23 May 2019, 01:15 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
> I find it strange/worrying he makes these far reaching decisions
> unilaterally
>
Note that JOSM also is doing this but in cases of unwanted or broken validation
it gets fixed/changed/rolled back.
I think that main difference between JOSM
sent from a phone
> On 22. May 2019, at 21:16, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> Ah, I see. Would you envision the only value for crossing:markings be "no",
> or would it potentially have yes/no/{type}, where mappers use it at their
> discretion - such as in this example?
yes/no/type
preferably
sent from a phone
> On 23. May 2019, at 09:21, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> I think that main difference between JOSM validation (that is not causing
> repeated complaints,
> at least on this mailing list) and iD validation is that JOSM devs have no
> trouble
> with reverting or fixing
I like your wording. It is a burden. He also takes all the complaints for bugs
and when iD steps on someone's shoes. This is a very stressful position to be
in.
Am 23. Mai 2019 09:38:06 MESZ schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer
:
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 23. May 2019, at 09:21, Mateusz Konieczny
This is a change on the OSM website that updates iD version so all changes are
bundled as one.
For more gradual commits/issues see https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD
23 May 2019, 01:39 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
>
>
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 09:10, marc marc <> marc_marc_...@hotmail.com
>
23 May 2019, 01:26 by 61sundow...@gmail.com:
> So there are various definitions. Which one should OSM use?
>
I would rather ask which one OSM is using now.
>From mentioned following seems to fit quite well:
1. an activity pursued for exercise or pleasure, usually requiring some degree
of
I agree that adding highway=footway to platforms is not only
redundant, but (as pointed out by Michael) is bad because platforms
often have different access restrictions than highway=footway. iD's
validation rule should be removed.
Regards
Markus
___
Don't you think, with his refusal to participate in discussions about
raised issues, that it's often self inflicted?
On a couple of occasions he's said he ignores these forums & note how
often github threads are instantaneously closed.
DaveF
On 23/05/2019 09:16, Tobias Zwick wrote:
I like
On Thursday, 23 May 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 00:06, Graeme Fitzpatrick
> wrote:
>
> >
> > But what are Christmas & Easter if they're not religious holidays? :-)
> >
>
> Not all religious holidays are created equal. Many cafes and restaurants
> in tourist areas are
>
Le 23.05.19 à 12:22, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>> tourism=camp_pitch (not because I like this, but because fixing one issue
>> (avoid conflit with tourism=camp_site +
>> camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe) is better than fixing none of them.
> Please do not retag features to an
Though repeated attempts by @bhousel and @quincylvania to declare themselves as
final arbiters of OSM tagging and dismissing everybody else is certainly not
helping.
That is really not going to work, and it is a pity because plenty of work done
of him is really great
but it is tainted by
On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 13:31, Paul Allen wrote:
> The problem with that is the same problem as allowing every language on the
> planet to
> use their own abbreviations for month names. Only worse.
>
> For better or worse, we standardized on three-letter abbreviations for
> English month
I the US we call them manufactured homes. They are trucked to the site,
often split lengthwise into two pieces. Once on site, they place them on a
foundation then remove the wheels from underneath. Most are relatively
inexpensive to purchase. The real money make is the owner of the land that
rents
That's not an example of a trick question, just a normal question with
clear implications. I'd be happy to see examples of linear platform
features that aren't footways and have my intuition proven incorrect.
Are there any other outdoor linear features with primary pedestrian access
that aren't
The only coherent rule I can surmise based on how footways are mapped "in
the wild" is that it's an outdoor linear feature and it's primarily
intended for pedestrians. Linear transit platforms people walk to, from,
and on seem to fit the other uses of the tag, hence my questions.
The rendering
I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's
redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address
restrictions? I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should reliably
interpret existing platforms without the tag added by iD.
Taking a step back, can
I simply have the feeling that we are heading straight for an escalation course
here. I already see it looming that some day the plug might be pulled on iD
(being hosted on openstreetmap.org) and I really really don't want this to
happen, lest even to think about it makes me sick.
Undoubtedly,
"Redundant" is perhaps not the best way to describe the problem. I'd go about
this like this:
A "highway=footway" is a footway, a "public_transport=platform" is a bus stop
(platform). These are simply two different things. They *share* certain
properties, for example, they are accessible both
Le 23.05.19 à 18:32, Tobias Zwick a écrit :
> what would it take to reverse this?
what may help in to keep some thread here on topic and make a summary at
the end of a long thread... or maybe always made a summary like
subject : [solved] previous subject
a short summary
I am even someone who
In the course of my mapping I sometimes encounter buildings that I know
people work in, but I don't know what kind of business is being
conducted in the building. These buildings could contain offices, or
medical facilities, or factories, or warehouses, or retail, or just
about anything else,
On 5/23/2019 12:26 PM, Nick Bolten wrote:
I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's
redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address
restrictions? I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should
reliably interpret existing platforms without the tag
On 5/23/2019 12:32 PM, Tobias Zwick wrote:
Undoubtedly, the developers behavior is not helping there. I have the
impression that they have almost given up on the OSM community. But this
doesn't come out of nowhere. I think it is important to understand their side
of the story if we were to
Ah, I see! That all makes sense.
On Thu, May 23, 2019, 10:42 AM Markus wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 18:28, Nick Bolten wrote:
> >
> > I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's
> redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address
> restrictions? I'd
For me it is highway=platform, ID, is doing it wrong.
In a discussion, I drawn out a visualisation.
https://i.postimg.cc/wxJcG6bH/bushaltehaltekominvulling1.png
Allroads.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
If they'd wanted to do that the github thread wouldn't have been locked.
He's never been good at taking criticism.
He confesses *all* responses will be critical, but still thinks he's right.
DaveF
On 23/05/2019 18:26, Jmapb wrote:
On 5/23/2019 12:32 PM, Tobias Zwick wrote:
Undoubtedly, the
Le 23.05.19 à 18:26, Nick Bolten a écrit :
> I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should reliably interpret
> existing platforms without the tag added by iD.
without explicit value, it is impossible to say whether the platforms
is a public path, a public footway, or none of them.
Le 23.05.19 à 18:57, ET Commands a écrit :
> building=occupied
building=* is about what the building look like
a industrial-look building with a residential use, is still a
industrial-look and is mapped with :
building=industrial building:use=residential
following that, building=yes
I'd say so.
On 23/05/2019 19:03, Nick Bolten wrote:
> So would it be fair to say that a linear *=platform implies foot=yes and can
> be tagged with reasonable tags for a footway such as width, incline, surface,
> tactile paving, etc?
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:46 AM Tobias Zwick
Please see the discussion on the Transit forum.
Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of a
raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement.
From OSM's Welcome page:
"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real and
current/ "
"What it
a platform, whether tagged as public_transport=platform, highway=platform
or railway=platform is always accessible and routeable for pedestrians. So
no need to explicitly tag them with highway=footway or foot=yes or
something of that nature.
Polyglot
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:28 PM Nick Bolten
On 23/05/2019 17:45, Tobias Zwick wrote:
"Redundant" is perhaps not the best way to describe the problem. I'd go about
this like this:
A "highway=footway" is a footway, a "public_transport=platform" is a bus stop
(platform). These are simply two different things. They *share* certain
So would it be fair to say that a linear *=platform implies foot=yes and
can be tagged with reasonable tags for a footway such as width, incline,
surface, tactile paving, etc?
On Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:46 AM Tobias Zwick wrote:
> "Redundant" is perhaps not the best way to describe the problem.
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 18:28, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's
> redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address
> restrictions? I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should reliably
> interpret existing
23 May 2019, 18:32 by o...@westnordost.de:
> reverse this development.
>
Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides and it
would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was frankly stupid
what I realized after sending the message).
> I had to
That segment of platform by the bus shelter is both a footway and a
platform. In many scenarios, the "platform" might be distinguished by
nothing but some paint on a curb - clearly it's just a part of the sidewalk
where a bus stops.
We shouldn't ask mappers to decide how platform-ie or footway-ie
> +1, though it would be tricky to find someone both interested in doing this, with time to do that, and not already involved in a poor wayI can do that but I am not quite sure about my social skills. But I will take it seriously as I always do when I am moderating or organising.CheersSören alias
On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 04:49, Dave F via Tagging
wrote:
>
> Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of a
> raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement.
>
Sorry, but do you mean that this:
Indeed not a platform, just a bus stop with a bench and maybe a shelter,
not sure. If the kerb were a bit higher where the bus halts, I'd say
platform, but this is just a sidewalk.
That we map such a node with public_transport=platform/bus=yes doesn't make
it a platform. That's just convention
On 24/05/19 10:24, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM marc marc wrote:
following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look
I'm even fine with
> Every person on this mailing list participates in many of these kinds of
discussions (...)
I have never seen one where there was someone suggesting a change to a tag
and at least some of those negative bullet points didn't apply.
> I think you should attempt to apply a little of that
Hello,
Le 23.05.19 à 21:58, Nick Bolten a écrit :
> My experience with this mailing list:
the current situation have several issues, indeed
but I think you should confuse this mailing with somewhere else,
because I don't recognize the majority of abstract examples
you're talking about.
>
Hi Nick,
Am 23.05.19 um 21:58 schrieb Nick Bolten:
> # My experience with this mailing list:
> - Quick to exasperate.
> - You will be assumed to be coming to the table in bad faith.
> - You will probably be insulted at some point, potentially sworn at.
> - The same 8 or so people respond to posts
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 09:37, marc marc wrote:
>
> there is no rule defining how to swim as a hobby,
> swim like a dog if you want, it's still swimming
>
It certainly is, but is it then a "sport", or just having fun / relaxing /
cooling down? :-)
Thanks
Graeme
On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 08:18 +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 04:49, Dave F via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of
> > a raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement.
> >
>
On 24/05/19 03:05, marc marc wrote:
Le 23.05.19 à 18:57, ET Commands a écrit :
building=occupied
Homes and apartments are also 'occupied'. So that is not what you are after.
Humm .. 'productive'???
building=* is about what the building look like
a industrial-look building with a
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:10 AM Simon Poole wrote:
> That is not really correct as written, OH has the concept of variable dates
> which are based on some external definition of when they exactly are,
> currently the only one defined is "easter". Typically you would use these to
> start/end
> Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides
and it would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was
frankly stupid what I realized after sending the message).
OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of these
mailing
We cannot use the key “type=*”. This is reserved to define the type of
relation, e.g. “type=multipolygon”.
(FYI, I restarted this proposal process for camp_site=camp_pitch because I
wanted to see if we could render the ref for pitches in the
Openstreetmap-Carto style, but it looks like there will
On 22/05/19 18:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 20. May 2019, at 18:19, Markus wrote:
I prefer the camp_site:part=camp_pitch because the :part suffix is
already in use in building:part=* and could become a standard suffix
for parts of other objects, such as named parts of
On 23/05/19 18:51, Valor Naram wrote:
I have changed the description for the proposal at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table
as suggested.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self
referencing
> The talk ML might be a better spot for this, this topic has already
strayed quite far from the original topic. (And maybe start the topic on a
more positive prospect instead of with a rant ;-)
So far as I can tell, the topic on this mailing list (as it often is) is to
gripe about how the iD
> Don't you think that an accusation without a proof (link to mailing list
archive where I can re-read the discussion that happened at that time)
makes your claims more substantial?
Yes, it would substantiate the claim. It would also increase tensions, so
I'm not going to dive into that unless
I personally would not tag a >20 foot wide manufactured home as a static
caravan
I thought that building=static_caravan was meant for (single-wide) trailers
/ “mobile homes” without permanent foundations, since these could still be
moved without demolishing a foundation or breaking the building
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM marc marc wrote:
> following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better
> yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use,
> if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look
I'm even fine with 'building=yes note=*'. A data consumer
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 22:27, Andy Mabbett
wrote:
>
> If only there was some sort of ISO standard for representing dates...
>
Yep, especially when you get those pesky Americans involved :-)
Is 5/6, the 5th of June or the 6th of May?
Thanks
Graeme
23 May 2019, 21:58 by nbol...@gmail.com:
> in-person
>
Well, it is hard to beat in-person contact.
> , personal emails, slack, etc.
>
My experience with both and mailing lists is very similar as far as quality of
conversation goes.
For:
> - The same 8 or so people respond to posts out of a
These are some valid points, and I also have some input to that, but are you
sure you want to discuss this on the tagging ML? The talk ML might be a better
spot for this, this topic has already strayed quite far from the original
topic. (And maybe start the topic on a more positive prospect
That bus stop has essentially the same surface conditions as the picture
for `highway=platform`. Who wants to update the wiki?
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:46 PM Jo wrote:
> Indeed not a platform, just a bus stop with a bench and maybe a shelter,
> not sure. If the kerb were a bit higher where the
Hi,
On 5/23/19 21:58, Nick Bolten wrote:
> OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of
> these mailing lists.
It might; that doesn't invalidate points made on these mailing lists though!
> # My experiences with OSMers in other contexts:
> - Very friendly, all focused
Le 23.05.19 à 23:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit :
>> no main tag/value at all ? that avoid any bad tag/value :)
> Well, yes! What are they likely to be confused with?
tagging a camp_pitch without any additional tag 'll
be a polygon with no tag, that's a little light :)
at least one tag is
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 09:31, marc marc wrote:
>
> Le 23.05.19 à 00:19, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit :
> > then for each site
>
> so no main tag/value at all ? that avoid any bad tag/value :)
>
Well, yes!
> but it is a radical change to have objects that only have subtags
> that exist
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 7:39 PM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> In general, our project isn't a top-down strictly managed project with a
> controlled decision-making process. This means that many things have to
> be discussed over and over, and the community generally doesn't speak
> with one voice. But
Re: offer several tag options, and “the choice that receives the most votes
is approved.”
That’s not how the current approval guideline is set. There needs to be 75%
votes for approval. This is to prevent a tag from being approved with just
51% yes votes.
This is why it can be difficult to reach
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 00:06, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> But what are Christmas & Easter if they're not religious holidays? :-)
>
Not all religious holidays are created equal. Many cafes and restaurants
in tourist areas are
closed on Christmas Day/Boxing day but are open on Good
> tourism=camp_pitch (not because I like this, but because fixing one issue
> (avoid conflit with tourism=camp_site +
> camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe) is better than fixing none of them.
Please do not retag features to an unapproved, undocumented tag.
Mechanical edits are
Le 23.05.19 à 11:46, Paul Allen a écrit :
> On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 09:46, marc marc wrote:
>
> previous updates were announced by email
> I missed this one and/or no announcement for this one.
>
> Maybe your browser works differently to mine.
it isn't my nor your browser that send the
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 11:26, marc marc wrote:
>
> it isn't my nor your browser that send the email
> wrote by the iD team :)
>
I didn't get that email either. I've never received an email from the iD
team about upgrades. Yet
I learn of the upgrades as soon as they happen. Because iD tells
On 23.05.2019 01:36, marc marc wrote:
Le 23.05.19 à 01:26, Warin a écrit :
A) A physical competition played according to rules.
B) As for A) but includes practising for the sport
c) as for B) but includes non competitive physical activity.
Thoughts?
i like C but without the "with rules"
Le 23.05.19 à 01:03, Warin a écrit :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table
> 'self referencing description'
> So what is a better description for OSM use?
> "an aid to replacing human, usually babies, nappies/diaper"
someone in the profession pointed out that
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 06:41, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> While they might be called „house“, why not „building=lodge“? The fact
> they are poorly insulated, prefabricated wooden single floor structures is
> better reflected by that word.
>
building=luxury_shanty
--
Paul
I mean that previous updates were announced by email on osm-dev
with the change log, everyone can easily see the changes.
I missed this one and/or no announcement for this one.
after reading the modification log, other changes are strange,
I will reread them again before posting specific issue
Le
I have changed the description for the proposal at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table as suggested. Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing descriptionFrom: marc marc To:
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 09:46, marc marc wrote:
> I mean that previous updates were announced by email on osm-dev
> with the change log, everyone can easily see the changes.
>
On my browser, the version number at bottom right was replaced by a red
icon. Clicking on it
opens a browser window
73 matches
Mail list logo
