Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addr:interpolation on closed ways and nodes

2020-12-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 24. Dez. 2020 um 00:22 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson < pelder...@gmail.com>: > 10..20, meaning 10 up to and including 20 > I don't know if it is just you, but there are already some few examples for this in the db: 17 *wa**s:**ra**il**wa**y:**20**12**..**20**14*

Re: [Tagging] Definition of lake/pond as applied to stream/plunge pools

2020-12-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Dec 2020, at 16:42, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > In current practice the areas of rivers (whether waterway=riverbank or > water=river) are not tagged with a name=* tag, that goes on the linear > waterway=river feature. there’s a 13,6% of all riverbank polygons

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

2020-12-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Dec 2020, at 09:42, Andrew Harvey wrote: > I think it's fine to use marine here, even though it may not strictly be at > sea and could be related to inland waters. So long as this is clearly stated > in the wiki documentation. It's not always possible to have OSM

Re: [Tagging] Default access for service=driveway?

2020-12-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 22. Dez. 2020 um 10:16 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm < frede...@remote.org>: > The private residential property has two driveways (highway=service, > service=driveway) entering it from different sides, thereby enabling > people to save a few metres by walking through, rather than around, the

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 21. Dez. 2020 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Mapping military bases in Israel, Russia, mapping anything in China/North > Korea > etc should be welcomed in OSM if someone is doing this and wants that. > Mateusz, this is a quite

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Dec 2020, at 00:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > I would hate for somebody to be potentially arrested on spying / espionage > charges for doing what we suggested :-( imagine you were mapping something, and it is legal in the place where you are, but illegal in

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Dec 2020, at 00:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > There has been concern raised on the talk page over the "If it's illegal, > please don't map" warning that I included in the proposal. is this referring to British law? Cheers Martin

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

2020-12-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Dec 2020, at 22:45, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Some examples; > > sportbowlsA place where you can play lawn bowls/lawn bowling. > > sportkitesurfingTo mark a spot for kitesurfing > > sportmultiA sports facility

Re: [Tagging] Continuous shoulder rumble strips (CSRS)

2020-12-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Dec 2020, at 22:50, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > I can understand why a cyclist would like to know about them, but I'm not > sure how we'd map them? A way drawn along the side of the road, like a fence, > or added to the roads properties eg cycleway=lane +

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

2020-12-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 20. Dez. 2020 um 17:13 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > Martin, the former ones ( > http://www.valsassinanews.com/image/original/12663.jpg ) are "tables" ( > traffic_calming=table) in OSM-speak - see > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_calming. >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

2020-12-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 20. Dez. 2020 um 16:11 Uhr schrieb Niels Elgaard Larsen < elga...@agol.dk>: > Martin Koppenhoefer: > > I thought they would make people drive slower, while retaining a > possibility for > > bicycles to pass in between. > > That is what the proposal says.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency=Rescue Stations

2020-12-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Dec 2020, at 05:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > The existing emergency=disaster_response will get a better definition to > cover each countries Emergency Rescue / Civil Defence service/s which kind of places should get the tag? Garages and places where

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

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Dec 2020, at 00:44, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > These guys in Texas will let you drive their tank around and shoot things, > for a price: > > https://www.oxhuntingranch.com/activities/hunting-shooting/machine-gun-shooting/ they actually mention “ mortars,

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Dec 2020, at 00:35, Paul Allen wrote: > > one swallow doesn't make a summer but it makes a great BJ. you must be talking of ice cream? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_%26_Jerry%27s___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Dec 2020, at 00:35, Paul Allen wrote: > >> one swallow does not make a summer. ;-) > > I don't see many sharing your viewpoint, either. :p https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/historic#values Cheers Martin ___

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

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Dec 2020, at 00:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Another comment suggested =recreation_ground for the whole area (car parks, > buildings etc) with shooting=range for the actual area that bullets are > flying over. I have seen some shooting=range but the tag

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

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 19. Dec 2020, at 23:59, Jeremy Harris wrote: > > I think rifle-shooting was a component of a triathlon in a recent > Winter Olympic, too. if rifles are „ordnance“ my perplexity dissolves, I did not know the word ordnance and looking it up referred me to artillery. I

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 19. Dec 2020, at 23:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > (& I can already hear Paul saying just because it's old doesn't necessarily > make it historic! :-)) yes, but so far I didn’t read from anybody else that they would share this particular concern, one swallow does

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

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 19. Dec 2020, at 23:29, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > Perhaps simply leisure=range, as this would be generic to any type of > facility where one might fire projectiles or ordnance. is firing ordnance a leisure activity somewhere? Or a sport? leisure=range makes

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 19. Dec 2020, at 23:27, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > I understand that the purpose of them is simply to make noise when a car > drives over them, as they don't slow you down in any appreciable way like a > speed bump/hump. I thought they would make people drive

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

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 19. Dec 2020, at 21:35, Paul Allen wrote: > >> Or is it always preferable to use sport=shooting + leisure=pitch? > > That's an improvement. Not ideal, because it's practised at a > range, not on a pitch. Just because we have other sports that > have been shoe-horned

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:traffic_calming=hillocky

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 19. Dec 2020, at 22:53, Jeremy Harris wrote: > > traffic_calming=multi_bump ? or traffic_calming=mini_bumps ? when they come up with something smaller that could still be micro_bumps ;-) Cheers Martin ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 19. Dec 2020, at 02:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > As with most things OSM, this tag would really only apply to permanent / > long-term sites. "Temporary" locations "in the field" wouldn't be mapped or > tagged this way (plus, of course, the challenges of locating

Re: [Tagging] Tagging sewage treatment basins

2020-12-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 18. Dez. 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > I'm not entirely happy with natural=water being applied to either sewage > treatment or slurry. Neither are natural and neither store water. > neither am I, not for the question of how "natural" they are (ship has sailed) but because I

Re: [Tagging] addr:floor and level:ref - Wiki review welcomed

2020-12-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 18. Dez. 2020 um 14:07 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > 1) both are in use and while level:ref has more uses most of them come > from mass edits[1] > > 2) this edits were intended to document current tagging practice, not to > create a proposal > > 3) addr:floor

Re: [Tagging] addr:floor and level:ref - Wiki review welcomed

2020-12-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Your edit makes sense, at least as a first step, but we should reflect how to explain why addr:floor is described as an alternative to level:ref, and not as a "possible tagging mistake". Are there subtle differences? If not, I would prefer to choose one and discourage the other. 10.000 uses are

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 18. Dec 2020, at 03:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > A base is the (almost invariably) enclosed area where a military > establishment is located: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_base. It > will include a variety of buildings, facilities etc in the area, & may

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Dec 2020, at 17:52, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > You still have to distinguish marine water (outside of the natural=coastline) > from inland waters, and distinguishing rivers from lakes is very important > for proper rendering of many maps. and it seems

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

2020-12-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Dec 2020, at 14:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > https://huettenpalast.de/ meant to post this https://hostelgeeks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/hafentraum-indoorcampinghostel-best-hostels-in-germany.jpg Chee

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

2020-12-16 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Dec 2020, at 04:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Individual as 1 cabin per site, or, as Mateusz raised, multiple cabins on one > site? even multiple cabins in one building https://huettenpalast.de/ #nothreadwithoutanedgecase ;-) Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 16. Dec 2020, at 00:32, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > I want to be clear that in such a proposal, any instances of disrespectful or > insulting commentary directed towards any group or individual will not be > tolerated and will be immediately brought to the

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 10:42 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger : > We should probably not have all these possible generalized areas in our > db. Just as we probably shouldn't have a bedrock map in the db either, at > least not until it can manage layers. > > But we could simply pick one criteria,

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 15:59 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Re: “ a couple of islets with a collective name” > > We have a tag for that: place=archipelago for a group of islands. > > There isn’t a common tag for a group of lakes with one name, probably > because

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 15. Dez. 2020 um 08:51 Uhr schrieb Anders Torger : > The simple answer is that this naming concept is fundamentally broken, and > that we need to have some other concept, such as fuzzy areas. > I agree that there isn't really a concept for naming larger (natural) areas. In OSM you can

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC 2 - Pumping proposal

2020-12-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Dec 2020, at 23:11, François Lacombe wrote: > Furthermore, :type suffixes make things complex and don't bring any > additional information as anything is a type or category of something yes, the keys should rather say which kind of type they are referring to. For

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 15. Dec 2020, at 06:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > If I look at a map eg > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Forest#/media/File:Relief_Map_of_Germany,_Black_Forest.png, > it tells me that the Balck Forest is a more or less oval-shaped area in > Southern Germany.

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

2020-12-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Dec 2020, at 09:46, Paul Allen wrote: > > Yes, that's for one. But there is nothing for a group, Operator on each > ties them together loosely, but it would be nice to have a relation or > a boundary for them that could be rendered as a name for the grouping, >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

2020-12-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Dec 2020, at 21:37, stevea wrote: > > This is problematic to my thinking. In California (my state), at an > UNCONTROLLED intersection (no traffic_signal, stop sign, other traffic > control device...), for example where the sidewalk "would continue to another >

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

2020-12-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Dec 2020, at 07:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > There are cases where there is group of multiple holiday cottages, > > each rentable independently. I know about cases with just 2 and big groups, > 25 in one place. leisure=resort? Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Dec 2020, at 18:49, Tomas Straupis wrote: > > Introducing duplicate and unused schema (especially as the only > option) is not a good IT decision, basic analysis should have shown > that. But in case of id it was technology leading functionality and > thus leading

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Dec 2020, at 12:30, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Tagging all parts with a truly unique Id in a special key could do the trick, > but who issues/manages the unique ids? wikidata? wikidata:part=Q123? Cheers Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 13. Dec 2020, at 03:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > In regard to operators - "USMC" or "United States Marine Corps", & the same > for all the other names ie abbreviated or spelt if full ? fully spelt out Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

2020-12-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. Dec 2020, at 23:43, Paul Johnson wrote: > > So what? How are we going to improve if we're not willing to correct choices > that are objectively bad in retrospect? Especially when fixing the problem > makes lane tagging more consistent for all lane types and

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
of course all of these could be tagged as place=locality nodes, but this is a compromise to drop a name, which does not allow to even guess about the extent, shape or orientation. My idea is to collectively curate a parallel dataset which can be used in addition. Just draw the thing roughly

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

2020-12-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. Dec 2020, at 12:26, Anders Torger wrote: > > In the wetland case as described, there is no parent relation at all. The > only thing that ties them together is implicitly by sharing borders and > having the same name tag. It seems to me that an "official" way to

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. Dec 2020, at 06:59, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > All names are opaque to computers, so we use standardized tags which can be > translated one time, instead of needing to translate an operator=* tag for > every language and every country to make it usable.

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. Dec 2020, at 00:12, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Going out there a bit, but I could also see cases where somebody can see > fighter jets taking off & landing, so it's obviously an Air Force base or a Navy base, or Marines. Look for a runway if you are interested

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 10. Dec 2020, at 22:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > military_service=army do we really need military_service=army given that these services will differ according to the country? We can tag operator =United States Army or “United States Marine Corps” and keep lists

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

2020-12-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
I agree that I would probably not use highway=service in this case, I imagine the way is important for pedestrians as well? This being said, the current tagging with access=yes, motor_vehicle=no and bus=private seems ok (routing will work as expected, if service roads are taken into account),

Re: [Tagging] Drawing/painting schools

2020-12-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 9. Dez. 2020 um 12:31 Uhr schrieb Niels Elgaard Larsen < elga...@agol.dk>: > I do not not consider them real schools. > > I have taken inspiration from, Paint Your Style in Berlin: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4235447795 > > Which is tagged with a leisure=ceramic_painting tag. > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:healthcare=vaccination_centre

2020-12-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Thank you for taking the time to draft this! Looks generally ok and is needed. A small detail: maybe we would want to have a more explicit qualifier for the distinction between structures conceived for permant and temporary use, which could be added even if there is no official / precise end

Re: [Tagging] Drawing/painting schools

2020-12-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 9. Dec 2020, at 01:06, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > How about amenity=art_school, with another tag to indicate the specific > disciplines of art being taught? which kind of arts would this include, performing arts? An institution where you can become a film director?

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

2020-12-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 8. Dec 2020, at 08:13, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > But the current proposal only provides a way to tag the military service > branch of a military=base feature (which is usually also landuse=military). > > It might be better if there were a way to tag the branch for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

2020-12-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Dec 2020, at 23:16, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Yes, that tag is a good idea. > But, it is not a barrier on the way, but a single object off the way. I agree. For the node on the way, barrier=entrance might eventually be suitable together with width where the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - barrier:guard_stone

2020-12-08 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Dec 2020, at 22:56, Paul Allen wrote: > > And if none of that persuades you, the historic=* tag is treated specially > by the Historic Places map and is given special emphasis. It would > get very cluttered if these stones were classed as historic. I am not

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - Pedestrian hazard

2020-12-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 7. Dec 2020, at 00:17, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > The largest existing use of hazard=cyclists is in Germany. There is no > Google StreetView in Germany of course there is > , but from the small number examples [1] I looked at, it seems like this tag > is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Military=Coast-Guard & Rescue=Marine_Rescue

2020-12-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 6. Dez. 2020 um 17:01 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano < zelonew...@gmail.com>: > This is probably a US-centric viewpoint, but I note that there is a > general lack of tagging under the military= key to indicate the military > branch associated with a military base. > yes, a documented

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Hazards - Pedestrian hazard

2020-12-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am So., 6. Dez. 2020 um 18:34 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano < zelonew...@gmail.com>: > The hazard proposal [1] currently proposes hazard=cyclists as a way to tag > a signed area in which motorists should watch for or share the road with > cyclists. Note that this is explicitly different from

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Military=Coast-Guard & Rescue=Marine_Rescue

2020-12-06 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 6. Dec 2020, at 03:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Please visit https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Marine_rescue & have a look. > > All comments welcome either here or on the Talk page. it makes it look a either military or rescue decision, but many coast guards

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-12-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Dec 2020, at 22:34, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > > Volker Schmidt: >> Hi, > >> In the case of signed hazards, I see two alternative ways of tagging the >> signing: >> * (only for nodes and ways highway segments) by adding source:xxx=sign like >> we do >>with

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-12-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Sa., 5. Dez. 2020 um 21:37 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > Traffic lights triggered by avalanches! Is that close enough, Martin? > > > https://elearning.unipd.it/scuolaamv/pluginfile.php/19629/mod_resource/content/1/04_02%20difesa%20dalla%20valanghe.pdf > I knew you would deliver :)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-12-05 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 5. Dec 2020, at 17:05, ael via Tagging wrote: > > Also at much larger airports. Brize Norton > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Brize_Norton), for example. you guys are finding real world examples for every weird situation that nobody expected to even exist.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (verifiability - frost heave?)

2020-12-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Dec 2020, at 21:43, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > Does that satisfy your concern? yes, very reasonable, maybe could add that unsigned hazards can not only be found in the developing world, but the probability of encountering them will raise the farther you move

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-12-04 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 4. Dec 2020, at 17:42, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > I am thinking this case (crossing golfers) is more of a highway=crossing > rather than a hazard? I think it is a warning that a golf ball might eventually hit your vehicle, and if you’re prepared you won’t be

Re: [Tagging] Inclined elevators

2020-12-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 3. Dec 2020, at 16:53, 德泉 談 via Tagging wrote: > > I think the description in OSM wiki looks fine. Not supported by osm-carto > and other tools needs to be reported by somebody, worth doing that. +1, I would also think the wiki is fine, after all, a way seems the

Re: [Tagging] Typology of tombs

2020-12-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 2. Dez. 2020 um 13:42 Uhr schrieb Daniel Capilla < dcapil...@gmail.com>: > I have documented the use of "historic=cemetery" [1] and some new types > of tombs, such as "tomb=table" [2], "tomb=pillar" [3], or > "tomb=cenotaph" (empty tomb) [4]. > > Hello Daniel, thank you for discussing

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-12-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 18:08 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano < zelonew...@gmail.com>: > +1, it's unreasonable for mappers to be mind readers about the intent of > land managers. Either the public is allowed to walk on these paths, or > they are not. There isn't really a middle ground here. >

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-12-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Dec 2020, at 05:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Wombat pads are wide enough to follow but the animal is lo to the ground and > can go through what to a human is inpenatrable scrub - some is simply to > thiic and interwwoven and some has sharp needle

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-12-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 2. Dec 2020, at 05:30, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Only in places where local mappers have mapped most things that the details > are mapped better are 'accuracies' of some discussion. yes, generally I agree that any of the gps settings from the more

Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-12-02 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 2. Dez. 2020 um 10:45 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > In the UK it looks like the heath service (NHS) will contact eligible > individuals and probably arrange a time and place for their vaccinations. > > As such all that is needed is the location be in OSM and be mapped with

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-12-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Dec 2020, at 11:18, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The 'Auto' setting may not be 'optimal' for what you want, but as a > compromise between data bloat and resolution/accuracy it maybe better than a > fixed time as judged by the developer/manufacture.

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-12-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Dec 2020, at 05:03, Peter Elderson wrote: > > humans=no? looks like an access tag, so it is not suitable unless this is the legal situation. Generally we might not be able to have a solution with a single tag, because of the differing legal situation. In some

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-12-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 1. Dec 2020, at 04:31, Minh Nguyen via Tagging > wrote: > > Regardless, informal=yes seems especially appropriate for these animal-made > paths. *if* the path could be useful for humans (i.e. you can walk there), highway=path and informal=yes may be suitable,

Re: [Tagging] Animal trails

2020-11-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert : > I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in my > area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but it is > allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes significant > shortcuts so

Re: [Tagging] How to tag for dualband GPS ?

2020-11-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mo., 30. Nov. 2020 um 14:36 Uhr schrieb Andrea Mazzoleni < amadva...@gmail.com>: > But most of the trails of my local area are under the woods (low mountain) > and the GPS is the only source of information. > you can use any tag like "source" or "note" to try to convey to the following

Re: [Tagging] COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-11-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. Nov 2020, at 12:56, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would assume the location of these mass vaccination centers would be widely > publicized and the locations identified. Do they need further identification > within OSM? the same holds true for post

Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-11-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 30. Nov 2020, at 10:46, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > Yes please - I can see planning coming up for vaccinations centers here > in Germany and these are not planned in hospitals but in vacant commercial > buildings which have loads of parking spaces. So using some >

Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-11-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 26. Nov. 2020 um 18:35 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson < pelder...@gmail.com>: > Well, mass testing did not stop the virus anywhere, it just costs a lot, > drives people to despair and boosts the numbers. > this is off topic here, but apparently the Chinese have succeeded in stopping the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards (rock slide etc)

2020-11-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 26. Nov. 2020 um 17:48 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano < zelonew...@gmail.com>: > This is good feedback, and I would potentially toss another into the mix: > hazard=erosion which has about 300 tags. Do we think these four tags > (rock_slide, falling_rocks, landslide, erosion) represent

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Hazards

2020-11-26 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 26. Nov. 2020 um 08:25 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > >- It is not explicitly mentioned, but it would be a good idea to have >explicit mention >- is it OK to tag hazard that >- >- - exists >- - is unsigned >- -

Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-11-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Nov 2020, at 14:15, Phake Nick wrote: > > I don't thibk it is appropriate to add one-off temporary facilities into OSM. everything is temporary, e.g. buildings, trees, even mountains, although the latter on a geological time scale. Not to speak of businesses.

Re: [Tagging] Elevated housing estate

2020-11-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Nov 2020, at 02:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > It's built right beside a Creek, on a flood-plain (yeah, thanks Council!), so > it's done like that so that the apartments are up away from the water the > next time the Creek floods! AFAIK we do not have a

Re: [Tagging] RFC: vaccination / COVID-19 vaccination centres

2020-11-24 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 24. Nov 2020, at 18:30, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > Following the discussion on how to tag COVID-19 vaccination centres > previously on this list, > I have created a proposal for the vaccination key: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/vaccination

Re: [Tagging] surface=boardwalk? is it duplicate of surface=wood?

2020-11-22 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Nov 2020, at 18:47, Seth Deegan wrote: > > I agree with Dave F. > > It's a duplicate. I also agree with Dave F., it is not a suitable surface value, nor is it a duplicate of “surface= wood” Cheers Martin ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Pumping proposal

2020-11-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 22. Nov 2020, at 02:32, François Lacombe wrote: > > It's true proposed tagging deprecates the current pump=* definition according > to rationale and wishes to use the pump word in a more appropriate way. this would deprecate around 20k pump values describing a pump

Re: [Tagging] surface=rock

2020-11-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Nov 2020, at 23:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Both for exposed natural rock and steps/footways made of rock pieces? rock „pieces“ would be tagged as „stone“ I guess? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] surface=rock

2020-11-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Nov 2020, at 23:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > surface=rock > surface=bare_rock these seem both explicit and ok, although bare rock is a bit redundant and rock alone has 5 times the usage: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surface=rock I

Re: [Tagging] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

2020-11-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 20. Nov. 2020 um 11:28 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > This seems unlikely, with 0 lanes it would mean that cars inside are > blocked > and unable to leave. > that's not the meaning of "lanes", lanes=0 would mean that there are no traffic lanes. (this is what

Re: [Tagging] lanes - is "parking allowed" a parking lane?

2020-11-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Fr., 20. Nov. 2020 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > I would describe https://westnordost.de/misc/2or1lanes.jpg as road > with > - one lane driveable by full-size vehicles > - one parking lane > really? And if vehicles would be parking on both

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

2020-11-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 18. Nov. 2020 um 13:19 Uhr schrieb ael via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:09:40AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > We have tags like source:name and source:outline for more specific > tagging. > yes, every tag could get a source

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

2020-11-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 17. Nov. 2020 um 20:04 Uhr schrieb stevea : > I never said to NOT use source=* tags, they are correctly used on an > individual datum if / as it might diverge from a greater set of data that > otherwise has another source. In short, if ALL of the data are from a > single source, use a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

2020-11-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 17. Nov 2020, at 06:23, stevea wrote: > > to the degree they can be displayed in a narrow column on a web page yes, this is basically broken since the redesign (maybe 2012?), the history view used to provide a clearer overview on the full width, and this is

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Nov 2020, at 08:05, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > [canal areas] > There was never a standard way to tag this before I thought it was waterway=riverbank? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Nov 2020, at 04:05, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Around here, beavers are a significant sculpting force on the landscape. > > (And `man_made=dam` is the best tagging that we have for their water control > structures, which are also often adjusted seasonally) frankly,

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Place of mourning (replacing "Chapel of rest")

2020-11-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 12. Nov 2020, at 21:10, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > You need to explain this on the new proposal page. Note that on > Tag:shop=funeral_directors it says "an event (sometimes with the deceased's > body present) to honor the deceased for mourners are held here in

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-12 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 12. Nov. 2020 um 02:33 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Ok, it looks like enough people feel that a very small artificial water > body, like a decorative pond in a residential garden, shouldn't be tagged > as water=reservoir or water=basin, so we need a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Rideshare Access

2020-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 11. Nov. 2020 um 16:16 Uhr schrieb Ilya Zverev : > My point is that anywhere except UK, “ride-sharing” is the term for Uber, > Lyft, Bolt, and such. While researching, I’ve found road signs and articles > using “Ride Share” or “ride-sharing” in the US, Australia, and Russia. > I am not

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 11. Nov. 2020 um 15:52 Uhr schrieb Seth Deegan : > If one was to establish a rendering difference, they should probably do so > by computing the lake size in the (the area of the way), rather than its > tagging. > the lake size is determined also by its depth Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Mi., 11. Nov. 2020 um 14:22 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano < zelonew...@gmail.com>: > This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. The boundary between a lake and >> a pond may be hard to measure sometimes, but that doesn't mean it is useful. >> >> In what way is this distinction useful? >

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

2020-11-11 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
>From what I understood to me it also seems desirable to distinguish a "lake" from a "pond", although there may be edge cases and no clear cut between both, for many cases it will be clear which one to choose. Maybe most could be solved by depth and surface dimensions, but we are generally missing

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >