[Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 11:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I disagree, cycleway:left=opposite_lane is clearly about a bicycle lane in an > "opposite" direction, but it remains unclear to what "opposite" refers > (direction of OSM way or direction you would expect from the jurisdiction), >

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 19:54, "Christian Müller" wrote: > > What is the "normal traffic flow" of a two-way road? > > After all, opposite_lane made it to be used in combination > with these as well - despite the fact that [1] documents > combination with oneways exclusively. (And because of that

Re: [Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

This seems reasonable but probably takes years to implement. Considering how tagging changes moved, or rather not moved, in the past, the projection into the future is that it will at best be yet another tagging scheme (YATS) needing to co- exist with the ones already present. Regards, cmuelle8 

Re: [Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

Or just a map roulette challenge. On Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 12:46 "Christian Müller" wrote: > This seems reasonable but probably takes years to implement. > Considering how tagging changes moved, or rather not moved, > in the past, the projection into the future is that it will > at best be yet

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

What is the "normal traffic flow" of a two-way road? After all, opposite_lane made it to be used in combination with these as well - despite the fact that [1] documents combination with oneways exclusively. (And because of that [1] presumably spares details on right/left-handedness of traffic

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

These tags need a revision of definition to eliminate ambiguous or unclear definitions (selecting as far as possible the mainstream practises) and then a careful plan on how to retag the remaining cases. Main problem will be that armchair mapping will in many cases not work for lack of street

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: add Tag:route=share_taxi and Tag:route=minibus for public transportation relationship

If we're expanding the list of possible tags for buses, we shouild probably also consider route=coach, for long distance travel on a regular schedule. Polyglot On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:57 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I admit I am not familiar with the situation on the ground, but your >

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 23:37, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19/03/19 10:26, Paul Allen wrote: > > > Except I'd have said they were serious doubts, along the lines of "DON'T > DO THAT!" > > But let him put it to a vote, if he wants to. It will be amusing. > > > Not amusing. > I have

Re: [Tagging] Linear bike-share stations

On 19/03/19 12:03, Nate Wessel wrote: Dear tagging list, I'd like to see if I can gather some consensus around allowing bike-share stations (amenity=bicycle_rental) to be tagged as linear features as well as points and polygons. There has been some related discussion already on this topic

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 07:47, Markus wrote: > > Unfortunately, many tags are used wrongly (e.g. name, access tags, > grass, water park) – do you want to replace all of them? > Yes!!! :-) Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

On 19/03/19 10:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 07:47, Markus > wrote: Unfortunately, many tags are used wrongly (e.g. name, access tags, grass, water park) – do you want to replace all of them? Yes!!! :-) All those used

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

On 19/03/19 11:27, marc marc wrote: Le 19.03.19 à 00:25, Warin a écrit : On 19/03/19 10:14, marc marc wrote: Le 18.03.19 à 23:46, Warin a écrit : landcover=artificial .. does not say what is there. this one doesn't look wrong. it is a category of several landcover (asphalt, concrete, ...)

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

Le 18.03.19 à 23:46, Warin a écrit : > landcover=artificial .. does not say what is there. this one doesn't look wrong. it is a category of several landcover (asphalt, concrete, ...) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

On 18/03/2019 23:17, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 20:34, Lorenzo Stucchi mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>> wrote: Hi all, Since no more doubts were presented I'm sorry, but I think every post in reply to your proposal has raised doubts, primarily pointing

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

On 19/03/19 10:14, marc marc wrote: Le 18.03.19 à 23:46, Warin a écrit : landcover=artificial .. does not say what is there. this one doesn't look wrong. it is a category of several landcover (asphalt, concrete, ...) Err the proposal is landcover=artificial for areas that are mining areas

[Tagging] Linear bike-share stations

Dear tagging list, I'd like to see if I can gather some consensus around allowing bike-share stations (amenity=bicycle_rental) to be tagged as linear features as well as points and polygons. There has been some related discussion already on this topic both on the amenity=bicycle_rental

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

On 18/03/19 21:32, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote: Hi all, Since no more doubts were presented we can think to propose this tag. Should be better to have 4 different tag proposal one for every different landcover, one just one considering that are all connected and there are just the key landcover

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

It is not possible to calculate length of an international river when working with country extracts. Eugene пн, 18 февр. 2019 г. в 07:00, André Pirard : > On 2019-02-16 23:00, Markus wrote: > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 20:06 Eugene Podshivalov >> What is the best way to correct this, so that all

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 09:15, marc marc wrote: > > this one doesn't look wrong. > it is a category of several landcover (asphalt, concrete, ...) > Plus residential / commercial / industrial areas, highways / roads of any sort, railways etc etc. Would definitely make for much easier mapping to

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

On 19/03/19 10:26, Paul Allen wrote: On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 23:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 20:34, Lorenzo Stucchi mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>> wrote: Since no more doubts were presented I'm sorry, but

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

Le 19.03.19 à 00:25, Warin a écrit : > On 19/03/19 10:14, marc marc wrote: >> Le 18.03.19 à 23:46, Warin a écrit : >>> landcover=artificial .. does not say what is there. >> this one doesn't look wrong. >> it is a category of several landcover (asphalt, concrete, ...) > > Err the proposal is

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 20:34, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote: > Hi all, > > Since no more doubts were presented > I'm sorry, but I think every post in reply to your proposal has raised doubts, primarily pointing out that you're creating new tags rather than using existing ones, apparently to make it

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 23:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 20:34, Lorenzo Stucchi > wrote: > >> >> Since no more doubts were presented >> > > I'm sorry, but I think every post in reply to your proposal has raised > doubts, > + 1 Except I'd have said they were serious

Re: [Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

I disagree with the fact that making things even more complex (with adding an "all_lane" ) will help to solve when there is already a well known use of lane schema. Imagine cases where bicycles lanes are between two same direction lanes (it sometimes happens with a turn right lane. There the

Re: [Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

On 18/3/19 7:28 am, Paul Johnson wrote: Also a good example of a situation why it makes sense to include bicycle lanes in the lane tagging scheme. lanes=7 cycleway=lane bicycle:lanes=designated|yes|designated|yes|yes|yes|yes motor_vehicle:lanes=no|yes|no|yes|yes|yes|yes

[Tagging] The history behind why :lanes doesn't necessarily add up to lanes (Was Re: Green lanes (OT))

On 18/3/19 12:38 pm, Paul Johnson wrote: The premise that bike lanes aren't lanes is an inherently flawed one to start with.  Up there with defining routes as a ref=* tag on constituent ways, and yet, route relations are a thing with the need for tagging ref=* waning.  The idea that this is

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

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 08:55, s8evq wrote: > ... What about route=bicycle. The same problem exists there for a lot of > the network=lcn routes. But the wiki doesn't mention anything. I think the > same logic applies there, or not? > oneway=yes for bicycle|foot|other routes to indicate that the

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

Hi all, Since no more doubts were presented we can think to propose this tag. Should be better to have 4 different tag proposal one for every different landcover, one just one considering that are all connected and there are just the key landcover and 4 different value. Which idea is the best

Re: [Tagging] The history behind why :lanes doesn't necessarily add up to lanes (Was Re: Green lanes (OT))

And yet, literally *no* applications support lane values without being included in the lane count. On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 4:51 AM Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 18/3/19 12:38 pm, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > The premise that bike lanes aren't lanes is an inherently flawed one to > > start with.

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

Andrew Davidson wrote: As you've actually consumed the data I'm interested to know what problems you have found The bit of my routing profile that parses cycleway tags has a big "Abandon hope all ye who enter here" sign hanging over it and I try not to revisit it too often. ;)

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

Am So., 17. März 2019 um 14:04 Uhr schrieb Markus : > I personally find cycleway:left=opposite_lane much more comprehensible > than cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:left:oneway=-1. In addition, you > need one tag less. I disagree, cycleway:left=opposite_lane is clearly about a bicycle lane in an

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: add Tag:route=share_taxi and Tag:route=minibus for public transportation relationship

I admit I am not familiar with the situation on the ground, but your suggestions sound reasonable. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging