Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula

2018-12-29 Thread Markus
ral=x, & should be > mapped as they are named: =headland, =cape, =peninsula, =promontory etc etc If promontory, headland and cape is already part of the name, why duplicating it with different tags? Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

2019-01-01 Thread Markus
On Monday, December 31, 2018, Tobias Wrede wrote: > > Now that several comments here indicate that the only practical > distinction today is the name on the front sign I come to think that we > could abandon the tag altogether. > +1 ___ Tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-01 Thread Markus
! Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-05 Thread Markus
fully is clear and objective enough. I've updated the proposal page accordingly. Regards, Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-05 Thread Markus
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 01:44, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I’d suggest encouraging mappers to use a node in the center of a large peninsula, as is done for continents and seas, rather than trying to map it as an area. I've already added this comment in section Tagging: 'If it is unclear where the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-05 Thread Markus
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 13:08, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > To make this clear once again since this continues to be forgotten: The > meaning of tags in OSM does not necessarily have anything to do with > the culture specific definition of the terms used for key and value > from some dictionary.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – crossing:island=*

2019-01-05 Thread Markus
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 at 16:20, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I really like this solution, it removes one of > conflicts in crossing tagging. Thanks for your support! Are there any other comments? Otherwise i'll open voting soon. Regard

Re: [Tagging] Values in namespaces/prefixes/suffixes Considered Harmful - Or: Stop over-namespacing and prefix-fooling

2019-01-05 Thread Markus
fined in the code (instead of > being put in values). > * Values in namespaces/prefixes/suffixes are hard or impossible to > search, match, count or group in computer languages, including SQL. I'm a bit late but thank you, Stefan, for your explanation! Regards, Markus

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-18 Thread Markus
/-4.4886 Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-18 Thread Markus
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 21:49, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Rather than a new relation type, I think it would be simpler to tag > the indefinite part of the boundary of whatever area feature with a > key like "indefinite=yes". [...] This is a sensible solution and it's even simpler than what i was

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-18 Thread Markus
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 22:41, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > On Friday 18 January 2019, Markus wrote: > > [...]particularly the > > distinction from natural=cape. natural=peninsula now includes a > > minimal area limit of 1 km². > > That is a very bad idea on two

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-18 Thread Markus
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 22:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Both natural=cape and natural=peninsula can be part of a natural=peninsula, > comes out a bit awkwardly. Maybe just leave it as "A n=c can be part of a > n=p", but a n=p cannot be part of a n=c"? It certainly can be phrased better

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-19 Thread Markus
oint? Isn't it rather a fuzzy area that the name refers to? Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-19 Thread Markus
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 00:26, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > [...] The problem i see is - as > previously mentioned - defining natural=peninsula in a way that makes > it mean something more specific than 'some named land area at the > coast'. But that problem is completely unrelated to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-21 Thread Markus
he reason why i got confused. I've improved the differentiation from natural=cape and abandoned the minimal area requirement of 1 km². Please tell me if it makes sense now. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.op

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-19 Thread Markus
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 04:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > A found a guide somewhere that said 300 was a good maximum number of members > for a multipolygon. Found it here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation#Size and mentioned it in the proposal.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-19 Thread Markus
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 00:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > OK, how about "A natural=cape can be part of a natural=peninsula, a > natural=peninsula can be part of a larger natural=peninsula, but a > natural=peninsula cannot be part of a natural=cape"? Or: 'A natural=cape can be part of a

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-01-19 Thread Markus
terway=canal > for large irrigation or land drainage channels. Consider using waterway=drain > for lined superflous liquid drainage channels. I would even go one step further and abandon waterway=drain. The question that still remains is: what does "small" and &q

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-19 Thread Markus
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 01:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Southport Spit https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-27.9567/153.4276 > could all also be mapped as =cape (although the Spit should possibly be an > =isthmus? {which doesn't actually exist yet!})) The Southport Spit isn't an isthmus.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-19 Thread Markus
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 14:16, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > And how do i as a mapper practically determine the area of Pointe de > Pen-Hir to be about 0.3 km^2? By mapping the area the name Pointe de Pen-Hir refers to as area:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-19 Thread Markus
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 14:20, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > On Saturday 19 January 2019, Markus wrote: > > > > If natural=cape doesn't mean a headland forming a coastal extreme > > point, then i fail to understand what natural=cape does mean. Does it > > only mean t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up

2018-12-26 Thread Markus
eature or service isn't available (e.g. that you can't top up public transport cards at a specific place). How would your top_up tagging scheme look like? top_up= + top_up:=? Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up

2018-12-26 Thread Markus
up' ... how are these to be > tagged? Together with a payment tag too. > > There are some convenience stores that offer 'top up' services .. how are > these to be tagged? > > > On 26/12/18 19:31, Markus wrote: > > Hi Daniele, > > > > From the proposal page: > > &

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up

2018-12-26 Thread Markus
obile_phone=yes/no top_up:mobile_phone:vodafone=yes/no top_up:mobile_phone:lycamobile=yes/no top_up:public_transport=yes/no top_up:public_transport:oyster=yes/no top_up:public_transport:opal=yes/no top_up:credit_card=yes/no top_up:credit_card:ok=yes/no Regards Markus On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 02:45, Daniele Santini

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula

2018-12-26 Thread Markus
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 19:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Being this about a landform I would tend to prefer the natural key for it, > although the use of place isn’t defacto limited to man made places > (particularly locality) either. A peninsula is a land form, on the other hand, we're

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula

2018-12-26 Thread Markus
Hello, I'm proposing the tag place=peninsula for mapping named peninsulas. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:place%3Dpeninsula Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Railway tracks on highway

2018-12-11 Thread Markus
be flexible > enough to handle it, do you agree? Thanks for the interesting link. I agree and try to be more precise in the future. :-) Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway=*_link roads at Y-junctions and roundabouts?

2018-12-16 Thread Markus
rg/node/2539835932 There's just a triangular painted island, that means it's just one carriageway. Therefore i'd rather not map two one-way road sections there (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways#Carriageways). Regards Markus ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] leisure=track for summer tobogans?

2018-12-24 Thread Markus
k in this way? In my opinion no. I would rather tag the slide leisure=summer_toboggan, summer_toboggan=slide or similar. Regards and merry Christmas Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Printing company for newspapers

2018-12-14 Thread Markus
makes quite sense. Therefore, i'd suggest to tag a printing works man_made=works + works=printing (+ product=printed_matter). [1]: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/works Regards Markus On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 15:42, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 2:28 PM Erkin Alp

Re: [Tagging] Walking route on a beach

2018-12-19 Thread Markus
on the ground and not knowing that a hiking trail runs along the beach, one would certainly not map a path there. Maybe a third choice were to add the beach area to the hiking route relation? [^1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/620720574 Regards Markus On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 22:31, Warin <61sun

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Railway tracks on highway

2018-12-09 Thread Markus
embedded_rails=tram/railway/subway and embedded_rails=yes probably is enough information. (By the way, why did you leave out light_rail and narrow_gauge?) Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] emergency=control_centre

2018-12-09 Thread Markus
-tag fire stations amenity=fire_station + emergency=fire_station. If enough people do the same, maybe one day be don't need amenity=fire_station any more.) Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] emergency=control_centre

2018-12-09 Thread Markus
office=public-safety_answering_point would probably fit better than emergency=*. (In an emergency it might not help much to know where the public-safety answering point is located.) Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] emergency=control_centre

2018-12-09 Thread Markus
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 at 17:22, dktue wrote: > > I've been convinced that the office-key is a suitable place to put the tag. On the other hand, i also understand your logic to put everything emergency-related under the emergency=* key. ;-) ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Railway tracks on highway

2018-12-09 Thread Markus
Thank you, Mateusz and Colin, i haven't thought of curve radii and signalling. By the way, i deliberately didn't mention the Bordeaux system because it's uncommon and not a metro (but some kind of tram). Regards Markus On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 at 20:46, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > In Kraków,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Top up

2019-01-09 Thread Markus
and thus prepaid_top_up:brand= would suffice? I'm sorry, i missed the second RFC after you've updated the proposal. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

2019-01-10 Thread Markus
hrive if there's mutual respect between these groups. +1 Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-10 Thread Markus
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 17:07, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > >> I believe many time the boundary of a peninsula are politically defined, for >> instance most would often see the Iberia peninsula end at where Spain meet >> France > > So is Andorra within or outside the Iberian peninsula? I was

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-10 Thread Markus
you better try to make the definition somewhat clearer. I've replaced *nearly surrounded by water* with *surrounded by water on the majority of its border*, but i'm unsure whether this is clearer. If you or someone has a better idea, please tell me.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-10 Thread Markus
On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 14:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am Mi., 9. Jan. 2019 um 10:36 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm : >> >> I fear that people will otherwise with great diligence and fun tag >> things like the "Iberian Peninsula" which will not be of any use and >> just lead to more relation

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-01-11 Thread Markus
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 17:24, Hufkratzer wrote: > > and the German page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:waterway=ditch > mentions "Bewässerungsgraben" which means irrigation ditch. A wiki page in non-English language should be a translation. Defining a tag differently is

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-01-11 Thread Markus
tion –, there is waterway=canal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dcanal Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-01-11 Thread Markus
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:42, Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > > Markus, you can find that in the "How to Map" section of the ditch proper > page: > "If the ditch is used for irrigation, the usage of irrigation=yes is > proposed." > https://wiki.openstreetm

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

2019-01-12 Thread Markus
intend to differentiate them from waterway=canal? Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-09 Thread Markus
parately (natural=spit seems obvious), as they differ from peninsulas quite a lot with regard to their shape. Should i also propose tags for coastal areas and spits? Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – Voting – crossing:island=*

2019-01-09 Thread Markus
Hello everyone, I'm opening voting on crossing:island=*, a tag for specifying whether a pedestrian crossing has a refuge island: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:crossing:island Thanks in advance for your participation in the vote. Best regards Markus

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-09 Thread Markus
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 10:37, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > I think we need to map peninsulas in three ways, as nodes, areas, and ways. > > Areas when the land border is obvious. Nodes for little ones, when you don't > have time to draw an area and the shape of the peninsula is obvious. Then > there

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – Approved – crossing:island=*

2019-01-24 Thread Markus
the questions and concearns raised during voting soon in a separate post. Thanks for your participation in the vote and the discussions. Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] crossing=cycleway as a node

2019-01-26 Thread Markus
be best. (By the way, a tiger crossing is an unsignalised crossing for cyclists *and pedestrians*.) Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-27 Thread Markus
te des Capucins). Thanks for your feedback! I tried to improve the differentiation and the illustration. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal -- Voting -- shop=fashion_accessories

2019-03-25 Thread Markus
Hello list, I've opened the fashion accessory shop proposal for voting: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fashion_accessory_shop Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal -- RFC -- service=irregular

2019-04-05 Thread Markus
t it is a diversion track; it could also be that no route relations have been mapped yet. Besides, a tag on the rail is more stable (i.e. gets less frequently broken) than a route relation. Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Tagging shared campuses: landuse=school?

2019-04-05 Thread Markus
=* values like residential, industrial or commercial. Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal -- RFC -- service=irregular

2019-04-01 Thread Markus
(on the wiki talk page or on the tagging mailing list) is much appreciated! Best regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal -- RFC -- service=irregular

2019-04-01 Thread Markus
Hi Martin, On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 18:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > this should get a different name, many people would call their tram, light > rail or underground service "irregular" (from a subjective point of view: you > wait for a means and it arrives too late). Not sure how to better

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal -- RFC -- service=irregular

2019-04-01 Thread Markus
Hi Stefan, On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 20:51, Stefan Keller wrote: > > What about track=service? (key track without 's') That doesn't seem to fit well with the other service=* tags (e.g. service=yard) that are already in use: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:service#Railways

Re: [Tagging] Sharps / syringe disposal

2019-02-24 Thread Markus
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, 01:24 Graeme Fitzpatrick, wrote: > > Bins in public areas (parks, public toilets etc) are intended to have > syringes, with needles attached, disposed of into them. I guess someone > could also put an ampoule in there, but I don't think most people > (hopefully) using these

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – Voting Results – natural=peninsual & natural=isthmus

2019-03-02 Thread Markus
%3Disthmus for the feature description pages. Regards and have a nice weekend! Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC rewritten proposal Via_ferrata_simplified

2019-03-06 Thread Markus
Not only has highway=via_ferrata already been widely used, but via ferratas also don't correspond to the definition of highway=path, which is "a generic multi-use path open to non-motorised vehicles". Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Ta

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

2019-03-06 Thread Markus
gged shop=convenience. [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dnewsagent [2]: http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/pipermail/talk-ch/2019-March/009904.html (in German) Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Sharps / syringe disposal

2019-02-23 Thread Markus
attached to a > syringe) that is the issue > Do you or someone else happen to know what is allowed to throw into a bin labelled 'syringes'? I would have guessed needles and ampoules, but no other sharp waste such as scalpels. Regards Markus ___ Tagging maili

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

2019-03-14 Thread Markus
titute a new object, but is merely the name of its members as a whole. [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Group_Relation Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

2019-03-17 Thread Markus
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 12:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > cycleway=opposite specifies a track (=distinct bicycle carriageway) whose > position and direction are opposite to the direction you would expect (e.g. > it is left for right traffic jurisdictions), right? No, that's

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

2019-03-17 Thread Markus
On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 13:38, "Christian Müller" wrote: > > I support discouraging both opposite* values. I suppose you mean all three? > Re-using oneway semantics is easy. oneway is an established > tag with established interpretation - if its meaning is not > reshaped in an obscure way it is

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite?

2019-03-17 Thread Markus
confused with cycleway=opposite_lane. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

2019-03-15 Thread Markus
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 09:19, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> amenity=police would be reduced to indicate that the tag is used for all >> police facilities > > I am against changing meaning of an established tag (even if it has some > mistaggings). +1 On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 17:17, Jan S wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

2019-03-14 Thread Markus
nstead, people would have to double-tag police stations as amenity=police + police=station in order to comply with both the old and the new scheme. This is why i'm unsure whether it's sensible to introduce a new tag for police stations. Regards

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – shop=fashion_accessories

2019-03-10 Thread Markus
Hi all, I've created a proposal page for fashion accessory shops (shop=fashion_accessories) as there is currently no official tag for this kind of shops: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fashion_accessory_shop Best regards Markus

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

2019-03-10 Thread Markus
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 18:11, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > > But ultimately, I believe that shop=clothe+clothes=luxury would take > that special case back into the fold of a logical tagging scheme... The > fewer special cases the better ! This seems like an even better solution. (Though, we still

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

2019-03-13 Thread Markus
nd riders. If pedestrians are also only allowed to walk in one direction, it seems you need to add oneway:foot=yes or foot:backward=no. [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway#Interpretation_for_routing Regards Markus ___ Tagging mai

[Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

2019-03-18 Thread Markus
but i doubt that it gets better with an additional and cryptic cycleway:left:oneway=-1 tag. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

2019-03-18 Thread Markus
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 19:54, "Christian Müller" wrote: > > What is the "normal traffic flow" of a two-way road? > > After all, opposite_lane made it to be used in combination > with these as well - despite the fact that [1] documents > combination with oneways exclusively. (And because of that

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

2019-03-19 Thread Markus
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 00:30, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 19/03/19 10:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >> >> On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 07:47, Markus wrote: >>> >>> Unfortunately, many tags are used wrongly (e.g. name, access tags, >>&

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

2019-03-19 Thread Markus
ignated sounds too official, what about signed_direction=*? In any case i would avoid a key containing the word oneway. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

2019-03-19 Thread Markus
By the way: aren't all contraflow cycle lanes located on the left side in countries with right-hand traffic or on the right side in countries with left-hand traffic? If so, cycleway*=opposite_lane could simply be replaced by cycleway:*=lane, as the direction of the cycle lane is already implied by

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

2019-03-19 Thread Markus
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 09:14, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> Mar 19, 2019, 8:52 AM by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: >> >> By the way: aren't all contraflow cycle lanes located on the left side >> in countries with right-hand traffic or on the right side in countries >> with left-hand traffic? If so,

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

2019-03-19 Thread Markus
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 09:32, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Mar 19, 2019, 8:29 AM by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: >> >> So why not correcting those 850 (6%) incorrect uses of >> cycleway*=opposite_lane instead of inventing a new tagging system for >> it? I've already corrected a few dozen, here's

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

2019-03-09 Thread Markus
for different accessories shops, such as shops that sell accessories for mobile phones, cars, motorcycles or computers. shop=fashion_accessories is unambiguous but has only been used 10 times so far. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

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

2019-03-10 Thread Markus
ms): > http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GOO I'm aware of this linguistic problem. But instead of abandoning shop=boutique, this problem can be solved if editors correct the French translation ("boutique de mode"?) and if renderers display an appropriate icon (maybe a shirt and a ha

[Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

2019-02-08 Thread Markus
Thanks Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

2019-02-08 Thread Markus
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 18:19, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > have the feeling that we have discussed this before. On the fly I find these > two hreads: > > [Tagging] Wastewater Plants (After a long search in the archive ...) Apparently it was even me asking the same question – shame on me!

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

2019-02-08 Thread Markus
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 at 18:27, Paul Allen wrote: > > Not sure. Depends what you mean by "tank." However, there's a problem with > the rendering > of man_made=storage_tank whether or not you consider it must be closed: it > renders with the > symbol for a silo. Which is very wrong. Yeah, I

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – Voting – natural=isthmus

2019-02-15 Thread Markus
And me again ... I've also opened the vote on natural=isthmus: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Disthmus Definition: an isthmus (a narrow strip of land, bordered by water on both sides and connecting two larger land masses) Markus aka SelfishSeahorse

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – Voting – natural=peninsula

2019-02-15 Thread Markus
for all the good advices and comments during RFC! All problems that came up should have been resolved and the proposal has been adapted accordingly. Best regards Markus aka SelfishSeahorse ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https

[Tagging] waste=trash for amenity=waste_bin/waste_disposal? [Was: Medicine Disposal]

2019-02-16 Thread Markus
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 14:21 Paul Allen Btw, i wonder why the wiki lists trash as a possible value for waste=*. Is >> trash intended to be only used in combinations, such as >> waste=trash;cigarettes? I've supposed that waste=trash is the default for >> amenity=waste_bin and amenity=waste_disposal

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

2019-02-16 Thread Markus
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 20:06 Eugene Podshivalov What is the best way to correct this, so that all other langauge pages got > the correction as well? > I'm not aware of any other way than correcting it on each page. I've just done this and also added a note that this tag lacks verifiability. >

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

2019-02-16 Thread Markus
ce> * (optional) Total > length of river in km > This has been added more than four years ago, see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Relation:waterway=1120648 Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

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

2019-02-16 Thread Markus
ged with sidewalk=left/right on lateral carriageways, it seems we need something like sidewalk=parallel_carriageway for the medial carriageways as information for routers. Regards Markus > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waste=trash for amenity=waste_bin/waste_disposal? [Was: Medicine Disposal]

2019-02-16 Thread Markus
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 16:04 Markus > I agree, but what about ordinary rubbish bins or containers? Do > amenity=waste_bin/waste_disposal without a waste=* tag imply waste=trash or > should that be added too? > Corrigendum: the tag is amenity=waste_basket, not amenity=waste_bin. I

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

2019-02-16 Thread Markus
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 15:26 Andy Mabbett I would suggest that values entered by human mappers are more likely > to be "error prone"; and that we should be more concerned with > on-the-ground reality than "offical" figures. > I agree. Besides, official figures may not be compatible with OSM's

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

2019-02-17 Thread Markus
licate the relation. For objects inside smaller buildings i think a node would be enough. Regards Markus > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

2019-02-17 Thread Markus
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, 23:55 Sergio Manzi Then I guess the correct solution would be to not "stick" the amenity to > the building but to a new relation whose only member will be the building > itself. > + 1 > ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Medicine Disposal

2019-02-17 Thread Markus
) instead of creating something different for a similar use (i.e. > waste=drugs). I don't think that this is a good idea because (a) waste=* is already used over 32,000 times (b) values in keys are considered problematical by many and (c) i don't see a benefit in such a

Re: [Tagging] Sharps / syringe disposal

2019-02-18 Thread Markus
ones as an attribute of the toilet, perhaps syringes_bin=yes? Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

2019-02-09 Thread Markus
ing (what building=* is used for). If we find a tag for open containers, i suggest to replace/deprecate building=slurry_tank. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

2019-02-12 Thread Markus
in the vote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_schedules/Interval Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

2019-02-10 Thread Markus
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 23:44, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Perhaps use the tag covered=no to signify an uncovered storage tank? According to the wiki, covered=no would signify that the storage tank isn't covered by something else, not that it isn't closed. Therefore my suggestion with

Re: [Tagging] tree rows vs individual trees

2019-02-10 Thread Markus
need to > map both at the same time). That's my opinion too. Regards Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] man_made=storage_tank for open containers?

2019-02-11 Thread Markus
a cover/roof exist or not > - if its use is storage or an industrial process (e.g. sewage treatment > plant basin) > - if the content is clean water, dirty, fuel, corn... > - if its underground, on the ground or half-half > - whether it is inside a building or outside > ... > That seems l

  1   2   3   4   >