Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire lookouts

2020-11-10 Thread Rob Savoye
On 11/10/20 2:16 PM, Jake Low wrote: > This proposal suggests introducing two new tag values: building=fire_lookout > to indicate that a building is or was originally built to be a fire lookout, > and emergency=fire_lookout to indicate that a feature (usually a building=* > or man_made=tower)

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

2020-10-28 Thread Rob Savoye
On 10/28/20 8:28 AM, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > Apologies for bringing dedicated reserved parking into the thread since > that is the only experience or interpretation I had. I think parking is > a worthwhile tag and I'd use emergency=parking for that, but let's get > back to your topic since it

Re: [Tagging] Large fire perimeter tagging?

2020-09-24 Thread Rob Savoye
On 9/24/20 4:07 PM, stevea wrote: > On Sep 24, 2020, at 2:53 PM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: >> Most large wildfires do not burn the canopy (the tallest trees) in forests >> with trees over 10 meters in height. I'd disagree, and I'm probably the only one on this list who works active wildland

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

2020-07-27 Thread Rob Savoye
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 has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if it has a county

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

2020-07-27 Thread Rob Savoye
On 7/27/20 11:00 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > 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

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

2020-07-27 Thread Rob Savoye
On 7/27/20 10:10 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > 3 and 4 digit forest service roads?  They're there exclusively there for > the benefit of forestry (namely logging, replanting and fire > suppression).  If they happen to help someone else get where they're > going, great, but that's not what they're

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

2020-07-27 Thread Rob Savoye
On 7/27/20 9:18 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but may be still correct if > it is leading to only vacation huts) It's a residential "track" to the vacation houses, often usually only used in the summer or for ski trips. After the last

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

2020-07-27 Thread Rob Savoye
My entire county is contained within a national forest, and most of the roads through residential areas are a single lane dirt road maintained (sort-of) by the homeowners themselves. Often at the last house the road becomes an unmaintained jeep trail, usually gated, and goes a really long way

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

2020-06-26 Thread Rob Savoye
On 6/26/20 8:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > it’s up to your judgement, in my area if blocked with a mound this > would not be a track anymore. You can decide whether keeping it for > hikers (if legally and physically possible, i.e. highway=path) or A week or so ago I fixed a bunch of

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

2020-06-25 Thread Rob Savoye
On 6/25/20 5:44 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: > 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

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

2020-06-23 Thread Rob Savoye
On 6/23/20 4:45 PM, Mike Thompson wrote: > Interesting.  I had always assumed that the land that a mining claim > covered continued to be owned by the Federal Government, but that the > claim holder had the right to extract minerals and hopefully an > obligation to pay the Federal Government some

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

2020-06-23 Thread Rob Savoye
On 6/23/20 9:18 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The argument in favor of the second is that the privately-owned land > within the boundary has no actual protection against development. For > example, I lived in a village which was within the declared boundaries > of the Klamath National Forest, but

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-30 Thread Rob Savoye
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 15:46:31 +0200 > From: Daniel Westergren > *An additional issue:* > 6. sac_scale is currently the only tag (possibly together with mtb:scale) > to denote the difficulty of a hiking trail (that is, the way, not the > route). But it's very geared towards alpine trails and

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-30 Thread Rob Savoye
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 not a name. People often refer to roads by > their ref. That's

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-29 Thread Rob Savoye
On 1/29/20 3:07 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > In my hometown, the main road was California highway 96, so “ref=CA 96” > but we called it “Highway 96” so “name=Highway 96”. That's what I was thinking. Here we have a "name=highway 550", which is "ref=US 550", and another one is "name='Camp Bird

[Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-29 Thread Rob Savoye
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 expanded in the 'ref' to "County Road", or should 'ref' be 'CR

Re: [Tagging] What values of 'emergency=' should be on the, main Map features page?

2020-01-20 Thread Rob Savoye
On 1/20/20 5:00 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > Sounds basically reasonable to me. The page does not make it clear > if this is just a place you can put a hose in, or if the piping is > pre-installed. What I'm talking about is a red 3 or 4" pipe that > runs from under the middle

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-07 Thread Rob Savoye
On 1/7/20 11:02 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Nervertheless I admit that there will certainly be cases where we > need some way of tying together the point where the navigation device > finds the address and the buidling where the people live whom you > have come to visit to have a cup of tea. A

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-06 Thread Rob Savoye
On 1/6/20 6:04 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > As I understand it, in some countries the emergency services use > OSM. Knowing the building they can figure out which gate to use. > Knowing the gate may not tell them which of several buildings they > need to get to. We use OSM for emergency response

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-06 Thread Rob Savoye
On 1/6/20 4:38 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > the buildings, where he can ring the bell. In many case this is not on > the building but on the entrance to the property.. I have a real case Here that's very common. Physical address signs are on the end of the driveway where they can be seen.

Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins

2020-01-05 Thread Rob Savoye
On 1/5/20 11:55 AM, Tod Fitch wrote: > The name value almost certainly should not be “Indian Ruin”. If > “Indian Ruin” is used for a value at all it should be in the > description tag. Probably the more politically correct nowadays > might be “Native American ruins”. That was my thought,

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-05 Thread Rob Savoye
On 1/5/20 11:45 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > In the US it can go either way. I've seen a shopping center where > multiple buildings had the same address (number and street) but > different ranges of suite/unit numbers. I can see both being appropriate. We have multiple old resorts with one

[Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-05 Thread Rob Savoye
I assume the right place for tags like 'addr:housenumber' & 'addr:street' are on the building way, and not a standalone node ? - rob - -- https://www.senecass.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] tagging historic ruins

2020-01-05 Thread Rob Savoye
On 1/5/20 10:56 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > from my point of view, yes, it is usually preferable to tag ruins with > historic=archaeological_site (unless they are modern/recent). I’ve > myself used historic=ruins a lot many years ago and have since changed > most of them to archaeological

[Tagging] tagging historic ruins

2020-01-05 Thread Rob Savoye
I noticed today while planning a camping/mapping trip to southwest Colorado many nodes all tagged with 'historic=ruins', and that's about all. Most of these are stone buildings, some cliff dwellings in various states of decay. I was wondering if they should also be tagged as 'building=yes' or

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

2019-10-28 Thread Rob Savoye
On 10/28/19 2:59 AM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: >> +1, I have never understood why some people are double tagging >> administrative entities not only with admin_level and boundary but also with >> place tags. > > It is one possibility to tag such administrational oddities > as German "kreisfreie

Re: [Tagging] tagging camping

2019-09-08 Thread Rob Savoye
On 9/8/19 1:09 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > Also, cellular connectivity changes as operators add towers or > reconfigure existing ones. There's also the consideration of whether > there's 2G, 3G, 4G or 5G. Probably best left to one of the > dedicated cellular mapping apps such as cellmapper

Re: [Tagging] tagging camping

2019-09-08 Thread Rob Savoye
On 9/8/19 12:46 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > So a campground owner is going to put Faraday cages around certain > pitches to ensure > they cannot receive WiFi?  Or is going to put very restricted-range WiFi > points on certain > pitches?  Or is going to run ethernet cables to some pitches but not

[Tagging] tagging camping

2019-09-08 Thread Rob Savoye
I've been wondering about the proper way to tag camp_pitches and camp_sites to avoid bloat and duplication. It seems to me that within most campgrounds, there are global tags that don't need to be applied to each individual camp_pitch. And that each camp_pitch within that camp_site should only

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

2019-08-21 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/21/19 7:27 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > For someone who is not familiar with the term 'bear box' it may > sound like bears are stored in there. > "Food storage box" might be better? Actually something like that is probably a better term. I think 'bear box' only because that's the

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

2019-08-21 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/21/19 5:17 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I agree with Martin. It's not good practice to use semicolons in the > value of the main feature tag, like amenity=bbq;bear_box, because this > is hard for database users to interpret with a simple algorithm. Actually I've found the opposite.

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

2019-08-21 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/21/19 4:16 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > We don't have that problem!, but are the bear boxes at each individual > site / pitch, or is there one / "x" for the entire campground? Bear boxes are in every campsite, and hold about a week's worth of food. They're big enough you can put in a

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

2019-08-21 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/21/19 3:54 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > This suggests that you could also use bear_box=yes/no with a > tourism=camp_site or tourism=camp_pitch feature to specify whether > or not their is a bear box somewhere at the location. Yeah, I'd add this to a 'tourism=camp_pitch' node. Where I was

[Tagging] bear box in campground ?

2019-08-21 Thread Rob Savoye
Many western state campgrounds have metal bear proof food storage boxes in each campsite, but not all of them. At certain times of the year this can be important. :-) Around here the bears will destroy your car if there is food left inside. I see zero instances of this type of data, at least not

Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-19 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/18/19 10:05 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > route=road relations provide a way to group all the individual > segments of a numbered route into a coherent whole, and allow for > better handling of things like the choice of highway shield and the > handling of concurrencies (where two numbered routes

Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/18/19 9:09 PM, Johnparis wrote: > Don't know how you deduced "no space?" from Martin's comment. A space > is an alphanumeric character. In any case, as I mentioned, there is I just read too much into example of 'CR2'... I'm just trying to get it right, so routing works better. I prefer the

Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/18/19 12:42 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > names in OSM are usually in natural language, CR2 is probably what > OpenStreetMap calls a ref, which is for numbers and alphanumeric > codes. The other name is also looking like a code, I agree with > Richard’s suggestion to use one name and 2

Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/18/19 12:24 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > If the owner calls in a fire at his house, he's going to use his own > wrong name for the road.  So you'd probably be best to have it as a loc_name, > then > there's a chance of somebody other than you finding it. Luckily a neighbor called it in, he

Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/18/19 11:09 AM, Johnparis wrote: > Normally it would be "ref:usfs" rather than "usfs:ref". Thanks, I just found the ref=* page. Also noticed 'loc_name' and 'nat_name', and it looks like those plus ref* are used for routing. Anyway, I like the ref:usfs tag, and will use that, and ref= for

Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/18/19 10:27 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > name=Corkscrew Gulch Road > ref=CR 2 > usfs:ref=FS 729.2B Interesting, I didn't realize "usfs:ref" is a tag. I have used ref for camp site numbers, didn't know it supported alphanumerics. I dug around, and don't see usfs:ref being used, at least

Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/18/19 9:41 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > Assuming that "CR 2" is a name and not a ref, one possibility that > springs to mind, and which will no doubt be highly controversial is Yes, it's county designated name. It's gets messier than that, as sometimes "CR 2" might include multiple other road

[Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Rob Savoye
Where I live in rural Colorado, many of the roads have 3 names. The county designated one like "CR 2", but often have an alternate name everyone uses like "Corkscrew Gulch Road", and then many have a US Forest Service designation like "FS 729.2B". I usually use the common name as the 'name' tag,