Re: [Tagging] The current problem with tagging

2009-10-19 Thread Tobias Knerr
://wiki.openstreetmap.org/api.php) together with some parsing to extract templates) is up to you, but I'd strongly recommend to use the wiki as your backend for most of the information. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)

2009-10-27 Thread Tobias Knerr
the feature. Therefore, your examples would violate the definition of the key. Also, I don't see a practical use for additional values that express works as usual. In fact, I don't even think that you should explicitly set them at all, this should simply be the default case. Tobias Knerr

Re: [Tagging] Different speed limits

2009-12-14 Thread Tobias Knerr
to quite unambiguously store that kind of information. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Different speed limits

2009-12-14 Thread Tobias Knerr
maxspeed = 80 maxspeed:{Sa,Su 11:30-18:00} = 60 correction (should use my glasses when typing brackets...): maxspeed = 80 maxspeed:(Sa,Su 11:30-18:00) = 60 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Different speed limits

2009-12-16 Thread Tobias Knerr
/Extended_conditions_for_access_tags#Examples Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.

2009-12-21 Thread Tobias Knerr
in a way which can actually be parsed properly and doesn't rely on guesses by human observers. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding housnumber the lazy way.

2009-12-22 Thread Tobias Knerr
with an appropriate value, you are basically opting out of that accuracy requirement. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr#Using_Address_Interpolation_for_partial_surveys Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

2010-01-04 Thread Tobias Knerr
. bridleways, tracks, service roads, ... which can all be well suited to use by bicycles). Therefore, your definition could work as a separate tag, but not as a highway value - we only want one of these per way. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

Re: [Tagging] What's a power=station?

2010-01-18 Thread Tobias Knerr
a substation. Tobias Knerr [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:power [2] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umspannwerk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal image=http:/... .jpg

2010-02-05 Thread Tobias Knerr
of image files with coordinates or OSM ids. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal image=http:/... .jpg

2010-02-06 Thread Tobias Knerr
Ulf Lamping schrieb: Am 05.02.2010 12:26, schrieb Tobias Knerr: Sam Vekemans wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Image The problem with this proposal is that there isn't a definition which of the several images that likely exist for most objects should be referenced. And I expect

Re: [Tagging] tag proposal image=http:/... .jpg

2010-02-06 Thread Tobias Knerr
once we get my image is nicer than yours edit wars on images and quality/relevance criteria for image inclusions. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Utility overcrossings?

2010-04-04 Thread Tobias Knerr
proposed a tagging for person conveyors (escalators, travelators)[1], but no one was interested in that topic afterwards. Therefore, the proposal is just sitting around as a draft. Tobias Knerr [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conveyor

Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)

2010-05-11 Thread Tobias Knerr
residential landuse area contains many buildings, gardens and other associated features. So gardens can certainly be a part of a residential area, but they aren't residential areas themselves. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] 'name' variation tags standardisation

2010-06-25 Thread Tobias Knerr
is the natural word order) better than name:official. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Billboards and other kinds of advert

2010-07-03 Thread Tobias Knerr
? Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Zone 30 (maxspeed)

2010-07-08 Thread Tobias Knerr
. The phrase can either be true or false. That's because you can read these tags as *if* it is Sunday *and* I'm driving a hgv *then* maxspeed=80 applies Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo

Re: [Tagging] paved=yes/no

2010-07-17 Thread Tobias Knerr
number of editor preset users.) If you write an application or rendering style, don't worry too much about mappers sabotaging your style by inventing a new surface value for every road. You see, mappers actually want their data to be useful. Tobias Knerr

Re: [Tagging] paved=yes/no

2010-07-19 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 19.07.2010 09:06, Steve Bennett wrote: On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: While the list of surface values is *potentially* unbounded, it is finite at any given time. For practical purposes, just teach that list of surface values on the wiki to your

Re: [Tagging] paved=yes/no

2010-07-19 Thread Tobias Knerr
itself, an osmosis task, a library or some other technical solution. I don't like the idea of adding this to the database, because I don't want to keep another tag up to date if it doesn't provide any information that wasn't there before. Tobias Knerr

Re: [Tagging] office=*

2010-07-28 Thread Tobias Knerr
John Smith wrote: On 29 July 2010 15:13, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: 5-10k mappers doesn't work, but skipping discussion and inventing tags Don't confuse discussion with voting, voting is flawed and many things are still discussed on the tagging list before being documented

Re: [Tagging] emergency=*

2010-07-29 Thread Tobias Knerr
don't see any advantage of having to remember both the key and the value used for an object type. Just leave stuff like this in amenity, that way we just need to know the value to tag it. amenity is the default key for features like this anyway. Tobias Knerr

Re: [Tagging] emergency=*

2010-07-29 Thread Tobias Knerr
John Smith wrote: On 30 July 2010 04:36, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: [...] stuff like this in amenity, that way we just need to know the value to tag it. amenity is the default key for features like this anyway. Which also means the amenity name space is pretty crammed full

Re: [Tagging] tag groupings

2010-07-30 Thread Tobias Knerr
. But this is obviously not the case. Tobias Knerr 1) natural=wood, for example, only later was clearly defined as the untouched nature tag that it is now - which was a somewhat definition, because many had considered it just a generic tag for woods and used it as such. Using either type=wood (+ natural=yes

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Extra details for postboxes

2010-08-05 Thread Tobias Knerr
/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dclock#Support Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Extra details for postboxes

2010-08-05 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 05/08/2010 18:52, vclaw wrote: On 05/08/2010 17:03, Tobias Knerr wrote: I suggest a more generic approach for the mounting/anchor information - a key like this could be used for lots of different features, such as post boxes, clocks, waste bins or vending machines. Specifically, I suggest

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

2010-08-19 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 19.08.2010 18:28, Tom Chance wrote: On 19 August 2010 16:54, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Basic address editing, however, requires more knowledge if implemented using relations - which is bad, because editing addresses is one

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

2010-08-26 Thread Tobias Knerr
, and *o are junction nodes. If we use the existing tagging for crossings, then node o should be tagged highway=crossing + crossing=island/... So how would you tag the horizontal way? May I suggest that it is tagged differently from A and C to make it easier to distinguish in software? Tobias Knerr

Re: [Tagging] Semicolons? (was Re: RFC: generator:* (for power=generator features))

2010-08-27 Thread Tobias Knerr
#1. I think that creating an atm node within a bank polygon perfectly represents this situation. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Waterway direction

2010-08-31 Thread Tobias Knerr
have consistently been created using that convention. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

2010-09-06 Thread Tobias Knerr
definition to majority use by removing the lone or significant limitation would start an eternal struggle against the massive influx of trees tagged incorrectly by mappers relying on their common sense. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

2010-09-10 Thread Tobias Knerr
that this mass edit should be performed. For the record, I think that the denotation=cluster tag is a bad idea. It's vague, overlaps with the other values of denotation and doesn't add any information that wasn't there before. Tobias Knerr [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=DE

Re: [Tagging] trees and waterways

2010-09-12 Thread Tobias Knerr
attractive than trying to increase acceptance of the definition. If the definition itself is considered decent, however, educating mappers and fixing existing errors can be a more appealing option. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC: more barrier types

2010-09-20 Thread Tobias Knerr
reasons - , so I wonder why it's in the same proposal. I don't think I'll map control devices anytime soon (or ever), though, so I'm going to just ignore that section. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

2010-10-22 Thread Tobias Knerr
and paved ways. Because the difference between ways that would currently be tagged as a path can be very significant, it makes sense to split small informal footpaths into their own highway category. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Announce: New #osm-tagging dedicated IRC chat on oftc.net

2010-10-24 Thread Tobias Knerr
issues that need extended discussion, that discussion should take place where others can participate asynchronously and where the results are more permanently available. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] url vs. website

2010-11-03 Thread Tobias Knerr
website for the tagged feature. Similarly, the wikipedia key should partially replace url, for those cases where the URL is a Wikipedia link, and image should be used for URLs of images. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] Call for German, French, Russian Japanese updates for changed tag

2010-11-22 Thread Tobias Knerr
of the English page did, and all translations still do) would just ensure that the new tag cannot gain traction, no matter whether it's better than the old one or not. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] Ultimate list of approved keys

2011-01-02 Thread Tobias Knerr
applications actually use some set of tags, usage will - with few exceptions - gradually become less varied. And this effect will only become more pronounced with the current popularization of editor presets. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Site Relation

2011-02-02 Thread Tobias Knerr
the proposal if (and only if) it is made clear that site relations are only to be used where simpler tools aren't sufficient. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] levels and min_level (was Underground / hovering buildings)

2011-02-18 Thread Tobias Knerr
as the name of the entire building). Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Tree rows

2011-02-24 Thread Tobias Knerr
Please voice your opinion in the vote on the Tree rows proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tree_rows natural=tree_row, used on a way, describes a line of trees. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux)

2011-03-18 Thread Tobias Knerr
a node is the appropriate solution until more detailed data becomes available. Accepting both nodes and areas to accommodate different detail levels of data is good practice for other features, e.g. those in the shop and amenity categories. Tobias Knerr

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux)

2011-03-18 Thread Tobias Knerr
for parking spaces. [...] good argument. i changed the proposal accordingly. Nice, thanks. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways

2011-03-25 Thread Tobias Knerr
, sidewalk ways are the simplest solution for also mapping attributes and connectedness of sidewalks. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] convention for multiple maxspeed values

2011-04-26 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 2011-04-26 14:06, Richard Welty wrote: On 4/26/11 2:11 AM, Per Lindström wrote: maxspeed values without unit is in km/h, and should be entered without suffix. If the speed is in mph the unit should be added. For more information see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed for

Re: [Tagging] Requirements for proposals and voting to be valid

2011-05-11 Thread Tobias Knerr
will not cause any harm, and can eliminate any doubts about the validity of the proposal. -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway

2011-05-11 Thread Tobias Knerr
can still be determined at any point along the road from just the single outline area and the way position. So unless I'm mistaken, separate areas for the individual lanes wouldn't provide more information; they'd just add more clutter. -- Tobias Knerr

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway

2011-05-11 Thread Tobias Knerr
if you map sidewalks and such as separate ways: it becomes more feasible for applications to find out which sidewalk ways belong to a highway because the highway and sidewalk ways are in the same area:highway=* boundary. You wouldn't need relations or other solutions to connect them. -- Tobias

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway

2011-05-11 Thread Tobias Knerr
as a project with enough coordination to successfully implement a major change like that if it cannot easily be broken down into small evolutionary steps. -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway

2011-05-12 Thread Tobias Knerr
Am 11.05.2011 23:45, schrieb Stefan Bethke: Am 11.05.2011 um 23:01 schrieb Tobias Knerr: M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can still be determined at any point

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway

2011-05-12 Thread Tobias Knerr
the entire road could reduce the amount of guessing involved. Of course, that's not the purpose the area:highway key was originally invented for. -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway

2011-05-12 Thread Tobias Knerr
Stefan Bethke wrote: Am 12.05.2011 um 10:50 schrieb Tobias Knerr: * I assume that most road shapes are adequately described with just a single outline area for the entire road, and no one has provided a counter example yet. Ever been to any city? Should I post photos just looking out

Re: [Tagging] Residential gardens: deprecate leisure=garden, suggest alternative

2011-05-23 Thread Tobias Knerr
the renderer doesn't do anything special to support residential gardens The same effect can be achieved if residential gardens are not rendered at all, and the residential landuse that contains the gardens is rendered as usual. -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] maxheight - Feet Inches

2011-05-28 Thread Tobias Knerr
/Units In practice, applications should be robust enough to handle variations in the use of spaces, but it doesn't hurt if we try to stick to a common syntax anyway. -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb

2011-06-22 Thread Tobias Knerr
). Furthermore, I don't understand at all why the no value has been removed. There are sidewalks that are defined by other separators than a kerb. I therefore suggest to rename kerb=unknown to kerb=yes, and to add kerb=no back to the proposal. -- Tobias Knerr

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb

2011-06-22 Thread Tobias Knerr
to that effect. I agree with your decision to go for functional classification. However, I just noticed that it seems there isn't a value for standard kerbs? (One that is neither raised nor lowered?) -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Kerb

2011-06-23 Thread Tobias Knerr
suggested values as a consequence. -- Tobias Knerr [1] http://www.southglos.gov.uk/NR/exeres/efb6adfb-b0b4-4f00-a185-73f4dcf5197d ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Prevoting: New_barrier_types

2011-07-02 Thread Tobias Knerr
to cause height limitations, ...) to warrant their own tags. I'm convinced that this point wouldn't come up if the English language didn't happen to use the term turnstile for both types of barriers. -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Conditions for restriction relations

2011-07-08 Thread Tobias Knerr
Much like Dinamik's proposal announced earlier today, my proposal suggests an extension to restriction relation tagging. It is designed to handle not just modes of transport, but also time-based restrictions. http://wiki.osm.org/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_restriction_relations -- Tobias

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Conditions for restriction relations

2011-07-23 Thread Tobias Knerr
http://wiki.osm.org/Proposed_features/Conditions_for_restriction_relations This is a proposal for tags on restriction relations. Some restrictions do not apply universally, but are limited to certain vehicles, some days or even some times of the day.

Re: [Tagging] Oneway except for buses

2011-07-23 Thread Tobias Knerr
! The oneway:bicycle key is much better because it fits in with other exceptions from oneway restrictions, such as oneway:bus. So just use both for now. cyceway=opposite for backwards compatibility, oneway:bicycle=no because it is the better tag. -- Tobias Knerr

Re: [Tagging] Relations (was directions)

2011-08-10 Thread Tobias Knerr
!) is annoying. Relations should therefore be avoided in favor of tags if possible. And I'm far from convinced that relations are necessary in the particular example that started this thread. -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] Translating tags into the database itself ?

2011-08-18 Thread Tobias Knerr
species names are a well-established convention for scientific classification of species. -- Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes tag dispute

2011-09-18 Thread Tobias Knerr
to the page is a redefinition of the lanes tag. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wide steps

2011-10-10 Thread Tobias Knerr
Am 10.10.2011 01:05, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2011/10/10 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Area#area-steps Not sure how we should proceed to keep routing working. In my opinion, the least painful option is to simply continue

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - entrance=*

2011-10-12 Thread Tobias Knerr
Pieren wrote: It was not widely discussed but the proposal seems to be accepted as an improvement. But deprecating a tag is never easy in OSM. It needs a large consensus, a wide audience and time ... The proposal is actually well designed in that regard. It doesn't redefine any existing tags

Re: [Tagging] Explain sport=multi

2011-12-08 Thread Tobias Knerr
Erik Johansson wrote: sport=multi is very well used but have no description in the wiki. Is there anyone that uses this tag? For some reason I get the feeling this is at least when I see it used as a shorthand for multiple values on a sport key I'd use sport=multi on a typical gym that can

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Coffee Roasting

2011-12-14 Thread Tobias Knerr
Racing Ralph wrote: BTW, the proposed feature page is misspelled: needs another F Is it possible to change? Seem sI have to add a new proposal.. Just move it. There's a little downward arrow in the right part of the menu above the page (next to the search field). It hides a menu with exactly

Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking

2012-01-12 Thread Tobias Knerr
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I am not sure whether this was initially only for parkings on surface (I had thought it would have been for all kind of parkings, so also underground and multistorey) The surface default was part of the proposal that introduced the surface/underground/multi-storey

Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers

2012-02-20 Thread Tobias Knerr
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: a) ele is the elevation of the ground around/below the tower (in the case of a mountain summit it would be the elevation of the mountain, not the tower). In practice, this is closest to how I would have interpreted it. I would usually expect ele to define the

Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones

2012-02-20 Thread Tobias Knerr
Jonathan Bennett wrote: In summary: I believe the three classes to be separate and non-overlapping. So I disagree with the wiki edit made, but do think surface=sett is a sensible, verifiable tag. A sett (a word I've never heard before) is apparently colloquially called cobblestone. To the

Re: [Tagging] tagging of ele / elevation data e.g. in the context of towers

2012-02-20 Thread Tobias Knerr
John F. Eldredge: If a structure is located on sloping ground, do you record the elevation of the highest point in contact with the structure, the lowest point, halfway between the highest and lowest points, or what? This is related to the question: Where do you measure the structure's

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - lanes General Extension

2012-03-05 Thread Tobias Knerr
Martin Vonwald wrote: Regarding your comments (which would better fit into the discussion page): They were more of a footnote, but I'm happy to discuss them anyway. If you prefer to have this discussion on the talk page, feel free to copy the relevant sections of my mails to it. I don't mind

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - lanes General Extension

2012-03-06 Thread Tobias Knerr
Martin Vonwald wrote: 1) The objective part: How is it done currently? Take a look at my first example in the proposal - it's using maxspeed. How is maxspeed currently tagged? According to the wiki maxspeed:forward and maxspeed:backward should be used. What tells use taginfo? The

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - lanes General Extension

2012-03-06 Thread Tobias Knerr
Martin Vonwald wrote: ~ 11.500 cycleway:left/right ~ 10.000 footway=left/right, 22.000 if you count both (same proposal) ~ 4.500 footway:left/right/both:* As far as I understand, those are ways next to the carriageway. If they are mapped as tags on the highway=* way, rather than as

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - lanes General Extension

2012-03-23 Thread Tobias Knerr
I've not participated in this discussion for a while due to distractions such as FOSSGIS and the Garching 3D Workshop. Nevertheless, I'd like to take this opportunity to do two things before the voting period ends: Clarify what I was talking about in the first place, and then explain why I no

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - TMC - New tagging scheme for TMC

2012-03-29 Thread Tobias Knerr
Graham Jones wrote: Err...what does tmc stand for? TMC stands for Traffic Message Channel, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_Message_Channel It's a standardized format for transmitting information about blocked roads, traffic jams, accidents etc. They have IDs for road sections to

Re: [Tagging] Value separator

2012-04-04 Thread Tobias Knerr
yvecai wrote: What is the best way to 'separate' values? I think about piste:grooming='classic;skating' or 'classic+skating'. Reasons to prefer semicolon: Has been done that way for years. Is also documented in the wiki. http://wiki.osm.org/Semi-colon_value_separator Actually, this can be

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer

2012-04-10 Thread Tobias Knerr
Martijn van Exel wrote: Consider this situation: a road on an incline, the sidewalk follows the road but has steps in some places. You would want to capture the steps for accessibility reasons, and you can't by just adding a sidewalk tag to the main way feature. Except if you use one of the

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer

2012-04-10 Thread Tobias Knerr
Martijn van Exel wrote: A sidewalk is not a lane and it should not be tagged as such. Doing so would be utterly confusing. Does the lanes proposal (which I think is horribly overwrought to begin with) not exclude sidewalks? Not explicitly. And while it is true that the examples don't include

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer

2012-04-10 Thread Tobias Knerr
Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/10/2012 6:38 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: Not explicitly. And while it is true that the examples don't include sidewalks, they do include cycleways, where we have basically the same debate whether or not they should be separate ways. Are you talking about bike lanes

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer

2012-04-11 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 11.04.2012 02:04, Martijn van Exel wrote: On 4/10/2012 4:38 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: A sidewalk=left/right/both fails when you want to define the relative ordering, and separate footway=cycleway fail in practice because no renderer is actually able to puzzle the highway back together from

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks and tagging for the renderer

2012-04-13 Thread Tobias Knerr
Am 13.04.2012 08:20, schrieb Peter Wendorff: If we would define a set of defaults and mappers follow that set, nobody will add default values again, and it's not possible to distinguish between default and unknown any more. You have identified a real problem: The distinction between default

Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones

2012-04-13 Thread Tobias Knerr
Steve Bennett wrote: So, whoever really wants to introduce this distinction is going to have to find another way, perhaps surface=cobblestone, cobblestone=sett. Thank you for dealing with the issue. Subtagging seems like a good suggestion for making this distinction. We would also need a

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)

2012-04-26 Thread Tobias Knerr
Anthony wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Where did I mention a renderer? If you draw a closed polygon with railway=platform, that's a continuous platform with a hole in the middle. There may be a few cases of such in real life at a complicated

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)

2012-04-27 Thread Tobias Knerr
Anthony wrote: area=no can be considered a sic!, but that tag should never have any actual effect. Effect on what? On renderers or any other applications working with OSM data. If I were writing a renderer, I would assume that a closed way railway=platform represented an area unless it

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)

2012-04-28 Thread Tobias Knerr
28.04.2012 11:34, Peter Wendorff wrote: Let's consider two well known examples: building=* = usually by default area=yes, a non-closed way may be considered as invalid(?) Yes, it would be invalid. As documented in the wiki, the building key (ignoring building=entrance and the like) is for

Re: [Tagging] Waterway directionality in drainage canals

2012-04-28 Thread Tobias Knerr
28.04.2012 11:24, Nathan Edgars II wrote: So there are a lot of major canals that have no fixed direction. How should these be mapped? Is there any existing scheme that can show how water flows under different conditions? We have this abandoned proposal for explicitly mapping flow directions:

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)

2012-04-28 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 27.04.2012 10:12, Pieren wrote: You have to know anyway if your feature can be either a closed way or an area and therefore need some special handling in your apps. Unfortunately, yes. I wish we already had a proper area primitive so this whole discussion would be obsolete. The question is

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on polygones (was Block names)

2012-05-01 Thread Tobias Knerr
01.05.2012 11:53, Pieren wrote: Not only mine. I'm still waiting at least a single example where a closed way for platforms is not an area How about that one? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/48923955 It's a public_transport=platform for busses. There's a building with ticket shops and

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on highway=mini_roundabout

2012-05-10 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 10.05.2012 17:35, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 5/10/2012 11:30 AM, Josh Doe wrote: I've made some significant edits to this article to improve the overall quality, as well as hopefully provide text which satisfies both concerned parties. Nope - you said that it's erroneous to use the tag

Re: [Tagging] (Mini)Roundabout: examples

2012-05-14 Thread Tobias Knerr
14.05.2012 09:50, Martin Vonwald wrote: According to the current wiki chicanes are Hazards on the street you have to drive round. This would fit the image. Also at least in my region we use traffic_calming=chicane to map these:

Re: [Tagging] (Mini)Roundabout: examples

2012-05-14 Thread Tobias Knerr
14.05.2012 13:04, Martin Vonwald: Actually a wiki page exists for that: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:traffic_calming=island It was created just two months ago and the value is not documented in the main article about traffic calming. The value is used about 400 times currently.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging: minimum required tags

2012-05-18 Thread Tobias Knerr
Tobias Johansson wrote: And preferbly the nodes with addresses should correspond to an entrence of the building. Some reasons for this, I add a .pdf with some: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Housenumbers.pdf May I ask you to avoid quoting that PDF? It only presents Lulu-Ann's

Re: [Tagging] dispute about how to tag a type=multipolygon relation

2012-06-07 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 07.06.2012 17:33, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote: A recent proposal (and change after that) on the wiki has been made, which roughly sums up to : relations type=multipolygon's members should only be closed ways, not sums of ways making closed rings, unless the way is too big that it would

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

2012-06-13 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 13.06.2012 15:07, Martin Vonwald wrote: 2012/6/13 Eckhart Wörner ewoer...@kde.org: Competing proposals: * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5 - in my opinion a horrible and incomprehensible syntax with arbitrary distinctions, taginfo revealed

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

2012-06-13 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 13.06.2012 17:18, Martin Vonwald wrote: :forward, :backward, ... I don't think of them as conditions, but more a selection of a part of a way. Just like :lanes is to me not a condition. I think we've discussed this several times already, and as you know I do not think this part of a way

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

2012-06-13 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 13.06.2012 23:48, Colin Smale wrote: Taking the access discussion to a higher level of abstraction, and without abandoning the key-value pair paradigm, I believe we are looking for a way of giving a tag a value which depends on all kinds of variables. *IMHO* we need a way of making

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

2012-06-14 Thread Tobias Knerr
On 14.06.2012 08:38, Colin Smale wrote: My concern with this is that it may become unwieldy and cumbersome with anything beyond fairly trivial cases such as your maxspeed example. For me, the goal is to make the common cases *easy*, and the rare complex cases *possible*. For the human

  1   2   3   4   >