you. > Look forward to hearing more feedback. > > Kind regards, > > Rob > I am delighted to read you like the idea of switching to German

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 18. Oct 2020, at 10:39, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Still, highway=crossing bicycle=no is an acceptable tagging (like you can map > cemeteries or parks > or churches as nodes in the first pass, especially when there is no good > aerial imagery available) my

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 18. Okt. 2020 um 23:02 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick < graemefi...@gmail.com>: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 20:39, Rory McCann wrote: > >> *definitely* not something one does auomatically. >> > > But would it be so impossible? (Not suggesting that it should actually be > done!) > > Couldn't

Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 18. Okt. 2020 um 20:25 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Here's an example of an exclusive busway, which is only used by the Orange > Line / G Line bus service in suburban Los Angeles: > > https://media.metro.net/riding/images/LinePage_orange_line_header.jpg >

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 18. Oct 2020, at 12:39, Rory McCann wrote: > > Yeah changing this is a multi-year project, generations... Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 18. Oct 2020, at 10:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > One more note: in some cases only specific buses are allowed (for example, > only public transport > buses operated by a municipal company, with private buses not allowed). > > In such case

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

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Oct 2020, at 09:32, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > generally bicycle=dismount should be used instead, reserving bicycle=no for > those circumstances where even pushing a bike is not legal (e.g. most public > footpaths in England & Wales). most bicycle=no tags out

Re: [Tagging] How are busways mapped, which are not guideways?

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 18. Oct 2020, at 08:12, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Right now the suggestion on highway=bus_guideway is that other busways might > be mapped highway=service + bus=designated + access=no. (See > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_guideway) I

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

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 18. Oct 2020, at 09:46, Emvee via Tagging > wrote: > > Routers do not need highway=crossing to detect crossings, every node > where 3 or more ways connect is a crossing. sure, but many highway=crossings are tagged on nodes where only 2 ways (or one going through)

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 18. Oct 2020, at 07:49, Volker Schmidt wrote: > >> Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node, but >> refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags). The >> access should be derived from the crossing ways. > > >

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 17. Oct 2020, at 21:01, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Nevertheless some crossings were mapped using highway=cycleway and bicycle=no > on crossing > nodes, probably because it is much less fiddly to map it. Yes I know, one possible outcome of this discussion here would

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Oct 2020, at 16:40, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > Which negates any desire to change the meaning of railway=station from > "places where customers can access railway services or where goods are loaded > and unloaded." I am perfectly fine with this definition, it

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Oct 2020, at 15:12, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > > Please send all messages to the public forum Martin. I will write to whoever I want, not your business. You may already know it, but for the avoidance of doubt I’ll tell you again: every thread and all

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Oct 2020, at 10:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Not in cases where > (1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to dismount > (2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossing road where > cyclists > are obligated

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Oct 2020, at 00:00, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Single carriageway, but with a way segment added to the cycleway to carry the > signed `bicycle=dismount` restriction. at this point there is no shared way anymore, just nearby it is shared, because bicycle=dismount is

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Oct 2020, at 15:44, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > > Please send messages to forum, John. from where are you citing here? A private email? Can we please discuss publicly here, and keep private discussion private? Thank you, Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

2020-10-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Oct 2020, at 02:57, Robert Delmenico wrote: > > I also understand that generally speaking the use of man_made is commonly > accepted as a gender neutral term, but in reality it has been adapted that > way due to past practices of gender bias. I fear in „human“

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

2020-10-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Oct 2020, at 23:42, Volker Schmidt 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. I thought the standard was highway=crossing on the nodes where they cross the road and highway=footway with

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Objects generating audible cues

2020-10-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Oct 2020, at 16:22, bkil wrote: > > It has been raised on a private discussion if we could mention whether > a private house or an industrial site has a guard dog that is easily > identifiable by its barking. if you only hear it this could still be a fake barking

Re: [Tagging] How do you map traffic signals where right or left turns are allowed or not allowed on a red light?

2020-10-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 11. Oct 2020, at 18:15, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I wonder if "red turn" is a translation from German or another language? there is no straight turn in German, not even a u-turn is a “turn” in German, so if this was invented in Germany it has not to do with

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Oct 2020, at 17:36, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > > Why would train drivers, looking at OSM, need to have just a couple of > signals enclosed inside a polygon? did you already have the occasion to ask commuters in your part of the world whether they believe the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a government job centre

2020-10-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Oct 2020, at 09:32, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > If you go to the (admittedly, very short) wiki page for > office=employment_agency, you find that the picture illustrating the tag > shows a German "jobcenter" of the Agentur fuer Arbeit, which is a government >

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
or railway areas that far away from the > station. +1, could be used, I’d even say, from far away until very very close, up to the limit of the station area. > On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 at 18:42, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > This was also discussed in the wiki: > >

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 7. Okt. 2020 um 10:31 Uhr schrieb Andrew Harvey < andrew.harv...@gmail.com>: > In practice many are mapped as the same area, but that's usually only > because unless you're a train operator it can be hard to actually survey > where the station starts and ends from the train network point

[Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I know we have already been discussing this several times in the past, but due to recent editing disagreements in the wiki, I am raising it again. For several years, we had railway=station on a way documented in the wiki as the complete area of a train station.

Re: [Tagging] Battery swapping spot in a charging station or being an individual tag?

2020-10-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Oct 2020, at 23:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > amenity=charging_station + charging=battery_swap + battery =gogoro;iOnex (to > use the examples given by OP, which would then be changed as applicable in > each country) I think the system provider would better

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

2020-10-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 3. Okt. 2020 um 14:38 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 at 13:22, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> shop=* seems ok for me. > > > And for me. There are "formal" shops which open only 2 days a week. Or > have limited hours.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

2020-10-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. Oct 2020, at 12:15, Alan Mackie wrote: > > This seems to me to be a relative of market stalls. Smaller concerns that are > 'staffed' but usually have very focussed or limited stock. +1, with possibly varying merchandise according to the season or other factors.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

2020-10-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Oct 2020, at 20:28, stevea wrote: > > The term "direct_marketing" is used in various dialects of English around the > world as meaning something wholly different than your proposed usage here. even in German it is used for a kind of advertising (sending

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 133, Issue 2

2020-10-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 2. Okt. 2020 um 10:01 Uhr schrieb St Niklaas : > Whats wrong with shop=farm, > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.05459/5.15648 > for a hunter? Farming and hunting are 2 different kinds of professions at least since Cain and Abel. ;-) Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

2020-10-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Oct 2020, at 08:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > "direct marketing" using shop key > means that there is no way to tag > shop type in an usual way (in a shop key) +1, it would better be a property than a shop type. Still it leaves the question open

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

2020-09-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. Sep 2020, at 08:30, stevea wrote: > > I'll say it once again: such a fire=perimeter IS a real-world "thing," > represented in OSM by a lightweight datum that I find to be "worth it" to be > in the map. +1 it is also clearly verifiable on the ground and will

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Sep 2020, at 13:45, Pieter Vander Vennet wrote: > This width was tagged with 'width:carriageway'. > I think this is a good tagging decision, being explicit about which width you have measured seems the way to avoid ambiguity. (and it still leaves room for the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

2020-09-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Sep 2020, at 00:51, Michael Patrick wrote: > > ( I once went to one in Detroit, where the open casket and reception line was > right there with tables of people eating brunch ('wake')). so it could be “wake_room”? Now this might sound a tad euphemistic as well,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

2020-09-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Sep 2020, at 16:40, Clifford Snow wrote: > > I just happened to be talking to a funeral owner yesterday. To be clear he is > located in the US then it is not so relevant for our discussion, because the standard is British English. Maybe it could make sense to

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

2020-09-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 23. Sept. 2020 um 10:47 Uhr schrieb Jeroen Hoek : > Granted, for footway=sidewalk renderers could omit the name. > > The sidepath:of:name approach has the benefit of more explicitly > declaring a way a 'sidepath of' though, and works for cycleways, > bus-lanes, etc. too. > it doesn't

[Tagging] admin, please remove this user from the list

2020-09-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
It's been some weeks now that I get this kind of reply for every message that I write to tagging. Can an admin please remove the address jim...@hey.com from the list recipients? Thank you. *haystack-mail-home-inbound-postfix-0.localdomain rejected your message to the following email addresses:*

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

2020-09-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Sep 2020, at 19:11, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > > Explicitly naming sidewalks and all other parallel ways makes for a > maintenance burden and would create a very busy rendering on most map renderers have all the necessary information to omit name for footway=sidewalk.

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

2020-09-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Sep 2020, at 00:18, Paul Allen wrote: > >> unless they are further than 200m from your actual position. > > Depends on the jurisdiction. In some parts of the US you must use a > designated crossing (at least in built-up areas). In the UK you are told > "Where

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Sep 2020, at 15:36, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > or if someone outright deletes the utility tag, that power pole is still > correctly tagged. if it is a power pole, why would you remove the utility tag? When there’s a highway=track and you remove the tracktype tag

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

2020-09-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
isn’t this all centered on motorists‘ point of view? What do people think about seeing it from other perspectives, e.g. highway=cycleway and adding tags like primary=track (means there is an implied primary road, physically separated, which is running along this cycleway). Can also be done for

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Does anyone think that it is a good idea to add those two new tags in this > particular situation? utility=power seems to be a redundant concept in general (you can see which kind of lines are attached - if they

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Does anyone think that it is a good idea to add those two new tags in this > particular situation? while I am personally not unsatisfied with power=pole I could understand that people who want to deprecate this

Re: [Tagging] Powerbank Sharing Systems

2020-09-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 19. Sept. 2020 um 13:49 Uhr schrieb Jake Edmonds via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > >> Unless anyone can point me to existing tagging, I will submit a > proposal, based on amenity=bicycle_sharing, titled > amenity=powerbank_sharing for tagging docking station. > >> > > I wouldn't

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 18. Sept. 2020 um 09:41 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson < pelder...@gmail.com>: > Changing to crossing=marked then specifying that it's a zebra just makes > it more work, and harder to interpret. > +1, if you don't know the implications of crossing=zebra, then you don't know them either for

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 17. Sept. 2020 um 18:32 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke < mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>: > > *Traffic* lights I can buy. I am more suspicious of the claim that you > can tell whether they have pedestrian crossing signals or not, usually pedestrian crossings are marked, and depending on the

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 17. Sept. 2020 um 02:45 Uhr schrieb Taskar Center : > 1) How is this shared space controlled? ... > > 2) How is the space demarcated? A crossing may be demarcated by a number > of different ground markers, > > 3) How can a pedestrian call up the signal ... > > 4) who is sharing the

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 17. Sept. 2020 um 02:37 Uhr schrieb Taskar Center : > This is yet another example why "sticking" the sidewalks onto the highway > (as a tag) rather than mapping them as separate ways is appearing to be > less and less practical. > why should these be mutually exclusive alternatives

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Sep 2020, at 20:22, António Madeira wrote: > > The problem, I believe is with iD's presets. thank you for the hint, I think you’re right. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 16:27 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > I thought the correct tag for this was crossing_ref. Have you cross > checked to see if they've been swapped instead of removed? > crossing_ref is a different kind of beast, as some people use it to

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 15:26 Uhr schrieb Matthew Woehlke < mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>: > My understanding is that crossing=zebra is deprecated in favor of > crossing=uncontrolled / crossing=traffic_signals. there are many issues with "uncontrolled", especially if you use it to intend a zebra

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Sep 2020, at 14:25, Supaplex wrote: > > Do you have examples where "zebra" is changed automatically? Where and who > and why? I have seen it only sporadically and have contacted the mappers in some cases, the same for marked when there were traffic lights. I

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 16. Sept. 2020 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb ael : > Yes. ISTR that the last time I tried to mark a crossing, zebra wasn't a > option in the presets. But my memeory may be at fault. > which editor are you using? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list

[Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while the very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018 below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the tagstats with more than 1 million uses. What do you think about it, shouldn't we be

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Sep 2020, at 19:05, Jan Michel wrote: > > If you want to tag how much space there is for some kind of vehicle moving in > some direction, there are the specific width tags like width:lanes, > sidewalk:width, cycleway:width, shoulder:width, verge:width > and so on.

Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

2020-09-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Sep 2020, at 09:53, Alan Mackie wrote: > > Priority road definitely seems like you'd want it on the map features list if > you're in a country that uses it. > > Not sure how common emergency bays are? +1 for priority roads (although I believe the opposite is

Re: [Tagging] sleepable:physical=yes/no | Re: Benches and hostile architecture

2020-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Sep 2020, at 19:27, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Is it maybe more universal to map > strictly objective parameters instead? > > It seems for me that mapping > length, armrest in the middle and width > would be both far more objective and >

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Sep 2020, at 21:39, Mark Wagner wrote: > > Which one is "the" width of the road? not only from year to year but also with the seasons... Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 15. Sept. 2020 um 10:34 Uhr schrieb Tobias Zwick : > I was under the impression that the wiki already defined it like 2). > If it were like this it would be fortunate, because we already have nearly 1,9 million highways tagged with "width", and if we could reasonably expect that these

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

2020-09-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 14. Sept. 2020 um 20:37 Uhr schrieb Supaplex : > again and again there are discussions about which parts of a street > (sidewalks and cycle paths, parking lanes, carriageway) should be > considered when determining the width of a street. There does not seem to > be a consensus and

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for board games themed pubs

2020-09-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 11. Sep 2020, at 12:23, Philip Barnes wrote: > > A lot of pubs have board games available for customers to play, or they did > in normal times. > > Themed implies that is the raison d'etre for the pubs existance and you would > only go there to play board games,

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:51, Paul Allen wrote: > > One has a plaque saying it is the birthplace of some important figure. > The plaque is a historic memorial, the house it is attached to is just a > house (as is the house next door). we’ll be mapping the plaque anyway (and

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:29, Paul Allen wrote: > > It's a memorial or it's not. If it's not a memorial, and there just because > it looks > nice (somebody else brought up that possibility, not me) it's artwork. I don’t find a definition of art, work of art, where

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 23:23, Paul Allen wrote: > > To say that something is historic means that it is important or significant > in history. importance and significance are quite relative and I have the impression you are imagining the bar much higher than what we usually

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of individual terraced houses?

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 22:54, Oliver Simmons wrote: > > (playing devils advocate here) > but then why do `building=bungalow` and `building=semidetached_house` exist? > > Bungalows can be seen from `building:levels=1`. > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=bungalow

Re: [Tagging] Documenting historic=anchor to the historic wiki page

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 22:15, Paul Allen wrote: > > Possibly tourism=artwork I’d much rather go for historic=anchor than for tourism=artwork these are rarely public art Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] .Re: tagging drinking water of unclear official (signed)

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 13:52, Peter Neale wrote: > > I'm not arguing against "drinking water", just against "portable water" > (water that can be carried) sorry for posting in reply to you, it was meant more generally as responding to the warming up of a discussion about

Re: [Tagging] .Re: tagging drinking water of unclear official (signed)

2020-09-07 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 07:55, Peter Neale via Tagging > wrote: > > I dont know about the USA, but in British English, "portable" means that it > can be carried. > > If you can drink it, it is "potable". we‘ve had this discussion 10 years ago and the decision was for

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Sep 2020, at 01:16, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Because I want to use drinking_water=yes and something indicating that there > is strong > reason to believe that water is drinkable do I understand you correctly that in your interpretation

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Sep 2020, at 21:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > That redefines drinking_water:legal=yes which currently is described as > including > places where status is not explicitly signed but is known to be good > (examples > may include water fountains

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Sep 2020, at 16:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > I will use drinking_water:legal=unknown if drinking_water:legal is about the content of a sign, I would prefer Paul‘s suggestion: drinking_water:legal=unsigned

Re: [Tagging] tagging drinking water of uncleaer official (signed) status

2020-09-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Sep 2020, at 16:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > may be also unsigned, but it may be clearly coming from drinkable tap water the water could be contaminated at the end of it’s journey (conduits), and not be suggested to drink although the general

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

2020-09-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 4. Sept. 2020 um 22:21 Uhr schrieb Tom Pfeifer < t.pfei...@computer.org>: > On 04.09.2020 18:19, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: > >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:shelter_type%3Drock_shelter > >> > > > > I'd suggest natural=rock_shelter as a replacement tag. > > +1

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

2020-09-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Sep 2020, at 20:29, Jmapb wrote: > > If I were proposing a tag, I'd probably say `camera:url` or `webcam:url`. But > `contact:webcam` is documented and in popular use all over the world. I am not saying a webcam is never a means to contact someone, but it isn’t a

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

2020-09-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 4. Sept. 2020 um 19:03 Uhr schrieb Jmapb via Tagging < 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 undocumented > > tag `contact:webcam` for this purpose. > > (Mea culpa, contact:webcam is indeed

Re: [Tagging] Link to stream of webcam

2020-09-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Sep 2020, at 17:10, dktue wrote: > > Any suggestions how to tag this? maybe „url“ or „surveillance:url“? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

2020-09-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Sep 2020, at 22:33, Mike Thompson wrote: > > OHVs > 50 is there also an upper limit? 50” are 127 cm, so that’s to say wider than a motorcycle? Is the question whether “off highway vehicle” would merit its own subclass for access? Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] leisure=schoolyard

2020-08-31 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
It's been a while that I have been to school, but from memory, as well as from the current situation I see from my kids at their school, the school grounds are basically the same as the "Pausenhof". E.g. in my school, pupils had their respective spaces according to age groups or maybe classes, and

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >