* johnw jo...@mac.com [2014-11-28 13:11 +0900]:
On Nov 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
the basic scheme doesn't require anything new or unusual in
route relation tagging, just care and consistency.
I look forward to seeing his RFC page then ^_^
Well, the
* Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net [2014-11-27 11:09 -0500]:
actually, specifying the shield with a URL for an svg file was an older
approach.
And, I should note, one that I consciously did not use. I believe it was
Richard Weait who pointed out that grabbing an arbitrary image, chosen by
* Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com [2014-06-17 16:43 +0200]:
you can find big roundabouts with traffic lights in most of the big
European cities, another reason (besides the controlling the motorized
traffic) is to let pedestrians (and sometimes cyclists) cross.
I know of a traffic
* Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at [2013-08-09 07:28 +0200]:
I also dislike the suggested special member roles: The positioning
of the label depends on the font size, the free space, the map
section and zoom level etc. and should therefore be determined by
the renderer.
I tend to think of
* Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com [2013-04-20 00:25 +1000]:
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
a) If the trail meanders a little from side to side (where the old
railway would have just gone straight), I match the way to the trail
and trust
* Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com [2013-04-19 01:22 +1000]:
1) A single way: railway=abandoned | highway=cycleway | name=Blah Rail
Trail | surface=unpaved (usually with a cycle route relation as well)
This is basically how I tag them, with the following additions:
a) If the trail meanders a
* François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu [2013-03-14 18:52
+0100]:
Foremost, areas must reflect land occupation. If 2 different operators'
plants are contiguous in reality then areas must be contiguous too.
Do you have any example which can illustrate such situation in the
* Svavar Kjarrval sva...@kjarrval.is [2012-11-25 00:08 +]:
The RFC process has started for my proposal to tag the age groups
schools offer education for. More information is on the wiki page.
The proposal is at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/age_group .
I happen
* Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com [2012-10-24 14:49 +0900]:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote:
using something like ref:unsigned=OH 315C to mean this road is part of
Ohio state route 315C but the signs don't say so sounds perfectly sane to
me.
* David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com [2012-09-03 18:51 -0400]:
In my part of the US, nearly every river is of the form the X River and I
would expect to see it that way on maps, leaving out the the which is
used in forming sentences but not generally considered part of the name.
In Michigan
* Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com [2012-07-03 17:22 +1000]:
For the original question of how to tag a rail with trail (I've also
heard the term railside trail), is it not sufficient to simply map
the two ways separately? Example here:
http://osm.org/go/uG4lkKxG?layers=C
As I understand it,
* SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk [2012-07-03 13:37 +0100]:
Phil! Gold wrote:
As I understand it, NE2 was looking for a tagging scheme that
would allow for searches to find trails on a railway grade.
That might not have the desired effect in all cases:
http://www.openstreetmap.org
* Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2012-06-27 12:59 -0400]:
But another popular kind of rail trail, a rail with trail, cannot
be found in this manner.
[snip]
Does anyone have any ideas for tagging? The simplest would be
something like rail_with_trail=yes or maybe railway=adjacent.
Either
* Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com [2012-05-15 14:11 +0200]:
Now the only issue remaining is: how? Right now I see two solutions:
1) highway=turning_circle and turning_circle=island or traffic_calming=island
2) new tag like e.g. highway=turning_loop
[snip]
I would really like to get more
* Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com [2012-04-25 10:28 +0200]:
I'm trying to view the OSMI layers in JOSM. The all-knowing,
all-seeing trash heap pointed me to this (german) article:
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=9315
There it is recommended to use the following link in
* Richard Weait rich...@weait.com [2012-03-13 10:30 -0400]:
adding a tag for banner=Alternate/Business/Truck is my least-favourite
option of those above.
Why?
increasing specificity on the network tag like network=US:US:Alt
follows the original intent of the network tag. It also offers the
* Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2012-03-11 22:30 -0400]:
It also makes the most sense to put it in the ref tag. Otherwise
there's inconsistency between an alternate signed as US 1 Alternate
and one signed as US 1A (with the suffix in the shield). In each
case I'll also use the modifier
I'd like to solicit some thoughts on the tagging for special routes
(commonly known as bannered routes)[0]. In route relations, it's
customary to separate the network and the reference number. How do or
should special routes fit into that?
I'm torn between three views and I'm not sure which of
* John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com [2012-02-19 14:13 -0600]:
I take it, then, that there are some watercourses tagged as streams, but
named XXX River, and there are some watercourses tagged as rivers, but
named XXX Stream or XXX Creek?
It's what I've done, based on my understanding of the
* Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com [2011-08-30 17:01 +0200]:
Waiting for comments especially for the aspect, that you could apply
this tag to all kind of settlement fractions including commercial and
industrial (and of course mixed) areas. I guess the wording
neighbourhood does
* Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com [2011-08-31 14:33 +0200]:
No, suburb is actually not necessarily outside the city (in OSM), it
is used for central districts as well.
I've often been confused by the suburb tag and maybe someone can clear it
up for me.
The tags place=city,
* Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2011-08-31 08:50 -0400]:
There's a third possibility - the unincorporated suburb or exurb
that nevertheless has a defined boundary, since it's planned or
controlled by one company. I think Columbia, Maryland is this way
It is. Additionally, Columbia
* Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com [2011-05-10 23:27 -0400]:
Either way I think we need to allow for admin_level or something
similar to permit nesting of neighborhoods.
I know, let's use relations! (Now I have two problems...)
But seriously, what about a very simple contains relation? A given
* Ed Hillsman ehills...@tampabay.rr.com [2011-04-02 22:26 -0400]:
With regard to routing, sidewalks on college campuses, in parks, and
in cemeteries may be interior to a large area bounded by streets,
and as a result some may not have an associated street to use for a
name.
I don't think
* M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com [2011-03-21 18:03 +0100]:
The main purpose of detailing sidewalks is IMHO to be able to add
further details, which might be interesting for the users of the
sidewalk.
I think that one very good reason for adding sidewalks is simply to allow
better
* Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com [2011-01-19 15:17 +1100]:
I suggest we investigate something like a general prominence=* tag,
with values of 1-10.
I wouldn't be opposed to this, but I keep thinking a two-tiered system
like the Ranally City Rating System[0] might be a better approach. You'd
* Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net [2010-10-19 15:25 -0400]:
tiger seems to have spots where there are streets that developers planned
but never built. i see them from time to time.
The problem there is that proposed roads have been recorded as actual
roads. If people want to record
* Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net [2010-10-14 10:47 -0700]:
I think you could largely sum up his criticisms in two broad headings:
1. US OSM contributors need to get their shit together
2. European maps don't look like American ones
I'm trying to see what sort of consensus
* M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com [2010-10-12 18:11 +0200]:
Layer's range is from -5 to 5.
How true is that these days? It's still in the JOSM presets, but a) I
don't see any reason in principle that should be true, and my reading of
the Mapnik rendering rules seems to indicate that
* M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com [2010-08-30 17:40 +0200]:
2010/8/30 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
- these objects express the same thing as that object but in more
detail (eg, one line representing a pair or more of train lines)
in this actual example you don't
* Jonas Minnberg sas...@gmail.com [2010-05-14 16:39 +0200]:
What about bordering buildings - ie buldings sharing walls but having
different addresses/uses ? Is it better to draw the as a single area or as
separate but with shared nodes?
I feel that separate ways that share nodes along the
* Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com [2010-05-14 18:29 +0200]:
If you tag highway=footway with bike=yes then you don't make it
exclusively for bikes. So if you tag a playground with baby=yes
shouldn't that just mean that there are some baby specific toys there,
and baby=no that there aren't any
32 matches
Mail list logo
