Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 18:32, wrote: > > Personally, I can not remember having ever seen, in my whole life, a signal > controlled pedestrian crossing that does not have road markings, excluding > cases where there are temporarily no road markings at all because they > haven't been painted yet

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table

On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 04:32, Valor Naram wrote: > Hey guys, > > my first proposal has been rejected for some reason. I have rewritten my > proposal to hopefully please the critic. Please check it out: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table Corrected typo in link

Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

sent from a phone > On 19. May 2019, at 18:30, > wrote: > > "The "traffic_signals" namespace is used to describe both vehicular traffic > signals and pedestrian/bicycle traffic signals, to everyone's confusion." > > This statement is simply completely factually wrong. > > a)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table

sent from a phone > On 19. May 2019, at 20:31, Valor Naram wrote: > > I have rewritten my proposal to hopefully please the critic. Please check it > out: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_featu res/changing_table > > Author: Valor Naram > Definition: A tag to mark the possibility

Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

"The "traffic_signals" namespace is used to describe both vehicular traffic signals and pedestrian/bicycle traffic signals, to everyone's confusion." This statement is simply completely factually wrong. a) traffic_signals is the *value* here, not the name of the tag b) there are 2 distinct

Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 02:32, wrote: Pretty well agree with everything you said, Thorsten, but I'd like to clarify one point thanks. no - there is no crossing possible/legal here > Understand the idea, but how do we actually use it? The fence here

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table

Hey guys, my first proposal has been rejected for some reason. I have rewritten my proposal to hopefully please the critic. Please check it out: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_featu res/changing_table Author: Valor Naram Definition: A tag to mark the possibility to change the

[Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Hi Nick, hi everyone, I welcome these proposals (crossing=marked, crossing:signals=* and footway=island) [1] to bring order to the pedestrian crossing tagging. Thank you, Nick, for your efforts so far! I have two questions, not about the proposals themselves, but about pedestrian crossing

Re: [Tagging] Opening hours syntax for non Gregorian calendar

Adding ramadan as is good. I also suggest adding optional [@calendar] to date range rules for non Gregorian dates and using month number instead of month abber name for example: Sa-Th 09:00-21:00; 09/01-09/30 @hijri 20:00-03:00 الحصول على Outlook for Android

Re: [Tagging] Wiki changes for police tag

sent from a phone > On 19. May 2019, at 13:26, marc marc wrote: > > indeed but putting the tag not on the building currently lost the info > "this poi use the whole building" > adding a polygone with the same outer doesn't solve it (a shop may use a > level and not the whole building if

Re: [Tagging] Wiki changes for police tag

Le 19.05.19 à 11:29, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > 1. differentiation of building and user (distinct objects also when the whole > building is occupied by one user) indeed but putting the tag not on the building currently lost the info "this poi use the whole building" adding a polygone with

Re: [Tagging] Wiki changes for police tag

Am 19. Mai 2019 06:10:21 MESZ schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick : >Would the police then work under building=government (which was >discussed a >while back) + police=xxx? I'd think so, as long as the police (or other government offices) occupy the entire building. Otherwise it would just be a node

Re: [Tagging] Wiki changes for police tag

sent from a phone > On 19. May 2019, at 10:25, Jan S wrote: > > I'd think so, as long as the police (or other government offices) occupy the > entire building. Otherwise it would just be a node on the building. > > Could anyone take that into the wiki? while it is often done like this,

Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

> On May 20, 2019, at 6:57 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Draw the fence Draw the fence. access=no if you do not draw the ways for people to cross, then they don’t exist, right? where people have made narrow footpaths (without breaking barriers, such as paths over a hill between

Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

> if you do not draw the ways for people to cross, then they don’t exist, right? Unfortunately, people will draw the crossing if there isn't negative information there saying to stop doing that, e.g. crossing=no. I'd add crossing=no to that particular place in addition to your recommendations.

Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

Hey Markus, This is a very good example that I somehow forgot to add to any of my replies / the wiki. Thank you for reminding me! There are certainly many crossings that have pedestrian signals but are tagged with the flavor du jour of crossing=marked because the latter can be mapped from aerial

Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

> if you are having trouble where people are “fixing” your mapping, then draw a way with no highway=* tag put crossing=no on it. Is this an established strategy? I'd be happy to promote it + update the wiki if it's communally supported. If it's not necessarily an established strategy, I'd also be

Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

It's a little disappointing to see these points rehashed given the lengthy recent discussions, but at the risk of creating a new massive thread I'd like to clear some things up. > "The "traffic_signals" namespace is used to describe both vehicular traffic signals and pedestrian/bicycle traffic

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table

On 20/05/19 06:45, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 04:32, Valor Naram > wrote: Hey guys, my first proposal has been rejected for some reason. I have rewritten my proposal to hopefully please the critic. Please check it out:

Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

sent from a phone > On 20. May 2019, at 02:00, John Willis via Tagging > wrote: > > Draw the fence. +1, I would also suggest for fences and walls to tag the height. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

[Tagging] tagging large farm complexes

I am currently mapping the Japanese imperial stock farm. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/527800117 it is a large farm complex, operated by the imperial household of Japan (the emperor’s family), with different farmyards for various farm animals,

Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

> I’ve read that whole previous discussion, and from my point of view it was just a whole bunch of completely useless noise, with everyone telling you that you aren’t making sense and you ignoring it and bulldozing your way forward. Well, so much for community discussion. I will make appeals to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals

Hello everyone, this is a late addition to this thread (I'll start a new one soon after I improve the proposal page), but I want to give an example of a crossing that has lights but no markings that is traversed by (guessing) thousands of people per day:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table

What do you mean with "feature"? Do you mean the whole proposal? Do you mean the "feature" subtag ( changing_table:features )? Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing tableFrom: Martin Koppenhoefer To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

I’ve read that whole previous discussion, and from my point of view it was just a whole bunch of completely useless noise, with everyone telling you that you aren’t making sense and you ignoring it and bulldozing your way forward. From: Nick Bolten Sent: Monday, 20 May 2019 10:48 To: Tag

Re: [Tagging] "Unambiguous crossings" proposals and related questions

> I’ve read that whole previous discussion, and from my point of view it was just a whole bunch of completely useless noise, with everyone telling you that you aren’t making sense and you ignoring it and bulldozing your way forward. Ah, and incidentally, I'd say I have the exact opposite problem: