On 04/07/2015 21:57, Mike Thompson wrote:
Is it really necessary for a way that is tagged waterway=stream to also
be tagged oneway=1? Isn't this implied?
The oneway tag doesn't indicate the flow direction but is a restriction
that applies to boat or ship traffic on the waterway. Thus if it is
I'm the one who reverted your edit to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:power
The power features template isn't the appropriate place for this tag.
The template includes important power infrastructure features such as
power=line and some of the most essential attribute
On 25/02/2015 16:41, Martin Vonwald wrote:
I don't think of them as lanes, so I wouldn't use some :lanes-tag. I
thought that there is already a tag, that I simply put on the road for
the length of the bay - just like e.g. sidewalk=right. But that's
obviously not the case and it is not possible
I'm not sure how these codes could benefit OSM. They seem to be mostly
for use in transactions between entities such as TSO's and would have
little public interest, even for power grid 'nerds' like me.
Further, from where would you get these codes (with an odbl compatible
license)? I have
I notice a quicky increasing number of oneway=no tags on roads, probably
due
to editors offering some flashy list box for the oneway key. I wonder
what's
next. bridge=no, tunnel=no...?
I find these information-less tags annoying, because you have to browse a
long list of bogus tags on each
On 02/12/2014 14:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
In short, I think we should add more access classes to the wiki:
- armed_forces=yes/no etc. (identifier cannot be military because that
key is taken)
I think military_personnel=* is better. Armed forces in my opinion
refers to the entire
Questions regarding correct cycle lane tagging.
Regarding a situation like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle
M3a:
a) How do I tag the width of the cycle lane?
b) How do I tag an arrangement like M3a where the lane is signposted as
non-segregated foot and cycle use?
Do I need to
On 11/07/2014 22:43, Richard Weait wrote:
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Elliott Plack elliott.pl...@gmail.com wrote:
OSM US:
I've been using some routing engines to map fitness routes (e.g. Strava)
that use OSM data. Along our US coasts, there are beaches. The beaches I'm
familiar with
On 09/07/2014 01:08, David Bannon wrote:
I don't really care exactly how it is done as long as we end up with a
clear model advising people whether or not they should attempt a
particular road. I have posted references to lost lives as a result of
bad decisions. Its easier to get people to take
On 09/07/2014 09:44, Kytömaa Lauri wrote:
Calling it replacement doesn't mean it's not deprecation. The
proposal is still trying to deprecate power=minor_line, and to remove
the simple physical distinction between really big thing on big
pylons vs. smaller overhead lines that you can often find
, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2013/10/12 Ole Nielsen / osm on-...@xs4all.nl mailto:on-...@xs4all.nl
I propose to change the meaning of substation=distribution to be used
only on substations at the last level of voltage transforming, thus the
small street-level transformer kiosks etc
François
you'll need to be a bit patient. As long as the main mapnik map and the
major editors don't support the new tag there won't be a quick switch to
the new tag. The old sub_station tag (10 uses) will continue to
exist for a very long time and renders should keep supporting it. At
On 16/10/2013 20:57, François Lacombe wrote:
I was wondering if using line=* for busbars and bay is the best thing to
do regarding of what line=* is commonly used for :
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=line
There are busbar and bay obviously but many other values dealing with
public
2013/10/12 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
2013/10/12 Ole Nielsen / osm on-...@xs4all.nl
I propose to change the meaning of substation=distribution to be used
only on substations at the last level of voltage transforming, thus the
small street-level transformer kiosks etc
The substation refinement proposal has been approved by a large majority
of voters. The new feature page can be found here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dsubstation
Afterwards I regret a bit that I didn't reserve a dedicated value in the
substation=* tag for the small street level
On 08/10/2013 02:33, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between
bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly
signed with no bicycle pushing.
I never heard of that, what sign do you mean? In which contexts is out
used? Do you
On 07/10/2013 21:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
dieterdreist 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.
That may not be the case in the UK.
On 07/10/2013 22:40, Clifford Snow wrote:
It seems that small and large are too granular for the complexities of
wind turbines. Wikipedia has numerous sizes of wind turbines. There is a
classification for small, 100kw or less wind turbines, but it is not
related to physical size, just power
The Substation Refinement proposal has now been stable for some time. It
is therefore time to announce the voting on this proposal.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Substation_refinement
In short it
- introduces a consistent tagging scheme for substation properties and
On 21/09/2013 21:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I continue to oppose the usage of man_made=tower for electricity lattice
towers (that what has been power=tower until now and which is 4,8
Million times in use). Why should we change this well established
practise, which would require 4,8 Million
On 02/09/2013 09:58, François Lacombe wrote:
Ok, but 'yes' has to be added to the transformer=* table of values in
the proposal.
Done, but with the recommendation to use a more specific value such as
distribution if possible.
It isn't for now, that's why I thought we can't use it in this
On 01/09/2013 19:04, François Lacombe wrote:
2013/8/30 Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl mailto:on-...@xs4all.nl
Agree, the transformer is just a feature of the pole. I wouldn't tag
it as a substation.
According to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/__wiki/Proposed_features
On 30/08/2013 11:00, bredy wrote:
Another question.
But the pole with transformer is a substation?
For me is better to tag it as a Pole because really I see a pole, not all
people know a transformer. Then if I put transformer=yes I see there is a
transformer in the pole.
Agree, the transformer
On 30/08/2013 10:55, bredy wrote:
In Italy there are many substation like this Cabina Enel
http://viadeisalici.blog.tiscali.it/files/2011/04/imagesCAMV.jpg
the line arrive in the building. How can I tag this?
Actually building=yes + power=sub_station, but for JOSM if I connect del
line
On 06/08/2013 10:16, François Lacombe wrote:
No comments except my suggestion for hosted features on a pole or tower
at the end of Transformer Type chapter.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#Transformer_type
The proposal has been adapted for pole
The proposal is more or less ready. No recent comments to the proposal.
However, we are in the middle of the holiday season and I don't think it
would be a good idea to call for a vote before late August or so.
On 01/08/2013 01:31, François Lacombe wrote:
Hi,
It seems there hasn't been so
On 27/06/2013 19:23, Andrew Chadwick (lists) wrote:
iii. We should not in general be mapping features which are no
longer physically relevant. Demolished items by their very nature are
not relevant, and are potentially not verifiable. OSM a map of the the
world as it is in reality, verifiably
On 11/06/2013 17:08, fly wrote:
The next tricks are coming with the substation proposal (RFC) and the
power transmission proposal (Draft)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Substation_refinement
On 22/05/2013 17:26, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote:
I wonder if this level of granularity is really that useful ?
Where's the limit ? I mean: without knowing all the complete diagram,
all of that is a bit useless, no ?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would be like changing from
After being developed over a couple of months the Substation Refinement
proposal is now ready for comments
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Substation_refinement
The proposal is really two proposals in one.
1: New power=substation tag for all substations.
First of all it
On 08/04/2013 09:07, Alberto wrote:
Well, disused:*=* and abandoned:*=* are widely used, you could simply link
to their Wiki pages.
For construction, we should make a general proposal separated from power
refinements, as you suggest.
We really need a consistent life cycle scheme that defines
On 08/04/2013 15:02, François Lacombe wrote:
I finally agree with you.
I've began to update the proposal to remove relations in all cases
except when power plant doesn't have any physical permimeter.
Thanks!
We must keep role=generator for all generators (no need to distinguish
them there)
2013/4/8 Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl mailto:on-...@xs4all.nl
not so sure, that historic is the right term for stuff completely
gone, currently the key historic is used mainly for stuff that was
created a long time ago, but which hasn't necessarily vanished in the
meantime (most of the stuff
On 11/02/2013 19:53, Janko Mihelić wrote:
2013/2/11 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com
According to the proposal we would then need to know the exact voltage
in order to distinguish between the various sizes of substations
We could make a
On 03/02/2013 02:31, Michael Patrick wrote:
For reference, see the International Electrotechnical Commission (
http://www.iec.ch/about/ ) Electropedia ( http://www.electropedia.org/ )
or from the Glossary search at ( http://std.iec.ch/glossary ), to the
Overhead lines / Towers description page
On 29/01/2013 21:00, François Lacombe wrote:
Hi everyone,
Here is my discussion with aliponte, as suggested by Friedrich Volkmann
I've contacted him last week end.
I've asked him before if he minds copying it here.
Thanks for making the contact with him. He is bringing up some valid
points
On 27/01/2013 17:15, Janko Mihelić wrote:
You also have to map these two with same tags, but mappers have no
problems with that:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3231/3612088299_4886057d1b_z.jpg
with that?
No, I disagree.
On 24.01.2013 22:46, Ole Nielsen wrote:
I have now marked http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dstation
as
deprecated, removed 'power=station' from the power features template
meaning it's gone from all language versions of Map Features using the
template
On 24/01/2013 10:40, François Lacombe wrote:
Ok, I agree with you about substation vs sub_station.
Consensus seems to emerge from this discussion, I would edit the wiki
like polderrunner explained.
* Deprecation (not removal) of power=station, power=substation (and all
other values), message
On 22/01/2013 08:43, Volker Schmidt wrote:
1) For a non-expert it is difficult to assess how many circuits a power
line carries without having access to the operators' documentation.
Right, it will not always be possible to tag the number of circuits when
a cable doesn't connect to an
On 22/01/2013 00:49, John Sturdy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:33 PM, François Lacombe
francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu wrote:
So we have the same opinion so far, that's great!
And from me, to.
Just a question about the OSM sense of deprecated.
Why can't we directly display a big
On 21/01/2013 11:02, François Lacombe wrote:
But the current usage of a tag doesn't avoid its deprecation, do you?
It may be clearly written on the wiki page that power=station is from
now deprecated as for starting the swap to the power=sub_station value.
There will be a time were power
As already mentioned in a previous thread I have been drafting a
definition for a new circuits key describing the number of electrical
circuits of a power line or cable connection. See the feature page at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:circuits
The new key is mainly intended for
On 15/01/2013 15:31, François Lacombe wrote:
But aerial line refers to all the conductors transmitting different
lives/phases whereas underground power cable, at high voltage,
refers to only one phase/conductor.
On 15/01/2013 19:29, A.Pirard.Papou wrote:
But, while I was readjusting what others have left behind, I found a
power line, as it's often the case with those long haul mappings
(landuse etc...), that was attached to a bike lane (node in common).
Imagine catching 24000 V in the pedals ;-)
On 29/10/2012 18:29, Martin Vonwald (imagic) wrote:
Am 29.10.2012 um 14:27 schrieb Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de
mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de:
It is currently not valid - vehicle types can only appear in the key,
whereas groups of users (forestry, customers, delivery, ...) can only
appear
I don't think we need to make it complicated. The Conditional
Restrictions syntax is a bit overkill here. The restriction type is
already known (type=restriction), so is the value
(restriction=no_left_turn). What is left is just the condition (plus
eventually a transport mode).
I already
On 14/10/2012 14:40, Tobias Knerr wrote:
On 14.10.2012 14:04, Eric SIBERT wrote:
On a motorway, the emergency lane can be used by psv (bus and taxi) when
there is traffic jam on the usual lanes. There is no predefined hours.
Just, when traffic jam is detected, light signal are switched to
After about one month of discussions resulting in some refinements to
the proposal I now put the proposal forward for voting. Please make your
vote at the proposal page.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditional_restrictions
Ole / polderrunner
Yes, you need to add access=yes. The router does not know who may pass
a checkpoint and access=yes is definitely not the default for a
checkpoint (private would be more likely).
This is a general issue for all point type barriers where a default
access is unknown and mappers forget to add the
This is the formal RFC for the Conditional Restrictions proposal which
was already mentioned here last week.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditional_restrictions
Feel free to discuss the proposal on the talk page of the proposal.
Ole / polderrunner
Hi tagging list,
the Extended Conditions proposal has been shot down by a majority, and
therefore there is still no official way of tagging quite a lot of
things. (As a side note, the Extended Conditions proposal is still the de
facto standard.)
Therefore, I expected that those people who
On 09/04/2012 21:11, Guillaume Allegre wrote:
Please add a tag to specify that a specific tower is the point where the line
comes from underground to aerial. I previously proposed raiser=yes, but it
didn't
seem to match exactly what I meant.
Somebody has already proposed 'tower=air_to_ground'
Please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:power%3Dtower for
some additional tags for advanced tagging of transmission towers.
I intend to add these tags to the
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dtower feature page but
first I would like to receive any comments you may
The proposal
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lane_group is now
open for voting.
The proposal has been stable for the last couple of weeks and I find it
useful to have a vote on it now (noting that the competition has also
entered voting status).
Ole N / polderrunner
I'm considering some changes to the syntax of the lane_group proposal
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lane_group .
The syntax of the proposal in some cases allows empty lane values in the
value list (nothing between two commas), e.g. to indicate default value
or 'not
This is a new proposal for solving the highway lane tagging problem.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lane_group
Please use the talk page for comments.
Regards,
polderrunner
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
57 matches
Mail list logo
