Re: [Tagging] barrier=net ?

2015-01-13 6:09 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson : > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 9:55 PM, John Willis wrote: > >> What's the difference between an alley and a motorway besides width? > > > How it drains, how thick the hard surface is, lane width, paved shoulders, > buildings not adjacent to the roadway with doo

Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?

2015-01-12 21:59 GMT+01:00 althio althio : > I think they are definitively for worshiping and prayers. > amenity=place_of_worship is pretty clear for me. > also this one: http://gloria.tv/?media=600653&language=o9CtE7uatTg looks like a wayside shrine, but the title says place of worship... che

Re: [Tagging] kind of a shop=ticket

I created a feature proposal on this topic https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ticket_type I'm happy to get your feedback Karsten On 12.01.2015 10:48, althio althio wrote: > This is very related to > > amenity=vending_machine (taginfo = 54 000) > with its associated key

Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > religion=multi looks OK to me, the similarity to sport makes it easier > to remember than religion=all (and it is very likely more accurate, as "all" > is too inclusive I guess). Some airports REALLY wants to be that inclusive. > "a prayer room for all faiths and deno

[Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...

Hi, Some places in the wiki mention cycleway:lanes:* tags, and those are indeed used in a few places (31 uses currently). It seems to me these tags are obsolete and have been replaced by bicycle:lanes:*, is that correct? Should I probably mass-replace them? -- Cheers, Andrew _

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting I voted earlier today 'no' to this proposal in its current state and provided my arguments. But now I'm asked to forward them on this mailing list (perhaps to see i

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...

When writing the :lanes-proposal I used those tags in an example. But in my opinion bicycle:lanes=...|designated|... fits better. "mass-replace" is a word that might cause some adverse reactions on this mailing list ;-) Have fun, Martin 2015-01-13 13:28 GMT+01:00 Andrew Shadura : > Hi, > > Som

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...

I would not. IMO bicycle:lanes is an access Tag while cycleway:lanes defines es the type. So one could have cycleway:lanes:forward=none | lane and bicycle:lanes:forwad= yes | designated , for example. Am 13. Januar 2015 13:28:22 MEZ, schrieb Andrew Shadura : >Hi, > >Some places in the wiki menti

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...

2015-01-13 13:38 GMT+01:00 Hubert : > I would not. IMO bicycle:lanes is an access Tag while cycleway:lanes > defines es the type. So one could have cycleway:lanes:forward=none | lane > and bicycle:lanes:forwad= yes | designated , for example. > That's correct. AFAIK it is common understanding, th

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...

+1 to all. Except "none" in this case was meant to be the default value from the :lanes proposal. Am 13. Januar 2015 13:45:24 MEZ, schrieb Martin Vonwald : >2015-01-13 13:38 GMT+01:00 Hubert : > >> I would not. IMO bicycle:lanes is an access Tag while cycleway:lanes >> defines es the type. So one

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...

2015-01-13 13:52 GMT+01:00 Hubert : > +1 to all. Except "none" in this case was meant to be the default value > from the :lanes proposal. > The "default value" is always an empty value, e.g. minspeed=|80|50. The value "none" might be defined by the main key, e.g. maxspeed=none. If the main key do

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...

Well then: +1 to all. No exceptions. Am 13. Januar 2015 14:01:16 MEZ, schrieb Martin Vonwald : >2015-01-13 13:52 GMT+01:00 Hubert : > >> +1 to all. Except "none" in this case was meant to be the default >value >> from the :lanes proposal. >> > >The "default value" is always an empty value, e.g. mi

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Hi François, > I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement. Have you also voted at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting ? > In my opinion, and I'm sorry for rough words, it's a bit useless because of lack of consistency with many other tags. I full

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

2015-01-13 16:17 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan : > > > I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement. > > Have you also voted at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting > ? > Yes, as Fanfouer > > I fully agree regarding the (in)consistency and would be

Re: [Tagging] barrier=net ?

I mostly met them on tennis courts. For my common understanding, I would be able to break through a net with a sharp knife while I would struggle to do so with a fence. This would still fit with material=* but isn't there a difference in construction between fence and net where the first is free s

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Am 13.01.2015 um 17:17 schrieb François Lacombe: > > 2015-01-13 16:17 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan >: > > > > I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement. > > Have you also voted at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/wat

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

On 14/01/2015 12:01 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Message: 2 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:35:39 +0100 From: Pieren To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 O

Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?

2015-01-13 11:44 GMT+01:00 althio althio : > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > religion=multi looks OK to me, the similarity to sport makes it easier > > to remember than religion=all (and it is very likely more accurate, as > "all" > > is too inclusive I guess). > > Some airports REALLY wants to be

[Tagging] Basic philosophy of OSM tagging

This comes from the tap discussion but has implications elsewhere. What is the basic philosophy of OSM tagging at the top level? Are 'we' tagging for What things are? eg highways OR What things are used for? eg amenity Explanation? By example; Highways are used

Re: [Tagging] barrier=net ?

On 07/01/2015 9:29 pm, "althio althio" wrote: > Andrew your case is more specialized so I feel barrier=net is lacking. > How about > barrier=fence > fence_type=shark_net Sounds good with me. I'll re-tag the ones I've tagged. ___ Tagging mailing list Tag

Re: [Tagging] Basic philosophy of OSM tagging

On Wed, 2015-01-14 at 11:28 +1100, Warin wrote: > What is the basic philosophy of OSM tagging at the top level? > > Are 'we' tagging for > What things are? eg highways OR What things are used for? eg amenity I think its a very good question Warin. Perhaps, at the hart of much angst amongst OSM'er

Re: [Tagging] Basic philosophy of OSM tagging

Hi, On 01/14/2015 01:28 AM, Warin wrote: > What is the basic philosophy of OSM tagging at the top level? There is no basic philosophy at the top level from which everything else can be derived. It's like evolution - some things are a bit strange but you can often understand them by looking at how