Re: [Tagging] Tag an information panel

2019-01-19 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 08:29, Paul Allen wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 09:58, yo paseopor wrote: >> -Information about the capacity of a parking > > Tag the capacity of the car park itself. It's more useful. People may use > the query tool (or > similar techniques) to look at the tags for

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

2019-01-20 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 at 16:58, Tobias Zwick wrote: > Well, all of which I mentioned is optional. But I can come up with two > use cases for wanting to know which level is the ground level: > > 1. Localization > > In an application, it is much nicer to be able to write > "ground floor" (en-GB),

Re: [Tagging] defining service on railway=tram

2019-01-23 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 15:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Evertthing is right and welcome! Cheers, thank you! >> 1. no service tag recommended for tracks that are regularly used in >> scheduled service, including loops and tail tracks > Also part of loops that are never used to carry passengers,

[Tagging] defining service on railway=tram

2019-01-19 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
Hello, First time posting here, forgive if I've missed some rules. Summary: I wanted to refine tagging of some tram/streetcar tracks to show what they're used for, and found this isn't standardized and isn't documented. I would like to suggest updating wiki for Key:service to specify

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-27 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:32, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 Fernando Trebien > wrote: >> I never thought that emergency access would determine highway >> classification. It seems like a secondary use of the way, not its main >> use/purpose. > > motor_vehicle=no would exclude

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-27 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:52, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 12:41 Jarek Piórkowski wrote: >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:32, Paul Johnson wrote: >> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 Fernando Trebien >> > wrote: >> >> I never thought that e

Re: [Tagging] Mistagging footways as highway=pedestrian

2019-02-28 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 13:11, Paul Allen wrote: > Vehicular access may be > prohibited by law, even if it's physically possible. Or it may be restricted > to service vehicles > supplying shops along the way (do we have an access value for that?) Yes, of course, access=delivery, possibly

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

2019-03-01 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 18:02, Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com> 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. +1. To avoid lots of changes, perhaps only set

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-03-01 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 15:25, Paul Johnson wrote: >> To exclude emergency vehicles one should tag physical, not legal >> barriers. > > To include motorized emergency vehicles where access=no or motor_vehicle=no, > you need to add emergency=yes. Because if we don't, the fire truck stops, the

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-03-02 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:34, Sergio Manzi wrote: > BTW, do we have a specific tag for "emergency traffic light" that are put > near emergency vehicles exits to stop normal traffic when emergency vehicles > are about to exit? Funnily enough, per

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

2019-02-21 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 19:15, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > OSM relies on the contributions of many people, most of them are not going to > spend much time learn stuff - particular complicated stuff that they don't > see in their day to day life. > > The complexity of things like the

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

2019-02-20 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 07:55, Paul Allen wrote: > You are living in an ideal world that does not exist. Go to the standard > carto. Use the query tool. > All the translation mechanisms you posit do not exist. Hey, wait a second. Most people around where I live wouldn't understand why smaller

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

2019-03-04 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
Hello, I've gotten paid for wrangling GTFS worldwide before - happy to tell you some of my experiences. On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 19:42, Paul Allen wrote: > As I said, I'd prefer not to use url=* because it could be for anything - a > page about the history of > the bus stop (maybe the shelter is

Re: [Tagging] shop=clothes vs shop=fashion

2019-03-06 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 09:42, dktue wrote: > I currently found out that shops that sell clothes are either tagged with > shop=clothes > or with > shop=fashion > but I can't find out when to use which. > > Can anybody clarify? There is a continuum with shop=clothes, shop=fashion, and

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

2019-03-06 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 16:29, Richard Welty wrote: > i spent some time looking at a project to build OSM based > emergency maps. i concluded we needed to do layers of > information, some of which were appropriate to host in > OSM and others which were not. there would have been a > program to

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Key:access=restricted

2019-02-23 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 12:54, henkevdb wrote: > Possibility to 'introduce' a Key:access=restricted ... with description ; > traffic only open for mentioned*=yes . IMHO: What is the advantage over using access=no? access=no already compounds like this. This also works in parallel with existing

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Key:access=restricted

2019-02-23 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
Reposting to mailing list, after henkevdb sent to my personal email On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 14:16, henkevdb wrote: > watercourses ( in Belgium anyway) are (mostly) open to the 'general > public', so , access=no (with description ; "No access for the general > public.") is not good then Don't set

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

2019-03-05 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
Paul, If your use case is people using the query tool on https://openstreetmap.org to follow links to PDFs to plan a journey, then whatever tagging specification you use doesn't really matter as long as it's understandable to the people viewing it - a link looks like a link so that's quite easy.

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

2019-03-05 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 at 13:35, Paul Allen wrote: > But I'd prefer we have specific keys for > timetables and GTFS data rather than rely upon either of those. Much better > to make things clear > with timetable=* and gtfs=* (except we have to deal with partial > timetables/feeds from operators >

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-03-01 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 09:10, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access and > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:emergency > were just modifed > > Review of > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aemergency=revision=1812453=1606896 Should "so

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

2019-02-20 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 14:51, Mark Wagner wrote: > > Do you have any locally-defined highway system that approximately > > matches the idea of "a system of highways that generally connects > > place=hamlet"? > > That would be the state highway system: nearly every incorporated > community and

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for maxstay

2019-02-20 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 17:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Is OSM supposed to be for a tight, dedicated group of expert mappers trying > to create the best, most accurate, technically-perfect map the World has ever > seen; or is it for the use of John Doe & Jane Public using OSMAND & Maps Me >

Re: [Tagging] tags for tutor or coaching out of school

2019-03-10 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 05:17, Phake Nick wrote: > 在 2019年3月10日週日 11:04,Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道: >> There are a fair number of commercial tutor/coaching establishments that >> provide after school hours tuition in various subjects/courses. > > I have checked some of these features in

Re: [Tagging] defining service on railway=tram

2019-03-10 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 22:39, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > Last month I wrote about defining service=* tag values for > railway=tram ways, which were previously not defined and used somewhat > varyingly in the wild. Thanks Mateusz for your help refining the > definitions! > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

2019-03-07 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 19:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it. > Here we should be getting the best tags +1, I would rather have a well-specified tag that is rarely used than no tag at all. --Jarek

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

2019-03-07 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 20:16, Sergio Manzi wrote: > Then why not bolts and nuts? I suppose there are many nuts of historical > significance around. Indeed, and if someone comes up with a good tagging proposal for them, I'll support it, rather than disparage just because I personally don't find

Re: [Tagging] Tagging "test preperation" / cram school / Juku (eg: Komon)

2019-02-17 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 10:48, Jmapb wrote: > I've been tagging them as office=tutoring... can't remember whose suggestion > that was, but it seems adequate. (Only 35 hits on taginfo though.) Could > combine with tutoring=test_prep if that's the main focus. Hi John and J, In Toronto I've seen

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

2019-02-17 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 18:07, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > highway=* > tunnel=yes > sidewalk=no > and a significant length +1 on this. I would expect a pedestrian router to apply a scoring penalty to highways with sidewalk=no or sidewalk=separate, and with the help of this scoring choose the

Re: [Tagging] tree rows vs individual trees

2019-02-09 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 09:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > IMHO this violates the one object - one OSM element principle. Either I > choose the coarser approach > to map a way for the row, or I refine it to individual trees, but should not > use the row anymore. Hello, My interpretation would be that

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

2019-02-14 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 08:42, Tobias Zwick wrote: > What do you think? Hello, In my experience in Canada I would indeed expect all (or basically all) highway=residential to be (legally) accessible to pedestrians, the question would be more about comfort or safety. I don't know if tagging

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

2019-02-14 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:51, Tobias Zwick wrote: > I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality. > The absence of keys like the mentioned key walkable(, cycleable, > motorcarable, hgvable etc.) is a clear sign for that, because there are > enough situations where the situation on the

Re: [Tagging] tree rows vs individual trees

2019-02-10 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 17:10, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > In a related discussion I have heard the argument that, after mapping the > individual trees, "if we > delete the tree_row way, we lose the information that they are part of a tree > row." > > The problem with that argument is that a tree_row

Re: [Tagging] defining service on railway=tram

2019-02-10 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
Hi all, Last month I wrote about defining service=* tag values for railway=tram ways, which were previously not defined and used somewhat varyingly in the wild. Thanks Mateusz for your help refining the definitions! I have now written

Re: [Tagging] Rivers intermittently navigable

2019-02-15 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
My suggestion would be to map only the normal and the predictable. If it's usually not navigable in summer, "no @ summer" or something. If it's not really predictable, I wouldn't map it unless it's something dangerous like vulnerable to flash floods or lahars. Highways liable to getting cut

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

2019-02-05 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 17:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > What concerns me a bit, is that there are 75+ OSM mappers, which is > great! But it would seem that there are only ~50 (? - someone would know) > members of "Tagging", with only ~20 of those being active (which I would call >

[Tagging] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns

2019-12-16 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
Hello, I'm looking for a way to tag designated areas where cyclists wait to safely make a far turn (in right-hand-drive regions, a left turn). I'll call them "left turn boxes" for short though pointers to a better name would be welcome! They're paint-designated places for cyclists to wait to do

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

2019-12-21 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 22:30, Paul Johnson wrote: >> > What I'm saying is highway=bundesstraße could be acceptable, but >> > straße=bundestraße wouldn't be. Mostly so way type objects with highway=* >> > are still potentially routable. >> >> How do you propose these "potential routable"

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

2019-12-20 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:16, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:57 PM Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: >> > Being able to speak each country's highway lingua franca would make it a >> > lot easier for OSM to become the Rosetta Stone of maps simply from ease of >> > classification. >>

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

2019-12-20 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:26, Paul Johnson wrote: >> > I'm not arguing in favor of a change in language for key name. But the >> > local broadly accepted classification terminology (preferably in English >> > for consistency sake) for the value. >> >> Why in English? Bundesstraße is a broadly

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

2020-02-10 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 13:29, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Why are "stopping=yes|no" and "parking=yes|no" (and variants of these) not in > use in OSM? > But the much more complex "parking:lane:both=no_stopping" and > "parking:lane:both=no_parking" are in use with the same meaning. Because

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

2020-02-10 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 18:32, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 13:29, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Why are "stopping=yes|no" and "parking=yes|no" (and variants of these) not > > in use in OSM? > > But the much

Re: [Tagging] How to map an OpenStreetMap map?

2020-02-29 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 16:41, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/3/20 8:31 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > On 29. Feb 2020, at 22:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I think source_map=* or source:map=* would be better as that can also be >>> used for other specific 'sources'.

Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows

2020-02-25 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 05:01, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > These shows do take place at a permanent site. > > They take place annually, floods, fire, droughts and wars excepted. > > The dates may vary depending on various things, but usually around the same > time each year. > > They

Re: [Tagging] Page about mismatching key names (historic=wayside_shrine used for modern ones etc)

2020-01-24 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 09:12, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Il ven 24 gen 2020, 11:51 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > ha scritto: >> One of topics often appearing is mismatch between meaning of key >> and key text. >> ... >> It is created at >>

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate healthcare=pharmacy and healthcare=hospital

2020-01-29 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 07:25, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > > iD also brings up the "suggestion" that existing amenity=clinic, pharmacy & > > (I think) dentist tags by themselves are "incomplete" & should be upgraded > > by adding healthcare= > > eg

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate healthcare=pharmacy and healthcare=hospital

2020-01-29 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 18:08, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The problem is that new users of iD do not know that they are adding > tags like healthcare=pharmacy and dispensing=yes. > > I reviewed the pharmcies in the cities I have mapped, and found that I > had added healthcare=pharmacy to 8 features

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

2020-01-28 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:55, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: >> >> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets wrote: >> >> That

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

2020-01-28 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets wrote: >> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common practice. >> I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber foot >> traffic, `highway=footway`

Re: [Tagging] amenity=faculty?

2020-02-04 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 11:44, Greg Troxel wrote: > Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging writes: > > Universities may have faculties, that often deserved to be mapped > > separately. > > ... > > It seems to me that amenity=faculty would be useful. > > Perhaps, but beware that in US English, this is

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

2020-01-30 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 09:38, Rob Savoye wrote: > On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to roads by > > their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to Stratford" > > I'm wondering if "CR 12" or "County Road

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

2020-01-23 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 17:05, Volker Schmidt wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 21:11, Florimond Berthoux > wrote: >> How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ? >> In order to solve this question I created a wiki page to sum up my first try >> to tag this: >>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

2020-02-20 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 02:49, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > I would like to formally request comments on the proposal for > amenity=motorcycle_taxi: > > "A place where motorcycle taxis wait for passengers" > ... > While some have proposed using amenity=taxi plus additional tags for > motorcycle

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

2020-02-16 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 17:10, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you want, then another key so the above does not get polluted? > > bollard_structure=block/post/* bollard_structure=block would surely be better off as a barrier=block? That's already well established.

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

2020-02-16 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 15:53, ET Commands wrote: > > bollard=unremovable for fixed bollards sounds good to me. > > My spelling check does not like "unremovable" but instead suggests > "irremovable." However, if I want to be nit-picky, all bollards are > ultimately removable, so maybe more

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

2020-02-16 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 16:51, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Umm... > > Bollards are there to protect people. With the present threats I would think > identifying which bollards could be easily driven through on a public > map/data base would be a bad idea. > > > So I would be firmly

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

2020-02-15 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 at 15:16, John Sturdy wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 6:54 PM Hauke Stieler wrote: >> there's the "bollard" key with documented value "rising" and "removable" >> [0] but I often encounter also bollards which cannot be removed easily. >> I would love to see the "unremovable"

Re: [Tagging] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns

2020-01-08 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 10:00, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:06 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: >> I'm looking for a way to tag designated areas where cyclists wait to >> safely make a far turn (in right-hand-drive regions, a left turn). >> I'll call them "

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

2020-01-08 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 16:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Although unusual, oneway on pedestrian highways (path, footway, track) is > possible in some places. > > Cases of oneway pedestrian traffic includes some hiking trails, border > crossing, > exit-only passages and more. > > How to tag this?

Re: [Tagging] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns

2020-01-08 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 at 08:03, marc marc wrote: > Le 08.01.20 à 05:10, Marc Gemis a écrit : > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:30 PM marc marc wrote: > >> keep it simple ! > >> advanced stop box only use a cycleway=asl without relation > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dasl > >> a

Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

2020-01-10 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 18:04, Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 09:34:32AM -0500, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 04:22, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > > OTOH in the dense urban areas you have the problem of Address for road A > > > n

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

2020-01-11 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 04:48, Volker Schmidt wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 10:20, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> > On 9. Jan 2020, at 22:04, Dave F via Tagging >> > wrote: >> >> oneway=yes|no needs indeed be applicable to vehicles only, >> > >> > That tag on footways would apply only to

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

2020-01-11 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 18:18, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: > On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are > > one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that > > is, highway=footway. If t

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

2020-01-11 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 11:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 17:17 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski > : >> I imagine that virtually all real-world pedestrian ways that are >> one-way for pedestrians would be on dedicated pedestrian ways - that >> is, hi

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

2020-01-15 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 01:19, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > On 1/15/20, European Water Project wrote: > > Would it be appropriate to use the tag "seasonal" for a water fountain > > (whether tagged as "amenity=drinking_water" or "amenity = fountain and > > drinking_water = yes" )? > > Since drinking

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

2020-01-15 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 20:52, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > seasonal=summer > > Well, this is the problem with the tag "seasonal" - it's not 100% > clear if "seasonal=summer" means "this feature is only available in > the summer" or "this feature is NOT available in the summer". Ah, good point! So

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

2020-01-14 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural language. Here's how the mappers have seen the tags in question so far, according to Taginfo: oneway:foot=no 1267 occurrences (not all from one region) oneway:foot=yes

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

2020-01-14 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski > : >> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >> > Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural >

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

2020-01-16 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 00:51, European Water Project wrote: >>5. Re: Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water >> fountains. (Jarek Piórkowski) >> >>>> Jarek, I think preferable to avoid seasons on open hours and put >> month range t

Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

2020-01-10 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 04:22, Florian Lohoff wrote: > OTOH in the dense urban areas you have the problem of Address for road A > nearer to Road B. So you get navigated to the wrong spot on the road > network. This view is generated with the OSRM Car profile and mapping > all addr:* objects with

Re: [Tagging] POI data and Addresses on areas - Was: addresses on buildings

2020-01-12 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:38, Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 09:39:44PM -0500, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > I was thinking about this whole thing earlier. Caution, wall of text. > > > > At the risk of being philosophical, what is an address exactly? >

Re: [Tagging] Tag for "tax free shopping"

2019-12-31 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 18:48, Colin Smale wrote: > Just to be clear: in the situation I am referring to, an article priced at > GBP120 in such a mixed shop is GBP120 net to an exporting passenger, but > GBP100 net + GBP20 tax (@20% VAT) to a non-exporting passenger. Everybody > pays the same,

Re: [Tagging] Tag for "tax free shopping"

2019-12-31 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 19:16, Colin Smale wrote: >> What do you consider a definition of "duty free" or "duty free shop" >> that would be useful to a OSM data consumer? > > Which OSM data consumer? > > Just a reminder: I didn't start this, I am merely trying to add a nuance to > the data

Re: [Tagging] Tag for "tax free shopping"

2019-12-31 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 17:37, Colin Smale wrote: > On 2019-12-31 23:04, Hauke Stieler wrote: >> that's true, the EU is one special case here. But would the status of a >> traveler influence the tagging schema of "duty_free=*" in your opinion? > > The EU is only a special case because there are

Re: [Tagging] Business names in capital letters

2019-12-29 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 16:24, bkil wrote: > We had the same argument over a local mailing list and another idea came up: > some of the signage you see and many of their own website use the given > capitalization for stylistic purposes. But the question remains: why isn't a > map using

Re: [Tagging] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns

2020-01-05 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 20:05, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > Hello, > > I'm looking for a way to tag designated areas where cyclists wait to > safely make a far turn (in right-hand-drive regions, a left turn). > I'll call them "left turn boxes" for short though point

Re: [Tagging] addresses on buildings

2020-01-06 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 18:23, Dave F via Tagging wrote: > 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

Re: [Tagging] Incomplete addresses

2020-01-06 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 20:59, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Was wondering about how to bring this up when the ongoing discussion about > building addresses started ... > > I've recently been working on Map Roulette errors, & while doing so, have > come across quite a few cases where addresses

Re: [Tagging] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns

2020-01-07 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 16:29, marc marc wrote: > > Le 06.01.20 à 04:19, Jarek Piórkowski a écrit : > > Comments most welcome! > > keep it simple ! > advanced stop box only use a cycleway=asl without relation > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:cycleway%3Dasl > a

Re: [Tagging] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns

2020-01-07 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 19:41, Morten Lange via Tagging wrote: > On-street markings for a two-stage left-turn were recently introduced on a > few roads/streets in Oslo, Norway. > > I think > cycleway:asl=two_stage_left_turn > looks okay. > > But since there is > cycleway=asl > > why not use >

Re: [Tagging] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns

2020-01-07 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 12:15, Florimond Berthoux wrote: > Hello, > > I think it’s a good thing to map these two stage turn for bicycles. > I can’t see better solution than using relation (unless doing surface > mapping...). > > Le lun. 6 janv. 2020 à 04:21, Jare

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

2020-03-09 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 13:07, Dave F via Tagging wrote: > 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 th

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

2020-03-11 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 22:22, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > I am thinking of cases like streetside stops for 30 m or 45 m long > trams. There might be a shelter, which is the most prominent physical > feature of the tram stop. There is no explicit platform. The tram stop > sign might be 10 metres

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

2020-03-11 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 23:09, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > In inclement weather, passengers may well be found waiting in > the transit shelter 8 metres to west, and the tram will stop for them > if they are waiting in the shelter. It might also stop if you are > waiting a little bit beyond the

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

2020-03-09 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 07:29, John Doe wrote: > This is quite off-topic, but I can't bear to read more completely unfounded > criticism of PTv2. highway=bus_stop ("PTv1") is fine for people who survey bus stops and who want to approximately map a route of a simple bus. PTv2 is fine for people

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

2020-03-11 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 08:12, Jo wrote: > That stop_position nodes became optional is probably because of my influence. > In the beginning they were definitely part of how PTv2. I disliked this very > much because all of a sudden we were using 2 objects to define a single stop, > duplicating

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

2020-04-14 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 10:00, wrote: > So in which cases "highway=traffic_signals + crossing=traffic_signals on the > same node" should be used? Only for the "crossing only-traffic lights" I > mentioned? Yeah, personally I would agree with that. Only on pedestrian/cycle-crossing-only traffic

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

2020-04-15 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On 15/04/2020 05:33, lukas-...@web.de wrote: Okay, so this is what I think, too and maybe I would clarify this in the wiki then. But I think in some cases it still wouldn't be clear, because what would be about mapping this then:

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

2020-04-15 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On 15/04/2020 09:27, John Willis via Tagging wrote: On Apr 15, 2020, at 8:34 PM, Paul Allen wrote: The traffic lights control the junction We have a lot of traffic light controlled crossings in Japan that are just for a crosswalk, while the smaller intersecting road is stop-sign controlled

Re: [Tagging] Footways where pedestrians may only walk in one direction: oneway:foot=yes or foot:backward=no?

2020-04-16 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On 15/04/2020 23:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Some paths and footways have oneway=yes. Sometimes this means that bicycles may only access these features in one direction, but other times it has been used for one-way features for pedestrians (for example, queues in theme parks or at border control

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

2020-04-13 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 12:56, Paul Allen wrote: > On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 17:43, wrote: >> The second goal my proposal wants to message is to deprecate tagging >> "crossing=traffic_signals" together with "highway=traffic_signals" on the >> same node. Especially if you're saying this is a full

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

2020-04-14 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 06:23, wrote: > > To response on the mentioning: > "Currently the wiki page says "traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand makes > it easy to mark all traffic lights which do only control a crossing", > again I personally find highway=traffic_signals + > crossing=traffic_signals

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

2020-04-02 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 07:40, 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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag way with two traffic signs affecting different directions?

2020-05-02 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
Phil, the question appears to be for different signs/rules for different lanes/turns but in the same direction. António, interesting question. In my interpretation, relation type=enforcement seems to be intended for recording or punishing violations of rules (wiki "devices that measure and

Re: [Tagging] How to tag way with two traffic signs affecting different directions?

2020-05-02 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sat, 2 May 2020 at 16:21, António Madeira wrote: > I'm not very knowledgable about relations, and I'm sorry if I'm a bit > confused here, but doesn't a restriction relation means the exact opposite of > what's intended here? > I mean, I want to apply a STOP sign to a given lane (in a way

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-09 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 19:33, Paul Allen wrote: > On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 00:25, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the airport >> and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would that be equally >> ok, wouldn’t it

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-11 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 11:25, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > If you arrive at the airport in Bali with your in-laws, and look on Maps.me > for the closest taxi stand and walk over to it, you will be quite > disappointed to find a line of motorcycles, and have to walk back to the > other side of the

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-10 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 21:04, Phake Nick wrote: > I am more thinking about analysis of geographical data of cities or districts > where taxi and motorcycle taxi would be two very different things to be > managed. If you are managing taxis and motorcycle taxis then surely you know you have to

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-10 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 18:35, Phake Nick wrote: > At the end of the day we are not taking motorcycle taxi and taxi themselves. > What's being tagged are waiting area for taxi or motorcycle taxis. What > matters is that, if one is created as an optional subtag of another, would > not using such

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-08 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 02:27, s8evq wrote: > > Of the 8 opposing votes, only 1 has made the effort to comment beforehand on > the talk page. The 7 others just came in and voted no, without any discussion > beforehand. That doesn't seem correct. It should not be possible to be > suddenly faced

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

2020-05-08 Thread Jarek Piórkowski
On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 09:05, s8evq wrote: > On Fri, 8 May 2020 08:43:27 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski > wrote: > > How much discussion do you think should be necessary before voting "I > > oppose, because I think using sub-tags is better"? If someone thinks > > t

  1   2   >