Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

Apr 25, 2024, 16:16 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > I also think that such changes also imply corrections to the following > section regarding how importance is to be assessed by mappers: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#Assumptions > > Particularly this sentence: > > "In a

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

Apr 25, 2024, 14:20 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > Considering that requiring local surveys in Antarctica would lead to > an empty map and that assuming that governments are always lying would > prevent us from importing government data > please reread message you are responding to "without

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

Apr 24, 2024, 17:55 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 12:06, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > > Antarctica has no cities, towns and villages. > > McMurdo Station, the largest and most important res

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

Apr 24, 2024, 16:35 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > This will assign very low road classes > across the continent. > I would expect such outcome. Antarctica has no cities, towns and villages. No people live there permanently. It has things like research stations.

Re: [Tagging] The reason to not use loc_name is far too subjective.

Mar 27, 2024, 20:33 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > If it's not on a road sign or in a street gazetteer database then it's almost > certain not to have a name. > maybe in some areas of world, but not everywhere many names are not in either of that

Re: [Tagging] Where should name tags be added on administrative boundaries?

something weird is with your link in some views reposting it: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/where-should-name-tags-be-added-on-administrative-boundaries/110895 Mar 24, 2024, 17:31 by etienne.jul...@gmail.com: > > I’m thinking about expanding the administrative boundaries in my area,

Re: [Tagging] tagging "loose" paving stones

I also would go with surface=paving_stones - and maybe add also smoothness tag, and agree with Fernando Feb 21, 2024, 01:47 by fernando.treb...@gmail.com: > I think they are surface=paving_stones because: > - the stones are very flat on top > - it seems that the objective was to arrange them

Re: [Tagging] Liquidator store tagging

is it selling specific type of products or everything from dried fruits through clothes and mugs to industrial solvents and cars? Dec 17, 2023, 23:03 by jheromemig...@gmail.com: > any idea for which is the best tag for a liquidator store (one that sells > goods from liquidated retailers)? >

Re: [Tagging] shops for display

Nov 22, 2023, 22:05 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 22 Nov 2023, at 18:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> I would consider it more as device than showroom >> > > > can you provide a dictionary de

Re: [Tagging] shops for display

Nov 22, 2023, 17:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Mi., 22. Nov. 2023 um 17:12 Uhr schrieb Anne- Karoline Distel > : > >> >> My case was where you can't enter the premises, it's really just displaying >> goods or even (slightly different) displaying contact details for the >> business which

Re: [Tagging] shops for display

there is also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Doutpost "Shop primarily used to pick-up items ordered online. May have meager supply of products." which was used for shops which has basically no actual supply of products ( or sometimes nothing at all) >From what I heard name of

Re: [Tagging] shops for display

advertising=display_window works much better than shop=display_only (as it is not a shop) though maybe there is value with more immediately clear meaning? Nov 20, 2023, 21:37 by 1998alexk...@gmail.com: > > Sounds like something like "advertising=display_window" or similar would make > more

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

Oct 18, 2023, 09:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > > > On 17/10/23 23:22, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at4:51 AM Warin <>> 61sundow...@gmail.com>> >> >wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote: >>> Presently, it's common

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

Oct 17, 2023, 11:49 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > > > On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> Presently, it's common for route relations to havenames that violate >> "name is only the name" and "name is not ref"and "name is not >> description" rules for name=* tags. >> >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

Sep 10, 2023, 23:37 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 01:25, Niels Elgaard Larsen <> elga...@agol.dk> > > wrote: > >> Volker Schmidt: >> > Be careful: oneway=* is a legal access tag, only valid for vehicles, not >> for pedestrians. >> >> >> We do have a lot of

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

Aug 7, 2023, 02:58 by miketh...@gmail.com: > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 6:39 PM Evan Carroll <> m...@evancarroll.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't to >> mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map >>

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Intentionally omitted name tags

Jul 30, 2023, 19:48 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Le 30.07.23 à 18:52, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit : > >> On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 12:08 PM Marc_marc > > wrote: >> >> did we need to have this thread again and again ? >> >> What do you believe should go into the name

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-GB] Fords and how to provide information to help with routing apps

Jul 4, 2023, 17:05 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 03:14:47PM +0100, Ian Dent wrote: > >> Previously it was tagged as ford=impassable but this isn't a valid value and >> > > On reflection, that doesn't seem such a bad tag. > ford=impassable makes no sense ford is by

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Wave Lounger

Jul 2, 2023, 10:40 by hungerb...@gmail.com: > Am So., 2. Juli 2023 um 10:10 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > >> >> Why not subtag for https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dlounger >> ? >> > > That other tag can be applied to

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Wave Lounger

Why not subtag for  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dlounger ? amenity=lounger lounger=wave amenity=lounger lounger=wave_lounger seems better to me as someone can map lounger without classifying it subtype (and we may have ideas to map more lounger classes in future) And

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

Jun 20, 2023, 06:35 by matkoni...@tutanota.com: > Jun 20, 2023, 01:36 by g...@lexort.com: > >> In English, the adjective for the shop tends to be singular, when that >> adjective is a noun. The plural just sounds funny. For example we have >> "car dealer", "grocery store", "grocery store",

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

Jun 25, 2023, 01:13 by g...@lexort.com: > Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > >> sent from a phone >> >>> On 24 Jun 2023, at 00:29, Minh Nguyen wrote: >>> >>> But if we focus too pedantically on legal status at the expense of >>> common sense, then we've reinvented designation=*, and mappers and

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

Jun 21, 2023, 15:51 by g...@lexort.com: > It is absolutely the wrong thing to say that shop=firearms means "a shop > that sells whatever the local law means by firearms". This is a > general principle in OSM that we define something and then expect > mappers to use the OSM definition, not local

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

Jun 22, 2023, 14:46 by g...@lexort.com: > Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > >> sent from a phone >> >>> On 21 Jun 2023, at 15:52, Greg Troxel wrote: >>> >>> It is absolutely the wrong thing to say that shop=firearms means "a shop >>> that sells whatever the local law means by firearms". This is

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

Jun 20, 2023, 01:36 by g...@lexort.com: > In English, the adjective for the shop tends to be singular, when that > adjective is a noun. The plural just sounds funny. For example we have > "car dealer", "grocery store", "grocery store", "cell phone store", etc. > So I am fine with shop=guns

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

Jun 19, 2023, 23:57 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 at 03:48, Marc_marc <> marc_m...@mailo.com> > wrote: > >> >> > Maybe also create shop=knives page >> >> Does it make sense to create a primary tag for each type of weapon? >> > > Yes it does, as you also have shops that are

[Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

OSM Wiki currently claims that shop=guns should be replaced by shop=weapons https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:shop%3Dweapons Tag:shop=firearms redirects to shop=weapons https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:shop%3Dfirearms=no Tag:shop=gun redirects to

Re: [Tagging] road accident memorials

morate an > accident or suicide. > > > I'm not aware of terribly many use cases for man_made=cross, maybe at > open air church service locations or along stations of the cross. > > > Food for thought, anyway. > > > Anne > > On 11/06/2023 10:29, Mateusz Konie

Re: [Tagging] road accident memorials

I typically tagged such crosses as man_made=cross historic=memorial memorial=cross man_made=cross ? Jun 11, 2023, 02:27 by annekadis...@web.de: > A historic=wayside_cross does not mark the spot; it is not left in a > location where someone is buried or died. It is a way to make sure the > soul

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Extended playground equipment

playground=ride Is it supposed to include also coin operated ones that make noise/lights/movements? https://www.google.pl/maps/@50.054966,19.8545417,3a,15.3y,207.67h,84.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHED2kF0PByYJyi9CYVjXXw!2e0!5s20110801T00!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu caught one re:

Re: [Tagging] Tagging proposal On Wheels app 2 - Changing places and changing table

Is it about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:changing_table for adults? May 22, 2023, 14:20 by ro...@onwheelsapp.com: > >   > > >   > > > Changing places > > >   > > > For the moment there is no tag for a changing place: > > https://www.changing-places.org/ > > > With the On wheels app

Re: [Tagging] roof:shape=pitched imprecise value ?

Apr 24, 2023, 18:43 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 20 Apr 2023, at 22:04, Marc_marc wrote: >> >> is roof:shape=pitched an imprecise value ? >> > > > as you ask about imprecise, what about “round” or “many”? >

Re: [Tagging] openGeoDB* discardable ?

Apr 20, 2023, 22:18 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Le 17.04.23 à 15:43, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : > >> Given how many of them are (<20 000) I think that bot edit >> removing them would be a good idea. >> > > this was also my first idea, but

Re: [Tagging] shop=screenprinting

Apr 21, 2023, 16:19 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Le 21.04.23 à 16:01, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : > >> >> >> >> Apr 21, 2023, 14:31 by marc_m...@mailo.com: >> >> Le 21.04.23 à 14:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : >> >>

Re: [Tagging] shop=screenprinting

Apr 21, 2023, 14:31 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Le 21.04.23 à 14:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : > >> >> >> >> Apr 21, 2023, 01:33 by marc_m...@mailo.com: >> >> On 20/04/2023 19:50, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: >> >&

Re: [Tagging] shop=screenprinting

Apr 21, 2023, 01:33 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > On 20/04/2023 19:50, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: > >> undocumented shop values >> > > I'm using shop=screenprinting > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=screenprinting#overview > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_printing > > a

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

Apr 19, 2023, 22:46 by elga...@agol.dk: > Matija Nalis: > >> Hm, I do, but as it would be rather hard to prove (and such proof is not >> paramount here), lets us just agree that it is how certain amount of >> mappers use it (without trying to quantify it with subjective guesses). >> > > > I

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

Apr 19, 2023, 00:14 by mnalis-openstreetmapl...@voyager.hr: > On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:08:39 +0200, Marc_marc wrote: > >> Le 18.04.23 à 16:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : >> >>> Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive? >>> >>

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

Apr 18, 2023, 17:12 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Le 18.04.23 à 16:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : > >> Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive? >> > > no, some contributors will fill in what they are interested in, > others will fill in everythi

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

Apr 18, 2023, 17:39 by p...@trigpoint.me.uk: > I have come across a few cases where a mapper has has blindly answered no to > a list of octane ratings that do not exist in the country they are mapping in. > > In the UK it is safe to assume every filling station sells Euro 95/E10 and >

[Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

For example amenity=fuel + fuel:octane_80=yes Is it implying that it is sole type of fuel available? Would it be mistake to tag amenity=fuel + fuel:octane_80=yes when also some other fuels are available? It seems to be fine, is it right? Is it possible to mark that fuel station has solely

Re: [Tagging] openGeoDB* discardable ?

Given how many of them are (<20 000) I think that bot edit removing them would be a good idea. I see a point of making tag discardable if there are say 100 000 000 uses of it, but at this volume bot edit seems preferable over slowly removing it over centuries as other edits are being made. Apr

Re: [Tagging] Difference between graffiti and mural

why only "notable"? Apr 15, 2023, 19:17 by dcapil...@gmail.com: > Hi, > > I would like to properly document the use of 'artwork_type=graffiti', a > previously undocumented but widely used tag, to clarify the difference (if > any) between a graffiti and a mural ('artwork_type=mural').[1] > >

Re: [Tagging] Status of clothes=motorcycle

As far as I see they have not provided - either on page or in edit description why it is deprecated or where it was discussed. I reverted it. Thanks for catching it. I am not aware of any deprecation here or of a good reasons for that. This tags may make sense at least for some shops, though I

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - EV Charging Station Mapping

Mar 31, 2023, 01:53 by ajt1...@gmail.com: > On 30/03/2023 18:13, NKA mapper wrote: > >> tor. 30. mar. 2023 kl. 18:14 skrev Andy Townsend <>> >> ajt1...@gmail.com>> >: >> >>> >>> How do I know if an "amenity=charging_station" in theOSM >>> data is a "single charge

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - EV Charging Station Mapping

Mar 30, 2023, 18:14 by ajt1...@gmail.com: > On 30/03/2023 09:25, NKA mapper wrote: > >> The definition of >> amenity >> >> =>> charging_station >> >>  will >> change

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - EV Charging Station Mapping

Mar 30, 2023, 16:11 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Le 30.03.23 à 12:43, Lionel Giard a écrit : > >> we use the same idea for amenity=fuel where it just shows the place where >> there is one or more fuel pump. >> > > in no case did amentiy=fuel designate a pump and then be changed > to designate

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - EV Charging Station Mapping

Mar 30, 2023, 10:50 by marc_m...@mailo.com: > Hello, > > Le 30.03.23 à 10:25, NKA mapper a écrit : > >> The definition of amenity=charging_station will change slightly and will >> represent both locations with a single charge point and locations with a >> group of chargers. A new optional

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Proposed automatic replacements of multiple surface=* and shop=* values (review welcomed!)

Feb 25, 2023, 23:21 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > I'm moving this to tagging. > > Am Sa., 25. Feb. 2023 um 22:04 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk <> > t...@openstreetmap.org> >: > >>> >>> >> Shops selling pierogi are definitely not shop=pasta >> > > > compare these pictures, > > pierogi: >

Re: [Tagging] Combining "locked=yes" with various access tags

Feb 25, 2023, 20:57 by g...@lexort.com: > Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging writes > > >> what worse, even if tagged in say highway=service this gate may >> be not large enough to fit a car >> > > highway=service by definition is enough for cars so if there

Re: [Tagging] Combining "locked=yes" with various access tags

In general I agree but Feb 25, 2023, 19:58 by g...@lexort.com: > I am assuming -- but the wiki is unclear -- that > > access=private, tagged on barrier=gate > > means that all modes of travel have a right of access only with > permission > note that some may not physically fit (even with

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - landcover proposal V2

Feb 21, 2023, 12:30 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > > > On 19/2/23 06:00, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> >> >> >> Feb 17, 2023, 11:03 by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> >>> >>> >>> O

Re: [Tagging] Combining "locked=yes" with various access tags

Feb 24, 2023, 00:43 by g...@lexort.com: > It's a little unclear to me what a "locked=no" gate is. > access=private locked=no would be a gate that anyone can open but they are not allowed to without a permission from owner. Personally I would consider mapping this as quite dubious. >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=trailhead

Feb 24, 2023, 09:25 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > > > On 23/2/23 21:18, Peter Elderson wrote: > >> I would like to change the status of thisestablished tag to >> approved. I have altered the previous >> proposal >> >>

Re: [Tagging] Combining "locked=yes" with various access tags

Feb 21, 2023, 22:05 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > They can also be removed by maintenance workers operating with permission > from the local Council  (I have tagged the access rights of the ways with > "motor_vehicle=permit" > =permit is for cases where permit is routinely granted to all

Re: [Tagging] Combining "locked=yes" with various access tags

Feb 21, 2023, 15:24 by zeev.stad...@gmail.com: > I would like the help of the list to clarify the meaning of having a > "locked=yes" tag on a barrier node together with some allowed access tags. > > The introduction to the "locked" tag wiki page > >

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - landcover proposal V2

Feb 17, 2023, 11:03 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > > > On 16/2/23 21:11, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> >> >> >> Feb 16, 2023, 10:18 by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> >>> landuse=meadow should delet

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - landcover proposal V2

Feb 13, 2023, 20:14 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com: > Hi, > > Le lun. 13 févr. 2023 à 14:11, Andy Townsend <> ajt1...@gmail.com> > a écrit : > >> >> > By the way, I saw some changes leading to x10 contribution rates and >> > be criticized as disrupting longstanding practices or

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - landcover proposal V2

Feb 16, 2023, 10:18 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > landuse=meadow should delete the vegetation in the description leaving > the use ... "Used to tag an area of land used for hay (meadow) or for > grazing animals (pasture)." That would make it clear and possibly reduce > its

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - landcover proposal V2

Or to be more specific solved problems, if any, are much smaller than size of change of longstanding tagging practices. Deprecation of old-style multipolygons was also change of "longstanding tagging practices" but much smaller in scope and with much greater benefits. I listed some obvious

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

Users in Algeria were asked to map motorway surface in tunnels, based on aerial imagery. It become marked as surface=ground, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/490378286/history adding surface to motorways is of so dubious utility that for example StreetComplete is not asking to specify such

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

Feb 2, 2023, 12:09 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > Again sport=soccer implies a rectangular playing field with goals at > either end - that is physical infrastructure. Without the playing field > and goals there cannot be a game of soccer... > > > The sport ping pong implies

Re: [Tagging] foreign names for stuff, was: "Mörthe und Mosel"

Jan 5, 2023, 17:36 by frede...@remote.org: > Hi, > > On 1/5/23 11:00, Anne- Karoline Distel wrote: > >> I personally found old, yet now maybe offensive names on OpenStreetMap very >> useful >> > > Yes, this is something people occasionally quote as a reason for keeping old > street names as

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - yarn shops

Jan 5, 2023, 01:19 by n...@natewessel.com: > > The > Polish(?)wiki page > > for shop=wool does > seem to mention yarn and knitting directly. > > Yes, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pl:Tag:shop%3Dwool is a Polish

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - yarn shops

Jan 3, 2023, 15:16 by n...@natewessel.com: > > shop=wool > ... this > seems like almost exactly what I'm proposing. And is used much > more > frequently > than shop=yarn. > > > And yet for me,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - High seas

(1) In general I agree but I would de-emphasize current issues in specific data consumers ("Areas tagged place=sea without natural=water do not render in major renderers such as OpenMapTiles or the Standard Tile Layer.") which may be trigger for this proposal but is not a good reason for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - yarn shops

What about shops that sell about equal amount of them and as nonspecialist[1] I have no idea which is dominating? Would it be reasonable to use shop=sewing sewing=yarn type of schema? [1] I tried knitting just enough to confirm that it is not a hobby for me, my sewing supplies do not expand

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

This does not apply everywhere, even if applies in some cases. Many trails are minor and their names are not actually names of roads/paths where they lead even if this road/path is nameless. In Poland even for https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C5%82%C3%B3wny_Szlak_Beskidzki it is debatable

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gender

If we have inconsistent tagging of unisex=yes and it is unclear which is its meaning then passing proposal does not really solve it unisex=yes data will still have the same problem in case of such damaged tag[1] it would be better to introduce a new one (though if vast majority is using this

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

That is an irritating case. 1) with you assumptions it is possible to argue that it refers to case where there is a separately mapped sidewalk that nevertheless is inaccessible (some technical/escape route in a tunnel or on motorway?) 2) in practise it is far more likely to be used in case where

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

18 gru 2022, 23:27 od graemefi...@gmail.com: > It would be much nicer to drop the sidewalk=separate from the road, & draw a > separate footway, which would fix everything! > note that sidewalk=separate is used to indicate that separately mapped sidewalk(s) is/are mapped. Not sure why you

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

17 gru 2022, 01:19 od graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 17:55, Marc_marc <> marc_m...@mailo.com> > wrote: > >> Le 16.12.22 à 08:30, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : >> >> > In this case amenity=lifeboat is - I expect -

Re: [Tagging] de facto -Status not working?

Can you link any of pages where it is happening? For example https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:taxi_type seems to work fine with it (though it seems dubious to have tag used 156 times as "de facto") 16 gru 2022, 13:29 od dieterdre...@gmail.com: > It seems that for some reason "de facto"

Re: [Tagging] Homogenize diplomatic tags

15 gru 2022, 20:55 od ajt1...@gmail.com: > > > Deal? > > > No.  > > > You appeared to have ignored the advice that you were given and gone > ahead and performed a mechanical edit anyway. > > (...) > > However - nothing whatsoever about the others.  You didn't bother to > wait for a

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

16 gru 2022, 02:51 od graemefi...@gmail.com: > > On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 10:59, Andy Townsend <> ajt1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> doesn't explain why "amenity=lifeboat" is "deprecated".  Like it or >> not, this is used exactly how you'd expect: >> >> >>

Re: [Tagging] plantation=yes?

10 gru 2022, 19:23 od mark+...@carnildo.com: > On Sat, 10 Dec 2022 18:49:00 +0100 > Florian Lohoff wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 01:10:33PM +, Dave F via Tagging wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > What does plantation=yes represent? >> > Associated with woods, but nothing in the wiki. 2437 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - "is_sidepath" as a sidepath concept

2 gru 2022, 20:50 od m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us: > Vào lúc 08:44 2022-12-02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging đã viết: > >> I have good news! There is preprocessing solution for large (nearly all?) >> simple cases, >> written in Kotlin and is a part of StreetComple

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - "is_sidepath" as a sidepath concept

2 gru 2022, 16:54 od o...@tobias-knerr.de: > On 02.12.22 15:02 Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> Or is it justifiable because it is outright impossible to do reliably >> with automatic preprocessing? >> > > I would say that's the reason. Of course, it's hard to prove that something > is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - "is_sidepath" as a sidepath concept

"or only with the significant effort of using geometric processing (which most applications can't perform)" why doing it manually would be preferable? Is it repeating mistake of adding pointless work for mappers because it "causes extra preprocessing for routing software."? And valuing time

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation

30 lis 2022, 14:02 od dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Mi., 30. Nov. 2022 um 01:10 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> >: > >> >> >> 29 lis 2022, 22:55 od >> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> : >> >&g

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation

29 lis 2022, 22:55 od dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 29 Nov 2022, at 09:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> "no traffic signals" applies also only in some jurisdictions >> > > > If there

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation

29 lis 2022, 00:18 od dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Crossing=zebra is about a zebra crossing, it implies also vertical signs- in > some jurisdictions and some conditions at least - and it implies that there > aren’t traffic signals. > "no traffic signals" applies also only in some jurisdictions

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

Mapping standard location of lifeboat mooring or lifeboat station location seems entirely fine. (I am person who added this claim to wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:building%3Dhouseboat=1931553=1797928 ) 27 lis 2022, 02:03 od graemefi...@gmail.com: > In regard to

Re: [Tagging] species:language to loc_name:language

Not sure how change proposed in the second paragraph solves what you mentioned in the first. It also goes against established meaning of loc_name loc_name:en is for English local name of a tree, not for English name of its species (this is rarely used as local names are rarely in multiple

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

20 lis 2022, 17:06 od dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 20 Nov 2022, at 02:27, Matija Nalis >> wrote: >> >> Because, someone has to do that summarizing work for extra channels to make >> sense, and it is IMHO only fair that would >> be proposal author (expecting that

Re: [Tagging] amentiy=donation_centre?

that is for place giving clothes, not collecting them it does not mean that they collect them (and even with place collecting and giving located at the same place they may have separate opening hours or other detail) Nov 14, 2022, 13:59 by antoniomade...@gmx.com: > It seems good. > It even

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Nov 12, 2022, 14:22 by li...@fuchsschwanzdomain.de: > Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> So >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13012999#map=19/49.12702/10.86422 >> site relation is including nearby restaurant and shop? >> > > Right! > >

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Nov 10, 2022, 21:49 by li...@fuchsschwanzdomain.de: > Yves via Tagging wrote: > >> Site relations are often used to models thing that aren't spatially >> joined, like windfarms, universities... I can easily imagine it's >> reasonable to use them for campings in some corner cases where a

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Nov 10, 2022, 21:21 by li...@fuchsschwanzdomain.de: > Marc_marc wrote: > >> taking one random exemple : >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13012999#map=19/49.12702/10.86422 >> according to the parking name=*, the parking may be include in the >> tourism=site_camp >> > > Yes but this

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

Yes, using site relation in addition to actual object breaks this rule and it is undesirable (and site relations in general are problematic). It would be also problem with type=site site=camp_sites and similar trying to hide duplication. Is there some reason why this camp sites cannot be mapped

Re: [Tagging] Possible merge of marine_rescue & lifeboat_station tags?

I think so? Nov 9, 2022, 07:45 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > Thanks! > > Once again, would =lifeboat_station cover them? > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at 16:38, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > w

Re: [Tagging] Possible merge of marine_rescue & lifeboat_station tags?

; > (Either that, or the previous mapper made a mistake! :-)) > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at 09:37, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> >> >> Nov 9, 2022, 0

Re: [Tagging] Possible merge of marine_rescue & lifeboat_station tags?

Nov 9, 2022, 00:19 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > Looking at some of the "inland" examples shown on OT, I wonder if they should > actually be tagged as a "lifeboat-station" at all, or whether they would be > better shown as a lifeguard base? > MOPR and MOPR Giżycko station specifically for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Street vendors

There are also places with someone operating shop from their truck. They would travel on assigned times through valleys and stop in from of each house. They would sell (at very slight markup) products, allowing people to travel just 50m-200m from their house rather than getting kilometres to

Re: [Tagging] Possible merge of marine_rescue & lifeboat_station tags?

Nov 7, 2022, 23:05 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 20:03, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >>> >>> >> >> What about such stations on freshwater lakes and on rivers? Is &qu

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Street vendors

Nov 7, 2022, 23:43 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 7 Nov 2022, at 20:57, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> >> If we really don't have one already, it might be worth looking at how to map >> stalls in general as I cudl see a lot of similarities. >> > > > I mapped some of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site

Oct 24, 2022, 11:12 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 23 Oct 2022, at 22:15, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> personally it seems to me that it has chance of being a good idea >> > > > which on

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Street vendors

: > As alternative, I would suggest use either > (i) street_vendor=* with values similar to values of the shop=*, for example > amenity=street_vendor & street_vendor=snack; or > (ii) made values of vending=* similar to values if the shop=*.   > > пн, 7 нояб. 2022 г., 13:01 Mateusz

Re: [Tagging] Possible merge of marine_rescue & lifeboat_station tags?

Nov 7, 2022, 00:27 by jm...@gmx.com: > > On 11/6/2022 6:18 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > >> >> I definitely agree that it should be emergency=, ratherthan >> amenity=. I must also admit to a slight personalpreference for >> =marine_rescue :-), but the vast

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Street vendors

My main problem is that this proposals wants to create vending=* equivalent for every single shop value, with values that are in general different. That alone seems to be not worth all benefits that this proposal can bring. Nov 7, 2022, 06:28 by map...@t-online.de: > > Hi all, > > >   > > > I >

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >