[Tagging] Ways rendered on wrong layer (counter to the layer tag values)

I'm not sure when to use the bridge tag. In this part of the map http://c.tile.openstreetmap.org/17/120570/78686.png there is a footway which is at ground level at both ends, but significantly above the water below in the middle, held up by pylons. I tagged it with bridge=yes, layer=1. Then there

Re: [Tagging] Ways rendered on wrong layer (counter to the layer tag values)

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com wrote: If you tagged the footway as a bridge, it's because it is suspended over the water (you said it's being held up by pylons). Is the motorway suspended too? Then you should tag it as a bridge. If it's not, then maybe

[Tagging] Interpreting One feature, one OSM-object

Quite a number of times I've noticed a single way having the tag boundary=administrative (I assume having come from the Australian ABS import and being part of a larger relation marking some town or suburb) but also having waterway=stream (for example

Re: [Tagging] Interpreting One feature, one OSM-object

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Pierre-Alain Dorange pdora...@mac.com wrote: With JOSM you can achieve that by drawing a way by clicking on the node one by one. It will draw a new way using the same nodes. That is okay for a couple nodes, but is error prone and tedious for hundreds of nodes

Re: [Tagging] Interpreting One feature, one OSM-object

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:29 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Boundaries aren't a physical object, and they're not properly dealt with most of the time in any case. Waterways is one of the few things, especially where no hi-res imagery is available, I actually think they can be

Re: [Tagging] Interpreting One feature, one OSM-object

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Vincent Pottier vpott...@gmail.com wrote: on JOSM : copy the way (ctr + C), create a new layer (ctrl + N) and don't clic in it, paste the way (ctrl + V) (the nodes are at the same place), put the tags, merge the layers, merge the duplicated nodes (validator

Re: [Tagging] Interpreting One feature, one OSM-object

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: As for the specific question, I would say that if the boundary is defined by the natural feature, it's probably OK to use one way. For example, http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/78384443 is legally defined as

Re: [Tagging] Interpreting One feature, one OSM-object

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: I think one feature, one object is usually used in the other direction: you don't tag the boundary name=x and also put it in a boundary relation with name=x. You don't put a fast_food node in the middle of a building

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a (main) entrance to a large feature?

For buildings there is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dentrance I suppose you could invent park=entrance, but perhaps there is reason for a general entrance=yes tag to use on the nodes on the way which are entances to that area. Just a thought. On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 8:41 PM,

Re: [Tagging] Groups of islands, how to tag?

What about place=archipelago (or place=islands) used with either the multipolygon or the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Collected_Ways_Simple On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: The problem with that is that a multipolygon relation

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

I've been using natural=rocks, but I'm happy to change this if something is agreed upon. Is a distinction made between areas which are basically one really large rock stuck to the ground, and areas where there are lots of body to head sized rocks (without knowing what is underneath)? Also some

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - natural=bare_rock

2011/1/28 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: My opinion is that natural=bare_rock should be used for solid rock and not for fields of stone/stony ground. The visible bedrock, even if it could be splintered and jagged. Okay, so this natural=bare_rock RFC should be used where there is one very

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk-be] associatedStreet

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 3:35 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: No editor does know how to handel the relation if you split the way with role street. Yes. In JOSM though it will add a street member for each new shorter way when the street is split. So at least this information isn't

[Tagging] How to tag reaches (segments of a waterway)?

I would like to map some named reaches (straight portion of a stream or river, as from one turn to another;) part of a major river. The river (e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-33.50134lon=150.8778zoom=15layers=M ) currently has both a riverbank area drawn, and a way down the middle of the

Re: [Tagging] [sharedmapau] Mapping surveyed marks

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:33 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 July 2011 21:24, Franc Carter franc.car...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:19 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone been tagging these from Nearmap imagery or even on the ground?

Re: [Tagging] Level and type of school (ISCED, public/private/charter)

I've been using what makes sense locally. For me that is, school:level={primary|secondary|...} school:sector={public|private} school:selective={yes|no} But perhaps I should be using school:au:level, school:au:selective and school:au:sector like Pieren is. Regardless I think it should be up to

Re: [Tagging] barrier=net ?

I've also used it to tag nets in the water used to provide swimming areas safe from sharks. On 07/01/2015 11:42 am, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: There are 544 uses of barrier=net, and I want to add it into the wiki. For many golf courses, driving ranges, and baseball fields world wide, and many

Re: [Tagging] barrier=net ?

On 07/01/2015 9:29 pm, althio althio althio.fo...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew your case is more specialized so I feel barrier=net is lacking. How about barrier=fence fence_type=shark_net Sounds good with me. I'll re-tag the ones I've tagged. ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag cricket nets?

On 29 September 2015 at 13:55, Kieron Thwaites wrote: > Out of all of the below suggestions, I prefer: > > leisure:practice=* > sport=* > > This, to me, is the most backwards-compatible option, as you could retain a > leisure=* tag on the object. It also gives scope

Re: [Tagging] How to tag cricket nets?

On 29 September 2015 at 12:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have come up with > > leisure=exercise? > > exercise=cricket_nets description: A fenced area where cricket batting > and bowling can be practiced. > > And then there can be other 'exercise' > > exercise=exercise_station

Re: [Tagging] tagging seasonal sports

I would do (and have done) them both as separate features (weather you add them as a single node or a way). If indistinct I would either use just a node or an approx outline. eg. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-33.96963/151.05366 On 6 April 2016 at 09:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>

Re: [Tagging] water=pool

On 22 March 2017 at 18:53, Dave Swarthout wrote: > You might use waterway as the main tag to prevent confusion with the > top-level tag of water=* > > Either waterway=pool (TagInfo: 26 uses), or waterway=stream_pool, would be > better than water=stream_pool. I still think

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

t;o...@imagico.de> wrote: > On Monday 27 March 2017, Andrew Harvey wrote: >> > It is a bay of the Tasman Sea/Pacific Ocean. Ecologically it is a >> > fully >> >> maritime waterbody. >> >> What do you mean by "maritime waterbody"? &g

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

On 27 March 2017 at 21:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > as there's the coastline as well, it shouldn't produce any problem to remove > natural=water from the bay. We generally don't add natural=water to the sea: >

[Tagging] natural=bay on areas

The wiki for natural=bay says "Since bays are generally part of a larger waterbody, either a lake or the ocean, they should not be rendered in solid color indicating water themselves." This creates a conflict with a recent change to Botany Bay https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1214649 in

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

ph Hormann <o...@imagico.de> wrote: > On Monday 27 March 2017, Andrew Harvey wrote: >> >> What water body is Botany Bay >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botany_Bay part of? >> >> I don't think it's right too tag the inside of the bay as coastline. >> "A coastline

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

On 30 March 2017 at 07:41, Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana wrote: > An exact limit between the open ocean and a sheltered coast is too arbitrary > as natural feature. It seems a political issue. You can use > boundary=maritime + border_type=baseline for excluding internal

Re: [Tagging] natural=bay on areas

I've learned a lot from the comments here, based on others comments I think the solution to my issue is to use a tag like like coastline=pelagic (from wikipedia "A pelagic coast refers to a coast which fronts the open ocean, as opposed to a more sheltered coast in a gulf or bay.") on the oceanic

Re: [Tagging] Spillways

On 22 March 2017 at 16:56, Dave Swarthout wrote: > Weir does not seem appropriate for this type of thing. There is a tag, > waterway=spillway, that seems like a good fit - 81 uses so far. I've seen these tagged as waterway=drain which is close but agree that

Re: [Tagging] water=pool

lower than the watercourse. Frequently found below a waterfall." On 11 March 2017 at 20:24, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm looking for a tag for "A small and rather deep collection of (usually) > fresh water, as one supplied by a spring, or occurring

Re: [Tagging] water=pool

flowing in the same way as the creek, so I don't think it makes sense to tag as a stream area (a stream area, would be mostly rock, not water). I'm not fussed with water=stream_pool or water=pool. I agree with althio that water=stream_pool is more explicit, and water=pool could be confused with a re

[Tagging] water=pool

I'm looking for a tag for "A small and rather deep collection of (usually) fresh water, as one supplied by a spring, or occurring in the course of a stream;" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pool#English also like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_pool. They come in all shapes and sizes but are

Re: [Tagging] Traffic training area ("Verkehrsübungsplatz" in German)

On 13 June 2017 at 19:34, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Ho to tag such an area? > How to tag one for adults (real motor vehicles)? > How to tag one for kids (typically on bicycles) For the kids one, some examples: https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/-33.90774/151.18540

Re: [Tagging] Additional sub tags for survey mark

Being able to distinguish different types of survey marks and points is very much needed in OSM, it would be great to see this formalised on the wiki. I like the idea of modelling it after https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ Seamarks/Categories_of_Objects#Control_Points_.28CATCTR.29 as that

Re: [Tagging] Additional sub tags for survey mark

On 21 November 2017 at 12:29, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think that triangulation points are not normally used this way? Where > required the placement of the equipment on the exact centre of the point > may mean that the structure needs to be disassembled. > I'd think any

Re: [Tagging] man_made water _tap with amenity drinking_water

I agree it's confusing. On one reading of the wiki man_made=water _tap with amenity=drinking_water would mean the exact same as man_made=water_tap + drinking_water=yes. On the other hand I think amenity=drinking_water should be reserved for things primarily intended for direct water consumption,

Re: [Tagging] passage only on low tide

On 4 November 2017 at 18:04, Max wrote: > How to tag a way that is only passable for 3 hours during low tide? > I would add http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tidal to indicate the way is within the tidal range, but you'd probably still want another tag to set

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

On 29 October 2017 at 08:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > & I must admit to being "guilty" of listing both types of address - > filling in the address details of the type of building / shop / POI & then > also adding an address node, usually on it's driveway. > > My

Re: [Tagging] brand=* necessary?

On 10 May 2018 at 18:33, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Thursday 10 May 2018, marc marc wrote: > > Imho it us the opposite : name should be added only if it us not the > > same as brand > > Exactly. Nme tags are for identifiers that identify the individual > object, not a whole

Re: [Tagging] highway=service // public road?

On 23 May 2018 at 23:09, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/service#values > > Looking at the values only 10% of the service=* are alley. > > What about highway=service without service=* ? > A lot of these are simply a lower classification than

Re: [Tagging] Lifeguards

I strongly disagree that they are the same, they are used to map different things, as noted on the wiki by the detailed descriptions https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aemergency#Lifeguards. Low usage is likely just because there aren't that many of these in the real world and not many

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

On 18 June 2018 at 21:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2018-06-18 13:17 GMT+02:00 Andrew Harvey : > >> Do we have any tagging scheme for “an area in which it is likely for a >>> lifeguard to be”? I’m not sure if simply tagging an area with >>> emergency=lifegua

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

On 18 June 2018 at 21:04, wrote: > > > While on the topic of lifeguards, lifeguard=place on a node doesn’t really > fit to beaches where there a lifeguard place is usually, but it can be > anywhere in a larger section of the beach on a day by day basis, depending > on the weather and sea

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

> I don’t think just because a lifeguard=place isn’t there 24/7, 365 days a year means it isn’t a lifeguard=place. Agreed, lifeguard=place might just have a flag/chair which is only there sometimes, which so long as there is some regularity to it, I think is fine for OSM. On 18 June 2018 at

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

Agreed with others that for things like bus shelters, they aren't really buildings, so don't think iD should automatically add building=*. I've been wondering how to tag a rock overhang in OSM, and just found it, amenity=shelter + shelter_type=rock_shelter, quite valuable if your out in the

Re: [Tagging] Unresolved notes

Agreed, SEO spam and per the consensus in the talk-au thread at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2018-May/011839.html we should delete any OSM edits or notes which meet the criteria as spammers seemingly following the same recipe book without engaging with us. On 17 June 2018 at

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

3, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: > >> >> >> On 11 June 2018 at 17:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 11/06/18 15:39, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: >>> >>> *From:* Andrew Harvey >>> >>> *Sent:* Mo

Re: [Tagging] Unresolved notes

On 18 June 2018 at 09:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Yep, agree that looks like spam. Googling the company name brings back > pretty well exactly that data & description, so it's one we could delete, > but the problem is finding it? > > The location on the map is in the middle of the oval at

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

On 11 June 2018 at 08:14, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On 11 June 2018 at 01:52, François Lacombe > wrote: > >> A telephone exchange is a particular device inside a central office. >> We look forward to map places, not devices for now. >> >> People used to put man_made=telephone_exchange or

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

I think having this level of separation is very important and we should encourage tagging the exact type of lifeguard facility over a generic emergency=lifeguard. However in the same way the generic highway=road can be used if the highway classification isn't known, we could add

Re: [Tagging] emergency=first_aid_kit

Sounds good to me. It could probably replace https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Aemergency%3Drescue_box which seems like a special kind of first_aid_kit. On 11 June 2018 at 14:08, Bryan Housel wrote: > I was looking at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency today. > > Can we

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

> Also, water_rescue_station is probably identical to lifeguard_base Agree based on the description given at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dwater_rescue_station it sounds like lifeguard_base. Just based on the tag name I thought it meant something like

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

On 11 June 2018 at 15:16, Bryan Housel wrote: > > Sounds good - lets do it! > What are the next steps? > Let's wait for people to weigh in, and see if we have a consensus on which way to proceed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

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

> Which by definition is wrong because a given street address (addr:city + addr:street + addr:postcode + addr:housenumber) _must be unique_ - at least in the country (The Netherlands) where I live and where I found this situation. Honest question, what is lost or wrong with having the address

Re: [Tagging] Emergency pull-offs

> (runaway truck vs. breakdowns and other reasons to stop), and would if > anything be a more dangerous place to pull off than elsewhere on the > shoulder, since runaway trucks coming down from a hill are expected to be > able to just barrel right onto one at any time. > > On Sat, D

Re: [Tagging] Emergency pull-offs

Could be http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Descape On 31 Dec. 2017 1:36 pm, "Albert Pundt" wrote: > How are emergency pull-offs generally > mapped? I can't find anything on the wiki, so they're either have no > agreed-upon

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

See also https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-November/034023.html. My comments were: I agree it's confusing. On one reading of the wiki man_made=water _tap with amenity=drinking_water would mean the exactly the same as man_made=water_tap + drinking_water=yes. On the other

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

Is there a consensus here? > The tag amenity=drinking_water is non specific, it could be a spring, a stream, a pool. I view it as similar to highway=road Well said, amenity=drinking_water "a place to get drinking water" really just means drinking_water=yes and access=yes. Both a common tap and a

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

Martin, which part? The whole reason this discussion started is because Bryan wants to offer a way to tag a lifeguard facility iD without forcing users to choose the exact kind of lifeguard facility. At the moment with the current documentation on the wiki you need to choose what type, and can't

[Tagging] building:flats

The building:flats key[1] is documented on the wiki as "number of residential units (flats, apartments) in an apartment building, residential building, house, detached house or similar building". It's a useful tag indicating the density of the building when combined with geometry and height (or

Re: [Tagging] building:flats

on a house, according to the wiki house is already "A single dwelling unit usually inhabited by one family." On 5 August 2018 at 18:43, marc marc wrote: > Le 05. 08. 18 à 01:39, Warin a écrit : > > On 05/08/18 08:59, marc marc wrote: > >> Le 05. 08. 18 à 00:47, Andrew H

Re: [Tagging] building:flats

st 2018 at 08:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On 5 August 2018 at 19:22, Andrew Harvey wrote: > >> Terminology does seem to vary around the world with apartment, flat, unit >> all being interchangeable, I see the building:flats tag as the number of >> s

Re: [Tagging] Put the name in sidewalks and cycleways

> This mirrors the associatedStreet approaches taken by different OSM communities regarding addresses: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key: addr vs https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet. Most of the same pros/cons apply, though with sidewalks there is a lot more

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared zones?

While I agree they match the description of highway=living_street sometimes these also match highway=service (service=alley) so it can be hard to decide which tag to use... Either way I tag them with maxspeed=10 (lower speed limit), foot=designated, bicycle=designated, motor_vehicle=designated

[Tagging] Questions about subway tags

According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_transport#Railways "*railway =subway_entrance can be used to define entrances to metro stations."* Should we be using that

Re: [Tagging] Questions about subway tags

=subway_entrance (the accepted tag for metro entrances) on entrances that don't lead underground, and we'll be tagging regular train station entrances on entrances which do lead underground. On Sat, 1 Sep 2018 at 23:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > On 1. Sep 2018, at 15:20, Andrew Harvey wr

Re: [Tagging] How to map Outdoor Fitness Equipment

I'd like to rewrite the wiki entry to be: For an area containing multiple pieces of equipment either map out the area as a way or add a node at the centre with leisure=fitness_station + optional tags like fitness_station:horizontal_ladder=yes, fitness_station:parallel_bars=yes, etc to describe

Re: [Tagging] How to map Outdoor Fitness Equipment

nk there already some tagging scheme for individual playground > equipment? Haven’t used that yet or checked it out in detail, but whatever > that scheme is, it would probably make sense to follow a similar pattern > for fitness_station (which may very well be what you already described &g

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

On 23 April 2018 at 21:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > What about these? > amenity=traffic_training_area (for adults / cars) > amenity=traffic_education_area (for kids) > That sounds reasonable, with the second one being exactly

Re: [Tagging] Radio telescopes

, 25 Oct 2018 at 21:50, Daniel Koć wrote: > > W dniu 25.10.2018 o 12:37, Andrew Harvey pisze: > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 21:08, Joseph Eisenberg > > wrote: > >> Please don’t tag radio telescopes with tower:communication. Telescopes > >> observe, they do not commun

Re: [Tagging] Radio telescopes

=telescope + telescope:type=radio + tower:construction=dish Is that right? On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 22:43, Daniel Koć wrote: > > W dniu 25.10.2018 o 13:30, Andrew Harvey pisze: > > What's the recommended tagging for radio telescopes like > > https://en.

Re: [Tagging] Radio telescopes

On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 21:08, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Please don’t tag radio telescopes with tower:communication. Telescopes > observe, they do not communicate or send information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_telescopes lists many radio telescopes which communicate and send

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 19:58, Frederik Ramm wrote: > also burdens OSM with dead data that will not be properly maintained. This is my experience too, I've seen people add bus routes from their surveys into OSM but they quickly become out of date and aren't maintained. Some roads can have 100+

Re: [Tagging] Radio telescopes

What about man_made=tower tower:type=communication tower:construction=dish See for example https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/14565 it's even rendered on the default OSM map. On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 17:38, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > I am working on rendering man_made=telescopes, starting

Re: [Tagging] Slipways (for boats)

On Sat, 10 Nov 2018 at 20:58, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > leisure=splipway is perfectly fine +1, I'm in favour of leaving things as they are. What's the point in changing it now given it's already extensively used for non-leisure purposes? The leisure key is just an historical artefact now, and

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 07:16, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Then you get other "fuzzy" ones :-), such as this one that I found yesterday: >

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

The rule of thumb I've been using is a mast being a simple pole (same width at base and top), and a tower being anything else that has more supports. I do think we need something simple to distinguish simple mobile phone towers like (1) and larger television/radio broadcast towers like (2) and it

Re: [Tagging] landform promontory

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 at 10:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps 'cape' should be dropped in favour of promontory as that could be > used for both land and sea? :) Water based promontories should stay as natural=cape as per the wiki they are "prominent, elevated piece of land sticking

Re: [Tagging] Ignore roundabout flare in counting

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 at 17:34, Florian Lohoff wrote: > Ignore flares if not used in counting. > > The roundabout i have in mind has 4 normal exits and one "exit" which is > basically i private driveway. Its that small that noone not known to the > location would notice it. > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Toll Gantry

>In light of the fact that some roads will be missing the tag toll=yes, routing >software will have to be updated to avoid highway=toll_gantry if the user is >trying to avoid tolls entirely. Just a note about this point, there can be barrier=toll_booth's or highway=toll_gantry's which only toll

Re: [Tagging] Tagging mangroves over water?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/82862980 The coastline should go to the mean high water mark, so if it's a tidal wetland, the wetland will be seaside. On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 at 12:30, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Have you seen any areas of mangroves tagged over water? That is, > outside of the

Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream

I agree with https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5213660838 location=underground man_made=pipeline substance=rainwater I think it's okay to place this on a node if you don't know the location the pipeline goes underground, even if the tags were meant for ways. Personally I would just add a way a

Re: [Tagging] Walking route on a beach

On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 10:27, Sergio Manzi wrote: > Why don't you use trail_visibility=no on the sections of path which are > invisible as they are just plain beach? Routing will not be affected (it will > work...). I agree. I think trail_visibility=no + surface=sand (or whatever the beach

Re: [Tagging] shelter_type=rock_shelter

At the moment consensus on talk-au is to use a new tag, natural=rock_overhang. On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 06:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > shelter is under the amenity key because it is shelter _for_ humans, it > implies minimum dimensions (shelter for mice would have different > requirements).

Re: [Tagging] Tag for a plateau or tableland?

This does make it harder for mappers to decide which one they should use, but if in doubt they can just pick one they think is best. An alternative is natural=plateau + plateau=butte|mesa or something like that. > Thus mesas and buttes could be mapped as nodes or areas, but plateaus could only

Re: [Tagging] Tag for a plateau or tableland?

Plateau, table, tablelands all used in Australia. landform=plateau has 5 usages https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landform=plateau natural=plateau seems fine to me. Could be called walls sometimes, but to me it's unclear if that's the term for the plateau or the cliffs that surround the

Re: [Tagging] Tag for a plateau or tableland?

on in any direction generally exceeds 1.6km. TABLELAND An elevated tract of land with a generally level surface of considerable extent, generally with a minimum area of 2,500 hectares. On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 17:33, Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 at 07:09, Andrew Harvey > wrote: >

[Tagging] shelter_type=rock_shelter

The wiki documents amenity=shelter + shelter_type=rock_shelter [1] as "A rock shelter is a shallow cave-like opening at the base of a bluff or cliff." It has ~500 uses globally. In Australia these rock shelters known as rock overhangs or cliff overhangs are extensively mistagged as

Re: [Tagging] Runway area mapping?

On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I've seen a number of runways mapped only as areas. > > This seems like a bad idea, since it loses the information of the > runway centerline and length. Adding a width tag to a linear way > should be enough to clearly define most runways.

Re: [Tagging] Other missing landform tags

On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 16:29, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Pass A depression or gap in a range of mountains or hills permitting > easier passage from one side to the other. > I've been using the mountain_pass=yes tag, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mountain_pass although I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:natural=mesa and Tag:natural=butte

I think more needs to be done to distinguish when to use natural=plateau vs natural=mesa. I know a number of landforms which have the name Plateau and are exactly "an flat-topped landform that is elevated above the surrounding terrain and surrounded by cliffs.". On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 20:32,

Re: [Tagging] Clashing access tags

+1 On Mon., 15 Jul. 2019, 3:02 am Dave F via Tagging, < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > On 14/07/2019 13:07, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Occasionally I encounter tag combinations like this: > > > > bicycle=designated > > highway=proposed > > > > (from

Re: [Tagging] Stop the large feature madness (was: Tag for a plateau or tableland?)

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 at 23:04, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > ...These would actually be an example of a feature > that does have a verifiable border, and could therefore be mapped as > an area by following the top of the cliff all the way around, but I > don't see any great benefit to doing all that

Re: [Tagging] Gorges, Canyons, Ravines: natural=valley or new tag?

To me a canyon is narrow with steep cliffs on either side (a place where you'd go canyoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canyoning) and a gorge is much wider and may have less steep sides but then you have the Grand Canyon in the US which is wide and less steep sides. I'd vote for separate

Re: [Tagging] Multiple values in isced:level

It could be cultural but I've always understood that the hyphen (-), ie. 1-3 would mean it covers 1, 2 and 3, while if you say 1;3 or 1,3 then it would cover 1 and 3 only, excluding two 2. So I think it depends, if you want a range use "-" if you don't want a range use a ";" or ",". I've tagged

Re: [Tagging] How to distinguish public and private offices?

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 07:32, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Unfortunately many office=* tags represent something that is accessible - > for example > office=insurance is used far more often than shop=insurance (what is > causing throuble > as there are > > - actual offices of companies without

Re: [Tagging] Multiple values in isced:level

ess error prone and simpler, as they all should be easily interpreted by the downstream data consumer. On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 04:53, Jo wrote: > Wonderful, thank you for your contribution to standardising, by doing your > own thing anyway. Really great. > > Jo > > > > O

Re: [Tagging] Multiple values in isced:level

I'll still be using a range with a -. so 0-2 to mean from 0 to 2 inclusive. I've used it all over my state for schools together with the grades key. To me it's a lot clearer and simpler than the semicolon or multiple yes/no values. On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 at 16:53, Lanxana . wrote: > Hi! > > so,

Re: [Tagging] Tag for a milk_shake shop?

I'd tag it as amenity=cafe, even without selling coffee I still think it fits into https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=cafe, just with a cuisine tag to specify milk_shakes are the main cuisine. On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 00:06, ael wrote: > How do I tag a shop that sells milk shakes? > >

Re: [Tagging] Multiple values in isced:level

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 08:36, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > In Australia, at least, that would mean Unit (Room / Suite / Office etc) 1 > (House / Street) Number 3; 3/4 would be Unit 3 Number 4 etc > Which would be more explicit if mapped as addr:unit=3 + addr:housenumber=4. Then downsteam

  1   2   3   >