Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Research station

Here in Queensland Australia, our Department of Agriculture and Fisheries run many research stations obviously doing primary industries based research. Some universities do perform research there, but they are government

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables

I've been following along the few threads to better understand this topic, however I'm still feeling that mapping complex timetables is a bit like mapping the full menu of a cafe or restaurant, or the room options at a hotel. These things vary whenever the service business chooses and it is close

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

On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:34 PM Lionel Giard wrote: > The problem i see with that "multipurpose" value is that it give no > information and could be misused for other tower:type (like > defensive;observation) which should not be rendered as communication_tower. > Thus i would propose to render

Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream

ta=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spFpy3s9A1cXKkiPow16w2Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656, > but having now read the "No name" policy can see that's wrong. Have also > changed the node & pipeline details. > > On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 at 17:34, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > >> I don't quite unders

[Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream

I've come across the desire to map a stormwater outlet at the beginning of a stream a few times now and have failed to find an appropriate tag to place on the node. These outlets are pretty common in residential areas where the stormwater pipes underneath the roads (obviously unmapped) direct

Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream

Thanks Graeme. > I did this: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5213660838#map=19/-28.07783/153.42664 > for one stormwater drain nearby. > I don't quite understand the way extending to the north in your example tagged just man_made=yes and surface=grass, is that the underground pipe joining

Re: [Tagging] Billboard or something else

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 8:01 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > The sign can display various messages - so variable message fits. > > Traffic sign also fits - the travelling time to another place reflects the > traffic density, and vehicle crashes are traffic warnings .. > > I think

Re: [Tagging] Billboard or something else

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 9:35 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mi., 30. Okt. 2019 um 12:23 Uhr schrieb Jonathon Rossi < > j...@jonorossi.com>: > >> +1 for traffic_sign=variable_message >> >> In many jurisdictions road users must obey messages on these signs, &

Re: [Tagging] Billboard or something else

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:19 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Il giorno 30 ott 2019, alle ore 13:09, Jonathon Rossi < > j...@jonorossi.com> ha scritto: > > > > I didn't say these signs had to display messages that must be obeyed > just that they often do. >

[Tagging] URL tracking parameters

Hi, Ignoring they've just added an incorrect "website:" key when there is already a "website" one, Hilton Hotels appear to be adding URLs with WT.mc_id parameters to all their web site links. Does OSM have a position on these tracking parameters, WT.mc_id, utm_*, fbclid, etc? I couldn't find

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:40 PM Victor/tuxayo wrote: > > On 20-02-25 04:36, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > > Does OSM have a position on these tracking parameters, WT.mc_id, utm_*, > > fbclid, etc? I couldn't find anything on the wiki. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w

Re: [Tagging] URL tracking parameters

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > I added explicit > "**It means that tracking parameters (mc_id, utm_*, fbclid etc) should be > removed" > in > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:website=1962111=1941669 >

Re: [Tagging] (Un)removable Bollards

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 7:49 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > “ I would interpret "removable" as: the end user can remove it, but has > to accept a time delay” > > Are there such bollards? I can’t imagine that bollards are ever removable > by the general public, though you can probably request

Re: [Tagging] (Un)removable Bollards

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 5:02 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Il giorno 18 feb 2020, alle ore 03:05, Jonathon Rossi < > j...@jonorossi.com> ha scritto: > > > > I can't think of a bollard here where the general public can remove/fold > it, otherwise what does it

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

On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 5:49 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > [...] > > bicycle= as an access tag should refer to any class of bicycles by > default. Today I was walking a track which had a no bicycles sign, meaning > all types of bikes are disallowed. Conversely bicycle=yes just means that > bicycles

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

> > I think using highway=singletrack could be a good complement to > highway=track, then we can use standard access (default foot=yes, horse=no, > bicycle=yes, motorcycle=no) and surface tagging like we do for > highway=track. highway=path can continue to be the catch all for "a > non-specific

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

I too think leisure=track would be even more misleading. I think singletrack should continue to be a highway=* value. I've never heard someone call singletrack a cycleway here in Brisbane Australia, and I always think of commuting when I think of cycleway. - Recreation is just one use of these

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

On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 1:30 AM Volker Schmidt wrote: > We do not need a new highway tag value "singletrack". > Was only making a suggestion to kick the discussion around to what we are actually mapping, because I dislike leisure=track and highway=cycleway. I independently read the Wikipedia

Re: [Tagging] Definition and usage of Key:mtb:scale:imba?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 6:54 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > I've been using mtb:scale:imba on any kind of trail where signage at the > site notes an IMBA rating > Same here. If a land manager has signed an IMBA rating I'll tag it. These ratings are generally relative to other trails in the same bike

Re: [Tagging] Proposal of new tag for technicality of trails for running

Hi, Fellow trail runner (& MTB rider) here. Obviously there isn't a concrete proposal with any proposed tags, however this sounds very subjective (if not using existing observable tagging) and I think a runner's skill will determine the technicality a lot more than the trail itself. For example,

Re: [Tagging] We should stop using hyphens to denote address ranges

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:28 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 05:51, Colin Smale wrote: > >> >> >> On the other hand using the "1-5" notation to indicate a range is pretty >>> well understood in the UK at least. What it is missing is the >>> "interpolation" value (even,

Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:22 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 14:05, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:10 PM Andrew Harvey >> wrote: >> >>> In OSMCha you can create a Filter, and in the Filter creation screen set >

Re: [Tagging] Call for verification (Was: Re: [OSM-talk] VANDALISM !)

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 12:10 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > In OSMCha you can create a Filter, and in the Filter creation screen set a > polygon area you're interested in monitoring > Andrew, how do you specify a polygon, always wanted to do that but I thought OSMCha only supports a bbox? You can

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 5:17 PM Daniel Westergren wrote: > Should we close the discussion in this mailing list, continue in a smaller > format and then report back the concluding suggestions for confirmation > before implementing? Or is there still enough interest to keep the entire > discussion

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 12:02 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 09:43, Supaplex wrote: > >> How about *"emergency = rescue_area"* (very rarely in use)? I agree that >> landuse should not be used in this case, but we have "emergency" for this. >> > As I say, I've never

Re: [Tagging] Tagging from fire_service_areas - landuse:emergency

Apologies for bringing dedicated reserved parking into the thread since that is the only experience or interpretation I had. I think parking is a worthwhile tag and I'd use emergency=parking for that, but let's get back to your topic since it sounds more complex. On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 6:34 PM