Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Florimond Berthoux
Hi, I would like also to be able to map four kind of cycle routes : touristic, commuting, road bike, mountain bike (mtb). Today we can map mtb and general cycling route (most of them are touristic though not limited to them). But unfortunately mtb and cycling routes are split in two kinds of

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Do., 9. Jan. 2020 um 10:41 Uhr schrieb Florimond Berthoux < florimond.berth...@gmail.com>: > tourism=yes : if the cycle route is a touristic purpose route > commute=yes : if it's a route for commute and every day cycling > where do you get this information from? Is it verifiable? >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 40 brick laying technics.

2020-01-09 Thread St Niklaas
//wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space> can be > used for this. > Make separate parking space areas for different vehicle types. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
waymarked mtb routes are tagged route=mtb on the relation waymarked cycling routes are tagged route=bicycle on the relation. I don't know how I could verify that a cycling route is either touristic or for commute/everyday cycling or both. Even if advertised as touristic it can be used for

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
Florimond Berthoux het volgende geschreven: > >  > Ok, you need examples : > this Eurovelo 3 is for tourism > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9351172#map=12/48.8454/2.4130=C > this REVe Nord-Sud is for commute/every day cycling >

Re: [Tagging] relation types: circuit proposal and an alternative

2020-01-09 Thread Richard Welty
On 1/7/20 4:18 PM, marc marc wrote: > Le 07.01.20 à 20:58, Richard Welty a écrit : >> a profound lack of interest >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Relations/Proposed/Circuit > > maybe it's due to the funny url for a propal > moving it at the right place may help so i looked over the

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-09 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 09/01/2020 20:17, Volker Schmidt wrote: oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only, That tag on footways would apply only to walkers. DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
> You don't need signpost to have a route. I disagree. If there is nothing on the ground, there is no mappable route. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

2020-01-09 Thread Volker Schmidt
oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only, for very practical reasons: otherwise we would have a massive problem with all one-way streets without separately mapped sidewalks. On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 02:16 Jarek Piórkowski, wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:33, Mateusz Konieczny >

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Joost Schouppe wrote: > In the case of cycling, it would be really useful > for routers to be able to differentiate. Yes - with my cycle.travel hat on, I'd find this very useful. Just an optional route_type= tag on the relation would help. I've mentioned on here a couple of times before [1]

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Florimond Berthoux
Ok, you need examples : this Eurovelo 3 is for tourism https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9351172#map=12/48.8454/2.4130=C this REVe Nord-Sud is for commute/every day cycling https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8664006#map=14/48.8784/2.3599=C as you can see in this video

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
I don't see why it's not a type=route route=bicycle. Bicycle routes do not have to be exclusive or any particular type of road, just signposted as a bicycle route. You can tag extra attributes of course. Best, Peter Elderson Op do 9 jan. 2020 om 21:15 schreef Richard Fairhurst : > Joost

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Florimond Berthoux
Le jeu. 9 janv. 2020 à 22:05, Peter Elderson a écrit : > > Florimond Berthoux het volgende geschreven: >  > Ok, you need examples : > this Eurovelo 3 is for tourism > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9351172#map=12/48.8454/2.4130=C > this REVe Nord-Sud is for commute/every day cycling >

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

2020-01-09 Thread John Willis via Tagging
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.31737/139.61884 Here is a good example of the kind of situations I have in my area: - a service area with two different lots, car and HGV (bus/lorry) adjacent to each other, with a satellite bathroom for the busses. - service area is segregated by

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - give box

2020-01-09 Thread Markus Peloso
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/give_box A small facility where people drop off and pick up various types of items in the sense of free sharing. Hi Thank you for your inputs to improve this documentation and make it easy to understand what this tag is all about. I have

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Warin
I think; Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes. Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes. For those that see no need for these classes .. what harm will they do to the data base? I am ignoring the 'verification' argument for the time being.

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Peter Elderson
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven > I think; > Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes. > Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes. I wonder which of these groups you think I am in... Hint: Nederland. > For those that see

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Andy Townsend
On 09/01/2020 23:14, Peter Elderson wrote: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven I think; Those who bicycle know why there needs to be these classes. Those who don't ride a bicycle regularly see no need for these classes. I wonder which of these groups you think I am in...

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-09 Thread marc marc
Le 06.01.20 à 08:47, Florian Lohoff a écrit : > If you have HUGE Buildings i use a node with an address. it's amazing the difference in usage. I find that addr nodes are very problematic for hudge buildings like shopping malls or train stations. the localisation of the node forces the routing to

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

2020-01-09 Thread Marc Gemis
> amenity=reverse_vending_machine > reverse_vending=bottle_return > > Machines may take more than one type of item. Some here take bottles and > bottle creates. Some take metal cans. > > Reverse vending machines are not the only vending machine type that’s not > technically a vending machine,

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-09 Thread Marc Gemis
Recently someone told me that addresses are not important for POIs, and perhaps he was right. Suppose I want to navigate to a particular shop in that mall. I tell the router I need to go to that shop. If the point of that shop is properly mapped and all footways from the parking and indoor

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-09 Thread Shawn K. Quinn
On 1/9/20 22:54, Marc Gemis wrote: > Recently someone told me that addresses are not important for POIs, > and perhaps he was right. > Suppose I want to navigate to a particular shop in that mall. I tell > the router I need to go to that shop. If the point of that shop is > properly mapped and all

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-09 Thread Shawn K. Quinn
On 1/10/20 00:04, Marc Gemis wrote: > Perhaps I was not clear, what was pointed out is that it is sufficient > to have the address on the building, there is no need to repeat it on > the POI (besides the parts that are different such as unit_nr or > floor). A lot of retail buildings here are set

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-09 Thread Marc Gemis
Perhaps I was not clear, what was pointed out is that it is sufficient to have the address on the building, there is no need to repeat it on the POI (besides the parts that are different such as unit_nr or floor). Although I now think that person said that it would be OK to have the address on a

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

2020-01-09 Thread Marc Gemis
I assume those characteristics are mapped on the OSM-ways representing the roads, not on the relation. As far as I understand Peter's arguments, the fact that a bicycle route is suitable for recreation, commuting, skilled MTB'ers and so on, should be determined from the characteristics of the