[Tagging] Tagging airport approach aid systems

Hello, there. I'm trying to map some approach aid systems on a local airport, but I have trouble choosing the correct tags: the wiki mentions aeroway=navigationaid, and navigationaid=* to precise type, but this page has a banner telling to use airmark=beacon, an almost empty page with no

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

___ > > On 06/11/2015 10:24, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Obviously in places where a road can have multiple equivalent > references (such as the US) route relations perfect sense (as does > figuring out which routes are actually signed on which bits of road) > but in

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

Wow, I only asked about using the single line/minor_line distinction; if this one isn't easy at all, what will it be by adding importance or usage, which seems far less obvious than minor_line/line, itself not as obvious as I thought at first? The current disctinction has the advantage it can

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

if some others, as the distribution/transport distinction, isn't modelled. Am I correct? Regards. > Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:12:02 +0300 > From: lkyto...@gmail.com > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line > > David Marcha

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

In fact, this problem leaded me to my question: I noticed some minor lines tagged as power=line, cluttering the Mapnik rendering, so I searched the correct way of modelling them, to see if it was a rendering or modelling issue, and one thing leading to another… Regarding the parting between

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

Well, I would say: mainly on poles = minor_line, and mainly on towers = line; this way, the difference is easy to see for mappers, even on Bing imagery, and, as poles, AFAIK, are always smaller that towers, that would properly model the landscape impact these power lines have. Besides, I know

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

> From: g...@ir.bbn.com > To: pene...@live.fr > CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line > Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:12:55 -0400 > I'm coming into this late, but I think key questions are: > > transmission vs distribution: in the US, this is a big

[Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

Hello, there. I saw conflicting points of view regarding the difference between these two ways for modelling aerial power lines: some say that it is the voltage which matters, others say that it's the visibility difference that matters, others say that it's the danger for planes that matters,

Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line

Well, I thought underground lines was to be tagged as `power=line`; besides, I thought like you at first, but I've been told on the help.openstreetmap.org link that the distribution/transmission parting should not be taken into primary consideration, maybe because the difference is not obvious

[Tagging] Drafting proposal: use oneway=reversible or create tag?

Hello, there. I'm drafting a proposal concerning some waterways whose flow regularly changes direction, which happens near some sinkholes named estavelles, which drain or feed water according to the aquifer level. I would consequently propose a way to map it, but it should be consistent with

[Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence

Hello, there. I wondered: when a waterstream is known to be, instead of a real, separated waterstream, merely a resurgence of another one, how should the link between them be modelled? Which tags should I use, and in which relation? Should I tag the resurgence by itself? Hoping you can help,

Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence

> map the underground stream if possible. As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I can't map it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the link exclusive, i.e. tell that the water only comes from one point and exits at another? If so, I can't either, as no-one can be

Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr. On September 9, 2015 1:56:27 AM David Marchal <pene...@live.fr> wrote: Hello, there. I wondered: when a waterstream is known to be, i

Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence

> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:18:37 +0200 > From: ricoz@gmail.com > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one > of its resurgence > missing data should not prevent the mapping of known good data. If it has > been established

Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one of its resurgence

> Which is why mapping this is not really within the scope of OSM - > natural underground waterflows are inherently non-verifiable. Well, maybe I should let that down, then, or put the data in the description field; this way, I won't mess with the OSM data, but they'll be there if someone is

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to map?

> From: g...@ir.bbn.com > To: pene...@live.fr > CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to > map? > Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:05:01 -0500 > > > David Marchal writes: > >> 1) forest parcels:

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to map?

> From: g...@ir.bbn.com > To: pene...@live.fr > CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to > map? > Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:05:01 -0500 > > > David Marchal <p

[Tagging] tributary role in waterway relations: widespread?

Hello, there. I wondered: I saw the' tributary' role on some waterway relations; while I understand its usage — to represent the fact that a waterway flows into another —, I would like to know if it is widespread or even widely accepted, if not voted on wiki, as JOSM complains about not

Re: [Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a culvert below a track / wiki votes enforcement

> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:06:22 +0100 > From: dieterdre...@gmail.com > can you please post a link to the object you think is rendered wrong, not to > the part of the map, e.g. like this: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/350320686 > This is a track, it should likely get a layer tag and a

[Tagging] wetland=bog, why only "receive their water and nutrients from rainfall"?

Hello, there. I tagged some bogs today, and I wondered: why does the wiki restricts bogs to "depressions that receive their water and nutrients from rainfall"? AFAIK, bogs are not necessarily isolated from water streams or bodies. Wikipedia talls about sloping bogs where running water is

Re: [Tagging] wetland=bog, why only "receive their water and nutrients from rainfall"?

> From: chris_horm...@gmx.de > There are of course all kind of boundary cases but the typical bog as > common in many parts of northern Europe is rain fed. In German we have > the more specific term 'Regenmoor' which indicates this. Mires fed by > groundwater or water inflow from the outside

[Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a culvert below a track / wiki votes enforcement

Hello, there. I've got a tagging problem here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/48.34992/6.15965 A side stream of the Madon river runs in a culvert under the private track, and that makes a glitch by rendering the culvert over the `natural=water/water=river` polygon. I asked on the

Re: [Tagging] wetland=bog, why only "receive their water and nutrients from rainfall"?

Damn Hotmail! > From: chris_horm...@gmx.de > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 22:37:07 +0100 > Subject: Re: [Tagging] wetland=bog, why only "receive their water and > nutrients from rainfall"? > > On

Re: [Tagging] wetland=bog, why only "receive their water and nutrients from rainfall"?

Re-sent message, the first one being misformatted. > From: chris_horm...@gmx.de > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 22:37:07 +0100 > Subject: Re: [Tagging] wetland=bog, why only "receive their water and > nutrients from rainfall"? > > On

Re: [Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a culvert below a track / wiki votes enforcement

> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:26:55 +0100 > From: matkoni...@gmail.com > To: pene...@live.fr > CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a culvert below > a track / wiki votes enforcement > > I think that photo of this object would be useful to

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Guides to improve navigation data in OpenStreetMap

Hello, Abhishek. Nice idea to synthesize all the available stuff regarding navigation data. Not my main interest in OSM, as I've got enough work on my rural, mainly filled by bots area, but still a good idea. Keep it up! Regards. Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:33:45 +0530 From:

[Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

Hello, there. At least here, in France, there are numerous regions, whose unity is based either on a common historical background, for example as a medieval county or duchy like the Barrois, or on a uniform natural landscape, as the Bauges mountains or the Mont Blanc massif. These regions are

[Tagging] How to tag a natural, man-organised feature?

Hello, there. I'm wondering: there are tons of natural features that have been modified or organized by humans, like springs which emerge in man-made ponds. Is there a tag used to model this organization, like organised=yes? Awaiting your answers, Regards.

[Tagging] Does disused:railway=* require railway=disused?

Hello, there. I've been told in a JOSM ticket (https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/12866#comment:2) that the wiki states that disused:railway=* requires railway=disused, and, indeed, the wiki says that (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:railway). I don't understand why as,

Re: [Tagging] How to tag beginning of a river

> Le 25 févr. 2017 à 12:16, Dave F a écrit : > > Hi Dave > > Won't the first node of the named way that's most upstream indicate its start > point by default? > > What advantages will adding a specific 'it starts here' tag bring? > > Cheers > DaveF I agree with

Re: [Tagging] Help required on tagging a "wadi"

I would add that, according to the wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dwadi), waterway=wadi has been deprecated and should be replaced with waterway=stream or waterway=river, anyway with intermittent=yes. Apart from that, I agree with 61sundowner: the track and the

Re: [Tagging] Roads with no speed limits

AFAIK, no maxspeed value means that the default maximum speed for this type of road in this area applies, so I wouldn't add this tag when there is no sign; that would also fulfill the "Map what's on the ground" principle. Beware that, if there that was a maximum speed sign (hundreds of)

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

Note that, although exceptional, some waterways can flow both ways, according to tidal, floods, if a connected estavelle is absorbing or discharging water... Even if it is unlikely, this tag could be of some use to highlight the fact that the waterway is not subject to such stream variations.

Re: [Tagging] Discouraging frequency=* on power lines and cables

> Le 8 mars 2017 à 23:04, Michael Reichert a écrit : > > Please keep OSM simple. I don't want to add a power route relation on > every tiny minor distribution line/cable (230 V). > Totally agree with that. I don’t understand the usage of a relation binding the distribution

Re: [Tagging] Part of forest which is in a scrub state: inside or outside multipolygon?

It’s a re-forestation area, but the trees have all been teared down, so it’s now scrub, but temporarily. > Le 12 oct. 2017 à 11:20, Volker Schmidt a écrit : > > Is it (permanently) scrub or is it re-forestation area that is temporarily > without trees? > > > >

[Tagging] Part of forest which is in a scrub state: inside or outside multipolygon?

Hello, there. If a part of a forest has been razed and is now a scrub area, should I let this natural=scrub area in the forest multipolygon? I thought so, as the scrub area is still managed as a section of the whole forest, but another user updated it to exclude the scrub areas from the forest

Re: [Tagging] Geological Faults

Hello. A naive tagging would be natural=fault on a way drawn along the fault, but it’s very naive, as I never mapped anything related. Regards. Le 11 sept. 2017 à 04:29, J.J.Iglesias > a écrit : I am unable to find how to tag geological

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sinkholes refinement

Hello, there. I’ve created a proposal for better tagging of sinkholes, as they can be of multiple types, not currently acknowledged by mainstream tagging practices. This proposal can be read here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sinkholes_refinement Any comments should

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sinkholes refinement

. 2017 à 17:25, David Marchal <pene...@live.fr<mailto:pene...@live.fr>> a écrit : Hello, there. I’ve created a proposal for better tagging of sinkholes, as they can be of multiple types, not currently acknowledged by mainstream tagging practices. This proposal can be read

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Sinkholes refinement

Hello, there. As this proposal has been RFCed more than 2 weeks ago, and that comments have been addressed, I’m now putting it on vote. Please go on the proposal page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sinkholes_refinement) to vote. Awaiting your votes, Regards.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Sinkholes refinement

=yes as the one to use, and will create the wiki page accordingly. Thanks to all who voted; the proposal process is now fully finished, apart from creating all the Wiki pages. Regards. Le 24 oct. 2017 à 19:16, David Marchal <pene...@live.fr<mailto:pene...@live.fr>> a éc

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Sinkholes refinement

each concept, and afterwards you have the same concept but with a picture. I think it would be better to list each variant with the picture right away. Thanks! On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 8:30 AM David Marchal <pene...@live.fr<mailto:pene...@live.fr>> wrote: Hello, there. Almost 3 weeks passe

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Sinkholes refinement

Le 26 sept. 2017 à 20:26, David Marchal <pene...@live.fr<mailto:pene...@live.fr>> a écrit : Hello, there. As this proposal has been RFCed more than 2 weeks ago, and that comments have been addressed, I’m now putting it on vote. Please go on the proposal page (https://wik

[Tagging] Route members: ordered or not

Hello, there. I recently worked a bit on hiking routes, and noticed that some routes have unordered members. That's particularly noticeable on waymarkedtrails.org, as it makes the elevation graph rubbish and useless. I read the relation:route wiki page, but there is only advice regarding

[Tagging] Highways going through military camp: access=private or access=military?

Hello, there. All is in the title: when access to a road is restricted to military, as it is running through a base, should I tag it access=private or access=military? The first gives the right restriction, but the second is more precise, although not documented (about 1.8k uses according to

[Tagging] highway=motorway_junction : what about primary, secondary or tertiary ways?

Hello, there. Is highway=motorway_junction also applicable to non-motorway roads? There are primary, secondary… roads where there are exits, but can these be tagged with this one? Awaiting your answers, Regards. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] highway=motorway_junction : what about primary, secondary or tertiary ways?

1 À : Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Objet : Re: [Tagging] highway=motorway_junction : what about primary, secondary or tertiary ways? It is commonly used on non-motorway grade separated junctions. So the answer is yes. Phil (trigpoint) On 12 July 2018 07:34:06 BST, David Ma

[Tagging] landuse=forest + ref=* : parcel number or what?

Hello, there. I hope this will not start a flamewar: I noticed that, despite being widely used, ref=* is not rendered for landuse=forest. I assumed this was used for parcel (compartment) numbers, as this tag seems to fit the definition of a parcel number; nevertheless, I saw on a Github issue

[Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Hello, there. All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an area considered as a forest by authorities), I often encounter other landcovers, like scrubs in recently teared down parcels, or scree in the mountains. These area, although, clearly and morphologically, not a forest, are

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub, scree…): how to map?

Paul, Your landuse=forestry proposal seems good to me: it is clear enough, and the transition process you describe here seems consistent with what I know about such transitions which already happened. If I understand you, the main problem for landuse=forestry is to include it in the standard

[Tagging] Multipolygon (several outers) forest with different leaf_types: mapping strategy?

Hello, there. I mapped a forest made of several pieces of woodland, some contiguous and some isolated, with differents leaf_types. I mapped this (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9393253) with a landuse=forest multipolygon, with common tags such as name and operator on the relation, and

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

Mateusz, The first thing is that this tagging scheme is mainly used in Poland, so that sounded like a local, not widely approved, tagging scheme. The second thing, which is the real problem to me, is that I don't see how to link these with the forest, as a parcel number is valid only in a

[Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

Hello, there. My question is simple: how do we tag such things? The boundary=forest_compartment relation is not rendered, and what is rendered is tagging as landuse=forest both the forest and its parcels, which leads to rendering it twice, as you can see here:

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

There may be a misunderstanding here: what I mean about forest parcels is a piece of forest which is numbered and whose number is displayed on site, with a plate or a painted text. Such data can be useful for orientation in a forest and, until some years ago, these numbers were displayed on

Re: [Tagging] Conditional destinations (hgv, bicycle, maxweight…)

://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ Le vendredi 31 juillet 2020 15:53, David Marchal a écrit : > Hello, there. > > I'm wondering, there are destination signs which only apply to some kind of > vehicles: for HGV, for bicycles, for pedestrians, for vehicles be

Re: [Tagging] Conditional destinations (hgv, bicycle, maxweight…)

ing a > destination_sign relation it's best to apply the mode as eg. > bicycle=designated, eg > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11345354#map=18/-33.82573/151.21308 > for https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/VIq-OPTiw0BVI7gqdLR-iA > > On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 23:55, David Marchal

Re: [Tagging] Conditional destinations (hgv, bicycle, maxweight…)

, without explicitly forbidding them on the other roads. -- Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ Le vendredi 31 juillet 2020 15:59, Paul Johnson a écrit : > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:53 AM David Marchal via Tagging > wrote: >

[Tagging] Conditional destinations (hgv, bicycle, maxweight…)

Hello, there. I'm wondering, there are destination signs which only apply to some kind of vehicles: for HGV, for bicycles, for pedestrians, for vehicles below 12t… How would I tag such destinations? The simple way would be to use, respectively, destination:hgv=*, destination:bicycle=*,

Re: [Tagging] Conditional destinations (hgv, bicycle, maxweight…)

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ Le samedi 1 août 2020 17:03, David Marchal a écrit : > To Jan Michel (I did not have your mail, as I unsubscribed of the list mails > to avoid cluttering my mailbox): the goal of my r