Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Thanks everybody for the input. I try to summarize the discussion so far as following. Please reply if I misunderstood some arguments. - Not many are in favor of oneway=cw / oneway=ccw to indicate the actual direction. This is currently in the wiki but is hardly in use (about 5 times in

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:16:46 -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote: > In my notes, the plan is: > > (1) Put oneway=yes on the route relation, not on the ways. > (2) Add the ways to the route relation in their proper sequence. > (3) Give the ways the 'forward' or 'backward' role according to >

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

> If you want to indicate the preferred direction of a walking route that is > basically loop-shaped, a concept that is different from the legally binding > oneway, then some kind of clockwise / anticlockwise tagging should be used. Yes Volcker, this is what I'm after. It's about loop-shaped

[Tagging] Tagging professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

After a discussion with another user, I saw some people put a lot of effort in adding and maintaining the course of professional bicycle races. For example the world famous Paris-Roubaix (traject of the 2014 edition: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4853475) I also found for example local

[Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Hello everyone, I have a question concerning the correct way to add the direction of travel to roundtrip route=hiking|foot|bicycle relations. I saw in the route=hiking wiki page that the usage of oneway=cw and oneway=ccw has been added in 2017, with the word "proposal: " in front.

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

everse the direction of the way if it's > wrong. > > My two cents (from extensive work on bus routes, not hiking routes). > > John > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 4:32 AM s8evq wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > I have a question concerning the correct way to add

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 14:58:42 +1100, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/02/19 13:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 12:07, marc marc > > wrote: > > > > I think it would be better to continue the current club=scout > >

[Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

Hello everyone, I'm a relative new contributor and have a question about tagging "club=scout" and "club=youth". What about similar organisations than Scouts? This might not exists as much in other countries, but here in Belgium we have KSA, KLJ, Chiro and Scouts (and a whole bunch more).

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 08:12:28 +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 13:57, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 31/01/19 13:02, John Willis via Tagging wrote: > > club=youth > > youth=* > > > > Slightly different, but also related ... > > Both my sons went through

Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 13:56:03 +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > A club, being an association between people, is not a geographical entity. That's clear, I can agree with that. > Thus I prefer tagging the physical entity, which is the club home, with > amenity=community_centre > where you can specify

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Helo everyone. I would like to pick up this month old discussion again and try to come to a conclussion. The situation so far: Problem: There are signposted hiking and biking routes, where the route itself goes only one way, because it's not way-marked in the opposite direction. How do we

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

)) This changes could also be applied on route=foot and route=bicycle Comments? On Sun, 5 May 2019 12:44:10 +0100, ael via Tagging wrote: > On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 07:38:45AM +0200, s8evq wrote: > > Another attempt at summarizing the current situation: > > > > How should we i

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

|both" as the value in for example designated_direction=*", to what does forward relate? How do you know what forward is? On Thu, 2 May 2019 11:35:38 +0200, Tobias Wrede wrote: > Am 30.04.2019 um 20:18 schrieb s8evq: > > - bidirectional=no > > - signed_oneway=

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Fri, 03 May 2019 12:56:34 +0200, o...@hjart.dk wrote: > That's assuming the ways are ordered at all. I've cleaned up hundreds of > routes (most created by Potlatch users though) and my advice is: do not > rely on routes being ordered. But what's the alternative then? - Using CW CCW? How

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Another attempt at summarizing the current situation: How should we included the direction? - Andy Townsend suggested "Explicit start and/or finish nodes?", but I'm afraid that's not enough to deduce the direction of complex hiking routes like this one:

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 14:17:07 -0400, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: > Hi s8evq, I'm withholding judgement for now on the larger question of > combining these, but one comment: All four of these tables describe > 'colour' as "especially useful for public transport routes" which

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

> > > > When that is done, I would like to do the Dutch translation and discuss the > > tagging scheme. > > > > Vr gr Peter Elderson > > > > > > Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 10:52 schreef s8evq : > >> > >> Hello everyone, > >>

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

in the table?] [3] [what "points" are to be added? I would say none, only add ways, remove the word "points"] [4] [ I would like to add this sentence: "If possible, sort the ways in a logical order"] --- end of proposed text --- On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 10:50:16 +0200 (C

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 20:37:56 +0900, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > The key "educational" has only been used 25 times, mainly > "educational=yes", and does not have a wiki page, so it would be best > to remove it from the route pages. > That's OK for me. Anybody who's againt removing it from the

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 09:54:01 +0200, Jo wrote: > > By doing that, you're basically saying that alternatives can't have > forward/backward roles. To me that doesn't make sense. We are using those > forward/backward roles to indicate that there are 2 branches for each > direction of travel along

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 16:18:38 -0400, Jmapb via Tagging wrote: >  - Speaking of "yellow", the table specifies that colour should be a > hex triplet, but wiki page for the colour key indicates that named HTML > colours are also acceptable values. And I know many trails are tagged > this way. So

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 10:58:36 +0900, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > It is better to document the meaning of a property tag at its own wiki > page, so tools like Taginfo can make use of the description, but a tag used > only a handful of times does not need to be added to major feature pages >

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 20:00:32 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 19:43, s8evq wrote: > > > [1] [make it more clear that the walking route has to be signed in order > > to map it. As it is stated now, you could read it that a named hiking route > > is

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

> Nit picking.. No worries. First I wanted to wait with editing the actual content of the tagging scheme. But now that we're on the topic, we could just as well fine-tune it. > name:xy is not the local name but the name in some language, usually not the > local language > loc_name is for the

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

+0100, Paul Allen wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 10:56, s8evq wrote: > > > > > 1) Remove the wording "(optional)" in front of the explanation of some > > keys. What's the function of adding (optional) in front of tags that are in > > the Usef

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

, so that this can > be used there too, and in a part with hiking/walking specific tags (e.g. > network, educational). > > On 13.08.2019 12:31, Paul Allen: > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 09:52, s8evq > <mailto:s8...@runbox.com>> wrote: > > > > Would

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

der specific > attributes of the relation(s) and the ways it uses, to determine how to > render/categorize/filter the routes. > > Fr gr Peter Elderson > > > Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 21:38 schreef s8evq : > > > True, that's something that could be added to the tagging

[Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

Hello everyone, On the discussion page of the wiki entry Hiking (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Hiking#Synchronize_wiki_page_Hiking.2C_Walking_Routes.2C_route.3Dhiking_and_route.3Dfoot_on_tagging_scheme.) I have started a topic, but with little response so far. That's why I come

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 01:00:47 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote: > The osm route IS the route, and it should be usable as is, without redoing > the routing. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but couldn't you do that in OsmAnd? Take the GPX from a hiking route and import in Osmand. Set your

Re: [Tagging] Roles of route members (was: Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, ...)

I would like to briefly add my opinion on the sorting of relations question: To be clear: my experience is mostly with short roundtrip hiking/walking relations in Flanders (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Local_Walking_Routes_Flanders#Local_Walking_Routes_in_Flanders).

Re: [Tagging] Transclusion (was: Merging Tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes)

Thanks for the help. It wasn't clear to me before. I now moved the page to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Tagging_scheme_for_hiking_and_foot_route_relations. On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:45:04 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 12:17, s8evq wrote: > > >

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 14:34:20 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > > A map with copyright permitting OSM to make use of its data. There are > several walks near > me which appear on maps published by the county council or tourist board. > Copyright does > not permit me to make use of those maps.

[Tagging] Transclusion (was: Merging Tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes)

On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:31:05 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > One way of handling this is a link. Another way of doing it offered by the > wiki is transclusion. > See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Transclusion and >

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

and Walking routes) On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 11:48:23 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 08:50, s8evq wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 14:34:20 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > > > A map with copyright permitting OSM to make use o

Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:52:47 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote: > We are currently discussing in the three communities how to coreect this > exception and return rcn and rwn to their intended use. Where does this discussion you're talking about take place?

Re: [Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

is perhaps the layout of Tag:route=hiking and Tag:route=foot. Probably because of the transclusion, the table only start under the ValueDescription template. This results in quite some white space on the page. On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 20:18:29 +0200 (CEST), "s8evq" wrote: > No further comme

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

Why don't you continue to use network=* ? Invent a new value for network= instead of introducing a new, but confusing tag called "network_type". I understand that using network_type would be easier. You just add the tag to the already tagged node networks that are currently using network=rwn.

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:56:49 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote: > Tagging of regular cycle route relations is route=lcn for local routes, rcn > for regional routes, ncn for national routes, icn for international routes. You probably mean network=lcn instead of route=lcn > I hope this clears things

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:56:49 +0200, Peter Elderson wrote: > Op zo 1 sep. 2019 om 12:35 schreef Andy Townsend : > > > On 29/08/2019 15:52, Peter Elderson wrote: > > > LS > > > With the arrival of cycling node networks, the Dutch, German and > > > Belgian mappers decided to claim (hijack) the

Re: [Tagging] Walking & Cycling Node Network tagging: undoing the hijacking of rcn and rwn

I see that network:type=node_network has been added to the wiki: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:network%3Drwn=next=1897551 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:route%3Dbicycle=next=1866174 Was there consensus on this in the end? I didn't follow the whole

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

On Sun Nov 10 21:09:26 UTC 2019 Volker Schmidt wrote: > In most EEU counties I believe pedelecs are treated like bicycles and > S-pedelecs as mofas or light motorcycles. So for these two vehicles we do > not need new access tags. They are covered by existing tags. I don't think this is always

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

t; On 22. Nov 2019, at 19:18, s8evq wrote: > > > > So in Belgium, I think we do need a specific access tag for speed pedelecs. > > People have been using moped_p=* for a while now, but this never went > > through the proposal process. > > > are there specific tra

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

, speedpedelecs, mofa and mopeds can enter both ways, we have to tag it with this: oneway=yes oneway:bicycle=no oneway:moped=no oneway:mofa=no oneway:speedpedelec=no On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 12:09:13 +0100, Jan Michel wrote: > Thanks for the details in the Belgian law! > > On 22.11.19 19:17, s8

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 22:29:51 +, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > If I'd have to state a rule what makes processing easier then it would be: > avoid subrelations unless the relation is so large that it is a pain to > handle in the editor. Sarah, just to be clear: with 'subrelations', do you mean

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 10:30:37 +1100, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd suggest making it clear that that table is currently for way > > members only - it doesn't mention node members (start, end, marker, > > etc.).  This may be deliberate, or you just haven't expanded it yet, > > but

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 01:09:37 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > oneway is generally not considered to apply to pedestrians. > I agree with what Kevin has written, there should be a way to distinguish > several cases of forward / backward, those where you can walk in both > directions but only

Re: [Tagging] How to correctly name a forest

:35, s8evq a écrit : > > 1) Add a node approximately in the middle of the forest with the name tag > > together with place=locality > > 3) Draw a new way around the outline of the forest and put the name tag on > > that. The problem with this approach is that you need

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

en put all the relations into a superroute or still into new > routes? > > Michael > > Am Fr., 6. Dez. 2019 um 11:51 Uhr schrieb s8evq : > > > Interesting proposal. > > > > I think it would be useful to also add to the proposal how we structure > > these hiking re

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Interesting proposal. I think it would be useful to also add to the proposal how we structure these hiking relations. For example: 1) Do you put the individual ways of an alternative into the main relation, with each member way of this alternative route assigned role 'alternative'. (for

[Tagging] How to correctly name a forest

Hello everyone, I question I have been wondering about for a while: How do you correctly apply the name tag to a forest? I have seen and heard about some different approaches: 1) Add a node approximately in the middle of the forest with the name tag together with place=locality 2) Sometime

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Hello everyone, What is the status of this proposal? Should we go forward and start voting? Lots of people have added valuable information and insight. It would be a pity if this proposal yet again stays in "Draft" status for forever. On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 10:15:31 +, Michael Behrens wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Rare route values route=inline_skates and route=running

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 14:21:50 +0900, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Similar questions about route=running - are there real, signed running > routes which are separate from walking or hiking routes? Yes, in Belgium, there are quite a lot of these (over 100

Re: [Tagging] RFC - role values for members of recreational route relations.

I think this is a decent proposal. Thanks Peter for putting it online. The only thing I would like to point out is about "alternative" or "(alternate is also accepted)". Perhaps when can decide on one of the two. As it's all new and almost no roles are currently in use, it's better to make a

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

I think you're exaggerating here. Just press 'delete' on you mail client if the discussion doesn't interest you and that's it. On Mon, 4 May 2020 06:13:42 -0700 (MST), Richard Fairhurst wrote: > As someone with admin access over this mailing list, I request that you do > not keep bringing

[Tagging] Implied default access tags for barrier=stile?

Hello everyone, Are any default access tags implied with barrier=stile? Similar to barrier=bollard (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dbollard mentions "By default access=no, foot=yes, and bicycle=yes is implied") If it's on highway=footway, is foot=yes still needed on the

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

+1 I find you wrote down very sound and logical arguments. Splitting phone into "a way of contacting a business" and "a telephone number of a phonebooth" sounds logic. Counterargument is that you can figure this out by the fact that phone=* + shop=* means it's a business number.

Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme

Hi Paul, On Mon, 11 May 2020 02:10:12 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > I find the whole contact: namespace to be ill-conceived. But fine, if > you want it then use it. Just please stop suggesting that we > deprecate website=* and phone=*. What's you counter argument to the people suggesting that

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

On Fri, 8 May 2020 08:43:27 -0400, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 02:27, s8evq wrote: > > > > Of the 8 opposing votes, only 1 has made the effort to comment beforehand > > on the talk page. The 7 others just came in and voted no, without any >

Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved

Of the 8 opposing votes, only 1 has made the effort to comment beforehand on the talk page. The 7 others just came in and voted no, without any discussion beforehand. That doesn't seem correct. It should not be possible to be suddenly faced with this fait accompli. On Thu, 7 May 2020 11:49:43

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Fri, 15 May 2020 14:11:44 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 13:50, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > The relation can have ref, network (this is important), > > > > Are those important in all instances or just the examples you gave? The > footpaths and bridleways I deal with have

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Fri, 15 May 2020 01:53:37 +0200 (CEST), Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > Not sure is it the best place (someone again decided to go crazy with > templates), but > I made >

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Fri, 15 May 2020 11:28:42 +0200 (CEST), Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > BTW, I remember proposal about named roles and > that some people stuff signposts into route relations. I also never added signposts in route relations before. The original proposal on roles in hiking relations

[Tagging] Shelter for bats in an old building

Hi everyone, How would you tag a small building that used to be an electricity building where the army put power generators for the (backup) power of an airfield. This is not used anymore by the army. They transformed these little house to provide ideal conditions for bats to live in. (close

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Section numbers in hiking routes

First example: Superrelation GR5 (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4580796) consists of the following 8 relation members: GR 5 Netherlands (9176775) GR 5 Belgium, Flanders (3121667) GR 5 Belgium, Wallonia (3121668) GR 5 Luxembourg (2790499) GR 5 Lorraine (2029679) GR 5 Vosges (1956165)

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Here's another historic object no longer visible: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/297086978 I have to be honest, I didn't check the whole traject for possible visible remains. But in the fields east and west of approximately this point

[Tagging] Animal trails

Hello everyone, With the Belgian community, we have been in contact with Natuurpunt, our main national nature conservation organization. They are slowing using more and more OSM and recently came to us with the following remark. "Some mappers have added paths that are not actually real paths