Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - wait

Seems well done to me. I even know two places where it would be taggable. Dec 13, 2020, 06:28 by antoniomade...@gmx.com: > Greetings. > > As discussed here in the mailing list, me and L___I have created a > proposal for the key "wait": >

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

Dec 12, 2020, 14:25 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:25 AM Jan Michel <> j...@mueschelsoft.de> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> where do you see a problem here? The current situation might not be >> perfect, but it is usable as it is. The only thing to keep in mind is >> that

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

sent from a phone > On 13. Dec 2020, at 03:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > In regard to operators - "USMC" or "United States Marine Corps", & the same > for all the other names ie abbreviated or spelt if full ? fully spelt out Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

My answer only targets the question in the subject. No matter whether you put the same name on all parts, or on or some kind of collective, you need a way for data users to know that all the parts together have a name. Tagging the same name on all parts makes the name a free text id needing

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Anders, once again, our posts crossed each other! Thank you for the example – Nominatim helped me find their location immediately! The rendering of swamp distinct from bog "happens to my eyes," quite nicely. I only MIGHT see the problem with the naming being "repeated" — it might be correct,

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Peter, I think (but am not 100% certain) that super-relations are the data structure you look for, the "different type of relation." It isn't QUITE a "different type" but rather a method of gathering relations together that structures them "sensibly," so, for example, a renderer can make sense

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Here's a real example of how this naming scheme ends up looking: https://www.torger.se/anders/downloads/Screenshot_2020-12-13-OpenStreetMap.png I have put the name on each part which is the enduring recommendation I've got. Some parts are multipolygons, some are just closed ways, as required.

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Thank you, Ture: an excellent example and a great brief overview. From my perspective (if I were more of an OSM beginner), I might ask about the example of "torp:" might creating a tag like building=torp seem like it's on a good track? Maybe not, as the value is a Swedish word, but there is

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

It was just an example. Peak is "close enough" for now, and you can argue that it works for both mountain and individual peaks. That would be okay, but the problem with that is that there is no information for the renderer which peaks that should be shown when zoomed out. Some renderers just

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> 12 dec. 2020 kl. 16:18 skrev Anders Torger : > > Indeed, place=locality seems to be a dead end, it's been misused quite much > and there's talks about removing it from OSM-Carto, and you can't render good > maps from it, so it's technically a poor concept as well. Around where I live

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

We have these in the north as well, often old soldier settlements. Many are are still inhabited today, but the original building most often long gone. We also have those that are abandoned with little sign of that there ever being a building there. Strangely enough, sometimes the names for

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

I just wanted to add `Relation:site` [1] to this topic. This is not an approved tag (proposal [2], seems abandoned), but it is used to group 'things' together which cannot be grouped simply with a multipolygon. I do not expect this relation type to be rendered 'correctly' (whatever that may

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Thanks. There are quite many abandoned tags for grouping things together, so site is in good company. It seems like site is mostly used for human-made features though, so I'm not sure it's suitable for natural features. For now I don't have the intention that the "natural" relation is going

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

sent from a phone > On 13. Dec 2020, at 12:30, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Tagging all parts with a truly unique Id in a special key could do the trick, > but who issues/manages the unique ids? wikidata? wikidata:part=Q123? Cheers Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> 13 dec. 2020 kl. 11:40 skrev stevea : > > Thank you, Ture: an excellent example and a great brief overview. From my > perspective (if I were more of an OSM beginner), I might ask about the > example of "torp:" might creating a tag like building=torp seem like it's on > a good track?

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 12:56, Ture Pålsson via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > In many cases, the buildings are long gone and just the name remains. I > *thought* that those places were still labelled in upright letters in the > ”official” maps, but it turns out that I was wrong —

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

on topic of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir I have strong preference toward version with natural=water, but landuse=reservoir is clearly still in significant use on topic of what is deciding for tag popularity Dec 13, 2020, 15:31 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 14:13,

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 13, 2020, 18:46 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: Please first stop quoting me in way that presents your statements under my autorship > 2020-12-13, sk, 19:18 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > Mateusz, can you point out which of my claims is a lie? > "iD coders decided to skip standard IT

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13, sk, 20:09 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > 2020-12-13, sk, 19:18 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > Mateusz, can you point out which of my claims is a lie? > > "iD coders decided to skip standard IT processes of product development > (or were not familiar with the basics of

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 13, 2020, 16:35 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2020-12-13, sk, 16:13 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė: > >> 2019 was a turning point, and over the last two years, landuse=reservoir has >> been on a steady decline, while water=reservoir continued its rapid growth. >> > > New/duplicate schema with

Re: [Tagging] Is landuse=conservation actually deprecated?

I will note that the Massachusetts, USA mapping community does believe that there is a distinction between the two tags, as noted here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Massachusetts/Conservation However, this usage and definition seems to be specific to that particular community and is not a

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

1) To tag a named "Torp" it sounds like there are several different correct options, depending on what currently exists at the location. If there is a single family home or a couple of homes used as residences, it would be a place=isolated_dwelling mapped as a node at the centre. If it is still

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > Is it time to more directly recommend that mappers favor natural=water + > water=reservoir *instead of* rather than *in addition to* landuse=reservoir? > > The reality is that no matter what it says in the wiki and no matter what

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13, sk, 16:13 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė: > 2019 was a turning point, and over the last two years, landuse=reservoir has > been on a steady decline, while water=reservoir continued its rapid growth. New/duplicate schema with water=reservoir only launched because iD coders decided to skip

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Tomas, Respectfully, I ask you to cease the pattern of name-calling, personal attacks, and insulting language used in this forum, and on project bug trackers[1][2]. Let's please assume good faith and be respectful while we discuss differences of opinion with an open mind - we are all here for

[Tagging] Is landuse=conservation actually deprecated?

Recently another wiki user marked landuse=conservation as "deprecated" on the Map Features page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:landuse=11273=2071912=2068278 This same user had marked the page itself as deprecated back in 2017:

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Thanks. I also think that only having them tied by name is not a good concept. So what I've settled for (for now) is as follows: - same name on each part (the only way to get the data useful *today*) - a new relation with all parts as members (role unset), type=natural, natural=wetland, name=

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> Anders Torger hat am 13.12.2020 15:28 geschrieben: > > So what I've settled for (for now) is as follows: > - same name on each part (the only way to get the data useful *today*) > - a new relation with all parts as members (role unset), type=natural, > natural=wetland, name= I am trying to

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

But prudent way would probably be to come with some rules on change of tagging schema. Like: * When tagging schema is too widespread to be protected against changes * What benefits should new schema add in order to deprecate existing schema Because otherwise this plague of deprecating existing

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13, sk, 19:18 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > New/duplicate schema with water=reservoir only launched because iD > coders decided to skip standard IT processes of product development > (or were not familiar with the basics of IT) and simply went for what > they personally liked, not

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Re: "that schema was lying dead until iD decided to introduce it as the only way to tag water" That's not really correct when it comes to landuse=reservoir In this case, landuse=reservoir growth slowed down in 2016 for reasons that are unclear to me: Compare the charts:

[Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

This story is offered because I find it interesting, and as a possible catalyst for updates to our tagging documentation. I offer apologies to those that are well aware of this controversy. There are two competing ways to tag reservoirs: landuse=reservoir, or natural=water + water=reservoir.

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> 13 dec. 2020 kl. 15:21 skrev Paul Allen : > > I'm probably misunderstanding this, but torp doesn't seem to be a type of > building. The tag building=torp says that this building IS a torp (as > opposed to a house, or a shop, or a garage, or a shed, or a barn). > If you feel a need to

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:04 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 12. Dec 2020, at 23:43, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > So what? How are we going to improve if we're not willing to correct > choices that are objectively bad in retrospect? Especially when fixing the >

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13, sk, 18:58 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė: > Let's please assume good faith and be respectful while we discuss > differences of opinion with an open mind - we are all here for the > same reason - working together to create the best possible map for the world. I do agree that sometimes I

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 13, 2020, 19:33 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2020-12-13, sk, 20:09 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > >> 2020-12-13, sk, 19:18 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: >> Mateusz, can you point out which of my claims is a lie? >> >> "iD coders decided to skip standard IT processes of

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Do you have a suggestion of how to map Sweden's highest mountain, Kebnekaise? The mountain is called Kebnekaise, it has two peaks, one is called "Sydtoppen" ("the south peak"), the other "Nordtoppen" ("the north peak"). Currently it's mapped with the two peaks where one is called

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

I have just commented on it in the Wiki: A crossing-proposal at the current time should go a bit further and deprecate crossing=uncontrolled. Fortunately, this value is very increasingly being replaced by more distinctive terms, especially "unmarked" or "marked" – that should be reflected in a new

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

Just to clarify: > crossing=priority Indicates that the node is a pedestrian crossing when applied to highway=cycleway, should this read bicycle crossing? when applied to a highway=cycleway, does the tag imply priority for cyclists, pedestrians, or both? > belisha_beacon=yes|no Is belisha

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC 2 - Pumping proposal

Missing at first glance: what is the mapper expected to do with pumping stations. We have around here in the Po valley, thousands of them for draining purposes., and I presume that places like the Netherland have considerably more of them. Many are housed in dedicated and locked buildings and they

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

sent from a phone > On 13. Dec 2020, at 18:49, Tomas Straupis wrote: > > Introducing duplicate and unused schema (especially as the only > option) is not a good IT decision, basic analysis should have shown > that. But in case of id it was technology leading functionality and > thus leading

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Dec 13, 2020, 19:53 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > > >> On 13. Dec 2020, at 18:49, Tomas Straupis wrote: >> >>  Introducing duplicate and unused schema (especially as the only >> option) is not a good IT decision, basic analysis should have shown >> that. But in case of

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Currently the features with the tag "name=Kebnekaise" are 2 ways which extend north-south and to the west from these two peaks and are also tagged natural=arete (an arete is a knife-edged ridge formed between 2 glaciers). https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/123215393#map=13/67.8934/18.4509=C

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 11:26 AM ipswichmapper--- via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dpriority > > > Here is my first proposal for a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

You could use "crossing:belisha_beacon" (like crossing:island etc.), but I don't think it has to be part of the proposal. In my area we started to use "crossing:kerb_extension" and "crossing:buffer_markings" this year, see here:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

On 2020-12-13 21:53, Peter Elderson wrote: > Just to clarify: >> crossing=priority Indicates that the node is a pedestrian crossing > when applied to highway=cycleway, should this read bicycle crossing? > > when applied to a highway=cycleway, does the tag imply priority for cyclists,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 06:37, stevea wrote: > This is problematic to my thinking. In California (my state), at an > UNCONTROLLED intersection (no traffic_signal, stop sign, other traffic > control device...), for example where the sidewalk "would continue to > another sidewalk on the other side

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

Colin Smale het volgende geschreven: > >  >> >> On 2020-12-13 21:53, Peter Elderson wrote: >> >> Just to clarify: >> >> > crossing=priority Indicates that the node is a pedestrian crossing >> when applied to highway=cycleway, should this read bicycle crossing? >> >> when applied

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crossing%3Dpriority Here is my first proposal for a tag to describe pedestrian crossings where the pedestrian has right of way over all vehicles on the road

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

> Anders Torger hat am 13.12.2020 20:08 geschrieben: > > [...] I think to actually have them all > tied together in a unit is still a good idea, [...] That does not answer my question. -- Christoph Hormann https://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

It seems to be proposing also belisha_beacon=yes that is now unused https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=belisha_beacon%3Dyes At the same time it has "However, in countries like the UK, where belisha beacons are used, every single zebra crossing has belisha beacons installed, so there is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

Yes, most likely this won't be required. However I have kept it there in case it works differently in other countries. Maybe not all zebra crossings in Singapore have belisha beacons (for example, I don't know if this is true). That is why I am leaving it open for discussion for now, if after

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC 2 - Pumping proposal

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal#Examples Looking at the first example - I see nothing clearly indicating that pump is operated by muscle power. Is it intentional to not include this distinction? Dec 13, 2020, 19:45 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com: > Dear

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

In principle a good idea. In the jurisdictions I am familiar with, any marked pedestrian crossing gives priority to pedestrians over the traffic on the crossed road. Unmarked crossing (no vertical sign, no horizontal sign) means no priority. And each country has developed their own tagging on how

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature - RFC - Military Bases

On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 at 19:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > fully spelt out > Noted. Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC 2 - Pumping proposal

Hi Mateusz, Joseph, You were right, it was mistakes and it's now fixed. Thank you for you vigilance. Le dim. 13 déc. 2020 à 23:17, Volker Schmidt a écrit : > Missing at first glance: what is the mapper expected to do with pumping > stations. > Hi Volker Anyone could map

[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC 2 - Pumping proposal

Dear all, Following some rework to take care of comments received during the first voting round of pumping proposal, here is a second proposed version https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pumping_proposal IanVG and I spent time to improve wording and make rationale section

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

2020-12-13, sk, 20:41 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging rašė: > Following outcome of approved proposal that you dislike > is not indicator of not following > standard IT processes of product development. Following some wiki page (which states that landuse=reservoir is not deprecated) written by one

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

A common established method to name natural features with separated parts is as a multipolygon with several outers. There is one object that ties them all together. In this case a multipolygon is not possible, since the member types differ and "outers" share segments. I think to actually have

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Dec 13, 2020, 19:58 by and...@torger.se: > > Do you have a suggestion of how to map Sweden's highest mountain, Kebnekaise? > > > The mountain is called Kebnekaise, it has two peaks, one is called > "Sydtoppen" ("the south peak"), the other "Nordtoppen" ("the north peak"). > > I admit that I

Re: [Tagging] The saga of landuse=reservoir vs water=reservoir

Re: "if a reservoir was fenced off, I would tag the fenced area as landuse=reservoir but only the actual water surface as water." There is also a more specific tag for this: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=landuse=reservoir_watershed#overview - though most uses were added by an import

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - crossing=priority

This is problematic to my thinking. In California (my state), at an UNCONTROLLED intersection (no traffic_signal, stop sign, other traffic control device...), for example where the sidewalk "would continue to another sidewalk on the other side of the roadway," pedestrians ALWAYS have the

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC 2 - Pumping proposal

François, thank you for your hard work on this proposal! I will most likely support this version. I have a few questions: 1. The proposal states "It is proposed to discourage the use of undocumented pump:type=* to state pump mechanisms in favour of new pump_mechanism=*." It is not clear what

Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 at 16:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Tagging 25 tourism=chalet independently is sill when they form > single object, not 25 separate ones. > Are they cottages number 1 - 25 on the same camp site, or individual chalets located close

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

I'll gladly answer questions, but I think you need to rephrase. I suppose it is some hidden critique in there, but I honestly do not understand the question. It would be better for me if you put words on the critique instead of wrapping it in a question. I think it's fairly obvious that if

Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

sent from a phone > On 14. Dec 2020, at 07:22, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > There are cases where there is group of multiple holiday cottages, > > each rentable independently. I know about cases with just 2 and big groups, > 25 in one place. leisure=resort? Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Why is the relation problematic (honest question)? I was starting to think that some sort of naming relation could be the answer, ie you put both peaks in a relation with for example type=name; natural=mountain; name=Kebnekaise. In addition one should write clearly that peak serves dual

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC 2 - Pumping proposal

My main point got lost: the proposal should explain how the mapping of pumps in pumping stations should be handled, short of using indoor mapping, especially as your cover photo shows an indoors pump in an industrial building. On Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 00:40 Brian M. Sperlongano, wrote: > François,

[Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

There are cases where there is group of multiple holiday cottages, each rentable independently. I know about cases with just 2 and big groups, 25 in one place. How it should be tagged? I found https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dchalet that is for a single one. Tagging 25

Re: [Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

Like every Swede I have climbed the mountain, so I do have some local knowledge :-). There is an arete there, that's correct, but it's not named. Kebnekaise is the name of the mountain. It's Sami lands, as far as I understand the names of the mountains came first, then the names of the peaks