Hi Paul
This is not perfect, but it is how I would tag that service road:
vehicle = delivery
disabled = yes
foot = yes
description = "Vehicular access for launching boats only. Vehicles
must be returned to the main parking area."
Maybe someone else has a better idea.
Note that the wiki states
Hola
On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 at 18:44, yo paseopor wrote:
> Why the road is the only item I don't have any doubt to tag it with name= ?
> Why the road is more important than the sidewalk or the cycleway? What is
> more important : person, car or bike?
Because a sidewalk is a part of a road (like a
Hi Tobias
Yes, sidewalk mapped as ways are problematical for routeing. In order
to not create islands in (residential) areas without marked crossings,
one has to map unmarked crossings. If there are lowered kerbs or if a
sidewalk is just interrupted by a perpendicular street, it seems okay
to map
On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 at 21:42, marc marc wrote:
> In the same way as in osm we defined ";" as being the separator between
> several values of the same key (with several exceptions), it would be
> useful to define a separator between several lines of the same key.
Then why not also use the
I suspect that the different punctuation marks on OSM are a
consequence of different writing habits in the respective regions,
which i recommend to follow.
For example, in English-speaking regions and in Switzerland the slash
without spaces is used (e.g. Biel/Bienne), unless one of the two names
Hi
I'd rather use addr:place="Square Name" in that case. In don't agree
that addr:place is 'intended for larger objects like "villages,
islands, territorial zones"'. I also use addr:place e.g. for
settlements (place=neighbourhood) or hamlets, if there is no street
with the addresses' name
Hello
What is the usual (or sensible) way to tag small canals like mill
races (example: [^1]) or small irrigation channels (example: [^2]),
i.e. the small equivalent of waterway=canal?
[^1]:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:15-19-077,_mingus_creek_-_panoramio.jpg
[^2]:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 18:20, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> On Thursday 16 August 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > The canal definition was changed in March 2018, before it said to use
> > canal only for „the largest waterways created for irrigation
> > purposes“
>
> Yes, that was the
Maybe a possible solution to get rid of name=* tags containing names
in multiple languages would be to add the information about which
languages are spoken in a particular region to its boundary relation
(e.g. spoken_languages=de;fr to the municipality boundary of
Biel/Bienne). However, the
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 at 20:03, Daniel McCormick wrote:
> I propose that only one language is used for the name= tag. This will help to
> create a standard for naming that will bring clarity and consistency. If
> multiple languages are used in the area, place the most commonly used
> language in
PS: Or, in case access is granted only to pedestrians:
>
>
foot=destination
foot:conditional=yes @ (Oct-Apr 07:00-20:00; May-Sep 07:00-22:30)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Saturday, August 18, 2018, Jmapb wrote:
>
>
> Any particular reason to include the day numbers rather than just using
> the month name to indicate the whole month?
>
The reason is i forgot to remove the day numbers when copy-pasting. :-) You
can omit them (but you don't have to).:
Hi
I've written an issue request on openstreetmap-carto regarding the too
thick canal rendering:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3354
Regards
Markus
On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 at 18:20, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> On Thursday 16 August 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > >
On Friday, August 17, 2018, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Friday 17 August 2018, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>
> > Of course we could just use width=*, but it's not always easily
> > possible to measure the width (e.g. in a forest) and sometimes it
> > changes ofte
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 at 19:33, Greg Troxel wrote:
> If it's private, then access=yes is arguably not right, as permission is
> granted to the public, vs the public having a right of access.
>
> So I would use
>
> access=permissive
>
> instead of yes. But this is a far larger issue than this one
Hi
On Friday, August 17, 2018, Jmapb wrote:
> I've got a pedestrian way behind a large apartment building (leads to a
> back entrance) that's restricted to residents only after hours. Or more
> precisely, it's signed "Open to the public Oct 1 - Apr 30 7am-8pm, May 1 -
> Sep 30 7am-10:30pm."
>
>
On Saturday, August 18, 2018, SelfishSeahorse
wrote:
>
> foot=destination
> foot:conditional=yes @ (Oct 1-Apr 30 07:00-20:00, May 1-Sep 30 07:00-22:30)
>
Sorry, i've made a mistake: there should be a semicolon instead of a comma:
foot:conditional=yes @ (Oct 1-Apr 30 07:00-20:00;
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 at 15:38, Leo Gaspard wrote:
> These tags has already been put forth in the landcover proposal [1], but
> I was just pointed to [2] where a user complained (rightfully) that the
> shape of the road on OSM mismatched the shape of the actual road.
> [2]
Hi
It seems that the only problem with PTv2 that remains is the rendering
of public_transport=platform, i.e. whether public_transport=platform
(and maybe public_transport=station too) should get the transport mode
tag(s) (bus=yes/tram=yes/...).
Note that the PTv2 proposal suggested to map the
On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 13:13 dktue, wrote:
> I would like to tag information about the water-temperature and the
> depth of the separate pools in the outdoor-swimming pool [1]. Are there
> any suggested tag-names or should I just go with "depth" and "temperature"?
>
In case the pool depth varies,
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 02:38, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I'm thinking, perhaps, a new access tag value: smv (slow moving vehicle).
> Then you could (using my previous I 82 through the Cabbage Patch climb) do
> something like smv:lanes:access=no|yes|designated.
This seems like a good idea to me --
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 at 12:15, Philip Barnes wrote:
> The only signage on autoroute with voie pour vehicules lents is the start of
> a new crawler lane in English and a sign indicating 'vehicules lents'. There
> is no indication of a maximum speed for that lane, beyond at 130 you may come
> up
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is the best solution
> but were I to change my mind, how would I tag my turnouts? Here is another
> screen shot of the particular section of highway with a turnout on both sides
> of
he lanes technique.
>
> Thanks to all,
>
> Dave
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:51 PM SelfishSeahorse
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 11:17, Dave Swarthout
>> wrote:
>> > I'm still not convinced the lanes:smv tagging scenario is the best
>> soluti
t; the Sterling Highway, I'm going to leave them unmapped. Life is too
>>> >> short and there is a lot of other mapping yet to do in Alaska.
>>> >>
>>> >> Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier other
>>> >> than a
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 17:24, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 14:45, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
> >
> > > To solve the contradiction we need to get rid of one of the two
> > > definitions.
> >
> > they could be combine
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 19:34, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> > I think it's better to stick to either a common or a technical
> > definition.
>
>
> it doesn’t have to be the British definition of terms, has it?
It would already be helpful if there actually were a common definition
to distinguish
On Friday, October 5, 2018, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
> I don't know how many of the 3500 worldwide are actually
> communications_towers bu that definition, but I'd guess not more than a
> dozen or 2?
>
There are already more than a dozen in the small country of Switzerland.
> I'd like to
On Friday, October 5, 2018, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> Is there tagging to let announcements ignore that flare?
>
I think that if the driveway is tagged highway=service, this should be
enough information for the routeing engine to ignore it. Besides there
might be people that don't want the
On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 at 18:08, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> - way with natural=water and name="Small Pond"
> - way with natural=water and name="Big Pond"
> - relation grouping this ways with name="Groble" and proper type
>
> But how relation should be tagged?
>
> Tagging it natural=water seems
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at this map
> of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake:
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodensee#/media/File:Bodensee_satellit%2Btext.png
> (or maybe
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 14:39, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>
> That is, we have two contradictory definitions on the wiki: the
> engineering definition according to which a tower is freestanding and
> mast guyed, and the other definition according to which 'a tower is
> accessib
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 21:16, Tod Fitch wrote:
>
> I had not noticed the existence of the group relation before. Seems to me
> that it and the controversial site relation have some overlap. For the
> examples I can think of where I think the site relation works it seems like
> the group
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 11:28, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> no, I would remove only those from "vending", which are not about vending.
> E.g. parcels and excrement bags. Those that are about dispensers could get a
> dispensing tag, those that offer completely different services like parcel
>
Hi!
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 13:33, John Willis wrote:
>
> - Can someone type me the necessary tag value for such a monthly calendar
> dependant item? "Open on the 3rd Saturday from 10am-1pm"
The n-th weekday of the month can be written by appending the number
(1 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, ..., -1 for
Thank you, Joseph and Warin, for your feedback!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 04:02, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> However, I'm not sure that "governmental" is the best value for the landuse
> key. I think there would be a risk of mappers finding this tag in the editors
> and using it for all
Hi!
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 17:16, marc marc wrote:
>
> > But dividing land used for governing would complicate mapping too much
>
> why not ? school/education and military already exist.
Because at least offices of the public administration and the
executive body are often located in the same
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 20:35, Tom Hardy wrote:
>
> Just to throw a couple more your way:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/622149574
> landuse=garages is a staging area for city public works and county truck
> repair, and
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/448672572
> amenity=recycling is
Hi, Martin!
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 01:09, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> So police stations are out? The ministry of defense is in, but the
> subordinate units of it are out (because military)? Courts are in? Prisons?
> Storage (e.g.
>
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 at 22:32, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>
> However, the problem of how to call the sub-tag(s) for public administration,
> executive, parliament and courts were exactly the same as without
> landuse=institutional + sub-tags.
PS: The only benefit i see of landuse=i
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 17:42, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>
> Because at least offices of the public administration and the
> executive body are often located in the same building.
PS: Public administration is actually considered being a part of the executive.
Do you or anyone else have ano
Hello everyone!
I am proposing a new tag, landuse=governmental, for marking land that
is used for governing:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dgovernmental
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 at 17:03, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> > amenity=parcel_station
> > parcel_station:send=yes/no
> > parcel_station:receive=yes/no
>
>
> +1, would be fine for me.
> or amenity=parcel_machine?
I'm indifferent to the tag name. Other possibilities are parcel locker
or parcel
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 16:07, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> The guy wires or not is made into the main thing here, but it's really a
> detail.
Obviously, from a certain height, tall cylindrical structures like
masts need guy-wires for stabilisation. Otherwise, they need a larger
diameter or a conical
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 01:58, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> This reliance on guys does not align with engineering reality. guys are
> needed depending on forces/loading, and there can be unguyed masts, that
> are exactly like guyed masts but a bit shorter.
I agree.
> > A tower is a tall, slim
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 08:23, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> On the other hand, speaking about “numbers”, those are probably facts and not
> protectable by copyright
If i'm not mistaken, numbers aren't protected by copyright, but a
compilation of numbers (i.e. a database) can be protected; if
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 12:37, marc marc wrote:
>
> Le 26. 10. 18 à 09:28, SelfishSeahorse a écrit :
> > What about tagging the presence or absence of traffic signals with a
> > subkey, e.g. crossing:traffic_signals=yes/no?
>
> it is indeed always possible to take out all t
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> in Switzerland? In Italy they aren’t called zebra crossings (despite the
> markings), they’re called traffic lights with pedestrian crossing. A zebra
> crossing here means there aren’t traffic lights.
Yes, the (yellow) zebra
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 16:14, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 26. Oct 2018, at 14:57, SelfishSeahorse
> > wrote:
> >
> > And what about the absence of road markings? crossing_ref=unmarked?
>
>
> we generally do not m
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 12:53, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki
wrote:
>
> On 26.10.2018 10.44, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
> > There are some marked non-zebra crossings in Switzerland:
> >
> > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/zMqUsiFYNMiJ3_kA4ODHSQ
> > https://www.mapillary.com
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 12:46, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>
> Why should we invent a new subtagging scheme when we already have one with
> crossing=* + crossing_ref=* ?
Because there are countries where pedestrian crossings with traffic
signals also have zebra markings and it's not obvious that
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 02:05, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> US law does not apply everywhere.
Yes, it doesn't. Besides the USA don't recognise database right;
apparently it's mainly used in the EU.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 at 02:07, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> I would actually call them tanks rather than basins
Doesn't a tank need to be closed?
> When you look at storage_tanks
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dstorage_tank, there are
> actually sub-tags for
>
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 at 08:14, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> landuse for tagging features is not a good fit, I prefer man_made for these,
> as it fits better with the general scheme of tags
I agree. This is why i proposed man_made=basin|tank in a later message.
Regards
Markus
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 14:23, François Lacombe
wrote:
>
> structure={lattice,guyed, tube...} would be better than tower:construction.
> 15k uses vs 150k.
> Lattice is the structure and have nothing to do with actual construction.
> This tag should be avoided.
Seems sensible.
> telecom=antenna
Hi Lionel
Thanks for this helpful clarification! I'd suggest to use them on OSM.
Regards
Markus
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:30, Lionel Giard wrote:
>
> At my work (a telecom company in Belgium), i see these types of mobile
> structure construction :
> - Self-supported pylons (the "tower",
I'm not very happy with our definition of landuse=commercial as it
isn't self-explanatory: it is mainly used for offices and warehouses,
while retail, although belonging to commerce, has its own landuse=*
value. In my opinion, it would make more sense either to tag retail as
landuse=commercial +
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 at 12:00, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> WRT to Joseph's comment about "municipal, statal and federal", I would
> welcome adding a property for the level (if a generic level is chosen for
> landuse), maybe "admin_level" would suit best?
This seems like a good idea.
> How
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 09:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> > I haven't seen anyone (recently) who supports your original proposal of
> > keeping amenity=embassy and adding amenity=consulate. So I believe your
> > first summary is inaccurate.
>
> I do. For me this is most consistent with the
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 15:29, Bryan Housel wrote:
>
> `crossing=marked` and `crossing=unmarked` are not new. They’ve been in use
> for years.
>
> They solve the problem in that they are unambiguous and beginner-friendly.
Unfortunately crossing=marked doesn't make a difference compared to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 17:09, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:39, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
> >
> > Yes, the (yellow) zebra crossings are called 'zebra stripes'
> > (Zebrastreifen) -- or officially 'pedestrian stripes'
> > (Fussgä
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 17:13, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> > On 26. Oct 2018, at 16:39, SelfishSeahorse
> > wrote:
> >
> > Because road markings at crossings tell pedestrians if they have right
> > of way or not.
>
> it depends on the jurisdi
On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 at 04:02, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
>
> However, I'm not sure that "governmental" is the best value for the landuse
> key. I think there would be a risk of mappers finding this tag in the editors
> and using it for all governnment-owned land, not just for administrative
>
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 19:23, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> For tagging, I'd to suggest the two tags.
> man_made=clarifier (used 28 times)
> man_made=digester (anaerobic used 3 times, including one misspelling)
Another idea i see is to extend the current tagging scheme with
landuse=basin (+
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 15:06, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> It has the disadvantage that it doesn't make sense. At least not to me, as a
> native speaker of
> British English (which is the normal language for defining OSM tags) and as
> somebody who
> doesn't work in sanitation. Maybe a British
Hello!
I've made following additions to the proposal:
* Addition of the new tag
governmental=legislature/executive/judiciary for specifying the
governmental branch.
* Reuse of the existing tag admin_level=* for indicating the
administrative level (country, state, municipal etc.).
Are
Hi Mateusz,
Thank you for your feedback!
> "for marking government premises" sounds like replacement of office=* tag
I've changed the definition (back) to 'land used by government bodies
/ for governing'.
> Current definitions "This excludes: (...) Land ''owned'' by the government"
> means
On Friday, November 2, 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> Frequently you can't get this right. You will often have just one
> carriageway (i.e. one highway way) and you will usually have 2 ways for the
> tram tracks (if you draw each of them).
>
Although less precise, i would have only drawn
Anyway, i'm wondering why tram tracks that are embedded in a street are
mapped with separate ways instead of reusing the street way? Separating
them seems topologically wrong.
For example at this pedestrian crossing [1] one doesn't first cross tram
tracks, then the street and then again tram
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 00:02, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> I agree that in areas where marked pedestrian crossings aren’t marked as
> zebra crossings, the tag could create problems or could not apply (I do not
> know about such places but someone wrote it in the wiki).
There are some marked
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 01:19, Bryan Housel wrote:
>
> Oh! I don’t like `crossing=zebra` either. Not sure whether you caught the
> end of that issue #4788, but anyway I've decided I'm tired of hearing people
> complain about `crossing=zebra` so going forward iD will support these 2
> presets:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 23:40, marc marc wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a big issue with crossing=zebra.
> it prevent to fill in the other value for crossing like
> crossing=traffic_signals crossing=uncontrolled
> the wiki [1] said that crossing=zebra is a shortchut for
> crossing=uncontrolled +
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:30, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Tagging way crossing=traffic_island and nodes crossing=traffic_signals is
> deeply not obvious.
+1. That's too complicated. Furthermore it doesn't work on
one-carriageway roads like e.g. here:
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Yes. For example in Poland there are crossing markings that look
> very similar and have the same name with different legal
> implications.
Is there more than one marked crossings type w/o traffic signals in
Poland? That is, one where
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 at 23:30, marc marc wrote:
>
> man_made=tank + usage=clarifier or usage=digester
+1
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 21:24, bkil wrote:
>
> crossing=uncontrolled had just this meaning - not controlled or
> arranged by any device but instead always negotiated in situ between
> traffic participants. [...]
>
> It should definitely not be understood as a synonym for "unmarked".
> I'll try to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 00:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Do we also need a RFC / vote to amend the wiki page, or can I just amend it &
> clear up the bad reference photo's?
>
> I'd be looking at combining the mentioned engineering definition with the
> popular opinion expressed here to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 07:45, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> A lot of the big ones will be listed somewhere on the internet - the really
> big ones have their heights listed on that wiki page I mentioned earlier
Just note that Wikipedia (and other websites) isn't a legal source for
OSM because
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 03:45, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> Putting the centerline of the rails somewhere other than the middle of the
> tracks is arguably worse, particularly for use cases that depend on this
> (creating a train simulator, or pedestrian navigation, for example).
As far as pedestrian
On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 at 23:17, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> Moot point, sidewalks should be mapped as separate ways for the same reason.
I don't want to start another sidewalk discussion, but please note
that sidewalks as separate ways don't solve all problems. Especially
in residential areas without
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 01:52, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>
> My thinking on this is we should re-purpose the relation roles for this sort
> of tagging. Right now we just copy the roles from type=multipolygon relations
> (inner, outer) when we should be using something like the following:
>
>
Hi
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 00:29, Michael Booth wrote:
>
> The Wiki definition is: "a huge tower for transmitting radio applications
> It is often made from concrete and usually a far visible landmark."
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man%20made=communications%20tower
>
> Looking
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 00:50, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> > On 9. Oct 2018, at 21:19, bkil wrote:
> >
> > amenity=waste_basket
> > waste=dog_excrement
> > vending=excrement_bags
> >
> > I've also seen waste_basket:excrement_bags=yes and fee=no, but I don't
> > see much value in these at this
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 16:32, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> A village a few miles from me (but in a different county) recently got one of
> these combined litter/recycling bins:
> https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2241627292737699=1632021387031629&__tn__=C-R
>
> How to tag?
What about
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 19:46, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> If I do it as one node or a single area, that is about the best that can be
> done with existing
> tags. The problem is it will get the icon for a waste bin, with no
> indication it's also for
> recycling. Fine if you use the query tool, but
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 09:39, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> Map feature pages are for the documentation of established tags, I hope we
> can agree on this?
>
> IMHO we should clarify that documenting ad hoc tags in the wiki (link above)
> means either putting this documentation in your user
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 14:45, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> > To solve the contradiction we need to get rid of one of the two definitions.
>
> they could be combined: if it is intended to be accessed by people (not only
> for maintenance) and is not guyed it is a tower, otherwise it would be a
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 03:13, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dmast says that
>
> "In structural engineering, mast is a vertical structure, supported by
> external guys and anchors.
>
> This is the only existing definite feature that could be used
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 at 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> I have tried to fix the picture and found, that there are now 2 distinct
> traffic signs, one is for all 2-tracked motor vehicles, including cars:
>
On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 at 17:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> Thank you, I have now reverted the change wrt to motorcar.
I've also reverted the change on the page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorcar and tried to make the
different meanings of that tag when either used as permission or
On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 at 09:12, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2018 at 10:46:08PM +0200, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
> > On Friday, October 5, 2018, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > > Is there tagging to let announcements ignore that flare?
> >
> > I think that
On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 13:55, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
> >
> > A very similar problem are parts of lakes by the way, e.g. look at this map
> > of the lake of Constance, showing names for parts of the lake:
&
Hello everyone!
I haven't forgotten the landuse=civic_admin proposal, but I'm
uncertain about two points and would like to know your opinion:
* Isn't 'civic administration' limited to the administration of a town
or city (compared to the administration of the state, county etc.)?
Maybe it would
The meaning of the motorcar key has been discussed some time ago with the
conclusion that motorcar=no means 'no entry for any power driven vehicle
except two-wheeled motor cycles without side-car', while motorcar=yes only
means that motorcars are allowed. (Unfortunately i couldn't find the
I remember it has been discussed, but maybe not on this list.
The problem was that different wiki pages had different definitions of
landuse=meadow (used to tag land used for hay and for grazing animals),
natural=grassland (mainly used to tag natural grassland/meadows) and
landuse=farmland (used
/2017-November/thread.html#34194
)
On Mon, 3 Sep 2018 09:36 SelfishSeahorse, wrote:
> The meaning of the motorcar key has been discussed some time ago with the
> conclusion that motorcar=no means 'no entry for any power driven vehicle
> except two-wheeled motor cycles without side-ca
Hi!
I'd propose to tag the section of the road with the turnout (or
alternatively just a node) turnout:=yes.
I would neither use a lane key nor a separate highway=service way, because
slow vehicle turnouts aren't lanes for moving traffic and because a
separate highway way would give the wrong
I couldn't agree more.
Still sure that you don't want to resurrect the proposal? :-) I will
never be able to express my thoughts that well ...
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 15:46, John Willis wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 20, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> >
> > But this discussion is about land
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 10:40, Colin Smale wrote:
> Maybe it's just me, but I really can't understand why landuse for government
> functions needs its own tagging. The buildings are often indistinguishable
> from commercial properties - what is different is that the occupier is some
> statutory
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 11:20, egil wrote:
> I tend to agree with Colins arguments below, because in Sweden gov. agencies
> are very mixed into the central spaces of cities but often not clustered
> together in large complexes or whole areas.
Just because a tag would have no use in a specific
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
