Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"

On 15/5/17 22:36, Tobias Wrede wrote: The bigger concerns focused indeed around how to reasonably differentiate and use a=post_office and a/o=courier, especially in worlds where there is no clear differentiation (any more). I wouldn't have thought that this would be too hard to do. The

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

On 09/10/17 21:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: The wiki says (undisputed and since version1 in 1/2008): "A runway is a strip of land on an airport, on which aircraft can take off and land.". Under this definition, you could at most map those airstrips as runways that are _on an airport_ (if

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

On 17/10/17 15:55, Warin wrote: It seams in New Zealand that these were originally tagged as aerodromes but they were changed to airstrip to stop the rendering of so many aerodromes at low zoom levels. If you were looking for textbook examples of tagging for the renderer this would be an

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Validity of Route Relations

On 14 Oct. 2017 08:24, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Personally I don't enter timetable data, not something I expect the map to deal with. . This was something I wanted to clarify. Are we discussing changing routes (ie: the stops and the order they are served in) or changing

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Validity of Route Relations

On 14/10/17 09:29, Jo wrote: So the proposal is about the routes/itineraries that change, stops that aren't served anymore or new stops added to the lines. Are you sure about that? The proposed new tag is "timetable:valid_until". And the explanation starts of with: "every year

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

On 10/10/17 22:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: yes, I don't think it was a good idea to make so many pages which all contain definitions for the same tag. The key definition page is OK, but the "Aeroways" page would have sense tp explain the concepts, give background information, etc., but it

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

On 9/10/17 14:40, Bill Ricker wrote: Runways are permanent and maintained, often even managed. Former runways aren't runways. Airstrips are more changeable than seasonal watercourses. So I guess what you are saying here is that airstrips are ephemeral and as such cannot be verified? That

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

ergency strips? There are also charter planes that operate of the beach at Fraser Island - should that stretch of beach also be shown as a 'strip? Thanks Graeme On 9 October 2017 at 14:58, Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com <mailto:thesw...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 9/10/1

Re: [Tagging] Proposed Features - RFC - Penstock waterways

At least two problems: 1. waterway is the wrong key. Waterways are for open-channel features. There is already a man_made=pipeline for pipe flow. I'm not sure why we need a different tag for this. 2. duct is the wrong value. Ducts refers to low pressure pipes carrying gases.

Re: [Tagging] Conflicting wiki docu for aerialway=goods and aerialway=station

I think that was Martin's point. OSM tags and values aren't in Dutch (despite the fact that some of them do appear to be in Double Dutch). On Mon, 14 May 2018 23:29 Johnparis, wrote: > That was on April 1, I note, or poisson d'avril as they say in French. > >

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On 10/5/18 10:34, Warin wrote: and then the consumer would need to test it for exclusivity. That does appear to be the logic applied. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

Have you looked at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:capacity ? On 10/5/18 10:19, Warin wrote: Hi, I'm tagging a 'disabled parking area' - these are fairly common in my country. There appears to be no documented way to tag these. I think the present practice is to use the 'access'

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

If you want to go down to the level of mapping individual parking spots have you looked at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space ? On 10/5/18 10:19, Warin wrote: Hi, I'm tagging a 'disabled parking area' - these are fairly common in my country. There appears to

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On 18/5/18 16:03, Warin wrote: On 18/05/18 15:44, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: "disabled" is not one of the access types documented on the wiki. "emergency" is not documented either. As there are over 400 uses of it .. I am tempted to document it .. along with emergency - I have

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

On 19/05/18 09:47, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: I agree that it definitely is "transport" and that it has all the features (pole, waiting area, timetable, fixed route) that make it very suitable to map as public_transport. Huh? I would have thought that a key requirement would

Re: [Tagging] Map showing proposed ferry routes & terminals

Entirely up to the designer of the renderer. On Thu, 17 May 2018 07:45 Graeme Fitzpatrick, wrote: > Thanks everybody for confirming what I thought & offering a possible > alternative - I'll pass that on to the mapper concerned. > > Just to clarify though? > > If things

Re: [Tagging] Map showing proposed ferry routes & terminals

On 16/5/18 10:05, Andrew Harvey wrote: It's likely a contentious issue, but I will point out the lifecycle prefix https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix which can be used to map any kind of proposed feature, eg. proposed:amenity=ferry_terminal. +1 But I'm going to guess that the

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

Boothless is also common in North America: https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1177/539646770_464dffea77_b.jpg On 19/6/18 23:59, Tobias Wrede wrote: Am 18.06.2018 um 22:21 schrieb Paul Allen: Then again, I've never seen an outdoor public phone that isn't in a booth also lack an acoustic hood. 

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

Are we talking about PTv1 or PTv2? On 28/5/18 23:24, Jo wrote: Hi, A few days ago I helped Paul Allen with mapping some bus routes. During one of these itineraries, the bus has to do something totally counterintuitive, twice! ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

On 30/05/18 01:14, Tod Fitch wrote: It might be generally useful to have a tag that can be used for more than just water features. Can we please keep that concept separate from hydrological permanence? I want a more nuanced way of tagging water features. If we try and build one key to do

Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

On 29/05/18 21:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 29. May 2018, at 12:50, Andrew Davidson wrote: assuming that people would think that natural=wetland + stream=ephemeral would look odd--otherwise no need for a new key). on which kind of object would you tag

Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

On 26/05/18 23:27, Tod Fitch wrote: > Those definitions match up with my understanding. So something like waterway=* (or natural=spring | water ) presence=perennial | seasonal | intermittent | ephemeral If the presence is seasonal, then the existing seasonal=* could be used to describe what

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - scenic

I would recommend having a read of: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway strip

On 26/6/18 16:29, Philip Barnes wrote: No strong opinion either, but how are these verified. Is there some sort of sign? In Australia you get the "piano keys" painted on the road: http://au.geoview.info/rfds_landing_strip_on_the_eyre_highway_wa,99731681p

Re: [Tagging] When was the deprecation of location=kiosk for power=substation discussed?

https://www.ausgrid.com.au/Common/Customer-Services/In-your-neighbourhood/Network-projects/Kiosks-and-pillars/Kiosk-substations.aspx Still wouldn't recommend the use of the word. On 27/4/18 08:23, Warin wrote: The use of the word 'kiosk' may be a jargon use within the power industry? Or it

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

Two problems: 1. Site relations are for grouping features that can't be represented as an area. 2. The KISS principle. On 27/10/17 13:01, Warin wrote: 1 address on a site relation that contains these features - including the building? On 27-Oct-17 12:31 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote: On 27

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

On 27/10/17 11:20, Tom Pfeifer wrote: The OSM rule is clear - "One feature, one OSM element". Thus 3 offices, 3 nodes. So 1 address 1 node (or 1 polygon if you know the spatial extent)? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] emergency bays - which side?

You would have thought so. However, Albert Pundt's example is a case with the emergency bay on the left-hand side in a right-hand driving country ( https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-December/034494.html ). On 1 Jan 2018 8:16 am, "Graeme Fitzpatrick"

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

Are we talking about the PTv1 or the PTv2 schema here? On 09/01/18 08:50, Fernando Trebien wrote: Hello, A user recently questioned me about adding members with role "forward" to subway routes in my area. It is my understanding that, if the route runs in a single direction, this is allowed and

Re: [Tagging] route/forward/backward members in all types of routes

On 11/01/18 06:30, Tijmen Stam wrote: On 10-01-18 11:37, Andrew Davidson wrote: Yeap, that would be an edge case. Guess no-one thought that you could have an entire route that is only one way. I don't see why this is a problem. This thread is getting quite long. To recap, the problem

Re: [Tagging] What is the unit of seamark:light:range?

The symbol for nautical mile can be M, NM, Nm, or nmi (https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf p.127) M is not a good choice because it's too close to m (metre), M (mile Roman, Irish, survey, international...), or M (mega). On 10/01/18 20:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

On 16/01/18 21:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: can't see a lighthouse in your link. It's the really big building with the beam of light coming out of it--you can't miss it This is a photo of the Rome lighthouse (it is also called "lighthouse", and has a rotating light):

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

On 16/01/18 20:32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sure, for example here's a "famous" lighthouse in Rome, far from the sea: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/249332339 Oh my. Hope someone has mapped the lighthouse in Las Vegas (http://vegasvacationbids.com/luxorhotelatnight.jpg).

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

On 16/01/18 19:34, Malcolm Herring wrote: The main point that I was trying to make is that a simple pile or lattice tower with a light on top should not be tagged as man_made=lighthouse, but man_made=beacon. Not always. A lighthouse is a structure housing a major marine navigation light.

Re: [Tagging] What is the unit of seamark:light:range?

On 10/01/18 17:50, Jo wrote: They all seem to be in international nautical miles. How do you know if there are no units? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Hail and ride proposal

On 11/1/18 21:23, Jo wrote: How are we going to jump start the hail_and_ride voting process? I think the proposal needs a bit of work before it goes to a vote: 1. The definition from Wikipedia needs to go as it doesn't add any value and also defines the case where you have to signal the

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 03/01/18 11:45, Kevin Kenny wrote: 'Razed' is an English synonym for 'demolished.' 'Raised', on the other hand is 'lifted up', and can be used to mean 'built.' I think you'll find that this is just a spelling error by the OP. I don't understand what the difference between 'razed' (if

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

leisure=folly ? (tours are growing in popularity...) On 03/01/18 12:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 3. Jan 2018, at 01:36, marc marc > wrote: 1) ruin: - where a totally new feature build would be cheaper

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

On 25/07/18 22:05, Robert Szczepanek wrote: Question 1: a/ flood_mark b/ high_water_mark c/ highwater_mark A. High water mark is the level that the water got to, so if you marked that it would be a high water mark marker Question 2: Which tagging convention should we follow:

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 7:48 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > > Consider a bridge which is structurally strong enough for pedestrians, > cyclists and maybe even horses but which would > collapse if a vehicle drove over it. The distinction between "private" > and "no" for vehicles then becomes clear.

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

On 21/07/18 15:23, Yves wrote: Ah, and I have a waterway=lift, fish=yes nearby :) And let's not forget fish public transit: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fish_passage/about_dams_and_fish/trap_and_haul.html ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - ephemeral -STOPPED

On 18/07/18 13:02, Warin wrote: Voting stopped due to removal of section. That was my bad. I'd been confused when I found three voting sections on the page. From your email I had been expecting to vote twice, but when I found three sections and noticed that you had only voted twice I had

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - ephemeral -STOPPED

On 18/07/18 13:02, Warin wrote: Will restart after correction. I've just had another look at the text of the third vote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/ephemeral=1628343#Optional_voting_on_requesting_mappers_to_add_intermittent.3Dyes_to_the_key_ephemeral

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - ephemeral -STOPPED

On 18/07/18 18:10, François Lacombe wrote: Has it been discussed already? It was originally suggested by Tod Fitch: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-May/036678.html I suggested that persistence or permanence might be a more technically correct tag than presence:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - ephemeral -STOPPED

On 18/07/18 18:42, François Lacombe wrote: What about flow=permanent(default), intermittent, ephemeral ? Flow is not a good choice for a key as you can tag other hydrological features' permanence; such as lakes or wetlands, and these don't flow.

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

On 19/01/18 13:23, Steve Doerr wrote: Here's the OED definition: 'A tower or other structure, with a powerful light or lights (originally a beacon) at the top, erected at some important or dangerous point on or near the sea-coast for the guidance of mariners.' That's pretty much the

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

On 19/01/18 00:52, Janko Mihelić wrote: Ok, the discussion at least came to an agreement that this: https://imgur.com/a/U8SXn is not a man_made=lighthouse. Don't be too sure about that. I thought that we could all agree that a lighthouse had some thing to do with light and houses, but it

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

On 19/01/18 01:25, Malcolm Herring wrote: On 18/01/2018 13:52, Janko Mihelić wrote: It is important mappers doing a surveys can apply correct tags to observed objects without any knowledge of their function. Interesting tagging theory there. So I can only tag: highway=road because you

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

On 19/01/18 13:23, Steve Doerr wrote: Depends what you mean by 'houses'. I was hoping we meant in the sense of providing space for. As in this structure houses a light. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] How to map Outdoor Fitness Equipment

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:playground On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 08:31 Jo, wrote: > A few days ago this was installed: > > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/geAJ9RpsDDeDNQxqwpykBw > > Any suggestions on how to map it? > > Polyglot >

Re: [Tagging] How to map Outdoor Fitness Equipment

nfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is actually meant for adults. fitness_station seems like the best fit > to me. > > Thanks > > Jo > > 2018-04-21 1:24 GMT+02:00 Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com>: > >> I had also thought fitness_station until I looked at the image and

Re: [Tagging] How to map Outdoor Fitness Equipment

I had also thought fitness_station until I looked at the image and saw that we were talking about monkey bars. On Sat., 21 Apr. 2018, 09:10 nwastra, wrote: > leisure=fitness_station > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=fitness_station > > N > > On 21 Apr 2018, at

Re: [Tagging] Storm attenuation ponds

Have you looked at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:basin ? On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 7:47 PM, ael wrote: > I am uncertain how to tag the sorts of flood defense storage ponds > that seem to be required in most current construction sites. > > I have used > >

Re: [Tagging] tagging cycleable city-models focused on simulating road network

Here they are called learn to ride centres and look like this: https://www.weekendnotes.com/learn-to-ride-centre-tuggeranong/ I haven't mapped any but others have just used highway=cycleway. On 22/04/18 20:39, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Sorry, I have no idea what is the proper name for that

Re: [Tagging] tags for a rain gauge

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 7:14 PM Steve Doerr wrote: > I agree. The *Oxford English Dictionary* tags *ombrometer* as 'Now *rare* > '. > I'll second that. Rain gauge is already more common https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=weather%3A ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

On 15/3/19 8:03 pm, Richard Fairhurst wrote: On topic: I don't have a great preference for either tagging scheme (they're both a bit ungainly, I've found them both a bit of a PITA to support in cycle.travel's tag parsing). cycleway=opposite_lane is concise but unclear. That's interesting to

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

On 17/3/19 10:18 am, Hubert87 wrote: No, not exactly the same: cycleway:[left|right|both|none]:oneway=no implies oneway:bicycle=no, but no vice versa. cycleway:[left|right|both|none]:oneway=[-1] does not imply > oneway:bicycle=no (maybe oneway:bicycle=no -1) Nice straw man you've made

[Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

On 17/3/19 4:30 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: Or even https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0766007,153.4447888,3a,20.7y,49.91h,89.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3dPlQ9YxNBm-7lRm4GOUPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 & back another 30 m's or so

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

On 17/3/19 10:42 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 49 out of 65000. Not sure what I am supposed to do with this factoid. Maybe if I try and explain the problem in a form that you can't just look up on taginfo: Let's say we have two keys: key_a and key_b. key_a can have a number of values:

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

On 15/3/19 9:30 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: these tags are stating different things though: How are they different? If I have a oneway=yes way: A--->B oneway:bicycle=no tells me that bicycles can pass along this way A->B and B->A exactly the same case if there is any of the tags:

[Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

On 17/3/19 10:42 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I didn’t know this tag, historically the cycleway tags were used for bicycle infrastructure, seems people are working to change this. I didn't say I liked the cycleway=shared tag. There are a lot of highways in Australia tagged with this and

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

On 2/3/19 10:02 am, Leif Rasmussen wrote: > It seems like the best way forward now is for a proposal allowing OpenStreetMap data to be tightly integrated with outside sources (such as GTFS) to be created by someone.  This would avoid the issues of maintainability in OpenStreetMap. I'm not

Re: [Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

On 18/3/19 7:28 am, Paul Johnson wrote: Also a good example of a situation why it makes sense to include bicycle lanes in the lane tagging scheme. lanes=7 cycleway=lane bicycle:lanes=designated|yes|designated|yes|yes|yes|yes motor_vehicle:lanes=no|yes|no|yes|yes|yes|yes

[Tagging] The history behind why :lanes doesn't necessarily add up to lanes (Was Re: Green lanes (OT))

On 18/3/19 12:38 pm, Paul Johnson wrote: The premise that bike lanes aren't lanes is an inherently flawed one to start with.  Up there with defining routes as a ref=* tag on constituent ways, and yet, route relations are a thing with the need for tagging ref=* waning.  The idea that this is

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

On 15/3/19 10:12 am, althio wrote: Discussed: maybe there https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-May/036164.html Decided : I don't know Even for the tagging list that is one rambling thread. After pushing through a lengthy discussion on how to count the number of lanes, how

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

On 9/2/19 6:05 am, Markus wrote: On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 18:19, Volker Schmidt wrote: However, the question has remained unanswered. [Talk-de] Klärbecken... (in German :-( ) Sorry, but i'm unable to find that thread. Strangely enough, Google doesn't seem to index everything on

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

On 15/3/19 11:35 am, Hubert87 wrote: > "cycleway:left:oneway=-1" as the currently preferred method and have been mapping/tagging like this for a while now. What makes you think that? cycleway:left:oneway=-1 => 979 cycleway:right:oneway=-1 => 19 oneway:bicycle=no => 70400 and looking at

Re: [Tagging] Irrigation: ditches, canals and drains

On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 11:38 AM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > What, then, should be the distinguishing characteristic between > waterway=canal and waterway=ditch or =drain? Width or importance or > navigability, or should we still mention the usage as the main >

Re: [Tagging] Multiple values in isced:level

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:22 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > they are not the same. 0-2 could also be the same as 0;1A;1B;2 > > Is there a ISCED level 1A? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

[Tagging] JOSM is the A10 of editors ? (was: Roles of route members)

Thank you gentlemen, that has made my day. Maybe JOSM is the A10 of editors. It's old, it gets no respect, and it's as ugly as sin. Yet it still does the job better than everything else. Not sure what type of planes the other editors are. On 20/8/19 1:55 am, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Mon, Aug

Re: [Tagging] Designated spots for dogs to wait

On 20/8/19 6:24 pm, John Willis via Tagging wrote:  So let's standardize on a tag: amenity=hitching_post hitching_post=dog ? Interestingly, one of the items they sell is a green 30x30cm marker to go on the sidewalk in front of the pole - literally a sign for the designated spot for

Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 1:45 AM Julien djakk wrote: > > If you have several name or several ref, you can use the “;” separator > > Name tags with ";" in them get flagged as a problem to fix by validators. If there are more than one alternative names for something I use alt_name=* alt_name:1=*

Re: [Tagging] Designated spots for dogs to wait

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:38 AM John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > I still dislike this, as it defines parking for a horse or camel or > something found in the equestrian=* tag. > Why? Hitch just means fasten to. So it's a post that you can fasten something to. You

Re: [Tagging] oneway street with two combined foot-cycle lanes

On 17/9/19 05:29, Volker Schmidt wrote: How to tag a oneway street with a combined foot-cycle lanes on either side with oneway restrictions for bicycles. To understand my description you need to look at the photo: http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ndVXZQlQxoTi_678lWXc9A/photo The easiest way

Re: [Tagging] Motorcycle taxis, pedicabs

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 3:04 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Beyond "death trap"? :-) > > Sorry, no, can't help you with that one? > > Auto rickshaw? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fuel octane ratings: RON versus AKI

On Sat., 20 Jul. 2019, 10:26 Minh Nguyen, wrote: > > Compounding the matter, for several years, the fuel:* wiki page has > specified that octane ratings must be expressed in RON That edit would appear to be an undiscussed edit by one mapper, I wouldn't take it to be gospel. As you pointed out

Re: [Tagging] Colby's "Instructions for the Interior Survey of Ireland" (Was: Strange tags)

On 30/9/19 22:42, Philip Barnes wrote: Which is how we end up with River Avon, avon (afon in welsh) meaning river hence River River. At least they asked. In Australia it was a bunch of white guys traveling around saying: that's Botany Bay, that's Cape Howe, that's Mount Upstart,

Re: [Tagging] Colby's "Instructions for the Interior Survey of Ireland" (Was: Strange tags)

On 30/9/19 22:15, Paul Allen wrote: That wasn't the one I saw, but it did remind me that the one I saw was somewhere on the NLS site. Close enough to make the same point, though. I've read the same thing in a number of different places but they're all referring to Colby's instructions. >

[Tagging] Colby's "Instructions for the Interior Survey of Ireland" (Was: Strange tags)

On 30/9/19 9:24 pm, Paul Allen wrote: I can't remember where I saw it, or even what I was looking for that led me there. It in many places but this one will do: https://maps.nls.uk/os/6inch/os_info3.html ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] bus:guided access modifier

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_guideway On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:02 AM Neil Matthews < ndmatth...@ndmatthews.plus.com> wrote: > If sections of a busway are not accessible to a normal "bus", but only > to a specially capable guided bus -- would it be acceptable to use >

Re: [Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

On 25/9/19 9:06 pm, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: When were the "Lifecycle prefixes" like "disused:key=*", "abandoned:key=*" and "construction:key=*" first used or discussed? Have a look at the talk page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:disused:#Demote_tags_into_a_disused:_namespace

Re: [Tagging] [Tagging} no stopping, no parking

On 11/2/20 7:09 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: It cannot distinguish from this tagging between    there is a lane along the road, but I am not allowed to park/stop on it (i.e. it's an emergency lane) Do you mean a lane that is reserved for emergency vehicles or a lane that can be used by

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

On 11/02/2020 1:40 am, Marc Gemis wrote: Curious to understand why this is a cycleway and not an asphalted path. When I look at it what I'm hearing is whoosh: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333 ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Sorting waterway relations?

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020, 13:48 Joseph Eisenberg, wrote: > When you make or sort a relation of type=waterway, do you check if the > source or mouth of the river is first on the list of ways? > As the ways point in the direction of flow I would have said that source to sink was the natural sorting

Re: [Tagging] Clarify explicit abstention when voting on a proposal

On Thu, 27 Feb. 2020, 08:22 Martin Koppenhoefer, wrote: > > can you explain with the amended rules what the outcome would be for > > 8 votes yes, 0 no, 1 abstention > That is 8 unanimous approval votes so it is passed. 8 votes yes, 1 no, 1 abstention Didn't reach the required quorum of 10

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:37 AM Jmapb wrote: > Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page ( > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ): > > (This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change > description.) > > Does anyone know if there was a discussion,

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

On 6/2/20 4:02 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: I see no good reason to count explicit "abstain but have comments" exactly like "vote against". +1 To abstain from voting is to not cast a vote. So there were 14 votes with just under 93% approving.

[Tagging] Abstaining in a proposal vote (Re: Feature Proposal - Voting - give box)

There are many things about the proposal process that seem a little odd and we could spend a lot of time debating them. I'd rather just concentrate on the question of parliamentary procedure. On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:11 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > But hypothetically, what if there were even

Re: [Tagging] highway=bus_stop is PTv2 compatible

On 11/03/2020 10:16 pm, Marc M. wrote: then some proposals for improvement have no choice but to first propose a new one without depreciating the old one A classic example of this is the lanes general extension proposal, which deliberately did not modify the definition of lanes=* to cut down

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)

On 7/4/20 5:27 pm, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: There is also a third tag: leisure=nature_reserve, which is even more common, and traditionally has been used for natural conservation areas which are not National Parks or similar. Used 110k times:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)

On 6/4/20 9:59 pm, Kevin Kenny wrote: Can we work around the problem simply by allowing 'protection_class' to apply to 'boundary=national_park' as well as 'boundary=protected_area' and asserting that the default value of 'protection_class' for 'national_park' shall be assumed to be 2 (surely the

Re: [Tagging] Which languages are admissible for name:xx tags?

On 26/3/20 2:05 pm, Warin wrote: Some tags used at present are; alt_nameAyers Rock alt_name:cs Ayersova skála alt_name:en Ayers Rock nameUluṟu That's odd. The big red rock in the middle of Australia is called Uluru / Ayers Rock

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - protection_class=* (Words, not numeric codes)

On 6/4/20 9:23 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: The only thing that the proposal page still needs is a couple more detailed definitions for some of the tags. Maybe not. A quick read finds this statement: protect_class=2 will be tagged as boundary=national_park (de facto) This is a problem because

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

I'm a bit confused by your proposal, but it would seem to me that what you want to do is add crossing_on_demand to the list of values for the key traffic_signals. Is this correct? On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 9:10 PM wrote: > Hi people, > I made a proposal to reform the tagging of those traffic

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

On 20/03/2020 1:41 am, Tobias Wrede wrote: Mail delivery address I would expect to find under the contact:* scheme if at all. Probably under contact:mail, however most of the current values: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/contact%3Amail#values seem to be contact:email with a

Re: [Tagging] Is there any case of valid numeric addr:housename - for example addr:housename?

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 9:15 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > " This query returned no nodes. In OSM, only nodes contain coordinates. > For example, a way cannot be displayed without its nodes" > > Is there a hiccup in the way it's written, or is my system playing up this > morning? > The query

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 12:04 PM Jack Armstrong wrote: > I’ve been told by a user, anecdotally, there’s a Slack group that decided > this is correct. To my knowledge Slack groups do not supersede the OSM > wiki. I assume mapping a crossing twice is incorrect? > I don't know if it is "correct"

Re: [Tagging] escaping semicolons in tag values

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator#Escaping_with_'; ;' On Wed, 2 Nov 2022, 06:59 Martin Koppenhoefer, wrote: > Is there already a proposal and or established method for escaping > semicolons in tag values? Like \; or ;;? > > Cheers Martin > > >

Re: [Tagging] dry swamps

On 14/2/23 08:12, Andy Mabbett wrote: Are they also known by some other name? I ask because I can find no papers about the phenomenon, by that name, on Google Scholar Try ephemeral wetland. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] dry swamps

On 15/2/23 02:00, Greg Troxel wrote: For wetlands, the definitions in the US: https://www.fws.gov/media/classification-wetlands-and-deepwater-habitats-united-states Which is: In general terms, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature

  1   2   >