Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

Key:landcoverTags: landcover=trees & landcover=grassUsage: The landcover key is used to describe what covers the land. Currently, the most used values are trees and grass. What is tagged: A landcover tag is used to map a physical area of (currently) grass or trees in two cases: 1. when the

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

There are processed data for each stop, but in term of GTFS I don't think anyone in the world supply data individually for each stops. My understanding is that each GTFS file usually cover a line or a network. 在 2019年3月13日週三 10:32，Graeme Fitzpatrick 寫道： > > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 11:18,

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Hello François, So, your updated picture made it clear that it is the "insulator set" what should be mapped with your newly proposed tag. I suppose  that for power lines the same would be true in case the "line attachment" would be through a "pin insulator" or a "shackle insulator" or every

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

On 2/3/19 10:02 am, Leif Rasmussen wrote: > It seems like the best way forward now is for a proposal allowing OpenStreetMap data to be tightly integrated with outside sources (such as GTFS) to be created by someone.  This would avoid the issues of maintainability in OpenStreetMap. I'm not

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

For the coordinated schedule, as an example there is a route that departure at the following time: 08:00, 08:00, 08:03, 08:06, 08:09, 08:12, 08:15, 08:18, 08:22, 08:25, 08:29, 08:33, 08:38, 08:38, 08:38, 08:41, 08:44, 08:47, 08:51, 08:54, 08:57, 09:01, 09:05, 09:09, 09:13, and of these departures,

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

I thought the proposal was too complicated. This made it difficult to review, so I was reluctant to vite. I believe a simpler, more approachabke proposal would have a higher chance of success. I’d recommend reading all of the objections and trying again with a much simpler version. On Wed, Mar

Re: [Tagging] mapping large memorial objects that roads pass through.

Back in November and December we discussed this issue, but at a broader level: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-November/040928.html https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-December/041211.html I was asking about archways or gateways over the road leading into

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 11:18, Andrew Davidson wrote: > However, you may want to include the feed_id every > time to make it easier to search for stops. Also do we want to repeat > the same information at every stop or should we store it in a single > relation? > Unless I've misunderstood the

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

On Tue, March 12, 2019 5:23 am, Marc Gemis wrote: > Before deprecating the shop=fashion tag, shouldn't we reach out to the > mappers that use shop=fashion ? > > Maybe they have a lot more domain knowledge than the people on this > mailing list There is of course value in sourcing outside of our

[Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)

What if some friends say we'll meet next year again in front of the Whizzo. In the meantime, the Whizzo closes and is replaced with a restaurant Eatwell. If they can then search for the old name it's useful, because they might not be overly familiar with the area and don't know the place has

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 12:20 Cascafico Giovanni < cascaf...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > You were criticized for stretching the opening_hours syntax to describe > seasonal operations ("Jan 01 > > - Dec 31"), but did not respond nor adjust your tagging. > > Sorry for that. Is it wrong? I

Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 12:17, Marc Gemis wrote: > What if some friends say we'll meet next year again in front of the Whizzo. > In the meantime, the Whizzo closes and is replaced with a restaurant > Eatwell. > If they can then search for the old name it's useful, because they > might not be

[Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Hello everyone, I have a question concerning the correct way to add the direction of travel to roundtrip route=hiking|foot|bicycle relations. I saw in the route=hiking wiki page that the usage of oneway=cw and oneway=ccw has been added in 2017, with the word "proposal: " in front.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Groundskeeping Shop

On 12/03/2019 14:34, lamplighter wrote: This proposal is to create the tag shop=groundkeeping Description A shop selling groundskeeping equipment, equipment service and supplies for groundskeeping to businesses and homeowners. Maybe it's a US / UK difference, but that wouldn't be

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

direction=clockwise/anticlockwise makes sense for a node (like a miniroundabout), not for a way on a way, the common usage is "oneway=yes" and make sure the way (which is by nature directional) is pointing the right direction. It doesn't make much sense for a hiking route to use "clockwise" (why

Re: [Tagging] mapping large memorial objects that roads pass through.

The minimum that is needed is a layer=1 for the torii itself as it is above the road, not at the same level. On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 03:34, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:08 PM John Willis via Tagging > wrote: > > > > I understand about tunnel=building_passage for ways that

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Groundskeeping Shop

This proposal is to create the tag shop=groundkeeping Description A shop selling groundskeeping equipment, equipment service and supplies for groundskeeping to businesses and homeowners. Please see the proposal page at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/groundskeeping

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Groundskeeping Shop

I am not sure I understand this proposal, the term is completely new to me. Why would I not search for either garden equipment or lawnmowers if that is what I need? Phil (trigpoint) On Tuesday, 12 March 2019, lamplighter wrote: > This proposal is to create the tag shop=groundkeeping > >

Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)

Am Di., 12. März 2019 um 13:17 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis : > What if some friends say we'll meet next year again in front of the Whizzo. > In the meantime, the Whizzo closes and is replaced with a restaurant > Eatwell. > If they can then search for the old name it's useful, because they > might not

Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)

It would probably be more appropriate to use lifecycle prefix if a shop have beeb replaced by another shop. For example name=KFC+was:name=McDonald's ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Thanks. I never did post the final vote, which was 17 yes, 14 no, and 2 abstain. (There was an additional yes vote after the time period elapsed, which has no effect on the outcome.) The proposal was therefore defeated, not having achieved anywhere near 74% approval. I suspect that it is not

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Tue, 2019-03-12 at 10:50 -0700, Johnparis wrote: > direction=clockwise/anticlockwise makes sense for a node (like a > miniroundabout), not for a way > > on a way, the common usage is "oneway=yes" and make sure the way > (which is by nature directional) is pointing the right direction. > > It

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

John, thanks for all the work on this. What surprises me is that some people are so oppose to the principal value of OSM itself -- to allow mappers to map. Disputed territories still need to be mapped - because they reflect reality of the dispute, and because many data consumers need it.

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 04:51, Philip Barnes wrote: > > Although the oneway tag implies a legal restriction, and I doubt it is > illegal to walk a hiking route in the 'wrong' direction. > I do know of one that is one-way - admittedly it's only ~300 m's long & it's on a elevated suspension

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 13/03/19 08:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 04:51, Philip Barnes > wrote: Although the oneway tag implies a legal restriction, and I doubt it is illegal to walk a hiking route in the 'wrong' direction. I do know of one that is

Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)

sent from a phone > On 12. Mar 2019, at 16:15, Phake Nick wrote: > > It would probably be more appropriate to use lifecycle prefix if a shop have > beeb replaced by another shop. For example name=KFC+was:name=McDonald's this is really not a suitable information for osm. We are interested

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 3/12/2019 5:53 PM, Warin wrote: On 13/03/19 08:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: I do know of one that is one-way - admittedly it's only ~300 m's long & it's on a elevated suspension bridge!, not a normal track, but it is posted as entrance only at this end & exit only at the other. The

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 13/03/19 08:59, Jmapb wrote: On 3/12/2019 5:53 PM, Warin wrote: On 13/03/19 08:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: I do know of one that is one-way - admittedly it's only ~300 m's long & it's on a elevated suspension bridge!, not a normal track, but it is posted as entrance only at this end &

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 3/12/2019 6:09 PM, Warin wrote: On 13/03/19 08:59, Jmapb wrote: Is there any point in considering a tag for oneways that are not enforced but generally done nonetheless? oneway=traditional, oneway=suggested, something like that? (Again, I know I've seen these, but I can't think of an

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 00:51, marc marc wrote: When one shop is replaced by another, I always keep the old name with > old_name even if no one else uses it to designate the new store. the > primary purpose is to prevent someone from re-encoding the old store > with an older source than mine. >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Groundskeeping Shop

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 03:14, Andy Townsend wrote: > For an example of what _would_ be called groundskeeping in the UK (think > kit to create, manage and maintain sports grounds specifically) > Yes, I'd agree with the others. For Australia as well, groundskeeper / groundsman would suggest the

Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)

Le 12.03.19 à 13:35, Paul Allen a écrit : > On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 12:17, Marc Gemis wrote: > What if some friends say we'll meet next year again in front of the > Whizzo. > > If I decide to meet with a friend AGAIN in front of Whizzo, we both > already know where it is. congratulations

Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)

Sometimes a feature is so famous that people continues to use its name to call the place even after it have been removed. For instance one would still told their friends let's meet up next to where the McDonald's was located. Or how transportation companies are still telling people "This bus

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Sorry, I am getting confused here (I am listening in as I frequently map bìcycle routes). The "oneway" tag would only make sense on a loop-shaped route. And only if there are only ways and no nodes like signposts ecc, and if there are no branches, and only if all members of the route were oneway

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Am Di., 12. März 2019 um 19:22 Uhr schrieb Johnparis : > Thanks. I never did post the final vote, which was 17 yes, 14 no, and 2 > abstain. (There was an additional yes vote after the time period elapsed, > which has no effect on the outcome.) > > The proposal was therefore defeated, not having

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

There seems to be some confusion from my original email as to why even have clockwise/counterclockwise on a hiking route _relation_. The reason is simple: When you have a roundtrip signposted hiking route, you can't always do the hike in both directions. The signs are sometimes positioned so

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 04:22, Johnparis wrote: > What surprised me, however, was the general lack of interest. I had > thought this was a hot button issue, what with dozens of people registering > with OSM, the big kerfuffle about Crimea, etc. If only 33 people are > interested in this topic, it

Re: [Tagging] mapping large memorial objects that roads pass through.

Thanks to Kevin & Volker for the suggestions. I tagged the object as suggested. FYI, similar to pedestrian area, the road ignores the layer=* tag and OSM/carto renders it badly. I imagine things like this lead to a lot of tagging for the renderer. Javbw > On Mar 12, 2019, at 7:38 PM,

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 7:06 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Sorry, I am getting confused here (I am listening in as I frequently map > bìcycle routes). > The "oneway" tag would only make sense on a loop-shaped route. And only if > there are only ways and no nodes like signposts ecc, and if there

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

I second Joseph's comment -- the proposal has to be very short for people to review it - e.g. less than a page, with a clear usage examples -- take a few well known ones like Crimea and Kashmir, and just list all features (ways/relations) and their tags. (actually most people don't read beyond