On 7/14/2017 8:14 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
but merge sidewalk with the road where the is no space/barier between them.
and that's were the discussion starts. When I asked when one has to
draw a separate sidewalk a few weeks ago on this mailing list someone
answered: as soon as there is a kerb.
On 4/8/2017 10:31 AM, Tristan Anderson wrote:
Where a tram line shares a right-of-way with the street, that is, where
I can drive my car down the tracks, no crossing tag is necessary as the
whole street is one big level crossing. Where it's separate,
railway=level_crossing should be used.
On 4/4/2017 4:42 PM, Jo wrote:
Any suggestions for a tag? Or leave those crossings untagged? It's quite
obvious from the geometry there is a crossing and quite logical that
it's level.
It would be convenient for data consumers to have the crossing
explicitly tagged without having to examine
On 4/4/2017 4:42 PM, Jo wrote:
OK, then we'll take all of them away in Brussels, where I did this
extensively. The problem is that OsmAnd is constantly warning for
railway crossings now, so that is annoying.
That sounds like a data consumer problem - option or never to warn if
crossing is
On 4/4/2017 3:37 PM, Michal Fabík wrote:
I think Albert Pundt was asking about cases like this section of tram
tracks here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/154321049. Should it be
mapped with two level crossings where it intersects with the northbound
lanes of the Friedrichstrasse and the
On 4/4/2017 1:42 PM, Albert Pundt wrote:
For trams/trolleys running along a street, is it necessary to have
railway=level_crossing at every cross street? It seems strange
considering that the entire street is one big level crossing.
That was a question I had also, but looked at some places in
On 12/7/2016 5:48 PM, LeTopographeFou wrote:
Several years after this debate, the wiki page of the approved one
(shop=estate_agent) have been tagged as "to be merged", both shop and
office are documented and here are the statistics:
I would also lean toward office= because it describes the
On 9/18/2016 11:28 AM, Craig Wallace wrote:
use the "note" key
Or the "description" key, if it is something that may be useful for the
end user, ie displaying in an app.
Neither note nor description display when browsing an OSM changeset.
___
On 9/18/2016 1:11 AM, Michael Tsang wrote:
the use of name=* key on a public transport route is considered an abuse
(unless the route has a real name). However, without abusing the name tag, the
life is difficult for both the mapper and the user.
I proceed with the 'abuse'. It's one thing
On 8/4/2016 1:42 AM, Daniel Koć wrote:
but it appears we don't know how should we treat leisure=track: is it a
linear object or maybe kind of area? Infobox in wiki article says one
thing ("lines only"), but the body of this article shows this is not
that easy.
I've done some of this also,
On 8/2/2016 5:39 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
But mapping sidewalks as individual geometries puts considerable burden
on the mappers who want to work with the data in an editor.
I haven't seen individual geometries to be a burden here where I and
another mapper have gravitated from
On 8/2/2016 9:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
legally you can't cross anywhere you like but have to use crossings as long as
they are in proximity. Practically you can cross anywhere you want where
traffic density is not too high.
Conceptually, we need a way for mappers to record the level
On 6/11/2016 12:00 PM, Johan C wrote:
I completely agree with Marc. Using none as a value in case no turn
indication is present is valid, using || isn't. See the values of the
turn:lanes key on this page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn:lanes for reference.
And I just realized
On 6/11/2016 12:00 PM, Johan C wrote:
I completely agree with Marc. Using none as a value in case no turn
indication is present is valid, using || isn't. See the values of the
turn:lanes key on this page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:turn:lanes for reference.
Thanks for the
This is on the way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/316565385
On 6/10/2016 5:18 PM, Rubén López Mendoza wrote:
Hey Mikel,
can you send the exact place where did you find the change?
We are working fixing the invalid turn lanes.
Thanks,
Ruben
2016-06-10 16:00 GMT-05:00 Mike N <n
On 6/11/2015 6:17 PM, David wrote:
Perhaps more emphasis is needed on good manners when editing existing data too.
I believe these are mostly honest mistakes with good intentions. If
someone traces imagery or works a fixup challenge while watching TV,
99.99% of edits might be to verify and
On 5/17/2015 1:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
it looks like since 2010 there is no consensus about how to tag estate agent -
shop vs. office. Quick look at taginfo gives clear information, that
office=estate_agent is much more popular.
you seem to assume that these are about the same
On 5/9/2015 6:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
do you need the membership for access or to buy something?
Membership is required for both access or to buy something ... except
for the Pharmacy.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On 5/7/2015 11:57 AM, Stefan Hahmann wrote:
My current favourite would be either solution 3 (which is easiest to
implement in current routing engines) or solution 1 (for the sake of
actual correct modeling). Maybe there are even more (better?) solutions?
I tend to migrate toward solution 1
On 5/19/2014 3:34 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
For what it is worth, I've attempted to tag the intersections
athttp://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.42584/-122.19230
andhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/37.42432/-122.19177 per the wiki but
don't know if I've done it correctly.
Thanks to the
The only reference to a likely center turn lane tagging I can find is
lanes:both_ways= , with a count of only 605 occurrences. Since there
are over 22000 turn:lanes:forward , is the center turn lane generally
untagged, or is there a better tag than lanes:both_ways?
On 6/16/2014 5:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I think still more people are using phone without the contact: prefix,
(now it is 347k vs. 63k), and this relation will probably not change.
More importantly, to those who actually care about a data consumer
using their POI: I'm not aware of
On 4/10/2014 12:10 PM, Yves wrote:
I guess the problem arises from tagging dead-ends in a geo database.
QA tools should keep there false positives for themself, not in OSM,
don't you think?
Except that I don't use QA tools when editing data. But often as I
create something that ends
On 4/10/2014 10:59 AM, Pieren wrote:
But we don't have problems with the tag on the way ! It's true that
the wiki has to document the best practices but it should not fordid
practices that are not wrong, harmfull, unclear or ambiguous ! I
regret the time when people worked with a more open mind
On 12/3/2013 8:48 AM, André Pirard wrote:
I doubt very much that this tags helps anybody or any quality-check
program to understand anything. A note should suffice, and I think the
best option would be to remove that confusing tag.
It is a signal to quality checking programs such as KeepRight.
On 10/11/2013 7:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
A normal dedicated cycleway doesn't allow you to push your bicycle
because pedestrians aren't allowed there
I'm not familiar with dedicated cycleways - if you have a breakdown
and can't repair, is it required that you walk to the nearest
On 10/10/2013 1:55 PM, Jonathan wrote:
The only way to tag the effect that the sign has is to change the access
tag to exclude bicycles.
What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this
route instead of taking a longer route? Knowing that speed = walking
speed + time to
On 10/10/2013 2:13 PM, fly wrote:
What about hints to the router that it's OK to send cyclists on this
route instead of taking a longer route? Knowing that speed = walking
speed + time to mount/dismount allows it to make a decision when to take
a longer fully rideable route VS dismounting.
On 10/7/2013 12:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there.
If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not riding
a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you.
There are wilderness trails where no wheels are
On 9/18/2013 5:48 AM, Pieren wrote:
An additional WHERE statement can solve issues for the renderers but
they may fail to help other data consumers.
It's been my experience that data consumers don't go deep in general
to untangle tagging chaos. No one goes after that leisure=slipway
On 7/9/2013 5:42 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Because some people like voting. Some people like bureaucracy, and
rules of order, and all that, and so we have one for them.
And some people like the idea that someone might eventually be able to
consume the tags in a useful application.
On 6/11/2013 4:18 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
i'm not sure that flickr links to jpgs are particularly stable, you may
want to consider that in your documentation of a flickr link. flickr links
these days look like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nfgusedautoparts/8596790653/
and while you can
On 4/18/2013 11:22 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
2) Two ways, not sharing nodes
Advantages:
- keep information separate, retain everything about the train line
Disadvantages:
- messy for editing, rendering
I would tend to keep it separate. Ideally, once it is a cycleway, it
is a cycleway, and no
On 11/20/2012 3:43 PM, Johan C wrote:
1. does the tag exit_to=* on a motorway_junction in your opinion have
the same meaning as the tag name=* on that motorway_junction?
No -They are different.
2. if your answer to the first question is no, than what is the difference?
Some motorways in
4. is it clear for you when to use exit_to and when to use
destination?
Yes: Don't use exit_to anymore
Where was everyone a year or 2 ago when exit_to came into being?
Count| Tag
22 516 |exit_to
On 11/18/2012 3:59 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
Thats the point I am making, the
On 8/10/2012 11:33 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
the problem is that there are many data consumers. we don't have control
over the schedule/responsiveness of their supporters (nor should we).
for any incompatible change like this one, there will be a period where a
non-trivial number of data
On 8/1/2012 2:51 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Bing I think provided the imagery, but I don't think we really got much
mappers through bing. Apart from the news we got due to that in the
press, I don't even believe many bing users REALIZE that they use an
open project where they could contribute.
On 4/26/2012 8:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Can we use the taginfo stats to revert the change made the 2nd may
2010 where phone has been replaced by contact:phone and add a big
deprecate notice on the contact: namespace wiki ? (overall, we
still have 10 times more phone than
On 2/20/2012 10:53 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Would it be reasonable to map custom personal mailboxes that are
essentially public art (e.g. in the shape of a manatee)? Or is this
going a bit too far?
I would say that it depends - if the mailbox is truly custom, and not
just a mass produced
On 1/30/2012 1:14 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
The question is how far we go. Should every Main Street be translated
into hundreds of languages?
Well, for Orange County FL, one could make the case that it serves
tourists, since many visitors come from around the world.
But the question of
On 12/29/2011 12:53 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
i saw some failures of a script run over
Nevada Iowa last year (not necessarily the script you're referring to):
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.02091lon=-93.44698zoom=15layers=M
the script had converted E Ave to East Avenue, N Ave to North
On 11/27/2011 11:19 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
I am not aware of any
that sell cake only, and not other kinds of dessert.
http://www.chocomoosebakery.com/ is probably very close: cake plus one
or two additional items.
Instead of shop=pastry, I would say shop=bakery bakery=pastry, because
then
On 8/27/2011 3:09 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
Skip the name for a bus stop. If rendered it would create clutter.
I'd say the opposite; the stop name is very useful to anyone using
the Public Transport JOSM plugin to check and organize stops so that
stops can be recognized, rather than just
On 8/27/2011 8:43 PM, Josh Doe wrote:
The only caution to assigning a name is that GTFS discourages making up
names for stops that haven't been given formal names.
Where can I find this recommendation? All I see in the spec is:
stop_name - Required. The stop_name field contains the name of
On 8/9/2011 10:44 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
Relations make the map hard to work with.
Agree - one of the barriers to entry by new mappers is the complexity.
We need to do everything possible to keep it simple and usable. And
not just by creating ever-more-complex models and updating
On 8/7/2011 4:17 PM, Gioele Barabucci wrote:
I found some instances of driveway leading to a parking lot and
similar sentences. Is is OK, from a linguistic point of view, to
identify these roads as driveways?
I agree that having the parking lot entrance tagged as parking_aisle
is not quite
On 7/4/2011 12:14 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
OK, I think we have provided ample arguments for both sides. Only
three of us have debated this point in the last few hours and I'd
really like to hear other people's thoughts on this so that we can
gauge if there's a consensus for whatever.
I
On 6/29/2011 8:46 AM, SomeoneElse wrote:
That's irrelevant; you're still changing data across the planet.
I don't see these edits as out of line or unusual. It's not so
different from the dozens of other projects to create more unified tags
so that data consumers have a chance of using
On 6/29/2011 9:31 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
On 29/06/2011 14:19, Mike N wrote:
I don't see these edits as out of line or unusual. It's not so
different from the dozens of other projects to create more unified
tags so that data consumers have a chance of using the right tag.
I suspect
On 5/12/2011 4:52 PM, Flaimo wrote:
the numbers you list are like that because, as i mentioned before,
most use the presets for tagging. if the presets would be changed to
use the contact: prefix, the situation would be exactly the contrary
in two years. so we should list advantages and
On 4/26/2011 8:06 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
for reference purposes, this changed sometime last summer, so
Dominik used to be right.
The xx mph format has been there ever since I remember (2009).
There was a mini edit war with someone trying to deprecate the xx mph
format and make all
On 4/8/2011 4:05 PM, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
What you refer to as gym sounds like what I'd call a health club or
fitness club. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_club Is it supposed
to be tagged as sports centre? The wiki description makes me think a
sports centre is a pretty large structure,
On 3/21/2011 3:50 PM, Chris Hill wrote:
There are, never have been and probably never will be official tags.
Anyone can use any tag at any time for any purpose. It follows that
there are no unofficial tags either.
No disagreement, but the motivation for at least some measure of
agreement on a
2) Post to the talk list asking for feedback/discussion
3) About 2 weeks after the last discussion/modifications to the
proposal you post a vote request to both the tagging and the talk
lists
It would be nice to have a list that map data consumers could subscribe
to that we could poll to
I don't know if it's legal to park here and walk around the gate into
the park, but assume for the sake of argument that it is. How do we
tell the router to instead use the main entrance to the south?
In this case, the way in the photo can be properly tagged as a
service/driveway and /or
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/entrance
That however doesn't help in a case where a public road cuts through
the park. How do we indicate that a specific entrance road is the
correct one to use to enter the park by car if you want to spend time
walking in the park?
please no new highway, path/footway is already a very controversial tag.
Yes, and it could become a little clearer when there is different tags
for a 3 m wide and paved path and a 0.3 m wide and unpaved and
unmaintained path. We have x road classes and just one for ways that
are not roads
(By the way, nobody seems to have brought up the existence of frozen
yogurt places and whether these fit into the new tag.)
Or Smoothie / Fruit Smoothie -only places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothie
___
Tagging mailing list
Why changing an old and widely used amenity=restaurant+cuisine ?
+1
Although I agree that the current amenity=restaurant, fast_food...etc.
is a bit awkward, it is nearly unthinkable that it should be changed because
of the number of people who are already using and rendering the data.
When tagging a street name and it seems that the street signs are
incorrect - all businesses on that street use the alternate spelling as
their street address - which name to use?
Using the 'Correct name is confusing when navigating to the street
because the street sign won't exactly match
Aren't relations easily editable? But wait, you wouldn't actually have
to edit it! The first mapper to create the way or to add a house
number would create the relation, which, admittedly, may be a slightly
harder task
In JOSM with the address interpolation plugin, the associated street
amenity=bench
http://web.orange.co.uk/article/quirkies/New_benches_are_a_pain_in_the
New tag attributes
toll=yes
spikes=yes
to go with -
color=
material=
backrest=yes/no
seats=
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
But it's not effectively the same thing. If it were, sharrows
wouldn't have ever been invented.
Now, Steve (and Mike), what's wrong (if anything) with
bicycle=designated; sharrow=yes?
Considering -
bicycle=yes - not useful; generally implied bicycle=yes can be derived
from type of
There are a number of local streets being converted from 4-lane to 2 lanes +
center turn + sharrows.
http://bikehugger.com/2006/12/whats-a-sharrow.html
What is the best way to tag these - they were discussed briefly in the
recent shoulder, etc thread, but I can't find any consensus. I
It is not a separate cul-de-sac; it is just considered part of the same
street.
I would run a way to the center of the radius, add the turning circle, and
give it the same tags as the street. Although that segment is very short,
it reflects the street layout.
I don't understand this argument. Doesn't every tag change anywhere break
every editor/renderer/search/data user whether or not you think it is
correct?
John has just as much right to go change all the amenity= tags to something
more specific as you do to keep them the same. Data consumers
I'm confused because I was thinking that tags on Map_Features page
were all approved tags..
Sometimes even approved tags are not useful. I tagged a large number of
approved contact:phone= , but found that OSM map data consumers I looked at
all used the *disapproved* tag phone=. Tagwatch
On 24 June 2010 21:43, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
Does yard have the wrong connotations in the US?
Residential garden?
Yes, there is the residential lawn context, but Lumber yard is common,
but that's the only retail-related usage I can think of off the top of my
head.
so should a reference route designation that isn't on a sign go in a ref
tag or not? the wiki doesn't
discuss this. if ref shouldn't have this, perhaps a variant on ref is
needed?
I would say no - because the ref tag can generate route shields. I would
be very confused if the county road
Personally, I find the graphics a bit 'in your face' but the panning
zooming is still good. When extras are added to online maps I find the
slipperiness is compromised.
Could you elaborate on the compromised slipperiness part? For me, in
Firefox, the zoom control doesn't work, but I hope
I'm not advocating using the directory instead of amenity=cafe or
amenity=fuel or whatever. But in the long term, the ideal solution
would probably be to allow that directory type information to be
maintained separately, in a more convenient form than a 2D map.
Particularly since while
Instead: Would it be more effective to store POI's in an open
directory (i.e. indexed by address), rather than in the OSM database
(i.e. indexed by lat/long)?
I think it's an interesting question.
I'm not convinced. The original argument was that it is easier to
update when the
As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it
the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then
extra preprossesing in osm2pgsql to assign a shield based on admin
polygons + info from the lookup table
What is the advantage in separating the
No. openstreetmap.org is not intended to become the better Google
Maps. openstreetmap.org is a showcase for what you can do with our
data. It cannot, and will not, host every map that someone could
possibly want made from our data.
Our data is there for the taking - you want OpenShopMap,
The rendering rules doesn't matter a lot in this regard. It only
displays a cycleway with a certain color, thickness and such - so it can
be recognized as a cycleway. What the mapper wants to describe with
highway=cycleway and what a map user understands out of this is
basically out of the
chaos (was: Re: Government buildings)
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
The tagging reference procedure is definitely grown beyond easy usage.An
interactive tagging reference resource like the John Smith's demo site from a
short time ago is on the top of my
- bicycle=no - you are not allowed to ride a bike
- bicycle=prohibited - the presence of bikes is not allowed
- bicycle=folded_only - you can have a folded bike
I would hope this covers most cases.
There is the odd case of fragile and protected nature trails which connect
2
On Saturday 21 November 2009 16:24:23 Anthony wrote:
I don't understand what was meant by These are also role=access in
the relation. What relation?
A relation of type=site probably.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site
It would be good to update the Wiki for
You seem a bit unclear. Do you mean name as in name=The Cyril Smith
Roundabout or highway=trunk etc?
I was referring to whether the name= tag is required. Thanks for the
answers, the consensus is that it is not required for roundabouts with no
name.
If the former, not all have a
Not sure. It's a guess. Changing the highway category to road might
disable the check in KeepRight.
highway=road is like leaving an implied FIXME=yes tag, according to the
wiki. I'd prefer the nonname=yes workaround, if any. I mentioned
KeepRight, but it turns out that KeepRight and the
I believe there are many uses for an extension of the address interpolation
concept to data and surveys of less than 100% accuracy.
- Survey of streets of new construction where the endpoints are known, but
not all houses are yet present.
- Survey of streets of new construction where the
TIGER obfuscates the data by declaring the entire numbering range of a
zone: for example a 400 block / Even containing houses 404 through 420
would be declared as range Even / 400-498 in TIGER. For navigation
purposes, that gets you to within one block of an address.
Maybe they do it for
82 matches
Mail list logo
