Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

Às 10:15 de 14/04/2020, Paul Allen escreveu: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 04:33, António Madeira via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: - is ref:xxx=* a good solution to add the official reference code/number? No.  But that's what we have.  With hindsight we'd have done it

Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

Thanks, Paul. I'll contact them then. Às 17:44 de 14/04/2020, Paul Allen escreveu: On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 21:02, António Madeira mailto:antoniomade...@gmx.com>> wrote: Às 10:15 de 14/04/2020, Paul Allen escreveu: They're the ones you'd have to convince to alter their code to

Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 21:02, António Madeira wrote: > > Às 10:15 de 14/04/2020, Paul Allen escreveu: > > > They're the ones you'd have to convince to alter their code to handle your > proposed change. > > > You mean this? > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Historical_Map > That's where

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:00, wrote: > So in which cases "highway=traffic_signals + crossing=traffic_signals on the > same node" should be used? Only for the "crossing only-traffic lights" I > mentioned? Yeah, personally I would agree with that. Only on pedestrian/cycle-crossing-only traffic

[Tagging] tagging the landuse of resevoirs & basins.

When mapping stormwater reservoirs and basins here in Japan, they often have a mappable landuse around them - the land around the basin is controlled, often with an access road and and fence of some type. Mapping the water feature is easy, but what is the landuse of the entire facility? it is

Re: [Tagging] insurance health

OK, but are there any countries in the world where you can would normally buy health insurance in the same place as car or home or life insurance? If not, then this is a theoretical problem only. "if you want to ask "how many insurance offices are there and what is the breakdown by type", it's

Re: [Tagging] insurance health

Agustin Rissoli writes: > In Argentina we want to correctly tagging offices of companies dedicated to > what we call prepaid medicine, by paying a monthly fee you access a series > of medical benefits. > We are hesitating between these tags: > > office=health_insurance > It has no wiki, it has

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Problem. The present description does not distinguish this '*amenity=refugee_site*' from amenity=social_facility and social_facility=shelter. I would think amenity=refugee_site is an area set aside for the non-temporary residential use of refugees. * * The meaning of 'temporary' is not

Re: [Tagging] insurance health

I agree that a logical breakdown of the insurance field should be preferred rather than creating several type of insurance offices. I would rather use office=insurance + insurance="type" than office=health_insurance;car_insurance;house_insurance;etc. Às 21:16 de 14/04/2020, Greg Troxel

Re: [Tagging] tagging the landuse of resevoirs & basins.

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 10:40 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >> I suggest landuse=industrial + industrial=water > > Perhaps industrial=water_management or =flood_control or something > elsemore specific would be better? good values, water_management might be good. Some of these are for

Re: [Tagging] tagging the landuse of resevoirs & basins.

> I suggest landuse=industrial + industrial=water Perhaps industrial=water_management or =flood_control or something elsemore specific would be better? I would mainly do this for areas covered in concrete, asphal, stones, roads, levees and other obvious man-made features, surrounded by a fence

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

What's the difference between highway=traffic_signals plus button_poperated=yes and highway=traffic_signals plus traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand ? On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 02:55, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 12:56, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 17:43,

Re: [Tagging] insurance health

I would use office=health_insurance In my experience (mostly in the USA), an office=insurance will sell you life insurance, house or rental insurance, car insurance, travel insurance and some other kinds, but will usually not sell health insurance, while a health insurance office is likely to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refugee Site Location

Hello, Actually RFC for refugee site location mapping started March 25, Since this day, we received and exchanged on the proposal and made changes to the former proposal, that’s what RFC is all about no?  , I do not know if according to this

Re: [Tagging] city limit sign end

sent from a phone > On 13. Apr 2020, at 00:52, Marc M. wrote: > > we do the same for stop, give_away, ... > and those ways may also be splitted > if both ways are in the same direction, this is equally disputed and should be discouraged as well > the direction is just > as understandable

Re: [Tagging] city limit sign end

OK, we seem to agree that city-limit-begin sign needs to have angle or cardinal direction values and not forward|backward, because it is often or nearly always, on a joining node of two ways due to the implied speed limit in agglomerations, which is the rule in many European countries, But this

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

Hi, the difference would be that traffic signals which control a junction but a crossing too, can have buttons for pedestrians as well as traffic signals which do only control a crossing. At least here in Germany. With looking at button_operated, you cannot clear whether the traffic lights are

Re: [Tagging] city limit sign end

Am Di., 14. Apr. 2020 um 11:18 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > OK, > > we seem to agree that city-limit-begin sign needs to have angle or > cardinal direction values and not forward|backward, because it is often or > nearly always, on a joining node of two ways due to the implied speed limit > in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

Am Mo., 13. Apr. 2020 um 14:16 Uhr schrieb : > Hi, > oh sorry you are confused. Maybe it's too much text I think. But your > conclusion is completely correct, yes. > > Did you have a look at the currently used values for traffic_signals?

Re: [Tagging] Rarely verified and third-party data staleness in OpenStreetMap

Two illustrations based on data from Taginfo, have been added to the staleness wiki. They show very highly concentrated tag and key distributions. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Rarely_verified_and_third-party_data_staleness_in_OpenStreetMap#OpenStreetMap_Key.2FTag_distribution_analysis

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

To response on the mentioning: "Currently the wiki page says "traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand makes it easy to mark all traffic lights which do only control a crossing", again I personally find highway=traffic_signals + crossing=traffic_signals sufficient for that"    Yes, that's true. I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

Hmm, yes I know there a several values for traffic_signals, but the main value "signal" comes just from the default value by iD which wasn't discussed, I think many of you will know about it. I chose the key "traffic_signals" because as the wiki says, it says something about the function of the

Re: [Tagging] Refining heritage tag

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 04:33, António Madeira via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: - is ref:xxx=* a good solution to add the official reference code/number? > No. But that's what we have. With hindsight we'd have done it differently. But it's now been used so often it would be very

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 06:23, wrote: > > To response on the mentioning: > "Currently the wiki page says "traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand makes > it easy to mark all traffic lights which do only control a crossing", > again I personally find highway=traffic_signals + > crossing=traffic_signals

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

"My understanding of the detailed-intersection-tagging norms was that this should have highway=traffic_signals on the stop line for cars, and highway=crossing+crossing=traffic_signals on the middle of the pedestrian crossing"   Yes, this was actually exact that what were in my thoughts. But I

Re: [Tagging] city limit sign end

 14.04.2020, 13:19, "Martin Koppenhoefer" :  Am Di., 14. Apr. 2020 um 11:18 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :OK, we seem to agree that city-limit-begin sign needs to have angle or cardinal direction values and not forward|backward, because it is often or nearly always, on a joining

Re: [Tagging] insurance health

Yes, it is also so here, these companies are entirely specialized in health, the regulation and management is completely different from a conventional insurer. We did a search with the name of one of the best known companies, they are mapped with a wide variety of tags, but one of the most used is