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 crossing mapped. It breaks the highway=crossing - tagging scheme we use for all other types of
Hi,
oh sorry you are confused. Maybe it's too much text I think. But your conclusion is completely correct, yes.
Gesendet: Montag, 13. April 2020 um 13:47 Uhr
Von: "Andrew Davidson"
An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -
So what's the consensus on clinics? If there is a consenus (rather than the
usual bunfight) I'll amend the wiki pages to make it explicit that clinic
can be used for units/departments/centres in hospitals.
I even do not know whether there is a consensus. In Germany, we use "amenity=clinic"
"I am still not completely sure, but I believe, "Allianz" is a group
here, and health care insurance will be provided by a member of this
group, and agents will sell you any product the group offers (i.e. in
the details they are different "companies", but you can find several
of these companies
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:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.0898304,-4.6450624,3a,75y,122.71h,87.75t/data="">
Which was mentioned
Hi,
my question is whether this then rather would be something for the "place" tag? Or did we maybe have that discussion already?
--Lukas
Gesendet: Freitag, 17. April 2020 um 18:28 Uhr
Von: "Manon Viou"
An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature
I see. Thanks for your answers. Okay, now it's clearer to me why highway=traffic_signals is used sometimes together with crossing=traffic_signals. I will change the proposal to only add the new traffic_signals=*-value and then get in touch again.
Thanks.
--
Lukas
Gesendet: Montag, 13.
Hi,
the difference would be that traffic signals which control a junction but a crossing too, can have buttons for pedestrians as well as traffic signals which do only control a crossing. At least here in Germany. With looking at button_operated, you cannot clear whether the traffic lights are
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 sufficient for that"
Yes, that's true. I
Hmm, yes I know there a several values for traffic_signals, but the main value "signal" comes just from the default value by iD which wasn't discussed, I think many of you will know about it. I chose the key "traffic_signals" because as the wiki says, it says something about the function of the
"My understanding of the detailed-intersection-tagging
norms was that this should have highway=traffic_signals on the stop
line for cars, and highway=crossing+crossing=traffic_signals on the
middle of the pedestrian crossing"
Yes, this was actually exact that what were in my thoughts. But I
Yes that's true, but then we need a clear definition of what is seen as "public_transport" and what's not, don't we? I think some mappers also use access=private already (I'm not sure whether that fits).
I think this proposal:
Maybe there would be some reason th change the proposal on tagging traffic_signals=crossing_only to make it more clear in teh value that only those traffic lights are meant with it, which do control only a crossing. But if that would be a solution at all, I don't really know. Because I think there
Hello to everyone,
Voting has opened for the proposal of traffic_signals=crossing_only – see the proposal page here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/traffic_signals%3Dcrossing_only
(please note the old name was traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand, but I changed that
Hi people,
I made a proposal to reform the tagging of those traffic signals, which do only control a crossing. The proposal has two main messages: First that crossing=traffic_signals is every time a strict under-tag of highway=crossing and should not be used on the same node with
Okay. So I may conclude:
- We have those carillons inside bell towers, often we do not see them at all. Not sure whether to tag those, at least the attraction=* key would not fit for all of them.
- We have some carillons outside of bell_towers, and I think these are the ones which are
An addition to my ideas:
I think bell_tower=carillon does not really fit, because it says nothing about what kind of bell_tower it is, like the other values of bell_tower do.
Wikipedia says: "A carillon is a musical instrument that is typically housed in the bell tower (belfry) of a church"
"More seriously, attraction=carillon would be appropriate for one in a theme park
or the like but I don't think it suitable for a carillon housed in a bell tower of a
church where it is out of sight (but, sadly, not out of hearing). I'd suggest that
if attraction=carillon is added to the wiki
Hmm okay, convinced. I only hope noone else comes with that topic later again then, but to me it's ok.
-- Lukas
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. Mai 2020 um 14:15 Uhr
Von: "Andrew Harvey"
An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes
On Wed, 6
Hi, I just wanted to ask whether there is any existing tagging for carillons already. In the wiki I found nothing, and I saw some may use tourism=attraction or bell=carillon already, but their uses are less and furthermore I think that these do not really fit.
In the wiki I found bell_tower=*
"highway=path,footway,cycleway is in a doorzone
bicycle:doorzone=yes (the bicycle lane of the path,footway,cycleway is in a doorzone) https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ewtPBxYM_289cWusHEWytw"
I agree with that, but then note that for "justice" we would need a foot:doorzone=yes, too, because
Hmm, okay. I think a carillon is so widespread especially, but not only for bell_towers, that something like carillon=yes wouldn't be useful.
But maybe I will start a proposal with attraction=carillon for tagging carillons which are operated as an attraction, but then the definition of that
"1) Propose using taxi=motorcar, =motorcycle, =boat, =airplane"
I believe at least with this key it would be a waste of time, yes, because taxi=yes is already an access tag and then we get into a chaos. If really wanted it would have to be something like "taxi:type", but this was just for
Oh Yes I agree, it's the same thing like that that (nearly) all railway=platforms have the risk that a passing-by train appears, and that's also a very general hazard implied by the situation. Or when there's a street with a very narrow sidewalk. It would be tagged by sidewalk:left:width=*, but to
Or use class:bicycle=* for classification of those ways, but I still know it's a tag which might be non-specific, "as someones likes it" and with an individual taste. But it puts several things which have influence on how suitable/useful a cycleway is together, so I think it might be a good idea
Hi,
at the moment, there are not so many people who looked at my proposal for traffic_signals=crossing_only :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/traffic_signals%3Dcrossing_only
I would look forward to some more people comment or vote on my proposal which has the aim to
Hi,
in a discussion during voting on my proposal of traffic_signals=crossing_only (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/traffic_signals%3Dcrossing_only)
there was mentioned that the existing values of traffic_signals=* partial rather describe the configuration of a traffic
Hi all,
I want to show you my proposal about extending the values of the key covered=* for detailed mapping how a telephone is covered, again. The proposal's page is here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/extend_telephone_covers
I'm looking forward to your comments.
The advatntage of putting tactile_paving=yes/tactile_paving=yes at the start and at the end of the steps way would also have the advantage, that you can determine whether stair landings (if mapped individually, otherwise create a point within the highway=steps way) also have tactile_paving or not.
Hmm, well, I don't know, I guess there will be specific laws in each country about where you are allowed and aren't allowed to fly drones, right?
Well, if it is explicitly signposted as not allowed, you could of course map it, but only where it really says so on site, I think.
-- Lukas
30 matches
Mail list logo
