Re: [Tagging] Tidal inlets / creeks

On 18/01/2011 12:44, char...@cferrero.net wrote: It would be nice to be able to map the tidal waterways that run in between the mangroves and saltmarshes - particularly the manmade ones that have been explicitly cleared to allow marine vessels. Unfortunately I can't see any way of tagging a

Re: [Tagging] Tidal inlets / creeks

On 18/01/2011 22:29, Stephen Hope wrote: I don't agree. This is a good general rule, but the general convention on most maps is that the coast goes on the SEA side of things like coastal swamps and mangroves. As a rule of thumb, if it has plants growing though the water, it's land, not sea,

Re: [Tagging] Tidal inlets / creeks

On 18/01/2011 17:09, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: It seems to me that you would need to map a series of depth contours, not simply mark channels as navigable or not navigable, as different craft will require different depths of water. Also, this information will need to be updated frequently,

Re: [Tagging] Locating the voting page for a tag

you have found no tagging discussions, since these tag definitions are not intended for the Street Map. I have reverted the page. Regards, Malcolm Herring ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo

Re: [Tagging] Locating the voting page for a tag

On 14/03/2011 09:15, Tobias Knerr wrote: That's exactly what's wrong with the phrasing on that wiki page. You cannot define rules that something is rendered a certain way and expect renderers to follow them. The wiki tagging pages document how to represent a certain aspect of reality in the

Re: [Tagging] Any support for a flow tag?

On 01/04/2011 16:47, j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: One example of a waterway with reversing flow would be the estuary of a river. While the tide is rising, the flow in the estuary may slow, come to a standstill, or even temporarily reverse directions (called a tidal bore). ---Original

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Inland Marinas, Ports, Docks and Basins

I use waterway=dock, leisure=marina Take a look at my two local marinas on the Ripon Canal: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.12314lon=-1.50001zoom=16layers=M ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Waterway directionality in drainage canals

In many European canals, the convention is for the waterway authorities to arbitrarily define a direction so that a 'left' and 'right' bank can be defined and the appropriate navigational marks installed. So in those cases, where you see red on one side and green on the other, the nominated

Re: [Tagging] Extended Conditions - response to votes

On 05/07/2012 13:48, Chris Hill wrote: My only vote is to scrap the stupid voting system that gives credibility to badly thought out schemes by just having a handful of people voting compared to the tens of thousands of active mappers. Discussion is valuable, documentation is vital, voting is

Re: [Tagging] Fuel, additional tags

On 12/11/2012 19:27, Jo wrote: The dye added is not the common denominator. We need the British term for the tax break status of it. Two common terms in use are: marked diesel and agricultural diesel. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Fuel, additional tags

On 12/11/2012 16:55, Janko Mihelić wrote: First, I think we have no tags for a fuel station that boats can use. Taginfo says we have a tag harbour:fuel:diesel used 66 times, but it doesn't look quite right to me. This tag is maybe used to tag a harbour that has a fuel station. We have just one

Re: [Tagging] Fuel, additional tags

On 13/11/2012 17:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: The tagging scheme proposed there doesn't really make sense in the contest of OSM. in the context of OSM is the operative condition, that is why I pointed out that the tags I detailed were OpenSeaMap tags. 1. These are not seamarks.

Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)

Any tag whose key is in the form seamark: is from the OpenSeaMap tagging scheme. Landmarks that bear these tags are features that can be seen from the sea or river and can be usefully used for navigational purposes. This is additional information, not duplicate information, so they may

Re: [Tagging] Clean-up the seamark landmark tags on the wiki (and perhaps later in the db)

On 23/11/2012 10:24, Pieren wrote: landuse=cemetery + landmark=cemetery + seamark=landmark + seamark:type=landmark + seamark:landmark:category = cemetery As I said, those latter two tags would only appear on cemeteries that can be seen from the water and can be used as navigational markers.

Re: [Tagging] non-trivial color schemes

On 18/12/2012 21:16, Frederik Ramm wrote: OpenSeaMap have tons of funny tags for colour-coded buoys, and they even have an editor plugin for JOSM where you can visually compile a buoy layout and have the plugin set the right tags - maybe some of their work can be applied here. Indeed we do!

Re: [Tagging] non-trivial color schemes

PS: We even have that rare thing - documentation! http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/Colours ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

On 28/01/2013 16:26, Tobias Knerr wrote: I'd like to hear your opinions. +1 As a developer of both editing and rendering software, such data structures are troublesome. I dislike multipolygons with multiple disjunct outers both as a mapper as a developer. I have had to abandon edits when

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

On 28/01/2013 17:53, Toby Murray wrote: But being able to do a search for Danube River and getting back a single object from nominatim would be nice. Here is a conflict. Creating a tagging convenience for one tool can have negative impacts on other tools. At least nested relations separate

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

On 29/01/2013 10:42, Pieren wrote: So just explain me why what you accept for administrative boundaries is suddenly not good for rivers It is the relation type that is at issue. The problems arise when the relation type is a multipolygon with all the outers inners of the entire river as

Re: [Tagging] Tunnels and bridges

On 31/01/2013 12:37, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: drawing the outline seems a good approach as it permits to group visually (and topologically) different carriageways running over the same bridge (as opposed to two parallel bridges). This is approach is used by IHO for marine chart data. Where a

Re: [Tagging] Tunnels and bridges

On 31/01/2013 13:44, Martin Vonwald wrote: * bridge=type : use this tag just like it is used at the moment. If the value would be yes it should be optional. Again, borrowing from IHO, they define the following bridge types: fixed opening swing lifting bascule pontoon drawbridge transporter

Re: [Tagging] Tunnels and bridges

On 31/01/2013 13:44, Martin Vonwald wrote: * something=bridge : this is the tag we should decide one. I guess the value bridge is unchallenged. -1 If the primary tag is bridge=type, then why do we need the above tag at all? ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Tunnels and bridges

Martin, Maybe I am missing something from your proposal. I had understood it to mean that bridges should be mapped as distinct features, separate from the ways that pass over and under. Therefore, bridge=... tags on the ways would become redundant and remove the ambiguity and messy rendering

Re: [Tagging] Tunnels and bridges

On 31/01/2013 15:17, Martin Vonwald wrote: As you already need to split the roads at the edges of the structure, because you need to add the layer (and bridge) key within the structure, there are already nodes present - just connect them with the OSM way of the structure. Why do you need split

Re: [Tagging] Tunnels and bridges

On 01/02/2013 15:02, fly wrote: 4. Not only a problem of this thread but we need to get much more developers to support relations (eg. renderes, editors, search engines and other consumers). This includes evaluating existing relations and adjusting them to be useful. +1 A relation explicitly

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

On 04/02/2013 18:26, Douglas Fraser wrote: The data management issues are important, so I'm inclined to update the wiki page to direct people to OpenSeamap as that seems like a more logical place to keep specialized metadata like this and they'd be more inclined to keep the data updated.

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] RFC - Adding UN LOCODE tags to OSM

On 04/02/2013 18:54, Douglas Fraser wrote: Have design decisions been made? Only the design outline has thus far been discussed. In summary, any feature tagged as a port, harbour, marina or anchorage will have the relevant symbol rendered on the OpenSeaMap Seamark layer. The renderer will

Re: [Tagging] Bridges redux

On 09/05/2013 21:41, Christopher Hoess wrote: I'm not absolutely set either way; since you bring it up, I'd like to hear other people weigh in as well. As a renderer developer, I see no problems with Richard's simplification. Renderers should always have a default for unrecognized types,

Re: [Tagging] Telecoms local loops connections nodes

On 20/11/2013 23:53, François Lacombe wrote: Is Central Office the right english term for all kind of nodes ? No. Central Office (North American term) or [telephone]exchange (UK/Ireland term) usually implies the location of a switch as well as the MDF and line terminations. However local

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] IENC of the German WSV

On 11/12/2013 09:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: It also seems odd to add all facilities as attributes to the main object rather than mapping them inside the area at the place where they are (if I understood that page right, the former is what it suggests). E.g. It is not rather than, but as

Re: [Tagging] OpenSeaMap tagging - seamark-prefix was Re: [Imports] IENC of the German WSV

We (OpenSeaMap) are open to suggestions on this. The harbour project has recently been re-started after a hiatus of several years. As we are building a separate database to contain imports from various public harbour data sources. These harbour objects only require a simple

Re: [Tagging] Canal banks

On 03/02/2014 14:34, Janko Mihelić wrote: There wasn't a vote on deprecating riverbank, and it probably wouldn't have passed. waterway=riverbank: 260,000 instances water=canal:2400 instances I would suggest that the latter be deprecated, especially as the former is documented on the main map

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Coastline-River transit placement

On 29/03/2014 20:29, Richard Z. wrote: Currently there are essentially no rules at all on this matter Nor will there ever be. OSM mappers are free spirits! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals

On 06/07/2014 08:24, nounours77 wrote: = So this would imply that port is a individual facility inside a harbour. In fact it is the other way round. A port my contain one or more harbours. (In turn, a harbour may contain zero or more docks and a dock may contain zero or more basins.) A port

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals

On 06/07/2014 10:45, sabas88 wrote: Let me know how I can edit / disambiguate. The important distinction is that a port is an administrative boundary (which may have several disjunct areas) whereas harbours, terminals, docks, wharves, basins, quays, etc. are physical features. Since those

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals

To be consistent with the IHO definitions, any use of the word harbour should be used for the area of sheltered water and not any land areas. Those land areas adjacent to the harbour water should be classified according to their function (terminal, wharf, etc.) Therefore the tag

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Port and terminals

Most ports handle many different types of cargoes, so a single value is insufficient. It would be better to tag the individual terminal objects within a port with a type rather than assign a type to the port object. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] cleanup of the key natural

+1 if it means that the rendering of these features is done according to whatever is agreed. I have a particular interest in coastal and tidal riverbank areas. I had tagged some such areas some years ago according to the Wiki and the rendering was as expected. Since the introduction of Carto,

Re: [Tagging] Default maxspeed unit on waterways

On 29/10/2014 14:12, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: I don't know about other countries, but here in Finland the water maxspeed signage is in km/h although knot is used for almost everything else. In UK waterways, both MPH and knots are used. Usually MPH on canals and knots on rivers, though even this

Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey

On 23/12/2014 16:57, Tom Pfeifer wrote: The collection of traces over a longer time creates a cloud of traces which form a Gaussian bell curve, in density, over the ground truth. Except that the position of a node in the DB is the last edited value, not the mean position of all

Re: [Tagging] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?

On 18/03/2015 11:58, Richard Z. wrote: so should for example the OpenSeaMap tagging for bridges become deprecated? Not deprecated, but considered on a case-by-case basis. It is a question of whether important navigation information would be deleted if the seamark tags were removed. In the

Re: [Tagging] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?

On 17/03/2015 13:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: their tagging scheme is somehow a parallel universe, Not parallel, but in some cases complimentary. For 95% of objects there are no overlaps with standard OSM objects. It is those 5% of cases that do overlap that people notice hence assume

Re: [Tagging] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?

On 16/03/2015 10:37, Richard Z. wrote: I think it makes sense to tag them as ways, analogous to weirs and dams. +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?

On 16/03/2015 16:35, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: If you're a router following a way, having the node marked makes the job easier. Is that not tagging for an app? A similar case is bridges. Here the bridge tag could be on a segment of the way over the bridge, the way under the bridge, a node on

Re: [Tagging] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?

On 19/03/2015 17:41, Richard Z. wrote: do you have any background info regarding the many obstacle nodes which are present in German waterways? I don't. I found a key:obstacle page in the Wiki that associates it OpenSeaMap - I don't know why the authors thought that. Those authors are

Re: [Tagging] waterway=lock_gate - is it only for nodes?

On 17/03/2015 16:06, Brad Neuhauser wrote: Is there something I'm missing? No, you have spotted the fact that (as always!) that the documentation is unfinished. I had done it on this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/INT-1_Cross_Reference but I need to add notes/links on

[Tagging] Survey points

The Wiki is very clear (in several languages) as what a survey point is, but is there some other meaning that mappers understand this term to mean? The reason I ask is that I often come across man_made=survey_point tags that have been added to other objects. Not infrequently this tag replaces

Re: [Tagging] Survey points

On 11/03/2015 14:43, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: Adding a separate survey_point node would have little benefit. The problem in many cases is the man_made key. I come across many objects that were tagged man_made=lighthouse, with other tags describing attributes of that structure, but then

Re: [Tagging] Survey points

OK, the mapper in question did not reply, but silently removed the tags. This leaves me none the wiser as to the more widespread usage of this tag. Looking closer at the data, it appears that man_made=survey_point is very often added to prominent objects, particularly towers, masts and

Re: [Tagging] Survey points

On 11/03/2015 11:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: maybe the tower has a point defined (e.g. top of the antenna or a sign or similar) which could be a survey_point. Since surveyors have to take bearings-from as well as bearings-to survey points, the point would have to be located where survey

Re: [Tagging] areas (eg rocks) underwater and across coastline/water shores

On 26/03/2015 16:24, Richard Z. wrote: has the rendering of the tidal areas been defined somehow? No. tidal=yes is ignored. how about underwater:natural=* and awash:natural=* ? No doubt others will come up with alternatives. I will stand back and wait for the usual suspects!

Re: [Tagging] Mapping private home toilets

On 03/03/2015 13:30, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mar 2, 2015 12:07 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com mailto:bry...@obviously.com wrote: I'm opening a discussion about at least mechanically re-tagging operator:type=private into access=no or access=private, so that rendering software can

Re: [Tagging] areas (eg rocks) underwater and across coastline/water shores

On 26/03/2015 12:35, Richard Z. wrote: How do people think about it? Should we generalise that approach or seek another solutions? The way I have approached this is to map separate areas above and below the natural=coastline way add the tag tidal=yes on the below HW area. Should we use

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

This idea of the linear river way being along the deepest part seems to have been created in this thread. No such 'rule' exists, either in practice, nor in Wiki tagging pages. The normal usage is to place the way along the approximate centre line of the waterway, just as we do with roads. As

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

On 23/04/2015 03:30, John F. Eldredge wrote: In my experience, rivers, unlike harbors, generally don't have buoys or other markers showing the location of the navigational channel Oh, but they do: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/CEVNI_Lateral_Marks

Re: [Tagging] dock=tidal

On 29/05/2015 08:41, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Why is this a property of the dock, rather than a property of the water body. A dock is a body of water. It may or may not be separated from a connecting river or sea by a lock or single gate. What's wrong with floating vs. fixed? What do you

Re: [Tagging] dock=tidal

On 29/05/2015 09:45, pmailkeey . wrote: Is, then, a dry dock an empty body of water? Only when it is pumped dry. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] dock=tidal

On 29/05/2015 13:16, John Eldredge wrote: That is just one of the common meanings of dock. Another common meaning is as a synonym for pier, an above-water structure used to give access to a ship. You are referring to the en-us usage of the word dock, which covers piers, pontoons the like.

Re: [Tagging] Move tag to a subtag (landuse=port)

On 18/08/2015 15:45, Stefano wrote: What's your opinion? It is important to distinguish between a port and a harbour, dock or terminal. These are often confused, and I see this confusion in reference [0]. A port is an administrative entity, whereas harbours/docks/terminals are physical

Re: [Tagging] Telecoms Tagging

On 02/08/2015 22:10, Tim Waters wrote: Is a loop a mappable thing In the telecom context, loop is a synonym for circuit, i.e. a pair of wires, twisted together and is always a point-to-point connection (linear (non-closed) way in OSM mapping).

Re: [Tagging] Multiple values with semicolons (was: Voting - Blood donation 2)

On 20/07/2015 21:45, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: The only solution is to split the object (e.g. 2 separate nodes). Not so - a tag of the form object:attribute=value would allow more than one object to be separately tagged on the same node or way. e.g.: pub:opening_hours=*

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

On 27/01/2016 16:36, Frederik Ramm wrote: One thing that I would like to see discussed is ordering. There should be allowance for both ordered and unordered multiple values. Whether this is left to the producer/consumer tools or indicated in the tag template is debatable. In the former case

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

On 27/01/2016 18:06, markus schnalke wrote: When we agree on the conceptual need,*then* we can and should discuss implementations. +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wharf

On 16/02/2016 14:26, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: "môle" - which is a much better translation for "wharf" No it is not - a mole (also an english word) is a solid pier - it is masonry/stone/concrete structure that is built on the seabed & has the function of a pier. The important difference is

Re: [Tagging] Wharf

On 16/02/2016 16:48, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: So is a mole a special sort of pier ? Then definition of "pier" in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dpier is wrong, as it is not always "a raised walkway over water supported by pillars". That definition of a pier is correct. Water

Re: [Tagging] Wharf

On 16/02/2016 17:41, James Morrison wrote: Is there a specific difference between mole and breakwater? Yes, in both form and function. Breakwaters only serve to attenuate waves and are not designed for mooring. They are usually parallel to, and detached from, the shore and are often awash at

Re: [Tagging] Wharf

From the IHO Hydrographic dictionary: breakwater. A structure protecting a shore area, HARBOUR, ANCHORAGE, or BASIN from WAVES. See also FLOATING BREAKWATER. jetty. In U.S. terminology, a structure, such as a WHARF or PIER, so located as to influence CURRENT or protect the ENTRANCE to a

Re: [Tagging] shop=marine RFC

The common name for such shops is "chandler". This is more specific to the type of shop you want to tag. "marine" is too broad a term ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=marine RFC

On 15/03/2016 09:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: and do you go to the same shops? Yes. Chandleries cater for all types of small craft. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=marine RFC

On 15/03/2016 09:31, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Some of us have boats (not ships) with engines (not sails).:) +1! Maybe "shop=boating_supplies"? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=marine RFC

On 15/03/2016 11:02, Colin Smale wrote: How would you define "small" in this context? Any pleasure craft, from one person inflatable dingies to luxury cruisers, and from sailboards to Larry Ellison's behemoth. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=boat (supersedes shop=marine, shop=*chandler, etc)

On 11/04/2016 19:20, anarcat wrote: Yet shop=boat itself was never formally proposed or discussed here, as far as I know. shop=boat is a bad choice for marine/chandlery stores. A better tag is shop=boat_supplies as this more completely describes the type of store. Few chandleries sell actual

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=boat (supersedes shop=marine, shop=*chandler, etc)

On 14/04/2016 00:28, anarcat wrote: boat_supplies was*never* mentionned in this thread prior to this post, It was, but somebody broke the thread. The subsequent discussions continued in both fragments. If you view this list in thread view, the separated fragment is immediately after this

Re: [Tagging] Masts vs Towers yet again

On 15/04/2016 17:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: do you agree to use tower for communication towers? Yes. My suggestions relate to the form of the structures, not their usage. Those would be defined by secondary tags. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Masts vs Towers yet again

On 15/04/2016 12:39, Dave Swarthout wrote: I think you had better make the requirements for tower less strict. The whole point of my definitions is to *NOT* use the word "tower" for communications masts. I am trying to resolve the ambiguity by choosing one in preference to the other, even

Re: [Tagging] values with ";" and overpass

On 14/07/2016 20:09, Bjoern Hassler wrote: way["line"="Jubilee"]({{bbox}}); Try: way["line"~"Jubilee"]({{bbox}}); ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

On 18/07/2016 08:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: why "seamark:*"? This is historical. At the beginning of nautical navigation mapping, it was buoys, beacons, lights, etc that were being mapped. As is usual with OSM mapping, feature creep set in to include all objects listed in the IHO

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

On 18/07/2016 10:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: in the more common natural, waterway, man_made etc. namespaces Indeed we do encourage the usage of mainstream OSM tags for all natural & cultural/manmade objects. Where seamark tags are added to these objects, it should be only to indicate

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

On 18/07/2016 07:50, Volker Schmidt wrote: but they for sure must have same tags for that. Yes: "seamark:type=fairway". Ideally on a polygon, but a linear way will do. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] landuse=industrial with industrial=port

On 21/02/2017 08:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: IMHO there should be a feature tag for ports (e.g. man_made=port) not just an indirect way of mapping landuse properties. Agreed, but not "man_made", which I think should only used on singular objects. A port is much like a small town or an

Re: [Tagging] landuse=industrial with industrial=port

On 22/02/2017 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: What I haven't decided yet is whether to propose using a property like seaway:terminal =yes to distinguish terminals (route endpoints) from other ports, or if we use

Re: [Tagging] landuse=industrial with industrial=port

Ports and harbours are not the same thing. A harbour is merely a sheltered body of water protected by man made or natural structures. A port, on the other hand, is the whole infrastructure for handling ships & their cargoes. This may include any number of harbour areas, but also wharves,

Re: [Tagging] landuse=industrial with industrial=port

On 20/02/2017 20:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: agreed, the wiki page titled 'Harbour' gives an overview of both, maybe the page should be renamed I could rename it "Harbours and Ports" and add text to cover ports, but first I need some agreed tagging for ports. That was the question asked

Re: [Tagging] landuse=industrial with industrial=port

PS: I was going to propose "landuse=port" as an obvious choice. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse=industrial with industrial=port

In the port area where I live, fishing, ferries, cruises, general cargoes, oil and gas terminals, ship repairs, offshore support, wind turbine construction & shipment are all handled. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

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

On 17/09/2016 23:08, Colin Smale wrote: Martin, are you suggesting to drop the convention for the way direction that it goes with the flow? Or are you OK with oneway=reverse? Values such as "yes", "forward", "reverse", "-1", etc are all meaningless to those who actually navigate the

Re: [Tagging] marine traffic control towers

On 29/07/2017 09:39, Volker Schmidt wrote: What's the correct term and tagging for marine traffic control towers or similar buildings? No tags have been defined as far as I know. This may of help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vessel_traffic_service

Re: [Tagging] marine traffic control towers

On 30/07/2017 16:59, Volker Schmidt wrote: I suppose Martin is referring to**the marine equivalent of Area Control Centers for air traffic (ACC). But that's different from the structure I have in mind as it's not in visual contact with what is going on "below" the tower. There is no marine

Re: [Tagging] marine traffic control towers

On 30/07/2017 21:35, Volker Schmidt wrote: I am not sure whether "my" tower is a VTS one. It is known locally as "pilots' tower". I have not checked the signs on the door, to be honest. Port pilotage is one of the functions controlled by VTS stations. If you live within 30NM of this

Re: [Tagging] Slipway vs boat ramp

On 03/05/2018 17:14, Mike H wrote: there are two different kinds of slipway Yes, but both are commonly called "slipway". See :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slipway ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] What is the unit of seamark:light:range?

On 09/01/2018 22:32, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: What is the unit of seamark:light:range? It is not explicitly defined athttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Lights Nautical Miles ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] What is the unit of seamark:light:range?

On 10/01/2018 13:53, Jo wrote: Let's hope there is consensus on this. There is certainly consensus among all the Seamarks consumer applications. To change the current tag values would break them all! ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] What is the unit of seamark:light:range?

On 10/01/2018 06:50, Jo wrote: Do we add " nmi" to all of them? No. I have updated the Seamarks wiki pages to specify nautical miles as the default unit for ranges. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

On 15/01/2018 14:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: can you please explain how to distinguish a beacon from a light house? Historical beacons (for which the tag man_made=beacon is appropriate) are structures that were for generic signalling purposes, not necessarily maritime navigation. They can

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

On 18/01/2018 13:52, Janko Mihelić wrote: I looked at man_made=beacon. Taginfo says we have about 7 000 of those, and the wiki shows something that resembles what we are talking about, but not quite: man_made=beacon *is* the appropriate tag for such structures. Tags in the "seamark"

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

On 18/01/2018 15:27, Janko Mihelić wrote: I'm in the process of making a new icon, and I can make a pull request on the openstreetmap-carto soon. That is good - maybe it will prevent mappers using "lighthouse" just so that a symbol is placed on the map. I have added some more examples of

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

On 16/01/2018 00:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: In what way would you consider that these are not lighthouse's? Just because they don't have accommodation? Point taken. I was referring to the historical structures rather than any modern replacements. The main point that I was trying to make

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

On 16/01/2018 08:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: probably with exceptions, e.g. this is a lighthouse from 1911 (i.e. historic) with a lattice structure, generally considered a lighthouse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adziogol_Lighthouse I can see a house! To be clear, the OP asked what the

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

On 16/01/2018 10:25, Andrew Davidson wrote: OK. So a lighthouse has to have a rotating light then? A lighthouse does not have any particular type of light, or any light at all, but it will have a lamp room at the top ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Difference between lighthouses and beacons

On 14/01/2018 13:47, Janko Mihelić wrote: So a fuzzy rule can be created, you can't have a man_made=lighthouse tag and seamark:xxx=yyy tags on the same object. That's instantly an error. Seamark tags are used for instruments that help navigation, and lighthouses are structures that can house

  1   2   >