The same is true for cycling and equestrian networks with numbered nodes.
There are a few of those networks in Germany as well.
These are not collections/categories. They are networks of route relations.
Jo
2014-07-16 5:23 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com:
In Belgium and The
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
The same is true for cycling and equestrian networks with numbered nodes.
There are a few of those networks in Germany as well.
These are not collections/categories. They are networks of route relations.
Well, you could do the same
I agree with Pieren, and would like to add that relations like these are a
problem when you try to download a small bounding box, and one of those
nodes gets in the way, and now you have to download all the nodes in that
relation. There's no need for that.
But there is one advantage with those
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
and would like to add that relations like these are a problem when you try
to download a small bounding box, and one of those nodes gets in the way,
and now you have to download all the nodes in that relation.
I don't
When the name, operator,etc. has to be moved down to the routes and nodes,
we have prefix all those tags with e.g. network.
So we get network:name, network:operator on each node and route, right ?
Please note the network relations are not used to group all routes and
nodes in a country or
Just thought of this: since a node can belong to multiple networks
(cycling, walking, equestrian), we need a tagging scheme for the network
name that takes this into account.
So something like : network:rcn:name, network:rwn:name and network:ren:name
rcn= regional cycling network
rwn= regional
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
So we get network:name, network:operator on each node and route, right ?
Since network is already in use for rwn/rcn/etc, its name could be
set in something like network:name or network_name.
I don't see the point with
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
Just thought of this: since a node can belong to multiple networks (cycling,
walking, equestrian), we need a tagging scheme for the network name that
takes this into account.
So something like : network:rcn:name,
It's established that we use relations for routes, because the components
are related geo-spatially to one another (in a particular order, sometimes
having particular roles such as forward/backward). If a way forms part of
multiple routes, that is fine - just make it a member of multiple
right now the nodes are not placed in the route relation. Although some
older relations might contain them.
I think you will not find a lot of people in favor of changing the tagging
scheme for those networks, just because you don't like the network relation.
Anyway, if you want to change it, I
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
right now the nodes are not placed in the route relation. Although some
older relations might contain them.
Then you admit it is possible to keep the nodes in the route relation.
Where now you have two relations instead of
I never said it was not possible to keep the nodes in the route relation.
There was no need to do this so far.
I don't have 2 relations for each route, I have N+1 for N routes. :-)
I just followed what people did before me. I just explain what we are
doing, don't shoot the messenger :-)
As said
Am 16.07.2014 05:23, schrieb Marc Gemis:
In Belgium and The Netherlands a network-relation is used to group
together all nodes and routes of a walking network.
relations are NO CATEGORIES in OSM, that's agreed since years!
Please delete these relations.
BTW: it's not possible to keep such a
Kugelmann,
It's true we should delete these relations, but not without adding the
appropriate tags to it's members (else we would be throwing data away).
2014-07-16 8:20 GMT-03:00 Michael Kugelmann michaelk_...@gmx.de:
Am 16.07.2014 05:23, schrieb Marc Gemis:
In Belgium and The Netherlands
On 16.07.2014 13:31, John Packer wrote:
but not without adding the appropriate tags to it's members
of course! I never wanted something different.
Cheers,
Michael.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Hi,
I saw on the wiki there was some changes on pages related to religious
landuse.
It seems there is this tag that was documented only recently (but has
around 1500 uses, mostly on Europe), and is called landuse=religious
In my opinion, it seems this tag conflicts with amenity=place_of_worship
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:52 PM, John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com wrote:
Does this seems correct?
It's something else and is related to a rendering issue. The
place_of_worship area is rendered as a black area on the map and is
usually placed on the building polygon. If you want to draw to
Mixed use facilities run by a single organization, for example, a temple with a
private home, a cemetery, a public recycling center, and a pre-school might
have the outer area defined by the landuse=religious tag, and the individual
buildings/areas tagged as needed.
Really, that facility is
We have been tagging these networks this way since the beginning of
Openstreetmap.org. The network relations combine the nodes and the route
relations for a given network of numbered walking/cycling/horsback riding
network.
equestrian networks get rhn. lhn. nhn and ihn don't exist, as far as I
institutions in charge of determining these figures
What about things that are well known in a country? The one hundred mountains
ofJapan is a common list known to residents, and the three famous mountains
of gunma are also labeled and known by the prefecture where I am (which means
several
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
We have been tagging these networks this way since the beginning of
Openstreetmap.org. The network relations combine the nodes and the route
relations for a given network of numbered walking/cycling/horsback riding
network.
Please,
W dniu 16.07.2014 15:08, John Willis napisał(a):
If we trust users to tag businesses, shops, cities, roads, and
bridges, why can't we trust them to know their area better than we do?
+1 - not everything has to be official-hard-data driven to be useful,
meaningful and have sense. In real life
You are not tallking about the same thing. We are not talking about a
network of PT routes or motorways.
We are talking about numbered node NETWORKS, where a network relation is
entirely appropriate to describe the network of nodes and the routes
connecting them.
I can't help it that in the
I'm going to have to side with Pieren against the network relation. Just
spitballing, but that would roughly mean one network per county, and an
additional 1-8 networks per state, occasionally one network per city, and
at least 3 for national in the US alone, bringing nothing to the table that
Again, you are obviously not talking about the same thing.
2014-07-16 16:59 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org:
I'm going to have to side with Pieren against the network relation. Just
spitballing, but that would roughly mean one network per county, and an
additional 1-8 networks
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
We are talking about numbered node NETWORKS, where a network relation is
entirely appropriate to describe the network of nodes and the routes
connecting them.
Isn't that documented in the wiki as a route relation, even though in
Once upon a time, I created a wiki page about the subject:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_Node_Network_Tagging
This is one of the more complex situations. Most are simpler than that.
Jo
2014-07-16 17:23 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:57 AM,
a numbered node network consists of 2 things: the nodes, which have numbers
and the routes between the nodes. Those routes are signposted between the
nodes. Currently there are route relations for the routes between the nodes
and network relations with the nodes and the routes.
Yes, one could see
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
We are talking about numbered node NETWORKS, where a network relation is
entirely appropriate to describe the network of nodes and the routes
connecting them.
Am 16/lug/2014 um 14:42 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com:
Next to my house is another temple with a giant cemetery, temple building,
bell tower, private residence, and a public garden. The temple certainly is a
place of worship, the garden is not.
Could you expand the idea that the
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
your case, you don't have a predefined list of (master) routes but
only a list of path segments.
What is a list of paths other than a route ?
I totally agree with you that we could represent it without network
relation, but
I don't know what John's example is, but it would make sense to me to
include the private residence if it is a place where people who are part of
the religious community live, for example a parsonage or a dormitory of a
monastery. Regarding gardens, they may have a religious purpose
(meditation
The cyclenode networks we are talking about are specific, published networks
with route signage and node signs and/or information panels. They are not a
loose connection of nodes which mappers have decided to gather together in OSM
for convenience. You will find them in Belgium (where they were
I'm having a look at it. It could of course be converted automatically.
Since I have the scripts to walk through the hierarchy already.
It would mean that what is nicely where it belongs at the moment, would be
moved to tags on the nodes and the route relations, causing a
multiplication of tags.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm having a look at it. It could of course be converted automatically.
Since I have the scripts to walk through the hierarchy already.
Again, I'm not asking to delete them *right now*. I'm checking if the
proposal is fair and is not
These are practices which a lot of people have been following for a long
time.
I do not see a real problem which you are trying to solve here.
Leave it alone, please.
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
From: Pieren
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 6:46 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/BE-Spelling_shop%3Djewelry
I kept it short ;) And I the think the Subject says it all. The use of
jewellers could of course also be considered.
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88
I don't think we should change the spelling of an well-established tag
(more than 13 000 uses according to taginfo)
See the comments about the abrupt change of power=sub_station to
power=substation on github[1]. For example:
[..] why bother changing the tag? Should we next have a vote on
I agree with John - no need to change the spelling. The differences between
British English and American English are troublesome enough already
(tyre:tire, centre:center, harbour:harbor, etc.:etc.) — why make another
one?
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:12 AM, John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 06:11 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com
wrote:
There are some values of shop key that seem to be synonymous with other tags
and I want to confirm whatever it is true.
Unless mentioned otherwise all
There is still problem with the connection routes. That are routes whose
start and endpoint belong to different networks. Right now they are placed
in both network relations and given the role 'connection' in the network
relation.
Duplicating them in order to give them 2 different network names,
On 16/07/2014 20:11, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
there are no delicatessens in the UK.
http://www.yell.com/ucs/UcsSearchAction.do?keywords=delicatessenlocation=united+kingdom
--
Steve
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
Perfect, so now we have a reason to keep both tags!
- Serge
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/07/2014 20:11, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
there are no delicatessens in the UK.
I agree with John - no need to change the spelling. The differences
between British English and American English are troublesome enough
already (tyre:tire, centre:center, harbour:harbor, etc.:etc.) — why make
another one?
How is this making another one? The differences already exist, no matter
I don't think we should change the spelling of an well-established tag
(more than 13 000 uses according to taginfo)
So you think we should keep vending=news_papers?
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/vending=news_papers
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
O, did you ever walked along a walking network ? :-) The one in my
neighbourhood (Rivierenland) changes almost yearly: farmers that decide
that a route can no longer pass over their land, new paths are opened, and
sometimes, nodes are just moved a few meters for whatever reason.
The network
Nodes currently are placed (where relevant) in both cycling and walking
networks.
If one did not include nodes in route relations (I do that and prefer it; Jo,
as he said earlier, does not), or in the network relation, or in both (slight
redundancy, but quite useful IMO) then the cycling or
We don’t disagree that routes can change. But the point is that a route
relation connecting two different networks (especially true, I believe, for the
cycle node networks) is unlikely to change unless the network nodes change (and
that does not happen much).
What does happen is that the
winery / wine
Winery: A winery is a building or property that produces wine, or a
business involved in the production of wine, such as a wine company. Some
wine companies own many wineries. (wikipedia)
so... shop=wine is a wine seller, where shop=winery is a winer maker
selling his own
vending=news_papers seems harder to say because it seems some osm gardeners
changed objects that previously had vending=newspapers (for example [1]),
so the actual numbers are skewed.
[1]: http://osm.mapki.com/history/node.php?id=2188351234
2014-07-16 16:41 GMT-03:00 Andreas Goss
Oh yeah this comes up sometimes.
IMO a wine shop and a winery are not the same thing. The former is something
they have at the train station to help with the evening commute, and the latter
is the sort of thing people plan their vacations around.
Oddly we have the mostly standard
Sure - the land is all owned by the temple. The schools are run by the temple.
The private residence is the monks residence. He lives next to and operates the
temple. In Japan, next to usually means attached or less than 1m separating
the buildings. As many functions are jammed together. Many
I wouldn't give this tag a general name like landuse=religious. People from
all over will use this like they see fit, and the tag will soon lose
meaning. If Japanese temples usually have grounds around them that have
religious connotations, then I would call it something like
On Jul 16, 2014 1:42 PM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:
Landuse=religious gives us a generic tag, like landuse retail or
commercial, without having to be so specific.
I'm going to tag my house and garden landuse=atheism
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't give this tag a general name like landuse=religious. People from
all over will use this like they see fit, and the tag will soon lose
meaning. If Japanese temples usually have grounds around them that have
vending=news_papers seems harder to say because it seems some osm
gardeners changed objects that previously had vending=newspapers (for
example [1]), so the actual numbers are skewed.
I don't see why that matters. They are in the database. Now the question
is should we change them or not.
On 2014-07-16 19:09, Andreas Goss wrote :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/BE-Spelling_shop%3Djewelry
I kept it short ;) And I the think the Subject says it all. The use of
jewellers could of course also be considered.
BE means Belgium, for those who do like precision.
57 matches
Mail list logo
