[OSM-talk] Extend natural=shingle tag also for city stone areas.
As we map different physical landcovers by eg. landuse=grass, landuse=forest, natural=sand, natural=water etc. There is theoretically no tag for urban areas covered by little stones like on this photo: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Miejsce_po_pierwszym_pomniku_Adama_Mickiewicza_w_Poznaniu.jpg There is natural=scree tag, but is for mountain regions https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=scree I think that natural=shingle is the nearest one tag for this feature and its meaning can be extend to include also little stone areas in cities. Creating a new tag would rather make a more mess than clarifying the situation. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dshingle I would like to edit the wiki page for the tag above. Do you agree?___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Barrier=block areas
An use case for allow mapping barrier=block as asreas is a better visualisation of a landcoverage. Mapping aeral objects as a nodes makes the map a little bit lied. -- Wiadomość oryginalna -- Od: "Philip Barnes" Do: talk@openstreetmap.org; "David Fox" ; "Tomasz Wójcik" Data: 16.08.2018 10:05:11 Temat: Re: [OSM-talk] Barrier=block areas Hedges can certainly be areas, some can be a few metres thick. A common mapping scenario is a thick hedge and a stile at each side. The only way to represent this is to map as an area and map the stiles as nodes connected to the outline. Phil (trigpoint) On 16 August 2018 01:14:49 BST, David Fox wrote: Barriers, by definition, provide some level of restriction. Without attaching them in some form it becomes hard for routers to account for them. Hedges and walls are linear in nature, not an area. On 15 August 2018, at 19:51, Tomasz Wójcik wrote: Currently, barrier=block is not allowed to be mapped as an area. As blocks can be big enough to map them as areas, I think it should be allowed, the same as in barrier=wall or barrier=hedge. Anyway, currently we have 3,9k of barrier=block areas in database. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Abarrier%3Dblock Block examples: http://www.concrete-barriers-blocks.co.uk/up/concrete-barrier-type-m-block-photo.gif http://cdn1.codziennypoznan.pl/201606241325/pub/img/full/71/1c58d-a9.jpg Barriers with mapping as area allowed https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier=wall https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Abarrier%3Dhedge -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Barrier=block areas
Currently, barrier=block is not allowed to be mapped as an area. As blocks can be big enough to map them as areas, I think it should be allowed, the same as in barrier=wall or barrier=hedge. Anyway, currently we have 3,9k of barrier=block areas in database. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Abarrier%3Dblock Block examples: http://www.concrete-barriers-blocks.co.uk/up/concrete-barrier-type-m-block-photo.gif http://cdn1.codziennypoznan.pl/201606241325/pub/img/full/71/1c58d-a9.jpg Barriers with mapping as area allowed https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier=wall https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Abarrier%3Dhedge___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
So basing on your opinions, it looks like highway=* + area=yes isn't incorrect, it's just not documented. What do you guys think about adding a better documentation of combination with area=yes to some of highway=* Wiki pages? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
As highway=footway etc. tags are set to "should not be used on areas" on Wiki, and mapping them in combination with area=yes is not documented at all and considered as wrong tagging by part of users, there is a key "area:highway=*" (133k uses at the moment). Part of users still map footway areas as a combination anyway, propably because it's rendered by default style. Due to our rules, that we shouldn't have 2 active tagging schemes for the same feature, so we should discuss this topic. I vote for area:highway=* key, because it's simpler, and it gives a possibility to show also street areas with crossings in the future. * Wiki with specyfications of a:h=* for certain keys: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway * TagInfo: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/area:highway * area:highway=* visualisation: http://osmapa.pl/w/area ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] building=grandstand vs leisure=bleachers
Thank you all for response. Basing on most voices, the output is to left building=grandstand for tribunes with roof or walls and leisure=bleachers for open-air ones. I'll add proper information and examples on a OSM Wiki pages of both tags. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] building=grandstand vs leisure=bleachers
Currently, we (de facto) have 2 tags for the same feature, which is not a proper state. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building=grandstand https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=bleachers I think we should choose the correct one andadd warning moving mappers to the proper one on OSM Wiki. Building=grandstand is not perfect for me, beacuse building=* tag suggest that is some kind of typical building (with walls, roof, etc.) and most of the OSM styles render building=grandstand like every other buildings, where you can go inside, which may be confusing with grandstands areas. On the other hand we have leisure=bleachers , when the "bleachers" word is propably used only in USA. What do you think about it?___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
