Hi
A question, what's the story behind the game:patrizer2:* tags? I just
noticed that Stockholm got a bunch of these tags and I'm curious what
they are?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/25929985
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
On 6 April 2010 11:21, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Markus Lindholm wrote:
A question, what's the story behind the game:patrizer2:* tags? I just
noticed that Stockholm got a bunch of these tags and I'm curious what
they are?
Patrizier 2 is a German trading simulation computer
On 18 April 2010 11:15, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Did someone contact the person who added this 'patrizer2' stuff?
I did. The response was that she was doing some experimentation and
that I should mind my own business. I didn't pursue it any further as
OSM is as laissez-faire as it is.
On 28 August 2010 10:16, just.st...@lesve.org wrote:
LeSve wrote, On 2010-08-28 09:46:
How should Postoffice be tagged in Sweden.
The Postoffices has disapperared and is instead a small part of
another shop (or Petrol station etc).
Should another node be created which said postoffice or
On 14/02/2011, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/14 Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net:
Hello,
Please read and comment on my draft proposal to improve our tagging of
vegetarian and vegan food:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Vegetarian
I want to use
On 1 March 2011 20:04, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
There is already 2 alternative ways to tag these (path and
foot/cycle/bridleway), I feel we don't need a third one.
Do try and keep up. This is not a third way of tagging. This is _additional_
On 1 March 2011 20:51, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Markus Lindholm wrote:
If this tag designation is about formal status in the UK
It isn't. It's about formal status, full stop. You could just as easily use
it to record that a European waterway is UNECE Class Vb.
Well
On 1 March 2011 21:47, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
You'all are welcome to:
1) Make another proposal
2) Vote yes or no to the proposal as it stands
It's not appropriate to fine-tune the proposal during the voting stage
- you either approve or oppose it as it stands.
On 3 March 2012 10:07, Vincent Pottier vpott...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 03/03/2012 08:49, Erik Johansson a écrit :
There is nothing separating this road yet it is mapped as two ways:
http://osm.org/go/0bCzcBhNM--?m
http://goo.gl/KLTpu (Streetview)
IMHO, it's a mistake.
This is done for
On 15 April 2012 11:33, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
That's always useful, but it doesn't solve the issue of getting the
data for a query like: give me all the hotels cheaper than 66 EUR for
a
On 3 July 2012 15:03, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/7/3 Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, the router could take the overtake tag into consideration, and make
you turn around there. They don't do this
On 3 July 2012 15:20, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
In my opinion the most straight forward is to treat legal separation
(i.e. solid line) the same way as physical separation, that is to have
two ways, one in each
On 3 July 2012 16:47, Eckhart Wörner ewoer...@kde.org wrote:
Hi Markus,
Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012, 15:38:57 schrieb Markus Lindholm:
Physical separation doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to
cross, it might be no more than a 20cm high curb that an emergency
vehicle or a SUV easily
On 3 July 2012 17:02, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/7/3 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com
I still think it's more straight forward to map as two separate ways
than to add tags to provide a logically consistent view about how to
drive from A to B in a legal way. Bank
On 19 August 2012 11:44, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote:
After a short discussion on the italian talk, I would move the discussion in
this list. After some tests with OSRM, I missed the availability of a tag
to mark the continuos (or discontinued) line that divide the lanes in
On 19 August 2012 14:49, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote:
This could be a solution but it is against the reality: this kind of road
are indeed a single entity. The legal division, i.e. the solid_line is
just an attribute.
There's a multitude of cases where a single entity is
On 19 August 2012 15:04, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
On 19.08.2012 14:09, Markus Lindholm wrote:
On 19 August 2012 11:44, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed a Divider=solid_line proposal [3] was already presented . I'm would
revamp such proposal.
What
On 19 August 2012 18:23, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
On 19.08.2012 15:09, Markus Lindholm wrote:
On 19 August 2012 14:49, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote:
This could be a solution but it is against the reality: this kind of road
are indeed a single entity
On 19 August 2012 15:26, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 15:04 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote:
On 19.08.2012 14:09, Markus Lindholm wrote:
On 19 August 2012 11:44, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed a Divider=solid_line proposal [3
On 20 August 2012 10:55, Gregory Williams greg...@gregorywilliams.me.uk wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Markus Lindholm [mailto:markus.lindh...@gmail.com]
Sent: 19 August 2012 19:26
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Carriageway divider
On 19
On 20 August 2012 09:39, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012-08-19 at 14:09:18 +0200, Markus Lindholm wrote:
In my opinion it's best to treat legal separation (i.e. solid_line)
the same way as physical separation, i.e. create two separate
highways, one in each
On 20 August 2012 12:57, Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 August 2012 09:39, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2012-08-19 at 14:09:18 +0200, Markus Lindholm wrote:
In my opinion it's best to treat legal separation (i.e. solid_line)
the same way
of your route.
/Markus
Colin
On 20/08/2012 13:10, Markus Lindholm wrote:
On 20 August 2012 12:57, Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 20 August 2012 09:39, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2012-08-19 at 14:09:18 +0200, Markus Lindholm wrote:
In my
On 20 August 2012 14:06, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
On 08/20/2012 12:57 PM, Markus Lindholm wrote:
This doesn't correspond to reality: I believe that an emergency
vehicle can cross a solid line, while of course they would
have problems with a physically separated road
On 20 August 2012 16:50, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/8/20 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com
Yes, I understand why one would reassemble highway segments on a route
that only differ on the maxspeed tag or other such minor issue. But
why would one want to reassemble two
On 25 August 2012 01:25, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/8/20 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
I've been mostly mapping in large cities, hardly anything in the
countryside. So I can only say that I've found it purposeful in the
city to map with two highways
On 15 October 2012 10:56, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
Some kind of short how-would-you-tag-this-survey. Have a look at part
five of this motorway:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png
Only part 5 is relevant. Assume there is no physical separation
On 15 October 2012 20:08, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this
discussion. In the first place they have wide-ranging exemptions from
traffic rules, which (let's be honest) we are never going to tag in OSM.
Secondly they are
On 4 December 2012 12:22, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
Am 04/dic/2012 um 11:16 schrieb Pieren pier...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
The only use of separate address nodes by now is that they make Mapnik
display a
On 4 December 2012 13:23, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
In my book addresses are features in their own right and should not be
mixed
in the same element as amenities or shops. The first problem would be
that
it would
On 4 December 2012 17:44, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/12/4 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
it would make it impossible to render addresses and POIs at the same
time.
this depends entirely on your rendering rules.
How would you devise a rendering
On 5 December 2012 05:56, Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de wrote:
I don't see why that's more a problem in one node than in different ones -
except that the current rendering rules don't fit here. In that your
argumentation sounds much like a tagging-for-the-renderer-argumentation.
On 5 December 2012 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/12/5 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
I just pointed out two practical problems with overloading addresses upon
POIs. My main argument is that I see addresses as a separate map feature
in
their own
On 5 December 2012 14:23, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/12/5 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
2012/12/5 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
I just pointed out two practical problems with overloading addresses
upon POIs. My main argument is that I
Few days ago there was a discussion on this list with the subject
Door to door routing to buildings with multiple occupants. My
thoughts after the discussion was that with increasing micro-mapping
we need a relation to tie different objects together. So I thought I
would make a proposal for such a
On 6 December 2012 23:10, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/12/6 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
Tags:
type=provides_feature
Members roles:
target
address
entrance
Comments?
do you know the site relation? It might provide what you are after.
Yes, I
On 7 December 2012 10:27, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Markus Lindholm
markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote:
Created first example of provides_feature
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2623059
Your relation type name provides_feature is too vague
On 7 December 2012 11:05, Henning Scholland o...@aighes.de wrote:
Am 06.12.2012 16:39, schrieb Markus Lindholm:
Comments?
Hi Markus,
I think it's useful to have such a relation. But I would also include
building-polygon, like:
building
entrance
target
address
So the semantics
Created a page on the wiki for this proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Provides_feature
/Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On 14 December 2012 18:41, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Markus Lindholm
markus.lindh...@gmail.com wrote:
Created a page on the wiki for this proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Provides_feature
What purpose does the role
On 7 April 2013 20:37, Martin Atkins m...@degeneration.co.uk wrote:
How have others resolved this fundamental conflict? More detailed streets,
or less-detailed everything else?
I'd say more detailed mapping. Looking at the picture I think it's obvious
that Duboce Avenue should be mapped as
On 8 April 2013 17:51, Dave Sutter sut...@intransix.com wrote:
I like the idea of increasing the level of detail of the streets, and
I agree that this would best be done by separating the routing network
from the visual presentation. I think this can, however, be done in
the existing data
On 19 July 2013 18:42, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote:
Forking the discussion from Double and misfitting house numbers
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Not for me. I think the address is a feature by ifself, not an
attribute of other features
On 13 January 2014 07:16, Nirab Pudasaini developer.ni...@gmail.com wrote:
Pashupatinath is a major place of worship for Hindus. It is also a place of
worship for Buddhists. The tag amenity:place_of_worship has a key religion:*
but how can we add place of worship which are for multiple
On 10 June 2014 12:51, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe we could use a broader term that includes ATMs, like financial_kiosk
or money_kiosk. I'm not saying we should deprecate amenity=atm, I'm saying
amenity=financial_kiosk could be an umbrella term.
To me those terms are too
On 12 August 2014 20:55, Anita Andersson cc0c...@gmx.com wrote:
In Sweden we got an electronics chain called Webhallen who accept Bitcoin as
payment through their website and allows the customer to pick up the goods
they purchase at any of the business's store locations. It does to my
No, that's a bad idea. I believe there's a clear consensus that
payment:bitcoin=yes is not a proper tag for a shop that doesn't accept
bitcoin at its physical location.
/Markus
On 14 August 2014 12:53, Anita Andersson cc0c...@gmx.com wrote:
Since payment:bitcoin=yes is a de facto and used tag
On 5 December 2014 at 06:19, Hans De Kryger hans.dekryge...@gmail.com wrote:
One reason we cant completely
combine the gas station and convenience store tag is some gas stations have
the convenience store run by separate companies. As is the case with a
circle k down the street from me. The
On 5 December 2014 at 10:57, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-12-05 10:50 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
Also an address should be considered a feature in its own
right so it should also be a distinct element.
an address can be seen as a feature
On 5 December 2014 at 10:49, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote:
No need to provide the address more than once: the address belongs to
everything within the area tagged with amenity=fuel
In general it is not sustainable to place address tags on
area/building elements as there can be many
On 5 December 2014 at 14:15, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-12-05 12:40 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
In general it is not sustainable to place address tags on
area/building elements as there can be many addresses within such an
element
On 5 December 2014 at 17:51, Jack Burke burke...@gmail.com wrote:
Lately I've been playing with using a multipolygon as a way to handle the
too-many-address-entries problem. Join the building=roof and
building=retail into a multipolygon, then apply the address data to that.
(I do have to do
On 8 February 2015 at 19:57, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't like to reuse the same ways for both railway and highway. The shape
of the railways follow smooth curves for obvious reasons, whereas cars can
make 90 degree turns.
I don't understand why that is a problem. If the road is such
On 8 February 2015 at 22:32, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote:
is it one asphalt way with one track? Then I agree. Or is it one asphalt way
with two tracks, one for each direction of the tram lines? Then I'd draw 3
ways, 2 for the tracks, and 1 for the highway.
Fair enough, but that doesn't quite
On 16 January 2015 at 01:04, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
We can discuss its pros and cons, but I
think the main message is that multiple addresses are mapped differently all
over the world. Every country has its local OSM community which concoct
their own tagging rules. The result
On 15 January 2015 at 12:43, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-01-15 12:23 GMT+01:00 Andrew Shadura and...@shadura.me:
On 15 January 2015 at 03:02, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
The proposal seems to be a good solution to this problem.
This particular proposal seems to be a terrible
On 18 January 2015 at 22:11, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-01-18 20:52 GMT+00:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
On 17 January 2015 at 22:16, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote:
With the addrN schema, we need one object (a node tagged shop=* and
addrN
On 9 February 2015 at 12:58, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-02-09 8:29 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
The road isn't between the tracks.
you could understand this by looking at the width of the road.
Doesn't seem to be an ideal solution to draw
On 18 March 2015 at 08:21, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
So please, don't go over board here by trying to force-involve every
mapper in tag votes; they're simply not important enough, and they
*should not be*. Don't try to make them important, lasting, or binding.
+1
A thought, how
On 15 March 2015 at 10:17, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote:
in this case the reception will refer to the company and not to the
building.
How?
Have a look at the provides_feature relation
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Provides_feature
if it might work for you
On 11 March 2015 at 18:04, althio althio.fo...@gmail.com wrote:
The trouble is there is no definition yet of city_block
Not so. When I added it to osm wiki I also put there a reference to
the definition found in Wikipedia and that's also how I've used the
tag.
/Markus
On 11 March 2015 at 20:14, althio althio.fo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 11, 2015 7:44 PM, Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11 March 2015 at 18:04, althio althio.fo...@gmail.com wrote:
The trouble is there is no definition yet of city_block
Not so. When I added it to osm
On 11 March 2015 at 23:52, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 11.03.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
reference to
the definition found in Wikipedia and that's also how I've used the
tag.
and if someone changes the Wikipedia page
On 27 May 2015 at 09:48, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Am 27.05.2015 um 09:38 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org:
Also, the address must be unique
why?
Otherwise they make bad routing targets
/Markus
___
Tagging mailing
On 27 May 2015 at 10:48, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-05-27 10:38 GMT+02:00 Markus Lindholm markus.lindh...@gmail.com:
On 27 May 2015 at 09:48, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 27.05.2015 um 09:38 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org
On Fri, 2018-06-22 at 08:05 +, marc marc wrote:
> Le 22. 06. 18 à 01:26, Yves a écrit :
> > Why adding 'platform' where there's no physical platform?
>
> public_transport=platform describe where passagers wait
> for a public transport.
> if there is no dedicated area, use a node outside the
On Tue, 2018-06-19 at 15:13 +, marc marc wrote:
> Le 19. 06. 18 à 16:30, Daniel Koć a écrit :
> > I realized that highway=platform is not only marked on wiki as much
> > less
> > popular, but is also really 10 times less popular in the database.
>
> and for 93 906 highway=platform, 84 031
67 matches
Mail list logo
