[Tagging] Horse mounting steps

2019-03-26 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Hi https://snag.gy/3jSyt7.jpgSteps provided so that a rider can climb back on. Any ideas?  Could find anything in Taginfo or wiki https://snag.gy/mwYNd6.jpghttps://snag.gy/mwYNd6.jpgamenity/leisure=horse_mount, maybe. https://snag.gy/mwYNd6.jpg This example is provided at a road/bridleway

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-17 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Why do you exclude tracks? Legal access to them are often denied as they're on private land (example: farms) Why ford? Why oneway? Cheers DaveF On 15/02/2019 11:50, Tobias Wrede wrote: As far as I am concerned roads that are most likely to merit a foot=no are - all highway road types

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-17 Thread Dave F via Tagging
I should have been clearer. I was indicating a case where foot=no would be appropriate, but I should have stated there are also cases where 'yes' or 'designated' are required. I'm still unsure why Tobias W. thinks tracks shouldn't be queried at all yet residential roads should. Don't

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-17 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 15/02/2019 12:20, Tobias Wrede wrote: Unfortunately, the legal situation is not always as clear as we wish to. There are a lot of grey zones and we need to apply common sense when tagging the access rules. You're undoubtedly correct. However, foot=yes/no has always represented, as

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-17 Thread Dave F via Tagging
As already stated, sidewalk is to indicate a physical object. Sidewalk has no legal implications. 'Foot' is used purely to indicate legality. On 17/02/2019 22:29, Tobias Wrede wrote: Am 17.02.2019 um 20:44 schrieb Andy Townsend: I don't think that a "global" encouragement to add foot=no makes

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-17 Thread Dave F via Tagging
, Peter Elderson wrote: I'm afraid countries differ with respect to legal imlications of sidewalk. This discussion, I've seen it 5 times now ande it never ends with consensus. It never ends at all. Vr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 18 feb. 2019 om 00:49 schreef Dave F via Tagging mailto:tagging

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-18 Thread Dave F via Tagging
. That conflation occurs doesn't make it acceptable. Your misunderstanding/misuse of the 'sidewalk' tag is resolved with another tag. (wow, 5 negs in a row, respect!) Mvg Peter Elderson Op 18 feb. 2019 om 01:45 heeft Dave F via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> het volgende gesc

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

2019-02-18 Thread Dave F via Tagging
um 00:48 schrieb Dave F via Tagging: As already stated, sidewalk is to indicate a physical object. Sidewalk has no legal implications. 'Foot' is used purely to indicate legality. So? I don't think this is disputed. The reasoning here is that the absence of a sidewalk in some situations goes

Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1

2019-04-13 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 13/04/2019 01:37, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Example: I'm considering using the tag "area=yes" to check if a barrier should be rendered as an area. Right now "barrier=hedge" is rendered as an area in the Openstreetmap-carto if it is imported as a polygon. This happens for all closed ways that

Re: [Tagging] A modest proposal to increase the usefulness of the tagging list

2019-06-02 Thread Dave F via Tagging
(not read the whole thread as there are far too many from you, Simon.) What is WMF ? When you say "not posting more than 30 times per month" do you mean thread starts or are you including responses? Never understood the criticism of "noise" - if you don't like it, ignore it. These are

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

2019-05-24 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 24/05/2019 18:56, Nick Bolten wrote: But Nick, /you/ made it personal. No, I didn't. I named nobody. Nick, making it personal also means making it about yourself. You've been self referential numerous times: "My experience with this mailing list" And yet, this thread is devolving

Re: [Tagging] iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

2019-05-22 Thread Dave F via Tagging
They've (just quincylvania?) got their logic backwards. A platform is, by default, accessible by people. It's what they are designed for in the real world. I find it strange/worrying he makes these far reaching decisions unilaterally (unless there's other hidden discussions not linked to in

Re: [Tagging] iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

2019-05-23 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Don't you think, with his refusal to participate in discussions about raised issues, that it's often self inflicted? On a couple of occasions he's said he ignores these forums & note how often github threads are instantaneously closed. DaveF On 23/05/2019 09:16, Tobias Zwick wrote: I like

Re: [Tagging] ID is not a king and final arbiter of OSM

2019-05-23 Thread Dave F via Tagging
If they'd wanted to do that the github thread wouldn't have been locked. He's never been good at taking criticism. He confesses *all* responses will be critical, but still thinks he's right. DaveF On 23/05/2019 18:26, Jmapb wrote: On 5/23/2019 12:32 PM, Tobias Zwick wrote: Undoubtedly, the

Re: [Tagging] iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

2019-05-23 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Please see the discussion on the Transit forum. Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of a raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement. From OSM's Welcome page: "OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both /real and current/ " "What it

Re: [Tagging] iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

2019-05-24 Thread Dave F via Tagging
html But to quickly summarise: What Jo said. DaveF On 23/05/2019 23:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 04:49, Dave F via Tagging wrote: Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of a raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement. Sorry, but do you

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

2019-05-24 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 24/05/2019 18:29, Nick Bolten wrote: Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched. But Nick, /you/ made it personal. I haven't seen any of the behaviour you claim. You probably need to grow some thicker skin. If you're looking for sycophantic agreement with any point you

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals

2019-05-07 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 07/05/2019 22:46, Volker Schmidt wrote: Two spontanous reactions 1) You cannot deprecate a tagging that is used 750k times (crossing=uncontrolled) or 570k times (crossing=traffic_signals) In principle, why do you think it can't be performed?

[Tagging] junction=yes as a polygon. Who uses them?

2019-04-19 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Hi Following a discussion on OSM-Carto, I'm curious what software uses junction=yes as a polygon. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:junction%3Dyes#How_to_use_on_an_area A couple of examples: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5492033 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/218106249

Re: [Tagging] Removing an ATM

2019-07-09 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 09/07/2019 14:04, MARLIN LUKE wrote: Hi, I've read in the wiki (and on this list) that it's best to avoid loosing history. This refers to the edit history of an object ie How many times it's been amended, by whom, & what got changed. I have an ATM mapped in a street which does not

Re: [Tagging] Clashing access tags

2019-07-14 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 14/07/2019 13:07, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Hi all, Occasionally I encounter tag combinations like this: bicycle=designated highway=proposed (from https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/335831004) where the "bikes can ride along here" of the first tag is contradicted by the "this

[Tagging] 'track_detail' on railway lines - what does it represent?

2019-04-21 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Hi 'track_detail, used on railway tracks. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/4414158 4700+ total worldwide  3900+ in the UK I can find nothing in the wiki Is track_detail meant to indicate that all tracks have been mapped? Surely that can be noted just by looking at the map? DaveF

Re: [Tagging] 'track_detail' on railway lines - what does it represent?

2019-04-23 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 21/04/2019 21:52, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Apr 21, 2019, 1:37 PM by tagging@openstreetmap.org: User is still active. Overall, I would ask in at least some changesets before or together with asking on ml. If I want to know why an individual contributor adds a tag I would ask on a

[Tagging] Incorrectly tagging locks on rivers as canals

2019-04-24 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Hi This maybe UK specific but it's a tagging problem & maybe wider spread. To allow navigation, rivers occasional have lock gates, usually as a separate channel. Some contributors tag these incorrectly as waterway=canal for the centre line. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/347369154

Re: [Tagging] Why should we avoid overusage of amenity=* tag?

2019-04-24 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 21/04/2019 01:12, Warin wrote: I am all for the introduction of the key education=* It makes sense, adds detail - improves the map data base. True. The one that irks me is amenity=cafe. It isn't there for the benefit of the community; it is a commercial enterprise & should be tagged

Re: [Tagging] Incorrectly tagging locks on rivers as canals

2019-04-25 Thread Dave F via Tagging
. 2019 à 20:40, Dave F via Tagging a écrit : Hi This maybe UK specific but it's a tagging problem & maybe wider spread. To allow navigation, rivers occasional have lock gates, usually as a separate channel. Some contributors tag these incorrectly as waterway=canal for the centre line. h

Re: [Tagging] Incorrectly tagging locks on rivers as canals

2019-04-25 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Have these diversions been given a 'XYZ Canal' name? if not then it's a river. I think the duck test needs to be applied. DaveF On 25/04/2019 11:25, Richard Fairhurst wrote: DaveF wrote: The water flowing through it is still river water. The water flowing down lots of canals is ultimately

Re: [Tagging] New property Key:walk-in for amenities like clinics, barbers, hair salons that offer walk-in appointments/service?

2019-08-15 Thread Dave F via Tagging
How about using booking? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Abooking DaveF On 15/08/2019 03:36, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Another user has proposed the Key walk-in=* to specify if an amenity, like a healthcare facility, sees people on a walk-in basis or not. In particular it's for medical

Re: [Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal

2019-08-15 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 31/07/2019 08:20, Warin wrote: "Any tag you like" is one of the OSM mantras. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like To be clearer it should be "Any tag you like.. to describe something different" If a valid tag is in use - use that. Cheers DaveF

Re: [Tagging] phone vs contact:phone

2019-08-26 Thread Dave F via Tagging
I've yet to see an argument for collecting all under the 'contact:*' tag that bears scrutiny . The "group them without having to keep a hardcoded list" falls down as they have to be split into separate variables to make sense of them. DaveF On 25/08/2019 20:48, marc marc wrote: Le 25.08.19

Re: [Tagging] building typology vs usage

2019-09-13 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 11/09/2019 14:50, Paul Allen wrote: I said that if it was a church and looks like a church then tag the building as a church even if it now functions as something else. Buildings don't have a 'type'. There's no 'class', no standard architectural style or size. A quick image search proves

Re: [Tagging] building typology vs usage

2019-09-13 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 13/09/2019 16:14, Wolfgang Zenker wrote: That would be kind of redundant, wouldn't it? We already use other tags for the current function of a building, I'm repeating much of my of my previous comment, but no, the schema which hijacked building=* to represent the original historical

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

2019-07-29 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Hi This is not a criticism of Joseph. This post confirms what I've been saying for the past year - PT tags add nothing but confusion to OSM, which directly leads to errors. highway=bus_stop is a completely separate tag to any in the PT schema. It was created long before the invention of the

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

2019-07-29 Thread Dave F via Tagging
I believe the main reason isn't (& probably shouldn't) deprecated is that it allows entities which are unused but still physically there, to be rendered. disused:*=* aren't rendered on the 'standard' render. Davef On 29/07/2019 07:23, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I was going to fix the status of

Re: [Tagging] Clashing access tags

2019-07-16 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Even if 'construction' was to be used, it would still cause the same confusion to Richard F On 15/07/2019 20:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 14 Jul 2019, 21:03 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: Route relations should be aware of tags on ways. access=no can be used in part to indicate road works.

[Tagging] JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

2019-07-06 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Hi Unsure if these validation warnings on uploading a changeset in JOSM are new or I've never noticed them before: >"Suspicious tag combination highway=cycleway together with foot=designated, use highway=path"     This is incorrect. A cycleway tag can be used on a shared path, one which

Re: [Tagging] JOSM's "suspicious" path data warnings

2019-07-06 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 06/07/2019 14:08, Andy Townsend wrote: Where any editor gives incorrect suggestions I'd suggest raising a ticket with the editor concerned about it.  I've done that a couple of times in the past with JOSM and the issues have been resolved almost immediately. Obviously it helps to provide

Re: [Tagging] the nature of large-scale paid edits (was Re: Service road)

2019-11-08 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 08/11/2019 03:32, Warin wrote: There is simply too much other stuff to do that be worried by every driveway. So I only map them where they are of some interest to other than the resident. Apologies Warin, but this has just made me genuinely lol. You have an opinion on almost every

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

2019-11-11 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 11/11/2019 02:20, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: If this is about Openstreetmap-carto, there is now an open issue: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3968 - note that rendering area features in the "emergency=" key, like this, would require reloading the database on the

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

2019-11-11 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 10/11/2019 16:53, Greg Troxel wrote: So I agree these tags should be kept separate. I'm struggling to comprehend how a question I deliberately kept simple at just one sentence long can cause so much misinterpretation. As for emergency= and amenity=, that's a historical artifact and

[Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

2019-11-10 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Hi Simple question (which I presume has been previously discussed) : Why the different key tags to describe what are essentially synonymous entities? DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Service road - Can it be a driveway if serving multiple houses?

2019-11-07 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 06/11/2019 18:04, Greg Troxel wrote: I think a shared driveway is still a driveway. This is the crux. The only distinguishing attribute from what we'd all tag as a driveway is that's it's shared. A driveway is designated as privately owned rather than by the local authority. It isn't

Re: [Tagging] emergency=ambulance_station vs amenity=fire_station

2019-11-12 Thread Dave F via Tagging
be treated as polygons when mapped as closed ways, and then submitting a PR (pull request) to add these for the next database reload, which might happen soon, if enough people are interested in making it happen. - Joseph Eisenberg On 11/11/19, Dave F via Tagging wrote: On 11/11/2019 02:20, Joseph

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

2019-11-05 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 05/11/2019 13:11, Andy Townsend wrote: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65663472 (Meir Tunnel, dry even on a wet Wednesday in Stoke*) bans foot and bicycle traffic, so you can neither walk nor cycle through it.  A cycle router would have to flat-out avoid it, whereas it may choose not

[Tagging] Service road - Can it be a driveway if serving multiple houses?

2019-11-05 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Hi In the UK, Amazon Logistics are adding useful data from their GPS'd delivery vehicles. Mainly highway=service as the last part of their journey to a destination. However, one of their contributors removed service=driveway from a highway=service road. In the changeset comments they said

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2019-12-14 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 14/12/2019 10:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: if I saw this I would think I’d have to push the bike there, not take a train Well, yes - you would have to push it into the carriage. Your assumption would only occur if the railway tag is ignored. Cheers DaveF

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2019-12-14 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 14/12/2019 07:00, Francesco Ansanelli wrote: Thanks everybody for the feedback. I've added the bicycle=dismount on the railway. I think we still need some role in the relation to better describe the situation. Adding a bicycle=dismount is OK I suppose, but I'm unsure there's really a

Re: [Tagging] Rail segment in a bike route

2019-12-14 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 14/12/2019 14:42, Volker Schmidt wrote: Adding a bicycle=dismount is OK I suppose, but I'm unsure there's really a problem. This street in Padova carries a (mono-rail) tram (railway=tram) and is closed to bicycles, tagged with bicycle=no. I

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

2019-10-28 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 28/10/2019 09:42, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On 10/28/19 03:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: "sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign For me it seems a horrible and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

2019-10-16 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 15/10/2019 16:24, Vɑdɪm wrote: Apparently you've misunderstood the proposal. It is not about a place where sunbathing is generally allowed, which indeed would be too vague/general. It's about a dedicated place. That you've changed your tune & given vague/unrealistic examples suggests

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

2019-10-23 Thread Dave F via Tagging
No. Just because, once again, routing software fails & you don't use a certain tag it is not a reason to deprecate. The tail does not wag the dog in OSM. Contact the navigation software developers & tell them to write some decent code. DaveF On 23/10/2019 09:26, Florian Lohoff wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019-10-14 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 14/10/2019 14:50, Dave F via Tagging wrote: PS Can anyone explain what an " academic member" is? Just found out it was a spell-correct typo. Volker is an ACA member DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019-10-14 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 14/10/2019 00:17, Warin wrote: On 14/10/19 07:26, Volker Schmidt wrote: (disclosure: I am academic member, but express my personal view) The Great Divide route is, to my knowledge, not signposted. The source for thr route is most likely either a GPX track from ACA or a map set from ACA, 

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019-10-11 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Are you able to properly verify these are all "Random road your cycling club likes to ride on the weekend" & not designated/signed routes? ATM it appears you're vetting them purely on the class of highway used. Designated cycle routes can go along "just regular roads, with no designation for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

2019-10-14 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Better to drop it. it's too vague/general. All the examples in this list are leisure places (Beach, lido, park) at which sunbathing is just one of many assumed activities. Swimming, kicking a ball about, throwing a frisbee etc.There's no requirement to explicitly tag it. You'd be better off

[Tagging] pavement placed plaque

2019-12-20 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Hi I've a carved stone plaque(?) that's fixed flush into the pavement. it's to indicate the start/finish point of a long distance walk. https://whatsdavedoing.com/cotswold-way-guide/#start Two questions: 1 Is plaque the best name? Our Wiki quotes Wikipedia as it being vertical, but that

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

2020-01-27 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 27/01/2020 15:36, Jmapb wrote: My own impression over the years has been that mappers use highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway

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

2020-01-27 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 27/01/2020 16:41, Mike Thompson wrote: I have never understood the use of tags like "cycleway", "bridleway", and "footway." To me these mix two different concepts (physical form and legal access) in a single tag. These values do not indicate a way's form. That is achieved with

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

2020-01-28 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 28/01/2020 21:23, Tomas Straupis wrote: Yet for ten years or even more the logic was that... Are there any reasons why this must change now? Any benefits? I think your mistaken in your timeline. Cycleway & footway were around before path was introduced to cover the

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

2020-02-04 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 04/02/2020 16:03, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Universities may have faculties, that often deserved to be mapped separately. For example university may take a large area, possibly disjointed area across the city but Faculty of dentistry, Faculty of forestry, Faculty of mathematics

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

2020-01-16 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 16/01/2020 12:57, Paul Allen wrote: So the wiki says now. It's not what it said in the past. But let's say you're correct. We both know that standard carto doesn't render physical objects with a disused prefix. I, and others, believe that it is important to render physical objects

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

2020-01-16 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 16/01/2020 12:01, marc marc wrote: you want me to believe that every time an object has gone, It's not gone. We're talking about buildings which are physically still existing. you make an enquiry to find out how it disappeared ? Err.. No.You don't have to know why a building isn't

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

2020-01-16 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 16/01/2020 12:01, Paul Allen wrote: A lot of buildings have to be building=yes, for lack of anything better. But you already lost the battle with building=house, which is too firmly entrenched to change. Why would it need to change? If that's it's *current* usage tag it as house. If it

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

2020-01-16 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Joseph says tagging usage should dictate OSM-carto: the community should make tagging decisions based on what works best for mappers and what makes logical sense, without worrying what a particular renderer will do. But then ignores the more popular disused: prefix But this is not always

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

2020-01-16 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 16/01/2020 01:08, Paul Allen wrote: That matches my thinking on the issue. Others seem to agree. Do they? So, at the very least, the wiki needs to be amended. Does it? "Use the disused: lifecycle prefix on tags that relate to features that are in a reasonable state of repair but

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

2020-01-16 Thread Dave F via Tagging
The reason it's discouraged is it removes the building type. ie building=church. Even though it may not be used as a church currently it still looks like one. Renderers may still want to distinguish it as such as it's a prominent feature, useful for navigation. On 14/01/2020 17:59, Andy

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

2020-01-16 Thread Dave F via Tagging
The correct term is 'don't tag *incorrectly* to suit the render'. All tags are for the renderer, otherwise all the maps would be black lines & dots DaveF. On 14/01/2020 18:42, Kevin Kenny wrote: Whenever I raise a point like that, there is a chorus of 'don't tag for the renderer.'

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

2020-01-16 Thread Dave F via Tagging
You're using was: to represent the same meaning as disused:, so why not use the far more popular latter one? On 14/01/2020 19:02, Markus wrote: For example, building=commercial + disused=yes on the area and was:shop=supermarket + name=* on a node within.

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

2020-01-16 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 16/01/2020 11:34, marc marc wrote: I'm also using was: because I don't care Well. Done. You. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

2020-01-16 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 14/01/2020 19:32, marc marc wrote: Le 14.01.20 à 19:34, Markus a écrit : If i understand it correctly, building=* values describe how the building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now used as a pub still remains a building=church. I fully agree with that. note that

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

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

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

2020-01-12 Thread Dave F via Tagging
The OP clearly defines the scope of his question with "pedestrian highways" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-06 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 07/01/2020 00:30, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: Hi, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Denmark and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Da:Adresser seem like a good place to start. Hi Jarek Yes I had read the first link previously. Of course nothing is truly forbidden in OSM as long

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-06 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 05/01/2020 18:37, Marc Gemis wrote: This depends on the country. It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark, Hi Where does it say that? Where does it say it's forbidden to add address data to building polygons in OSM? Keeping address data separate from buildings

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-06 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 06/01/2020 21:55, Volker Schmidt wrote: This depends on the country. It is "forbidden" to put the address on the building in Denmark, A similar rule exist in Italy: the number has to be put where the actual entrance is, Well, this is slightly better than floating nodes as in Denmark, but

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-07 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 07/01/2020 17:18, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:51, Volker Schmidt wrote: May I come back to the navigation aspect. Let's assume I have a single square building aligned with the compass directions. It is between two parallel East<>West roads. It is placed closer to the road

Re: [Tagging] Criticism of PTv2

2020-03-11 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 10/03/2020 20:52, Phake Nick wrote: In the sense of bus, sidewalk could be a platform because they are raised from the driving road surface. You can google "bus platform" and see many example of the word being used in real world. But that's not how it was implemented in the PT

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

2020-03-10 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 09/03/2020 22:26, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: Separate relations per each route variant If you mean bidirectional, they've been mapped since the inception of route relations. - verifying that the highway ways are continuous in the relation. Which PTv2 tags allows that? DaveF

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

2020-03-08 Thread Dave F via Tagging
This proposal by Stereo is nothing really new.  Just a alternative to routing which has been around since relations were introduced. Definitely not 'PTv3'. The 'via' option appears almost as difficult to maintain as including ways. On 08/03/2020 01:41, John Doe wrote: That would be

Re: [Tagging] Criticism of PTv2

2020-03-10 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 09/03/2020 21:00, Alan Mackie wrote: So it's better to label them all as platforms? I can't see any raised area in a typical bus stop:... Why would we tag it as if it looks like this?... This is just one example of poor concepts implemented in PTv2. We should be mapping *physical*, not

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 03/04/2020 00:35, Morten Lange via Tagging wrote: I agree. And I am glad to se that seems to the overwhelming sentimemt on the list. MTB trails are a specific type of cycleway. They are indicated as such by using specific tags in combination with highway=cycleway. For those who want to

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 02/04/2020 20:02, brad wrote: No need for sympathy, I strongly agree with what you're saying.  I think it's unfortunate that we even have the cycleway and footway tags, but they need to be treated as special cases of highway=path, Are you also suggesting removing the "special cases" of

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 02/04/2020 20:11, brad wrote: On 4/2/20 10:56 AM, Dave F via Tagging wrote: And here we go again... If a way is designated for riding a bicycle then it's a cycleway, irrelevant of severity or conditions. The trouble with this is that very few trails are 'designated' for riding

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 02/04/2020 15:53, Kevin Kenny wrote: A key issue is that mtb:scale can't be the only indication. Otherwise, we're falling into a trap - which has been a common trap in the past. It's a trolltag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trolltag - a second tag that negates or massively changes

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-03 Thread Dave F via Tagging
No to motorway, a motorway is a divided, limited access highway, distinct from other types of highway.   Trunk is ambiguous, it wouldn't bother me if it was removed. How to miss the point Note the "etc". The wiki for cycleway, the 1st line: "The highway

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

2020-03-28 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 28/03/2020 18:18, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Hello folks, Route relation names aren’t in a great state, are they? Let’s say that I want to render cycle route names on a map (because, well, I do). I zoom in on a way along the East Coast of Britain and I find it’s a member of this route:  

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

2020-03-29 Thread Dave F via Tagging
A general point to all: Please don't confuse a way's name with a route's name. They are different. There can be multiple routes traversing over the same way. On 28/03/2020 21:56, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Sure. NCN 4 is called "NCN 4" in the same sense that the M4 is called the "M4". That's

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread Dave F via Tagging
And here we go again... If a way is designated for riding a bicycle then it's a cycleway, irrelevant of severity or conditions. cycleway with mtb:scale combination is a valid tag. mtb:scale gives an indication of what equipment would probably be required. The problem, as so often in OSM, is

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 02/04/2020 11:33, Volker Schmidt wrote: There is another aspect: The wiki page highway=cycleway states also " Tagging a way with highway =cycleway implies that the route is designated for bicycles." This means it implies, at least in Italy and

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

2020-04-02 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 02/04/2020 12:40, Snusmumriken wrote: On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 22:24 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: just usually only a certain kind of bicycle. Well, that's the problem, if one can't travel on a certain way with a general purpose bicycle, then it shouldn't be tagged highway=cycleway You're

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

2020-05-04 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Hi  I request to replace all occurrence of the prefixed versions of the contact keys, as it adds no quality to the OSM database On 04/05/2020 11:53, Valor Naram via Tagging wrote: I request to replace all occurrence of the non-prefixed versions of the contact keys like Key:phone,

[Tagging] Barbecue disposal bins

2020-03-18 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Hi Communal bins in parks etc for the disposal of hot ash or single-use tray barbecues. Unable to find the appropriate tag in the wiki or taginfo. Suggestions? PS Is anyone as irritated as I am by the shortening to 'bbq'. It seems to serve no beneficial purpose & consensus/convention is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

2020-03-20 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 11/03/2020 12:12, Jo wrote: That stop_position nodes became optional is probably because of my influence. Sorry. but In the beginning they were definitely part of how PTv2. railway=stop was, I believe, around before PTv2 concept. I disliked this very much because all of a sudden

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

2020-03-20 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 11/03/2020 12:16, Jo wrote: But if the originally, more common tag highway=bus_stop is already used, there is no need to add bus=yes. OK, but if we have to keep highway=bus_stop anyway, then one could also say that it's not needed to add public_transport=platform to such nodes anymore.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

2020-03-20 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 11/03/2020 12:07, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I notice that they also refer to adding bus=yes etc to platforms representing bus stops, which was not part of the PTv2 proposal, but I guess tries to deal with one of the issues that led people to prefer highway=bus_stop. Yes, that is a rather

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

2020-03-20 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 20/03/2020 15:26, Janko Mihelić wrote: the order of platforms and ways I'm unsure what you mean. Could you expand please? Is there a wiki page? DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

2020-03-09 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 09/03/2020 13:21, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: PTv2 is fine for people who want to handle routes that have variants and branches and who want computer validators to be able to spot potential errors in these branches. I'm intrigued: What Ptv2 tags enable those? DaveF

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-13 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 11/10/2020 08:16, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Are you mapping train stations as areas? From reading your replies here the impression I get is you are advocating for not extending the representation from a node to an area, right? I do not understand why you are fighting so hard to make a tag

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-13 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 11/10/2020 09:25, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Including all this tracks feels ridiculous to me. Agreed. Over the past few years in the UK I've been maintaining/checking the railway=station tag to ensure there are the correct number. I've the changed the few that were mapped as areas to nodes

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

2020-10-15 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Please send all messages to the public forum Martin. It was a post in reply to the topic. Unlike a few train spotters in Germany I'm not scared to have all discussions be public & a matter for record. Please don't dictate over events on which you have no authority. DaveF. On 15/10/2020

  1   2   >