Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Takeaway drink shops

On 05/10/2020 10.39, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: The page was edited by the author to clarify that the new proposed tag is amenity=drinks "A place [which] sells bubble tea, milk tea, milk, juice and other similar beverages." I don't think that we should have coffee shops, bubble tea

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

On 24/08/2020 16.25, pangoSE wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer skrev: (24 augusti 2020 02:16:27 CEST) Also useful when the POI is approximately placed (e.g. in a neighbouring building, happens quite often, at least as long as most POIs are not yet mapped) Really? Can you link to an example? I have

Re: [Tagging] Hands Off !, respect my (our) space

On 25/08/2020 06.04, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 06:38, Warin wrote: Off list. It looks like you accidentally Bcc'd the list. It looks like Warin tried to send it to "80hnhtv4agou---" without noticing that address is a spoofed¹ tagging@OSM. (The reply-to: address should have

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

On 26/08/2020 07.12, pangoSE wrote: I rest my case. Thanks for the examples. Could you help update the wikipage about POIs to reflect this? By "the wikipage", do you mean https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Points_of_interest? It isn't immediately obvious where this information would be

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

On 24/08/2020 00.47, Jonathon Rossi wrote: On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:22 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 14:05, Jonathon Rossi wrote: Andrew, how do you specify a polygon, always wanted to do that but I thought OSMCha only supports a bbox? [...] So at the top you should see a

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

On 14/08/2020 17.57, António Madeira via Tagging wrote: In this section, I suggest changing the text: "These ways should all point direction of travel and be tagged with oneway=yes." to "These ways should all point

Re: [Tagging] admin, please remove this user from the list

On 23/09/2020 04.52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: It's been some weeks now that I get this kind of reply for every message that I write to tagging. Can an admin please remove the address jim...@hey.com from the list recipients? Thank you. Same here; I sent a message to tagging-owner@OSM some

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On 17/09/2020 13.44, Tod Fitch wrote: On Sep 17, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 17/09/2020 10.07, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote: It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. As much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On 17/09/2020 15.50, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On 9/17/20 11:30, Matthew Woehlke wrote: *Maybe* if you get lucky and have a very clear shadow at the right angle, but if you try to tell me you can identify https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7695704414 (n.b. a yield sign) from a shadow in aerial

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (shop=direct marketing)

On 02/10/2020 14.27, stevea wrote: Wieland, I don't have good answers to offer to you for your other questions. However, I would say (as others have) that "direct_marketing" absolutely IS "confusing," I go so far as to say "incorrect" in these circumstances. The term "direct_marketing" is used

Re: [Tagging] Addition of highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes to Map Features?

On 16/09/2020 17.07, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 18:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: emergency bays are quite common in Italy and Germany when there isn’t an emergency lane. Quite common on major highways out here as well. I'm not sure if I'd call them "common", but they

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

On 16/09/2020 18.32, Paul Johnson wrote: No, it's not wrong to add implied tags explicitly. It's actually encouraged in some cases where the implicit tag is not consumable by automated system (such as the "none" default for turn:lanes tends to be ambiguous between "you can't turn from this

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On 16/09/2020 20.40, Taskar Center wrote: crossing has been a very poor tag because it seems to be the kitchen sink for all the questions pertaining to crossings... Many of the attributes that get values in "crossing" are potentially overlapping and not mutually exclusive, causing a lot of

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On 17/09/2020 10.07, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On 9/17/20 08:15, Matthew Woehlke wrote: It's also atrocious because it can *only* be verified by survey. As much as we prefer surveys, the reality is that a lot of mapping happens just from aerials, where crossings (both marked and, in some cases

Re: [Tagging] automated edits seem to remove crossing=zebra drastically

On 16/09/2020 05.57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I noticed that crossing=zebra tag usage is drastically shrinking while the very generic crossing=marked, which was quite unpopular before (2013-2018 below 6000 uses) now went through the roof and is leading the tagstats with more than 1 million

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (DEPRECATED building=funeral hall)

On 18/09/2020 02.46, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: building=church is building constructed as a church that now can be a place of worship, warehouse, unused or something else but retained building structure typical to a church amenity=place_of_worship is a place where regular worship is

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote: It's the same reason we want discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome joining in. ...and the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

On 26/10/2020 15.19, Jeroen Hoek wrote: On 26-10-2020 19:31, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Alternatively, clients might look at the sort of highway running through a parking area. A highway=tertiary is probably "street-side parking", while a highway=service, service=parking_aisl

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

On 25/10/2020 03.58, Jeroen Hoek wrote: Our proposal facilitates this: renderers can render street-side parking however they wish, because the tag tells them it is street-side parking. Alternatively, clients might look at the sort of highway running through a parking area. A highway=tertiary

Re: [Tagging] RFC: service=? for all highway=service (service=parking needed, primarily, I think)

On 01/08/2020 20.40, David Dean wrote: I'm interested in proposing and/or documenting existing tagging approaches of the wiki to ensure that all highway=service ways can have a service=? associated tag. Having done, so I'm planning on resurrecting

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

On 31/07/2020 15.39, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: the authority for names are the local people. I would bet that some of them would refer to this particular road as State Highway 214 if they should name it in a formal way. NY 214 is a ref, no doubt, and is fine to have, but so is State Highway

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/more_parking. To summarize: I am proposing the following: - To codify / make official the de-facto parking_space=disabled - To allow mapping motorcycle parking as part of a unified parking lot, by introducing

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 06/08/2020 19.42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 6. Aug 2020, at 22:54, Matthew Woehlke wrote: - To codify / make official the de-facto parking_space=disabled that’s almost 22k uses, it is already established and voting yes or no will not change it Well, yes, voting "no" i

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 06/08/2020 19.42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: amenity=parking is defined for single parking spaces, adding capacity to what seems to be a subtag, would create confusion Okay... yike. I think I see the problem here (after doing some digging into extant usage). The problem is *you have

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

On 07/08/2020 04.27, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Electric scooter parkings started to appear in Poland. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ParkingHulajn%C3%B3g.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Parking_Hulajnogi.jpg (text on traffic sign is "electric scooters") How it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 07/08/2020 08.23, Alessandro Sarretta wrote: Dear Matthew, On 06/08/20 22:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Please see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/more_parking. To summarize: I am proposing the following: - To codify / make official the de-facto parking_space=disabled

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 07/08/2020 09.06, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 13:53, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Well, yes, voting "no" is probably not useful, but this is also the least "interesting" bit of the proposal. The purpose here would be just to bless the tag with "status=approve

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 07/08/2020 10.09, Jez Nicholson wrote: I saw parking_space=takeaway riding on the coattails of the original postis this not a waiting time restriction? Does it merit its own value? That's not how I would interpret it. Stuff like "15 minute parking" also exists; "takeaway" parking

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 08/08/2020 19.12, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 at 03:39, Matthew Woehlke wrote: We already have capacity and capacity=disabled, what's the problem with adding more capacity:*? But what number do we show for "capacity"? IIUC, all of them. So... I started wonde

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

On 07/08/2020 11.55, Jan Michel wrote: Note that we also lack a proper way to tag parking lots for trucks. This sounds like a good candidate for expanding capacity:* / parking_space=*, at least in the case of mixed-use lots. In general, I agree it would be good to have a better way to tag

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 07/08/2020 13.11, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 06.08.20 22:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/more_parking I like it, thanks for working on this topic! Two suggestions: Could you add a short definition of "compact"? I can guess that it'

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 07/08/2020 14.39, Philip Barnes wrote: I am not 100% sure but McDonalds that have a drive through have special spaces where you are told to wait if your order is taking a long time to clear the queue. Is that what this means? "No", because those are not *parking* spaces as was previously

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types

On 07/08/2020 18.08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 7. Aug 2020, at 15:47, Matthew Woehlke wrote: However, it sounds like you have this backwards; you are using amenity=parking_space to map lots and amenity=parking to map individual spaces. There appears to be a modest amount of such backwards

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

On 31/07/2020 14.02, Kevin Kenny wrote: The `addr:street` should match what goes on the address label that a delivery driver will be reading. Ordinarily, that's the signed name of the street, if the street has a name. Rural New York has many streets that will have a `ref=* noname=yes` -

Re: [Tagging] bridge:name and tunnel:name

On 13/08/2020 08.10, dktue wrote: the wiki states since more than eight years that there's a debate about wether one should tag "tunnel:name" or "name". [1] Is there any new opinion in the community on this topic that has not been documented in the wiki? How is the tunnel tagged? If it's a

Re: [Tagging] RFC: service=? for all highway=service (service=parking needed, primarily, I think)

On 03/08/2020 19.56, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 01:10, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Parking lot access roads are a common example; I don't really feel that these are "driveways", but I also prefer to reserve "parking_aisle" for ways that actually *have* parki

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On 07/07/2020 17.28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 7. Jul 2020, at 21:48, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Personally, if it's possible to determine the boundaries between properties, my inclination would be to model them as separate buildings. (It's somewhat worth noting that townhouses are *owned

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

ownership when a husband and wife own a house)? Are there legal deeds to this effect? With row houses, there is a legal deed which precisely specifies what parts of the building belong to which owners. On 7. Jul 2020, at 23:51, Matthew Woehlke wrote: It looks like what we have here are &

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On 07/07/2020 18.04, Paul Allen wrote: Copyright prevents us using Google Streetview for mapping, but we can use it for illustrative purposes. Honestly, I would *strongly* question whether that is enforceable in the US (maybe it is in some overprotective European nations?). When I take a

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On 08/07/2020 10.32, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 08/07/2020 10.21, Chris Hill wrote: Google's Terms of Use prevent us reusing their Streetview in OSM, see section 2d. "Apart from any license granted to you by Google, your use of the content may be acceptable under principles of 'fai

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On 08/07/2020 10.32, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 08/07/2020 10.21, Chris Hill wrote: Google's Terms of Use prevent us reusing their Streetview in OSM, see section 2d. "Apart from any license granted to you by Google, your use of the content may be acceptable under principles of 'fai

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On 08/07/2020 09.57, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 07/07/2020 18.04, Paul Allen wrote: Copyright prevents us using Google Streetview for mapping, but we can use it for illustrative purposes. Honestly, I would *strongly* question whether that is enforceable in the US (maybe it is in some

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On 08/07/2020 10.36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 8. Jul 2020, at 16:24, Matthew Woehlke wrote: (On which note... knowing that a residence is *also* a shop is potentially important!) look for shop=* rather than building typologies... And... what, assume anything *not* a shop is a residence

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On 07/07/2020 19.21, Paul Allen wrote: If it was obviously built as a house I'd tag it as building=house because anything but building=no will render identically in many cartos anyway. On a somewhat unrelated note, I really, *really* want residences to be tagged as such. I'm working on a

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On 08/07/2020 12.34, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: 8 Jul 2020, 16:44 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com: On 08/07/2020 10.36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 8. Jul 2020, at 16:24, Matthew Woehlke wrote: (On which note... knowing that a residence is *also* a shop is potentially important

[Tagging] How to tag correct number of lanes for freeway on/off ramps?

Consider https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/42.85888/-73.77169. As I write this, I-87 is annotated as having 3 lanes south of the on/off ramps (south of 146). However, the off ramp starts all the way back at the Sitterly Road overpass, and the on ramp doesn't fully merge until just before

[Tagging] Intersections redux

Intersections are a problem. Currently, complex intersections tend to be modeled as a mesh of overlapping roads, which looks okay for rendering, but can cause problems for routing. There is a long-standing proposal for an intersection relation —

Re: [Tagging] How to tag correct number of lanes for freeway on/off ramps?

On 03/07/2020 16.28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 3. Jul 2020, at 22:20, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Accordingly, there are actually four lanes for these stretches. What is the correct way to model this? split the highway so that each way had the same number of lanes, then fix the lanes (4

[Tagging] How to tag a light that is always green for certain directions?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7688734125 is a traffic light that is always green for straight traffic (left turns get a cycle). Is there a way to tag this? (I recall seeing a way to tag a signal as always green, but a) IIRC it didn't distinguish always green *only* for certain

Re: [Tagging] How to tag correct number of lanes for freeway on/off ramps?

On 03/07/2020 17.53, Paul Johnson wrote: On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 3:19 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote: Consider https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/42.85888/-73.77169. As I write this, I-87 is annotated as having 3 lanes south of the on/off ramps (south of 146). However, the off ramp starts all

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On 09/07/2020 21.51, Warin wrote: On 9/7/20 12:44 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: both is possible, each one can own a precise list of apartments, or both can own 50% of all apartments. Here apartments are usually sold separately, each as a title dead. Other than 100% ownership it would be

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

(Apologies if this double-posts; my mail client is telling me it couldn't be sent, but I've known it to lie about that...) On 09/07/2020 18.57, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Jul 9, 2020, 23:58 by pla16...@gmail.com: I take "customers" to mean "non-employees who may access the facility

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On 10/07/2020 09.32, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:10, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also paved surfaces, Ummm, not really. Not in British English. I'd never describe paved surfaces as barren. Technically, I suppose

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

On 09/07/2020 17.34, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Jul 9, 2020, 20:38 by pla16...@gmail.com: Maybe not ideal, but if you're looking for an immediate solution then access=customers and access=private? I like it, but it is a bit tricky as I can walk into many offices without being a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

On 10/07/2020 10.36, Peter Elderson wrote: Question: does it break anything? I am thinking about existing relations of various kinds. If splitting ways breaks relations, well, a) that's an editor problem, and b) I've already been breaking those left and right from splitting ways to improve

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

As some of you may recall, I'm working on a project to do traffic simulation with the help of OSM data and SUMO¹. One of the issues that SUMO has is that the typical method of modeling intersections (which I don't propose to change, mostly) results in SUMO thinking there are multiple

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On 10/07/2020 19.51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 04:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: it is not so relevant for the international mailing list, because these things tend to work differently in different countries. Which proves the impossibility of trying to get one term to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

On 10/07/2020 16.38, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 15:53, Matthew Woehlke wrote: [problem description elided; see archives] Yeah that's a problem. But since OSM would have to be changed to add junction=intersection tags anyway, isn't it better to use the established method

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

On 10/07/2020 19.45, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On 7/10/20 09:04, Matthew Woehlke wrote: (I would probably use access=permissive for e.g. a mall parking lot, where it's not strictly public, but where you wouldn't be expected to be visiting a particular building or organization such that it's much

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

On 14/07/2020 12.05, Peter Elderson wrote: Just two outers is a regular use of multipolygon. One parking lot on two sides of a road is perfect for this method. Okay, since you brought it up... is this¹ an appropriate use of a multipolygon? On the subject of: it will then get the

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

On 14/07/2020 19.39, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 23:44, Matthew Woehlke wrote: The multipolygon is just ammenity=parking, but the sub-objects are tagged with more information (capacity, in particular). Again, is that sane, or do I need to do this differently? Doesn't look sane

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

On 15/07/2020 03.33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Also you should not have 2 objects amenity=parking which cover the same area (regardless of additional tags). Do you mean having that on both the relation and the areas? Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 01:40 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : Even so, is a

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

On 15/07/2020 05.43, Paul Allen wrote: On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 08:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: there is the "maxstay" tag which can be used with a value like 5 or 15 minutes. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/maxstay#values That works semantically, but the rendering is (on many cartos)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

On 10/07/2020 12.22, Clifford Snow wrote: Interesting suggestion. The sumo github page doesn't appear to have any open issues that involve OSM and intersections that I could find. (I only looked at intersection issue titles) Has this been reported to the sumo developers? Sumo documentation does

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

On 10/07/2020 12.57, Tod Fitch wrote: In the old days the wiki said you could put a highway=stop or highway=give_way node on a way and the data consumer would determine the nearest intersection and just do the right thing. I mapped several thousand, yes thousand, stop signs that way. Later it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On 10/07/2020 11.25, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 15:41, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 10/07/2020 09.32, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:10, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also paved surfaces, Ummm, not really

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

For illustrative purposes, I went ahead and tagged https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/175473372. (I chose this intersection because the way was already split, so the only edit needed was to add the tag.) On 10/07/2020 10.15, Matthew Woehlke wrote: As some of you may recall, I'm working

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

On 10/07/2020 15.01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 10. Jul 2020, at 16:17, Matthew Woehlke wrote: My use case isn't the only one that has issues with this sort of thing; routers can "see" more traffic lights than actually exist and can (so I hear, anyway) give directions that are p

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

On 10/07/2020 11.24, Peter Elderson wrote: Well, if you do a couple of intersections it's no big deal, but if every intersection would need this and it breaks relations, no matter whose fault it is, it is a problem. Then it's not just modeling, but forced repair work. Sure, but my point was

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On 08/07/2020 16.31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: On 08/07/2020 12.34, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: BTW, is your project including something that can be tested already? I was referring to "traffic simulation project" mentioned in

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a light that is always green for certain directions?

On 06/07/2020 15.28, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On 7/6/20 12:59, Matthew Woehlke wrote: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7688734125 is a traffic light that is always green for straight traffic (left turns get a cycle). Is there a way to tag this? (I recall seeing a way to tag a signal as always

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On 07/07/2020 15.24, Skyler Hawthorne wrote: Sure thing, it's here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/42.69323/-73.69023 Huh! That's practically next door to me. There's a whole *whack* of row houses in south Clifton Park. A survey confirmed that they are large buildings with

Re: [Tagging] Two side-of-road parking questions

On 24/07/2020 04.29, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Jul 23, 2020, 20:42 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com: I'm trying to tag a whole bunch of side-of-road parking, and I have two questions. First, what is the correct way to tag marked parking spaces? There is parking:lane:*=marked which would

Re: [Tagging] Two side-of-road parking questions

On 24/07/2020 08.19, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 00:06, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Currently, I have the non-parallel spots marked as a lot. To my mind, parallel parking and on-street parking are nearly synonymous. I'm not entirely clear what you mean by those terms as you're

Re: [Tagging] Two side-of-road parking questions

On 24/07/2020 10.52, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 15:26, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Yeah, I don't know what "floating" means there. You don't? It even explained it in the video. Or the description. Somewhere. The parking spaces are detached from the sidewalk becau

Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

On 24/07/2020 02.19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 23. Jul 2020, at 21:31, Matthew Woehlke wrote: ...and what if we're mapping spaces? I'm not sure I'm on board with dividing things which are logically "one parking lot" if there is no name, what makes a parking space logical

Re: [Tagging] Two side-of-road parking questions

On 24/07/2020 10.18, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 15:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 24/07/2020 08.19, Paul Allen wrote: The image in the wiki for parking lanes matches what I expect of it. As in this situation near me: https://goo.gl/maps/WUZKmhQTDSRsgnDx7 on the right of the road

Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

On 24/07/2020 10.44, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 15:20, Matthew Woehlke wrote: For example, https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828934579 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828934591, or (even better) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828934580 and https://www.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On 22/07/2020 19.05, bkil wrote: But also consider that it wouldn't make sense to tag a motorway as foot=no + bicycle=dismount (+ moped=dismount + mofa=dismount + auto_rickshaw=no + agricultural=no), because the combination of tags would create a completely new meaning, and that is not a

[Tagging] TRAVEL_DIR (and other fields) in shapefile?

This might be somewhat OT, but it's OSM-related, so... I have a shapefile I obtained from a county's GIS¹. In addition to road names (sometimes) and speed limits (yay!), there is an attribute TRAVEL_DIR, which seems to have the possible values (at least) 1, 2 and 3. Does anyone know what this

Re: [Tagging] Hiking "guideposts" painted on rocks, trees etc.

On 25/07/2020 07.06, Andy Townsend wrote: Why do people in OSM map anything?  I can't see any reason why I'd want to add urban buildings, or comprehensive address data, or a whole bunch of other things that people think are _really important_. How are addresses _not_ important? If I'm trying

Re: [Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

On 25/07/2020 03.34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 24. Jul 2020, at 16:18, Matthew Woehlke wrote: if there is no name, what makes a parking space logically one lot? Consisting of one contiguous surface? Clearly associated with the same building? but it’s clearly distinct things

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On 25/07/2020 14.26, Jo wrote: In Antwerpen there is a bus that you can only take, as a cyclist, so accompanied by a bicycle. It's a subsidised service of the harbour, free for its users (commuters). The bus replaces a ferry and goes through a tunnel, prohibited for cyclists riding a bicycle.

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

On 15/07/2020 17.10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 15. Jul 2020, at 16:17, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Do you mean having that on both the relation and the areas? > yes, you should have it only on the relation If I remove it from the areas, however, at least iD no longer thinks they are park

[Tagging] How to tag minor commercial roads?

I'm wondering what, if anything, I should do with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351516889. It doesn't seem to meet the definition of a highway=residential, but I'm not convinced it is a lowly highway=service, either, but I also can't easily demonstrate it is highway=tertiary. How should

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

On 28/07/2020 03.15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Never use the driveway tag on public ways Uh... IIUC, "public" driveways are just fine. A driveway is a minor service road leading to a residential *or business* property. I've tagged plenty of things that aren't really "roads" (entrances to

[Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?

Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/651244930. This is a pier with a platform on land that extends into the water. Carto cuts off the part that is on land. Is this a carto bug or should the part that is on land be tagged differently? (I wonder about the current behavior, because pier

Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?

On 28/07/2020 16.09, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 20:44, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Please see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/651244930. This is a pier with a platform on land that extends into the water. Carto cuts off the part that is on land. There is no part of a pier on land

Re: [Tagging] How to map "piers" on land?

On 29/07/2020 10.57, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 09:47, Matthew Woehlke wrote: So... back to my *other* question: how should a raised wooden platform on land be tagged? For example: https://www.pitztal.com/sites/default/files/styles/adaptive/public/thumb_5101_lightbox.jpeg

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On 25/07/2020 16.40, Allroads wrote: The earlier mentioned, bicycle=leave This is for me, leave the bicycle behind at the sign. More native English speakers can give a comment on that? I don't know that I would guess that's what that means... (Strictly from a "what's most reasonable, ignoring

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

On 27/07/2020 17.59, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Jul 27, 2020, 21:55 by r...@senecass.com: I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if it has a county name, like "Lost Gulch Road" too, wouldn't it then be highway=residential? Is there a difference if it's

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sport:four_square

When creating https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/828950465, I wasn't sure how to tag it... it's a somewhat generic paved lot for recreation, but it *does* have markings for four square, which is not unusual for such areas. We do not have an "official" tag for that, although even so there are

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On 23/07/2020 12.09, bkil wrote: Alright, I didn't know you were only asking for the entertainment value, but then I accept your challenge. I wasn't asking for entertainment. I was asking because, while *logically* it seems like such a combination doesn't make sense, the refrain around here

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On 23/07/2020 09.59, Philip Barnes wrote: On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 09:35 -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote: I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a road/path/whatever that you are allowed to walk on *iff* you are pushing a bicycle (or moped or...). Do you know of any examples? I cannot think of many

[Tagging] Two side-of-road parking questions

I'm trying to tag a whole bunch of side-of-road parking, and I have two questions. First, what is the correct way to tag marked parking spaces? There is parking:lane:*=marked which would seem to apply, but then it isn't clear how to indicate the direction (parallel vs. diagonal vs.

Re: [Tagging] Waterway equivalent of noexit=yes?

On 22/07/2020 11.25, Tod Fitch wrote: Digression: The wiki page for natural=sinkhole [3] says that it is a tagging error to use natural=sink_hole. When I look at taginfo I see nearly 2000 occurances of natural=sink_hole and none for natural=sinkhole [4]. I guess the write of the wiki page

Re: [Tagging] Two side-of-road parking questions

On 23/07/2020 17.26, Paul Allen wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 21:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Interesting. By that criteria, I would think that https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/826561593 has on-street parking, Tough call. In isolation it looks like a parking lane, but it has markings for car

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On 23/07/2020 17.30, Mike Thompson wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:34 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote: ...but then your horse is a passenger in a vehicle. Otherwise that would be like saying a human can't ride in a vehicle if foot=no. Exactly, foot=no doesn't mean that feet are not allowed

[Tagging] Tagging motorcycle parking

I've seen some parking lots that have spaces specifically for motorcycles (i.e. that are not large enough for cars), although the lot as a whole is mixed-use. Is there no "direct" way to tag this (something like capacity:motorcycle)? Right now the only option seems to be to model the lot as

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On 23/07/2020 16.16, Mike Thompson wrote: Perhaps it is unfortunate that for modes of transportation we picked nouns rather than verbs (e.g. foot vs. walking), but that is what it is by long tradition. A similar thing applies to horse=no. There are roads (some of the US Interstates) where you

  1   2   >