values.
That leaves the problem with objects where the node is *not* part of the
tunnel/bridge way such as a waste basket next to the way.
Seems like in this case a relation is needed ?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https
Hi,
someone added location=roof to the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:locationdiff=1083742oldid=997238
somehow this does not seem to fit well with the other values,
what are the opinions on that?
Richard
___
Tagging
Hi,
quite often there are node-type objects on bridges or in tunnels.
What to do with them? Tunnel or bridge tags are dfined only for
ways.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
=no states that it is definitely known not to be one-way.
not really ideal. Should we use
oneway=uknown
for the cases where soemone is not sure? Without a possibility to express
that possibility armchair mappers can either stop mapping roads they dont
know or make a mess of the data.
Richard
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 12:44:13PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 03.06.2015 um 12:18 schrieb Richard ricoz@gmail.com:
oneway=uknown
for the cases where soemone is not sure? Without a possibility to express
that possibility armchair mappers can either stop mapping
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 07:10:08PM +0200, André Pirard wrote:
On 2015-06-08 13:29, Richard wrote :
Hi,
quite often there are node-type objects on bridges or in tunnels.
What to do with them? Tunnel or bridge tags are dfined only for
ways
as the roof isn't
usually floating in the air but there are pylons, sometimws one or
more walls and often a building attached.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 03:29:53PM -0500, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Richard ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 01:09:56PM -0500, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
If this is like many fuel stations, it's probably just a roof with no
walls. Typically
a cascade is any series of things, be it
electronic switches in circuits or waterfalls - even in English
as I have just noticed from reading wiktionary:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cascade
So cascade would be a true weasel tag.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing
word.
still weasel enough. Could be a single waterfall, a series of them or this:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldau-Kaskade
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
=footpath which would be a variant
of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles unless
otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 03:06:00PM -0700, geow wrote:
Richard Z. wrote
...
I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a
variant
of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles
unless
otherwise tagged and expected to be more
years we change
the definition to something completely different.
This is what I call a backward compatibility nightmare.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:41:52PM +0200, Michael Reichert wrote:
Hi Richard,
Am 2015-08-04 um 16:59 schrieb Richard:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:43:21PM +0200, Michael Reichert wrote:
I fully oppose highway=footpath. This is not backward-compatible and
will therefore break almost all
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 06:20:50AM -0700, geow wrote:
geow
dieterdreist wrote
sent from a phone
Am 05.08.2015 um 12:03 schrieb Richard lt;
ricoz.osm@
gt;:
In 2008 highway=path
was approved saying
The default access restriction of highway=path is open
to all non
.
The number of comunication apps is steadilly on the rise, many companies
advertise contact:skype and similar - any data consumer that knows contact:
can find and display those without even knowing they exist.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
at’s why they share the node.
it is not that simple. Ways covered by objects are mapped as having shared nodes
with the object covering them. Pylons connect objects/ways of different layers
and
are frequently mapped as nodes.
Nodes and layer are difficult. Usually "layer&quo
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:56:38PM +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 04:06:33PM +0100, Richard wrote:
> > agreed. But this is open-STREET-map so perhaps the streets should
> > be fixed first. Does not make much sense to map culverts with
> > sub-m
he streets should
be fixed first. Does not make much sense to map culverts with
sub-meter precission while freeways are still linear ways.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
; "waterway=stream;layer=-1;tunnel=something".
With covered I mean ways using covered=yes. Appart of that, ways across dams
share the way with the dam - and the daw is supposed to share a node with
the waterway passing through it.
Richard
___
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:36:45PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2015-10-30 19:02 GMT+01:00 Richard <ricoz@gmail.com>:
>
> > > What is the advantage of a node, one click less?
> >
> > did you count the clicks?
> > node: "n"+ 1 click + 1
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 04:03:15PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2015-10-29 13:40 GMT+01:00 Richard <ricoz@gmail.com>:
>
> > On the other end of the complexitiy scale it would be nice to have
> > a simple method to map insignificant culverts with a single node.
quot; at positition
lat.long. We should start doing that.
The permissions could be derived from those signs, default highway properties
and
a combination of country and area specific rules.
The current apporach is a gross oversimplification with limitted validity and
appl
another time?
Maybe it still looks like a nightclub, although it was used as a pub lately.
you could use the date namespace then.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
will likely
remain...
I would also like to tag everything explicitly but aren't we supposed to tag
what is on the ground? No sign - no tag?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
meant.
I think that trail is very vague, look at english witkionary, wagon trail etc
so the word itself would already cause trouble.
highway=footpath may cause less trouble.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 09:56:22PM +0900, John Willis wrote:
Those ways should be mapped and rendered differently. Which is why we have
track. We need trail too.
That abandoned trunk road in Box Canyon in the desert sure as hell isn't a
sidewalk.
isn't that a track?
Richard
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 01:10:17PM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote:
W dniu 29.08.2015 12:46, Richard napisał(a):
highway=footpath may cause less trouble.
Sounds interesting, that would separate real foot path from the current
path mess.
However the big question would be then how to implement
for everything just because
it might be theoretically possible. While I agree you could use it to open
coconuts and macadamia nuts I wish you much luck doing so!
Also we could use highway=path + surface=paved + lanes=6 + vehicle=yes
and we could do without highway=motorway.
Richard
,
* access:suitable
Just wondered - when did anyone here last see a wheelchair=no road sign? Is any
of these 214658 tags correct?
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=wheelchairvalue=no
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https
.
I think that 'disused=yes' is a dangerous tag and should be avoided.
indeed, in most cases the key prefix disused: causes less trouble
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
.
The mappers chose to use tags that reflect what is, was or will be. As they
want.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
ars 2 129 times worldwide it is likely that is also may be
> considered as mistake.
could be interpreted as someone beeing lazy at writing highway=path+
bicycle=designated+horse=designated. And I don't think there are many
real world objects like this.
Richard
_
On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 10:38:21PM -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Richard <ricoz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just wondered - when did anyone here last see a wheelchair=no road sign?
> > Is any
> > of these 214658 tags correct?
> &
i/Cave
has some info and discussion on the talk page
If mapping the underground stream is not an option use the quite normal
relation waterway.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
f the roof that is a green roof with
> landuse=grass?
layer is ignored on landuse=* so this is not advisable. location=rooftop
might work.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
rooftop waste basket, used by the people parking there?
> amenity=waste_basket + location=rooftop
if it has an assigned level=* as part of the building than that would
be better than location=rooftop. Or maybe both together.
Richard
___
T
it happens quite often that river change names along their course, how is that
done
with the river relation? Maybe something similar could be done here?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
he
> separate waterway relations ?
Not much different from confluence points of large rivers?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
you are intending to drive through without being a resident/owner.
> Or if you want to shoot photos of the buildings, without visiting them.
> Or if you do some mapping for OSM.
The information about the traffic sign is useful, so it sho
thy. And the subtags to express these are internet_access:access and
> internet_access:fee (with the usual values of the access and fee tags).
Depends on how you interpret customer-only: I would map internet cafes which
are customer-only but not hotel wifis which are available only for ov
imming - however 42%
of sport=swimming tags are attached to leisure=swimming_pool and further
(partly overlapping) 37% to amenity=swimming_pool.
- other language wikis are partially inconsistent in this question.
Richard
___
Tagging mail
s is its brother level:name (at least as long as there
> aren't proper level objects).
I would be in favor to untangle level:ref and use it only where level:name is
not
appropriate.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
conic/odd
> bridges.
see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Simplify_man_made%3Dbridge_mapping#Multi-level_bridges
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
farmland, no need to split it up. Same for
creeks
and small rivers in woods.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:19:29AM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> Richard wrote on 2016/01/28 16:36:
> >Hi,
> >
> >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Climbing
> >
> >was sitting around and evolving for 8 years. If there are no
> >objection
d_features/Simplify_man_made%3Dbridge_mapping#Objects_on_bridges
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
hose shops
would even know they are called chandler?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
d someone in
the Pacific and neither of us has seen or heard of a ship chandler.
So the term may be somewhat lesser known outside of UK?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
is clearer than shop=marine and I think the distinction between
boat and large vessel should not cause any trouble
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
t; would be a reasonable threshold?
my 2c, avoid any automatisms. Some proposals need a lot of time to
ripe.
Using talk page, contacting original author(s) would be highly
recommended.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https:/
about ship chandlers
it seems that the term has a fairly broad meaning and not every ship
chandler would do boat supplies for small boats for example which was
the OPs main objective.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
t to use layer.
Look at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging#Modelling_connections_between_different_levels
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
methods eg tunnel=buidling_passage,
highway=corridor, covered etc.
Those should not be orthogonal to SIT but enhance each other where possible.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Date_namespace
and join the discussion there.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 02:46:40PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Il giorno 31 ago 2016, alle ore 12:23, Richard <ricoz@gmail.com> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > Apparently such ids are already used in OSM
> >
ntry:name in cases where
clarification is needed?
Btw the page says cave_entrance is "approved". Does anyone have a link to
the approved proposal.. can't find it?
Regarding "ref", consider this edit:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:natural%3Dcave_ent
I would
argue that "natural" implies natural and there have been enough informal
proposals for man_made=shaft and similar.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 12:09:43PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Il giorno 04 set 2016, alle ore 11:40, Richard <ricoz@gmail.com> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > Also, I would
> > argue t
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 05:20:19PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Il giorno 29 ago 2016, alle ore 12:24, Richard <ricoz@gmail.com> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > are you saying we should use "cave:ref" ju
ghted in any way but of course
copying data
from copyrighted sources requires permission and licence compatibility.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
=building_passage
but because back when it was introduced there was a greater chance
to get tunnel=building_passage rendered tunnel was used instead.
So it remains as a slightly odd exception to tunnel=* and covered=*
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
T
does highway=corridor imply covered=yes ?
* is it a footway or does it need further attributes?
* who said that "tunnel=building_passage, a tunnel which begins
at a point outside the building and ends at a point
outside the build
"Cadastre" is not an english word so the text was totally
meaningless and you have reverted it to meaningless text
again.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 11:46:36AM +0100, Dave F wrote:
> But it's *not a tunnel*
that makes 2 votes for covered=building_passage and phasing out
tunnel=building_passage
Richard
>
> On 10/09/2016 12:23, Simone Saviolo wrote:
> >Yes, an obvious one: a building_passage *goes thr
lements
of caves
So if you have several cave entrances belonging to a cave you could have
a relation specifying the name of the cave and entrances with own names.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 02:32:53PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > Il giorno 28 ago 2016, alle ore 13:31, Richard <ricoz@gmail.com> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > So if you have several cave entrances belonging to a cav
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 04:56:13PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2016-08-28 15:23 GMT+02:00 Richard <ricoz@gmail.com>:
>
> > As the cave may have other cave-wide attributes there may be other reasons
> > to have a relation for it.
> >
>
>
>
>
of embankments, with gates to let the water out. There is no
> dam per se, because there is ~200 km of this man-made 10-20m tall earthen
> embankment (levee) around the entire river system - it is part of that.
this is still a dam for me?
Richard
___
on't map them explicitly.
They could be mapped as embankment but if you consider waterway=dam inadequate
for
it I would prefer a special levee tag or refining waterway=dam with additional
attributes.
The waterway=dam definition is showing age
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:21:17AM +, ael wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:40:24PM +0100, Richard wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 08:24:35PM +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> > when using natural=water + water=pool they would become distinct (though
> > adjacent
, salmon, etc.
aren't the riffles very variable over time?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ural=water + water=pool they would become distinct (though
adjacent)
water body from the river/creek which they are part of which is not quite right.
They are part of the river with special properties.
So perhaps
natural=water + water=river
+ stream_pool=yes
Richard
___
peed are somewhat better than highspeed=yes.
Taken together I think usage=highspeed has a strong rationale and would
be easy to understand and apply.
What is missing is a simple way to tag the visual appearance of those
concrete monsters of recently built dedicated highspeed lines
ething more implied like special traffic rules, special
signaling, freight train exclusion?
Perhaps all this properties should be tagged in separately?
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ver width and doing something reasonable
with intermittent flows would be a great progress.
Iirc the stream order issue has been brought up on some talk page
previously.
Also had a look at natural=riverbed which at this stage has some
problems.
Richard
__
ormation to waterway relations is fine
and much better than trying to tag the rivers themselves. As rivers may
consist of many segments it would be too much duplication and also dubious
whether it relates to the single segment or the whole river.
Richard
__
tes
doesn't seem like the best idea. The 915 uses possibly have a special purpose?
However if there is something like "official_length" of a river (for example
mentioned in wikipedia) that could be certainly tagged.
Other tags that might help are those relating to ships.
Richard
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 03:27:45PM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote:
> W dniu 07.08.2017 o 13:16, Richard pisze:
>
> >Some rivers have waterway relations which could be used to make some
> >classification?
>
> What do you mean?
simply having a waterway relation means the riv
On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 11:33:55PM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote:
> W dniu 06.08.2017 o 23:19, Richard pisze:
>
> >The width is fine for many small rivers where mapping riverbanks would be
> >a nonsense and should be respected by the renderer.
> >But what you ask for seems like
On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 05:30:20PM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote:
> W dniu 06.08.2017 o 13:32, Richard pisze:
> >as of rendering, respecting river width and doing something reasonable
> >with intermittent flows would be a great progress.
>
> What's the problem with intermittent fl
ange.
The layer on the upper way may not work well because covered & layer
should be on the same object. Tools would probably ignore the layer
tag in this case which would not cause any actual breakage but
imho redundant tags should be avoided.
It would not hurt to invent a ne
re only for completenes, was my previous
edit.
Because of the use as historic:{civilization|period} I am rather sceptical
about the use of "historic:" as lifecycle prefix but if possible all current use
patters should be documented here.
Richard
On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:37:26PM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 07-Jan-18 09:59 AM, Richard wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 07:19:31AM +1100, Warin wrote:
> >
> >>2) I have not put in any examples - just placed the birthing, decay and
> >>repurpose categorie
wn the date namespace can be used.
Otherwise chain one of the prefixes in a consistent manner eg
former:former:building=school + former:building=hospital + building=...
> I personally see this a a case of using OHM to tag the past rather than
> expanding OSM.
if it l
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 09:09:12PM +0300, Erkin Alp Güney wrote:
> > (and yes, there are cases when you should use a contraction)
> name=* is full form. Not abbreviated in any way.
this is about the case where the official name is an abbreviation,
happens often enough.
re should try to do its best and apply heuristics to avoid
splitting lines in wrong places.
Not splitting 1000 034 should be obvious, roman numbers as well. Prefer not
splitting around "lonely" characters.
The rendering software can also compare texts with name tags
em is cluttering waterway=* key a bit more with additional
> values may not be accepted.
> According to comments, I should use established values and the only one
> added is waterway=pressurised.
why not pipeline for this?? And pressurised should be an attribute to
ca
On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 05:31:52PM -0500, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Richard <ricoz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Repurposing is a part of the life cycle that the Wiki article does not
> > > appear to contemplate.
> >
> >
easily
a bit confusing.
For your kind of use the "date namespace" may be an alternative.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
life cycle.
mee too. But as there are really quite a few uses of it in the database we
should
look how it is used currently to see if and how the description should be
changed.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
reason to believe that for example
the fish_ass property will be ever useful to any non-waterway object.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ay=riverbanks at least as well.
So the simplest would be to document in the wiki that the idea didn't catch
up with rivers.
Regarding landcover.. don't have time for this discussion now;)
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 11:14:40PM +0200, François Lacombe wrote:
> Le ven. 7 sept. 2018 à 21:40, Richard a écrit :
>
> >
> > > The idea that waterway=* must be routable is, frankly, a new one to
> > > me.
> >
> > that idea is nonsense.. there was n
Hi,
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies
I think that the proposed invention of waterway=pressurized and its use
for water in pipelines as well as natural caves should get some
discussion in the mailing list.
What do people think?
Rich
kment will be narrower in this place,
there may be small walls on the side, bumps and frequently require attention
from the driver.
Of course I have proposed it before:)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Simple_one_node_culvert_or_bridge
Richard
e 2015 and nobody complained since than so it would seem alright
to file a ticket to OpenCarto asking to have it rendered.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ect there might be some places already tagged somehow similar like this
but can't find them now..
As it has not been implemented in any routers that I know about it might be
good to ask in the issue trackers of some routers if they have an idea what
wo
f those tags I would always put on the members,
not the relation.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ctions
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
1 - 100 of 1120 matches
Mail list logo
