Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

2020-10-26 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 6:40 AM Supaplex wrote: > Hey all, > > I would like to invite you to discuss a proposal for "parking = > street_side" for areas suitable or designated for parking, which are > directly adjacent to the carriageway of a road and can be reached directly > from the roadway

Re: [Tagging] highway=services on bicycle routes?

2020-10-09 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:38 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 9 paź 2020, 15:33 od ba...@ursamundi.org: > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:06 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > For me it sounds sort-of similar (the same definition, just swap "motor > vehicle"

Re: [Tagging] highway=services on bicycle routes?

2020-10-09 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:06 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > For me it sounds sort-of similar (the same definition, just swap "motor > vehicle" with "bicycle", > or use "vehicle" to cover both ) but with drastically different > functionality. > > Similarly

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-20 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 11:58 AM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > The previous responses are focusing on the benefit of adding explicit tags > in situations where the current tagging is ambiguous. > > Certainly there is a benefit of adding "oneway=no" on all two-way roads >

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-16 Thread Paul Johnson
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:20 PM François Lacombe wrote: > Is that completely wrong or mappers could eventually add implied tags if > they want to? > The proposal currently states they are optional and it won't raise an > error if mappers add them beside mandatory tags. > No, it's not wrong to

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Hands Off !, respect my (our) space

2020-08-24 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:50 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > In ID, on your profile page is, Other nearby users, and the home location, > map > > the point is other locals based on my (our) edits know where we (I) live, > but come on > > don’t edit the

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] VANDALISM !

2020-08-21 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:36 PM Clay Smalley wrote: > For those who aren't following, the DWG recently decided on a two-day ban > for the person who posted this, for the exact behavior they're exhibiting > right now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3850 > > jdd 3, please take a break.

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

2020-08-08 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 6:13 AM Jan Michel wrote: > On 07.08.20 23:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> On 7. Aug 2020, at 19:12, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> I feel like a data consumer unable to deal with access tagging is > already broken in advance. > > although w

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

2020-08-07 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Aug 7, 2020, 18:05 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:27 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > amenity=parking + vehicle=no +

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

2020-08-07 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:27 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > amenity=parking + vehicle=no + electric_scooter=yes > seems like a terrible idea to me > Why? That's actually pretty good. amenity=parking is for motor vehicle parking, electric scooters are a

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-07 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:56 AM Simon Poole wrote: > This is why access=yes is useless on highway objects as it is not clear if > it overrides implicit access restrictions or not. > I don't see what's not clear about access=* overriding *all* access not explicitly set.

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-05 Thread Paul Johnson
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:45 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > Hello, > > If: > access=no > foot=yes > > Does this mean that all access except foot travel is prohibited, or is it > an error? > Correct, only pedestrians are allowed. > If: > access=yes > bicycle=no > > Does this mean that all access

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-08-03 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 15:29 Jmapb wrote: > > ...Regardless, if this general approach is considered valid and > workable, then I'd like to propose the following answer to my original > question: > > * Q) How should `addr:street` be tagged for an address along an > unnamed way which is part of a

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-08-02 Thread Paul Johnson
:52 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > CW: Politics, rightfully being denied the world because where I live is an > idiot. > > Clarification: I'm Cherokee, Choctaw and Scottish, and I'm barred from > entering Choctaw and Scottish territory due to COVID19, and even without > the pandemic,

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-08-02 Thread Paul Johnson
2, 2020 at 1:37 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 9:21 PM Clifford Snow > wrote: > >> If you look at eastern Oklahoma, about 90%, Paul - correct me if I'm >> wrong, is boundary=aboriginal_lands. Tulsa is pretty much completely inside >&

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-08-02 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 9:21 PM Clifford Snow wrote: > If you look at eastern Oklahoma, about 90%, Paul - correct me if I'm > wrong, is boundary=aboriginal_lands. Tulsa is pretty much completely inside > of two different reservations. > Three, actually. I live in the Muscogee Nation, now. Last

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-08-02 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 8:09 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 5:29 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:09 PM Clay Smalley >> wrote: >> >>> Chiming in as another settler. I really wish we had more Natives active >>&

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-08-01 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:09 PM Clay Smalley wrote: > Chiming in as another settler. I really wish we had more Natives active on > OSM contributing their cultural knowledge. What could we be doing different > in the future to welcome and engage them in our community? > Outreach to tribal GIS

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-08-01 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 12:19 AM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 7/31/20 14:29, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Name is only the name. Names are not refs. For the above example, > > ref=NY 214, noname=yes would be the right way. > > How about the stretch of FM 1960 from I-45 or so g

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-31 Thread Paul Johnson
get them > all added. > > Clifford > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:17 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:59 PM Clifford Snow >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:54 AM Kevin Kenny >

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020-07-31 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:59 PM Clifford Snow wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:54 AM Kevin Kenny > wrote: > >> >> >> The nearest problem case to me is Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of >> the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy that straddles >> the US-Canadian border, and

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-07-31 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:53 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > > > > On Jul 31, 2020, at 12:45 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > So keep State Highway 214 in addr:street=* values, but that doesn't stop > noname=yes and ref=NY 214 being the correct values for the way itself. &g

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-07-31 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:16 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > The reductio-ad-absurdum would be to argue that 42nd Street in Manhattan > should be `noname=yes ref=???` and participate in a route relation with > `network=US:NY:New York:Street ref=42`. I'm sure that would please strict > taxonomists, but

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-07-31 Thread Paul Johnson
So keep State Highway 214 in addr:street=* values, but that doesn't stop noname=yes and ref=NY 214 being the correct values for the way itself. On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:40 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 31. Jul 2020, at 21:31, Paul Johnson w

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-07-31 Thread Paul Johnson
Given that it's not customary or advisable to reproduce ref in the name field, kinda think that's not the worst policy for old_ref=* situations that have no name, as well by extension, but that's a bit more of a grey area still. On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:14 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I agree.

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-07-31 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:00 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 31. Jul 2020, at 18:25, Jmapb wrote: > > > > But most of the ways in the route have no valid name. Segments were > > imported from TIGER with name=State Highway 214 but that's been removed > > in favor

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

2020-07-31 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:24 AM Jmapb wrote: > Is it best to simply tag addr:street=NY 214, matching the ref tag of the > segment and the name tag of the route? This isn't consistent with the > wiki, which specifically says addr:street should match the *name* of a > nearby *way*. I'd go with

Re: [Tagging] Conditional destinations (hgv, bicycle, maxweight…)

2020-07-31 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:53 AM David Marchal via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hello, there. > > I'm wondering, there are destination signs which only apply to some kind > of vehicles: for HGV, for bicycles, for pedestrians, for vehicles below > 12t… How would I tag such

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

2020-07-28 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 5:52 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Di., 28. Juli 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > >> >> I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the property as >> residential (eventually as service) and the

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

2020-07-27 Thread Paul Johnson
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 would be highway=service not track. > > I assume if the highway

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

2020-07-27 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:21 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > Personally though, what the USFS uses to determine that difference > doesn't seem consistent, and over many years, the road conditions change > drastically due to erosion. I prefer to go there in a high-clearance > vehicle or UTV and decide

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

2020-07-27 Thread Paul Johnson
I'd go with highway=track and tracktype=*, surface=* and smoothness=* tags as necessary. Given how inconsistent the 3 and especially 4 digit US forest service roads tend to be, I'd expect tracktype and smoothness are underutilized despite their relative importance on those roads. A big hint:

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

2020-07-27 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:18 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Date: Jul 27, 2020, 15:54 > From: ba...@ursamundi.org > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:37 AM Rob

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

2020-07-27 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:37 AM Rob Savoye wrote: > The question is how to tag the change in the road. Usually it becomes > "smoothness=very_bad", etc... The question is since it's now more of a > track used by jeeps, should it be narrow=yes, still lanes=1, or should I > use width=2m ? To me,

Re: [Tagging] How to tag minor commercial roads?

2020-07-16 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:17 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > I'm wondering what, if anything, I should do with > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351516889. It doesn't seem to meet the > definition of a highway=residential, but I'm not convinced it is a lowly > highway=service, either, but I also

Re: [Tagging] Intermittent highways?

2020-07-14 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:23 AM John Sturdy wrote: > I've been adding some detail to a site that is used annually for a > festival (not happening this year because of Covid-19), where there are > paths in the same place year after year, but the paths are not there when > the festival is not

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-13 Thread Paul Johnson
What is a recreational route and how's it got anything to do with talking about modality? On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:25 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > Nederland, Germany and Belgium also have walking routes, horse routes, > inline-skating routes, canoe routes, motorboat routes. Also a myriad of >

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-13 Thread Paul Johnson
I thought we were talking about bicycle routes, not recreational routes. On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:22 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > I can't see how that applies to recreational route networks in Europe. > > Mvg Peter Elderson > > Op 13 jul. 2020 om 15:33 heeft Paul Johnson

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-13 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 7:00 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > > > 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 >

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-13 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:04 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > Sounds to me that the scheme is creating a problem rather than solving > it... requiring a lot of prior knowledge and tables to code, and expert > knowledge and tables to decode. > It's the same scheme already used for highways.

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-12 Thread Paul Johnson
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... On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 5:07 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > Well, recreational

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

2020-07-12 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:48 AM Robert Skedgell wrote: > On 12/07/2020 15:48, Mike Thompson wrote: > > 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.

Re: [Tagging] How to tag correct number of lanes for freeway on/off ramps?

2020-07-03 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 3:19 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Consider https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/42.85888/-73.77169. As I > write this, I-87 is annotated as having 3 lanes south of the on/off > ramps (south of 146). However, the off ramp starts all the way back at > the Sitterly Road

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

2020-06-10 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:03 PM Jack Armstrong wrote: > Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways in addition to the > street connecting nodes. In effect, a single pedestrian crossing is tagged > twice. To me, this would seem contrary not only to the OSM wiki page, >

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

2020-05-26 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:34 PM Steve Doerr wrote: > I would think that oneway=yes or oneway=-1 was required on motorways in > order to identify the direction of one-way travel. For roundabouts, it must > be easier provided data consumers know the national rules. > Seems pretty easy to tag it

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

2020-05-26 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 3:22 AM Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that the JOSM style >> that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not show ways >> properly if oneway=yes

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

2020-05-25 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sun, May 24, 2020, 18:51 Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 5/24/20 15:26, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the oneway > > tag between the wiki pages key:oneway > > and motorway > >

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

2020-05-14 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Steve Doerr wrote: > On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb wrote: > >> Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are >> single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good mapping practice >> -- what would

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

2020-05-13 Thread Paul Johnson
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:43 AM Jmapb wrote: > On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC. It's time to stop > treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata. If tools *still* can't > deal with this, th

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

2020-05-13 Thread Paul Johnson
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:23 AM brad wrote: > It isn't part of a route, it's the whole route. I think that's a difference without a distinction in this case. Data consumers still need to know the route is there. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

2020-05-13 Thread Paul Johnson
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:06 AM Jmapb wrote: > On 5/12/2020 10:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad wrote: > >> OK, but it seems redundant to me. A trail/path get tagged as a path. >> There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

2020-05-12 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad wrote: > OK, but it seems redundant to me. A trail/path get tagged as a path. > There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name. Why does > it need to be a route also? > Same reason all 0.11 miles of I 95 in Washington DC is part of a route.

Re: [Tagging] contact:google_plus status discardable ?

2020-04-13 Thread Paul Johnson
I think that's a distinction without a difference right now. Given that I can check my Google+ right now (yes, mine still works) but it's *now* as dead as people used to claim it was before. On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 5:49 PM Phake Nick wrote: > Google Plus for Corporate is still functional. > >

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:10 AM Andrew Harvey wrote: > My view based on current usage, reading of the wiki and general opinion is > that highway=cycleway is meant for any path that is either > designed/intended for bicycles or specifically designated (signposted) for > bicycles, irrespective of

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

2020-03-28 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:45 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:57 PM Richard Fairhurst > wrote: > > > Sure. NCN 4 is called "NCN 4" in the same sense that the M4 is called the > > "M4". That's fine - plenty of people refer to it that way. But OSM > > convention, dating back

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

2020-03-28 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:29 PM Peter Neale via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Like Dave, I am not sure that I see a huge issue with a name and a > reference duplicating each other (or at least overlapping). > > Names and References are essentially doing the same job; they identify

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

2020-03-28 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 3:39 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > > Richard Fairhurst:: > >> If you need somewhere for a mapper-facing route description (and I can >> see that you need that for “part United Kingdom 5”), then I guess the >> obvious place to put that is the note= tag. But let’s keep it out

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

2020-03-28 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 2:30 PM Andrew Hain wrote: > Proposal for QA tools: flag anything with the same number in the name and > ref. > So much this. I see this a lot and had to fix a bit of that when I was doing I 405 work. "Interstate 405" is *not* a name and shouldn't be there...

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

2020-03-28 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 1:18 PM Richard Fairhurst wrote: > A modest proposal: let’s use the name= tag in route relations for route > names. Let’s use the ref= tag for route numbers. If it doesn’t have a name, > it shouldn’t have a name= tag. Same as we do everywhere else. > I'm OK with this.

Re: [Tagging] How to match multiple destinations and destination:ref?

2020-02-13 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:07 AM António Madeira via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hi there. > > I've stumbled with a problem for which I couldn't find a satisfactory > answer. > Say I have a destination sign in a motorway junction exit with 4 > destinations, but only the second

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

2020-02-10 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:41 AM Marc Gemis wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux < > florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, An

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

2020-02-10 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux < florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, AndreasTUHU a écrit : > >> I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54 percent >> of the mixed foot-cycle-ways misses this tag. >> Additionally, the 20

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-30 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:15 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:50 PM Richard Fairhurst > wrote: > > Honestly, there is, and it's as Paul and I have described - you put the > ref > > in the ref tag and leave the name tag blank. This is how it has been in > OSM > > since pretty

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-30 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:38 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > No, no. I'm not proposing addr:street on ways at all, only on things > that actually have an address. What I am saying is that noname=yes should > be a trigge

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-30 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:46 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:09 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > addr:street= should be tagged anyway, and that's where you can put your > "County Route 34". Attempting to infer this based off the nearest street > should

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-30 Thread Paul Johnson
' rather > >> than 'Road' for these), to the extent that `addr:street=*` will show > >> that for the name, then `name=*` gets that name. (Yes I know that > >> there are mappers who would prefer `noname=yes` in that situation, but > >> address validation has an easier time with the way

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-30 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:09 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:51 AM Jarek Piórkowski > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 09:38, Rob Savoye wrote: > > > On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > > > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-30 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 8:38 AM Rob Savoye wrote: > On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > > You asked this back in August and the answers still apply: > > That was as slightly different question about multiple names, and yes, > still applies. > > > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-29 Thread Paul Johnson
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 5:02 PM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 1/29/20 16:17, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:07 PM Joseph Eisenberg > > mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > In my hometown, the main road was California highway 96, so “ref=C

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-29 Thread Paul Johnson
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:07 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > should 'ref' be 'CR 12', and then "name='County Road 12'" > > Sure, if local addresses say “123 County Road 12” and local people say “I > live on County Road 12”. > > If the name is “Old County Road 12”, that would clearly be a name,

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-29 Thread Paul Johnson
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:29 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > I was wondering about tagging roads properly. Previously it was > mentioned to use 'ref' for county roads, ie... "ref='CR 12'", but as the > road sign says "County Road 12", I was wondering about the proper way to > tag this. Should 'CR' be

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

2020-01-28 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:08 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:55, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wr

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

2020-01-28 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets > wrote: > >> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common > practice. > >> I

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

2020-01-28 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets wrote: > That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common practice. > I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber > foot traffic, `highway=footway` where foot traffic significantly outnumbers > bikes,

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

2020-01-27 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:41 PM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 1/27/20 18:31, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > > > >> Mateusz, offlist deliberately. > > > > While we're at it, could the list admins fix the BROKEN REPLY-TO? > > I have working "Reply" and "Reply List" features. I

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

2020-01-27 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:16 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > > > 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 > acc

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

2020-01-27 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:41 AM Mike Thompson wrote: > Also, in the parts of the US where I have lived there have generally only > been "multipurpose" paths/trails (a few exceptions). > Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and access, calling things "multipurpose

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

2020-01-27 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:37 AM Jmapb wrote: > Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page ( > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ): > > > For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling > > traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

2020-01-17 Thread Paul Johnson
I'm not sure what European Water Project is doing to break threading, but could you kindly not do that? Most likely this is caused by replying to an undigested digest, in which you really should be going with individual delivery or using procmail to split the digest into individual messages

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-08 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 1:23 PM joost schouppe wrote: > Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes > for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in > France. It is also of specific interest for cycling. For example, in > Belgium we have a

Re: [Tagging] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns

2020-01-08 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:06 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > Hello, > > I'm looking for a way to tag designated areas where cyclists wait to > safely make a far turn (in right-hand-drive regions, a left turn). > I'll call them "left turn boxes" for short though pointers to a better > name would be

Re: [Tagging] depreciate recycling:metal in favor of recycling:scrap_metal

2020-01-05 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 10:50 AM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > There is no useful difference > therefore it is pointless to have two > separate tags for that. > Domestic refuse metals like metal packaging from consumer products (think like, food and beverage cans), something that you can typically

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

2019-12-26 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:50 PM Erkin Alp Güney wrote: > No, that is highway=road. highway=unclassified is one grade above that. > highway=road tends to be most typically used to indicate that there is a traversable path of unknown quality, or a temporary road in a construction zone. These

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

2019-12-21 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 3:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 21. Dec 2019, at 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, the road classification system in parts of Continental > > Europe was different, so mappers in some major countries, including > >

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

2019-12-21 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 6:37 AM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 22:30, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> > What I'm saying is highway=bundesstraße could be acceptable, but > straße=bundestraße wouldn't be. Mostly so way type objects with highway=* > are still

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

2019-12-20 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:47 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:26, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> > I'm not arguing in favor of a change in language for key name. But > the local broadly accepted classification terminology (preferably in > English

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

2019-12-20 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:22 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:16, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:57 PM Joseph Eisenberg < > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Being able to speak each country's highway lingua franc

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

2019-12-20 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:57 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Being able to speak each country's highway lingua franca would make it a > lot easier for OSM to become the Rosetta Stone of maps simply from ease of > classification. > > That would mean using "jalan=provinsi" instead of

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

2019-12-20 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 5:22 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > While =primary refers to "A major highway linking large towns, in > developed countries normally with 2 lanes. In areas with worse > infrastructure road quality may be far worse" >

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

2019-12-20 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 4:41 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > 20 Dec 2019, 23:04 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 19:18, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > > > On 20. Dec 2019, at 04:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: > > > > that [/the/] (one & only) road servicing

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

2019-12-20 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:07 AM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 20 Dec 2019, 01:25 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > So, for example, in the US, instead of motorway, trunk, primary, > secondary, tertiary, perhaps something more like freeway, expressway, > major/minor_principal (just having this would fix

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

2019-12-19 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:19 PM Martijn van Exel wrote: > I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value > to the U.S. map, Eric. > We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to > envisage taking some away. > Not saying we should abolish

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

2019-12-06 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019, 04:09 Martin Scholtes wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to inform you that I have made a suggestion about park and > drive. This resulted from a discussion in the OSM DE Telegram Chat. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive > Definition:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

2019-11-11 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:41 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 09:28 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel >: > >> I don't really like the idea to introduce both 'electric_bicycle' as a >> generic term and 'pedelec', 'speed_pedelec' as more narrow tags in case >> we need to be specific.

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

2019-11-08 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:30 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > 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

Re: [Tagging] Service road - Can it be a driveway if serving multiple houses?

2019-11-08 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 7:50 AM Dave F via Tagging wrote: > Hi > > In the UK, Amazon Logistics are adding useful data from their GPS'd > delivery vehicles. Mainly highway=service as the last part of their > journey to a destination. > > However, one of their contributors removed service=driveway

Re: [Tagging] Traffic Signs (was: Re: Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?)

2019-11-08 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:02 AM Andy Townsend wrote: > My experience of the US is much less, but what I would say is that > signage there is more likely to be just text, and that text may be > complicated. Parking signs are an example of this (and a bit of a trope > there - see e.g. >

Re: [Tagging] Billboard or something else

2019-10-30 Thread Paul Johnson
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019, 11:06 Jonathon Rossi wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:19 PM Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Il giorno 30 ott 2019, alle ore 13:09, Jonathon Rossi < >> j...@jonorossi.com> ha scritto: >> > >> > I didn't say these signs had to display messages

Re: [Tagging] Billboard or something else

2019-10-30 Thread Paul Johnson
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019, 05:55 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am Mi., 30. Okt. 2019 um 11:02 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > >> > these aren’t traffic signs, a common, although underspecified tag is >> man_made=gantry (subtagging the type of gantry could make sense) >> > >> The gantry

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-24 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:55 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 13:30, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:20 AM Paul Allen wrote: >> >>> >>> Necessary, but not sufficient. It doesn't just have to be physically >>> treav

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >