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

2020-09-02 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 4:52 AM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) < robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 21:33, Mike Thompson wrote: > > In specifying access constraints for the roads it manages, the US Forest > service makes a distinction between ATVs

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

2020-09-02 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 6:03 PM brad wrote: > For your example, I would just tag it as motor_vehicle=yes.From what > I've seen, If OHV's >50" are legal, pretty much any motor vehicle is > legal. > Actually, I think I have found some examples in the MVUM (motor vehicle use map) file from the

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

2020-09-01 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:46 PM Kevin Broderick wrote: > More likely than prohibiting bikes, the USFS could allow > non-street-registered OHVs over 50" on a trail, but keep it closed to > normal street-registered vehicles; > Not sure if I have ever seen that, but we would still need a way of

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

2020-09-01 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:28 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 1. Sep 2020, at 22:33, Mike Thompson wrote: > > > > OHVs > 50 > > > is there also an upper limit? No legal upper limit that I am aware of. In practicality, the

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

2020-09-01 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 2:47 PM John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I would say that is a “motor_vehecle” > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motor_vehicle > Sure, it is a motor_vehicle, but it is just a subset of motor vehicles, so I don't think that tag would be

[Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

2020-09-01 Thread Mike Thompson
In specifying access constraints for the roads it manages, the US Forest service makes a distinction between ATVs, highway vehicles, and "OHVs > 50"." The first two categories correspond to the tags motorcar=* and atv=* I think, but I have not been able to find an existing tag that corresponds to

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-05 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:59 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > My reading of the wiki [1] indicates that the more specific tag overrides > the less specific tag. > So, access=yes foot=yes would then be redundant. I don't have an example, but I have seen that too. > And the transport mode section [2] of

[Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-05 Thread Mike Thompson
Hello, If: access=no foot=yes Does this mean that all access except foot travel is prohibited, or is it an error? If: access=yes bicycle=no Does this mean that all access except bicycle travel is allowed, or is an error? Here is one example of the first case:

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:38 PM brad wrote: > > > > I'm in central Colorado, & around here, I agree, tracktype is not > useful, the tracks here are mostly solid, grade 2 or 3, but could be a > high clearance, or 4wd road due to rocks and ledges. > However, smoothness could, and should be

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:07 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:56 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > >> On 7/27/20 1:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but maybe still correct >> >> if it is leading to only vacation huts) >> >> these

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

2020-07-23 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:34 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > > ...but then your horse is a passenger in a vehicle. Otherwise that would > be like saying a human can't ride in a vehicle if foot=no. Exactly, foot=no doesn't mean that feet are not allowed, it means that using a mode of transportation

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

2020-07-23 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:36 PM Jmapb wrote: > As I see it, having bicycle=no imply permission to push a dismounted bicycle violates the principle of least surprise because it's inconsistent with other *=no access tags. I wouldn't presume I could push my car along a motor_vehicle=no way, or

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

2020-07-23 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:31 AM Alan Mackie wrote: > > Do we have any tagging for areas where e.g. open alcohol containers are prohibited, where firearms are specially prohibited* or disallows possession of a recording device or camera? A separate 'specific item banned' tag is starting to sound

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

2020-07-22 Thread Mike Thompson
bicycle_possession=no similar pattern could be used for other prohibited items (vs. mode of transportation), e.g. alcohol_posession=no firearm_possession=no On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:34 PM Mark Wagner wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:29:17 +0200 > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > And we would

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-12 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 4:18 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > Disambiguation. US:FS:Hood and US:FS:Ozark are two different national forest service networks with entirely different numbering schemes. Plus network=CA by itself would be Canada, not California, which is US:CA... Paul, do you have a list

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-12 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 4:08 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > > Well, recreational routes and networks simply are not that organized, and jurisdiction or authority doesn't apply to most of them. I guess that is why the values are more generic. In the US a significant percentage of the trails are

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-12 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 4:53 PM Robert Skedgell wrote: > > > Starting with UK presents another problem for consistency, as it's not > an ISO 3166-1-alpha-2 country code, just the abbreviated name of the > country. My mistake, should have been "GB" ___

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-12 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:49 AM Robert Skedgell wrote: > > The very short NCN route 425 in south-east London is network=ncn because > it's a Sustrans route. THe scope of the route is very local, but the > scope of the network is national. Without the network tag, how would a > renderer or

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-12 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 9:53 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > Aren't Interstate and US evident from the geographic extent as well? > Yes, that is my point, or at least it is evident with the current mapping practice. Road routes are not tagged (at least not according to the wiki) with

[Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-12 Thread Mike Thompson
Hello, According to the wiki[0], it seems that the network tag has different meanings and possible values based upon if it is applied to a route relation where route=road vs. route=bicycle/mtb/foot/etc. If I am understanding this correctly, when route=road, network= the specific network that the

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

2020-06-26 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:15 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > sent from a phone > > On 26. Jun 2020, at 15:59, Mike Thompson wrote: > > > > Trees have been there sometime by the looks of them, and are unlikely to > be cleared. To the FS this track no lon

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

2020-06-26 Thread Mike Thompson
Thanks for all of the great suggestions. I have used many of them. This is the way in question: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/819638979 Trees have been there sometime by the looks of them, and are unlikely to be cleared. To the FS this track no longer exists (they have blocked its only

[Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

2020-06-25 Thread Mike Thompson
Hello, How would you recommend tagging a path or track that has many fallen trees across it? There are too many to map each one with a node tagged barrier=log. Foot travel is legal, but physically difficult. Horse and bicycle travel are legal but probably physically impossible. Motorized

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

2020-06-23 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > when I write „protected area“, this often will have implications like you may not construct buildings, you may not walk off roads and paths, you may not pick plants (e.g. flowers) and mushrooms, log trees, hunt, light a fire, etc.,

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

2020-06-23 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:40 AM Rob Savoye wrote: > > > The rural area I live in is full of old mining claims, which are > private property surrounded by public land. Interesting. I had always assumed that the land that a mining claim covered continued to be owned by the Federal Government,

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

2020-06-23 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:21 AM Adam Franco wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:40 AM Rob Savoye wrote: >> >> [...] While I do use parcel maps on fire calls, adding all these boundaries to OSM would be silly. I agree that mapping the outer boundary is all that's needed. > > > My main use of

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-10 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 5:53 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > here in Oz, "tracks" are almost always unpaved (grass or dirt / rock surface) & I think that is true in the US as well, but not everything that is wide enough, and otherwise suited, for a 2-track vehicle and is unpaved is a

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-10 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:26 AM António Madeira wrote: > If a motor vehicle can and uses the way, it's a track. When you say "can use" do you mean both legally and physically, or only physically?. If legally, do you mean just the general public? As someone pointed out, law enforcement has

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-09 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:13 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and their values to make a decision if a “path” or “footway” might be what I want to render. This is ridiculous. It is neither easy for the mapper nor the renderer. > > On the

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-09 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM brad wrote: > A track does have a different function, it can handle a 2 track vehicle, a > path can't. > Yes, a "track" has a different function, its function is for agriculture or forestry. A wide path on the other hand has the same function as a narrow path. >

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-09 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:55 PM brad wrote: > > It already says this: > "Some highway=track are used for various leisure activities - hiking, cycling, or as jeep/ATV trails. " > on the track wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack Right, there is nothing that says that a

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-09 Thread Mike Thompson
t's usable by motor vehicle width= + smoothness=very_bad/bad/intermediate/good/excellent On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson wrote: > >> I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that >> are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on: >>

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-09 Thread Mike Thompson
OnTue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:03 AM brad wrote: > > I think if it's wide enough for a normal motor vehicle and is open for that, even if only service & emergency, it should not be =path. track or service in an emergency, almost everything is open to some authority using vehicles of some sort. Even

[Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

2020-06-09 Thread Mike Thompson
I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574 These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot, bicycle or horseback. One will occasionally see a park

Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

2020-05-29 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:33 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > I see someone has left a changeset comment, that's the right thing to do, Thanks Andrew. I think two of us have left comments now. If you have a different or better way of explaining it, please leave a comment yourself. On another change

Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

2020-05-29 Thread Mike Thompson
still adding features. chachafish has a history of commenting on > changesets so I would expect you'll get a reply. > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 3:11 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > >> I know we just had a similar discussion, but I am discovering more and >> more cases where mapper

[Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

2020-05-29 Thread Mike Thompson
I know we just had a similar discussion, but I am discovering more and more cases where mappers have changed every dirt road they can find to "highway=track". For example, it looks like all of the dirt roads in the area of this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17051445 have been changed to

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-21 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:52 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I guess the “if the driveway is too long, make a part of it service”-rule is actually there to help data consumers (if it’s very long it might be worth showing it earlier, assuming you hide driveways earlier than service roads). Isn't

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-21 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:36 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > > Would you also say then that a way tagged as highway=path/footway/cycleway, width=4 would be an error? > > No. Here in Portland, Oregon, most of the "multi-use paths" (mainly cycleways, but also used by pedestrians and sometimes

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-21 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:49 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as a pedestrian road, > > with varied opinions. > Would you also say then that a way tagged as highway=path/footway/cycleway,

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-21 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:15 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Please use full tagging and don't create implicit values after the fact. > We do have the width or est_width tags,tets use them, where they are needed. I agree! For the way in question, I tagged its width (as well as smoothness, max_speed,

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-21 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:35 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > > May 21, 2020, 19:20 by miketh...@gmail.com: > > So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some similar value)? > > Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-21 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:24 AM brad wrote: > > I don't agree with calling a 2 track/road a path and I don't think that common usage, or the wiki says this either. It is not really "2 track" as its surface is uniformly graded and covered with gravel from side to side (there are not separate ruts

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-21 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:11 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There are no tags on the way to suggest it is not a 'track'. > > Motor vehicles are not excluded in anyway, for example 'motor_vehicle=private, comment=Recreational use, motor vehicles for maintenance only' While it is not

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-20 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:09 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > > However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or > > footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a p

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-20 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or > footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a police car or > emergency vehicle can fit, generally these are still mapped as >

[Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

2020-05-20 Thread Mike Thompson
Hello, Just because a trail is wide enough to accommodate a four wheeled vehicle does that make it highway=track if it was constructed for, and its primary and intended use is for, recreation and not for forestry or agriculture access? Mike ___

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-02 Thread Mike Thompson
All, Thanks for the suggestions and discussion. I have implemented Martin's suggestion: foot=no foot:conditional = yes @ running Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-02 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 1:02 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > > How is this access preference indicated? There are signs that say something like "No Hiking, ... Mtn Bikes, Horses, and Trail Runners Only" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-01 Thread Mike Thompson
Thanks Martin! On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 5:49 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Another idea could be to introduce “running” as a new state of foot, e.g. > foot=no > foot:conditional =yes @ running That makes sense to me. I will wait and see if anyone has any objections or better ideas, and if not,

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-01 Thread Mike Thompson
Thanks Jason, On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 4:37 PM Jmapb wrote: > > minspeed:foot? A value of around 6 or 7 (default unit is km/hour) should > separate the fast walkers from the joggers. Of course it's anyone's > guess if there would ever be any software support for this key. Interesting idea. > >

[Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

2020-05-01 Thread Mike Thompson
Hello, We have a trail [0] around here where walking/hiking is not allowed, but running is. Currently it is tagged foot=yes, which doesn't give the full story. In case you are wondering how such a situation could come about, it is because the land manager wants faster traffic (trail runners,

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

2020-05-01 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 9:26 AM Philip Barnes wrote: > > I agree with AEL, people who live in there tend to take that into > account when they buy vehicles and tend to own 4x4s. These are all roads which a normal car can navigate. Not everyone that lives in these areas drives a 4x4.

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

2020-04-30 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > In the rural southern Arizona community where my parents retired the only > real way to tell the difference between a track and a service+driveway+upaved > is whether you end up at a house in a reasonable amount of distance. In all of the

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

2020-04-30 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 2:45 PM Greg Troxel wrote: > Not really germane to driveways, but a major distinction, at least > around me (ma.us) is that > > a road is a legal thing, with its own parcel > > a track is an agricultural road, or old time logging road, within a > parcel Here in

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

2020-04-30 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 1:28 PM ael wrote: > I would not be comfortable tagging very rough tracks as anything but a track: > if it requires a 4 wheel drive or agricultural vehicle to negotiate. > I think a "road" normally implies navigation with a standard vehicle is > possible. In general that

[Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

2020-04-30 Thread Mike Thompson
Hello, I have always been under the impression that the highway tag should be based off of function. Recently I have come across a number of cases where driveways and residential roads were tagged "highway=track" (perhaps because they are unpaved?), e.g. [0]. Before I change these, I wanted to

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 171 Path for all

2020-02-01 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:49 AM St Niklaas wrote: > Hi All, > > > > IMHO it is never a well taken decision to tag a path / bridleway for > walking or pedestrians at the same time. Ill shut up when walking a path > and Equestrians have been using the same trail or path, a horseshoe tends > to

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

2020-01-27 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:32 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:16 PM Mike Thompson wrote: >> >> >> Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a c

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

2020-01-27 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and access, calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are clearly purpose built for a specific mode and

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

2020-01-27 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:53 AM Tod Fitch wrote: > But having values of footway, path, cycleway and bridal way allow a short hand that allows the map users (and renderers) to use a set of assumptions about the way. And it allows mappers to quickly categorize the way. I personally would find it

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

2020-01-27 Thread Mike Thompson
>> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use >> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add >> access keys for any other permitted traffic.___ I have never understood the use of tags like "cycleway",

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

2019-11-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:50 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > It's a trail just for firefighting and rescue to access, but closed to all others, correct? That is not correct. There is no legal restriction on its use for foot travel. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

2019-11-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:37 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > > I just added my thoughts to the changeset comment. Thanks for commenting. > Generally an "official" (I use the term loosely) trail will be signposted Agree. It will also show up on official park maps, and possibly in official park GIS

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

2019-11-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > In the second case: is fire trail illegal No, there are no signs on or near the trail indicating this. Nor are there any signs in the park that going off official trails is illegal (there are a few restricted areas elsewhere in the

[Tagging] Changeset 62867521

2019-11-07 Thread Mike Thompson
Hello, User dvdhns are having a friendly discussion regarding this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62867521#map=16/40.3021/-105.6436 They have some good reasons for adding "(off trail)" to the end of the name to the "Fire Trail", but I don't think they override the rule that

[Tagging] Elevation in Feet as part of Peak Names

2017-09-07 Thread Mike Thompson
User Raymo853 and I are having a friendly discussion on changeset 50470413[1]. He has been adding the elevation of mountain peaks (in feet) to the name tag. For example, he changed "Crown Point" to "Crown Point 11,463 ft."[2] While the wiki doesn't specifically address the issue of elevation as

Re: [Tagging] siphon underpass

2017-06-08 Thread Mike Thompson
Not all siphons are not entirely tunnels or culverts: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/329482560 is a siphon, but it still crosses over, not under, US34 and the Big Thompson River. The purpose of the siphon in this case is reduce the length and height of the bridge necessary to support the

Re: [Tagging] Orientation of an adit?

2017-03-10 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Zecke <zecke@historic.place> wrote: > Am 10.03.2017 20:04, schrieb Mike Thompson: > > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> I can just now hear, nevertheles

Re: [Tagging] Orientation of an adit?

2017-03-10 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I can just now hear, nevertheless, a chorus asserting that the information > is available by other means and therefore does not belong in OSM. An adit > or a cave entrance (that isn't a sinkhole) pretty much has

Re: [Tagging] Mapping time zones as geometries (relations)

2017-03-06 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > It seems that having a 'group' relation for all the administrative regions > that use a given timezone would be useful. The timezone data itself, of > course, belongs separate, but the group relation would, to

Re: [Tagging] Dead hedge

2017-02-13 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > How do you map a dead hedge? > barrier=hedge condition=dead ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power pole extension

2017-02-12 Thread Mike Thompson
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 13-Feb-17 10:25 AM, Tristan Anderson wrote: > > If two-phase power isn't currently in use anywhere, it simply means we > won't see any instances of the tag phases=2, just like how we'll never see > phases=17. It doesn't

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power pole extension

2017-02-12 Thread Mike Thompson
Jherome, Thanks for your work on this. I will study this more, but one thing that jumped out is that in one of your examples you stated "phase=2." Having spent some time in the electrical industry (in the U.S.) my understanding is there is no such thing as "2 phase", only single phase and three

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

2017-02-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 09-Feb-17 10:48 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > Along with landuse=farmland and farmland=feedlot, how about produce=beef? > That sidesteps the issue of steer vs bull, etc. > > > Beef .. could be taken as the end product

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

2017-02-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > Along with landuse=farmland and farmland=feedlot, how about produce=beef? > That sidesteps the issue of steer vs bull, etc. > Feedlots are just one part of the beef (the meat from the cattle) production process, and

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

2017-02-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 09-Feb-17 07:39 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > landuse=farmland > > farmland=feedlot > > produce=cattle (or whatever) + 1 > > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list >

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

2017-02-07 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Viking wrote: > @Mike > 1) Ok, cow is the female only: then bovine would be better? Cattle in > English is a term used for bovines only or for other species too? > "cattle" is the correct term[1]. I was mistaken in my original email, "bovine" is

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

2017-02-07 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Viking wrote: > Animal_breeding was discussed and voted here [1] > Nevertheless, in my opinion, it is not appropriate in this application because the purpose of a feedlot is not to breed the animals, but rather to fatten them for market.

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

2017-02-07 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Viking wrote: > Hi. > To be consistent with the approved and already used tags > amenity=animal_breeding [1], amenity=animal_shelter [2] and > amenity=animal_boarding [3], what do you think about: > > amenity=animal_breeding >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - snow removal station

2017-01-31 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Joachim wrote: > Lorry drivers are usually required to remove ice and snow from their > vehicles. as they pose a safety hazard when falling on the ground. In > order to allow drivers to reach the roof, structures (e.g. made of >

Re: [Tagging] Representing "altimetric quotas" in OSM

2017-01-17 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Nelson A. de Oliveira <nao...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > What about just a "ele" tag? > > "ele" without any other attribute is valid?

Re: [Tagging] Representing "altimetric quotas" in OSM

2017-01-17 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > I really don't know if the proper term is "altimetric quota" in English, > sorry. > > What we have are some places where the elevation at some points were > measured. It's similar to man_made=survey_point but

[Tagging] Hot to tag a mortgage broker

2016-08-06 Thread Mike Thompson
What is the recommended way to tag a "mortgage broker", e.g. [1]. These are businesses where one can get a loan to buy a home, but they are not banks. Mike [1] https://www.southerntrust.com/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+ import)

2016-08-02 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Meg Drouhard wrote: > Hello, > > Our team is proposing a standardization of sidewalk tagging conventions in > OSM to simplify pedestrian network annotations and better represent the > physical reality of sidewalk ways. This proposal is

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

2016-05-10 Thread Mike Thompson
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Elliott Plack wrote: > Thanks for the continued discussion. It seems that one of you removed the > offending landuse that I mentioned in my email yesterday (from an import > that was not attributed). As a result, the tiles have begun to

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

2016-03-22 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Daniel Koć wrote: > > > > > Still I think "international airport" in the name hints us something and > is worth using this way or another to indicate importance. > International/domestic/local fares are rather useful and popular > description of

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

2016-03-20 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:47 AM, joost schouppe wrote: > Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the > building=yes tag? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building? > My feeling is that individual buildings should be mapped. Mike

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

2016-03-19 Thread Mike Thompson
Here is an example of what I feel should be discouraged: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/404484020 (given that this is part of a HOT project, it is likely to be corrected/improved soon) In this case the individual buildings are clearly visible, and there is non-building space between them.

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

2016-03-19 Thread Mike Thompson
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > In an ideal world I would agree, but we don't live in one and in some > cases such as medieval building layout it can be incredibly difficult to > work out what roofline belongs to which building. > Yes, it is often

Re: [Tagging] Defining tag 'natural=wood' ...

2016-01-31 Thread Mike Thompson
landuse and landcover are two different things, and I submit they should be mapped as such. One indicates how the land is being used, and the other what covers it. Obviously they are related, but they are not the same. In regards to "landcover" it should not matter whether the trees were planted

Re: [Tagging] Marking climbing proposal as "in use"

2016-01-29 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org> wrote: > Anders Fougner wrote on 2016/01/29 10:06: > >> Den 29.01.2016 02.21, skrev Mike Thompson: >> >>> What one person may aid, another may free (I am using "free climbing" in

Re: [Tagging] Marking climbing proposal as "in use"

2016-01-28 Thread Mike Thompson
I am not opposed as I think it is a good starting point, but I have these comments: "Crags" are only small areas My understanding from 15 years in this activity is that a "crag" is a small area as explained here [1]. At least in the US, no one would refer to El Cap [2] as a "crag" yet it is

Re: [Tagging] Marking climbing proposal as "in use"

2016-01-28 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org> wrote: > >> Mike Thompson wrote on 2016/01/28 17:49: > > Climbing areas, including crags, are hierarchical in organization and > suitable for representation as a relation > > Interesting idea,

Re: [Tagging] Tagging scrapyards, junkyards

2016-01-22 Thread Mike Thompson
In the parts of the US where I have lived (Midwest, West) these would be called "Auto Salvage" if they mainly dealt with vehicles, although "junkyard" is used colloquially. However, to be consistent, we should use the British English term to be consistent. Mike On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:06 AM,

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

2016-01-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > FWIW, for most usages of these ele values it doesn't really matter if a > value is 20 meters more or less, they are used to get a rough idea, not to > be used in calculations where a meter more or less is

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

2016-01-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: > > Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> > wrote: > >> > >> How did

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

2016-01-08 Thread Mike Thompson
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > > > How did all the elevation data get into OSM in the first place? > The elevations of peaks in the US came from the GNIS import. In turn the GNIS elevations came from the National Elevation Dataset (NED) [1], and it

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

2016-01-07 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > Cliffs are never truly vertical. A bird's eye view from above will show > that. If they are steep enough they could be modelled as a line, but in > general we should allow for a polygon, with a high side and a low side.

Re: [Tagging] Elevation and height on vertical features

2016-01-07 Thread Mike Thompson
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Grasping at straws .. the elevation of a mountain is given as its peak. If > there is consistency within the map then the elevation of all objects > should be their maximum height. > Sort of. By convention (in general

  1   2   >