I did that, but somebody reversed it without telling me. I now put it in
the tourism section.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:14 PM Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com
wrote:
You have to edit the Map Features template.
Michał
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Jan van Bekkum
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 8:10 AM, Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de wrote:
That's not what I wanted to say. A cycleway is mandatory if has one of the
signs 237, 240 or 241 AND it is parallel to a road. A sign by itself
doesn't make a cycleway mandatory.
There's no such thing as a mandatory cycleway, not
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
It means that you create new tags for objects for which approved tags
already exist, such as amenity=shower and leisure=swimming pool, this is
not a good practice.
1) There's no such thing as *approved*.
2) The
On 28/03/2015 11:47 PM, Hubert wrote:
I’m not sure if I understand your question. So please tell me whether I did.
A parallel cycleway to a road with bicycle=no could be very close, even
separated by a curb only. If cyclist are prohibited from those driving lanes in
general, that cycleway
On 29/03/2015 11:21 AM, Thomas Gertin wrote:
Can I get some advice on marking features as probable? Nothing pops up for me
when I type ‘probable' on the OSM wiki.
What do you mean probable ?
If something is on the ground then it is there .. not probably there.
If you think something might
By and large OSM maps things that are physically present.
Once probable becomes under construction, there are tags for that:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dconstruction
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
What if I know the camp site has a showers, a swimming pool and a dump
station, but I don't know where on the site they are?
Thus:
*tourism=camp_site*
*showers=yes*
*swimming_pool=yes*
*dump_station=yes*
It means that you create new tags for objects for which approved tags
already
I'm not shy for a discussion about cycleways in general, but that’s not my goal
here. Please mail me directly if you like.
As for designated and official, that’s kind of the problem I have with the
actual use of those keys.
designated was introduced to refine the highway=path (if I read
Can I get some advice on marking features as probable? Nothing pops up for me
when I type ‘probable' on the OSM wiki.
Thanks,
Tom
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Am 28.03.2015 um 16:10 schrieb Hubert:
That's not what I wanted to say. A cycleway is mandatory if has one of the
signs 237, 240 or 241 AND it is parallel to a road. A sign by itself doesn't
make a cycleway mandatory.
You have something confused there. Germany has two (forgetting about
Have you noticed how few people participate in votes and tagging
discussions?
The wiki vote process relates to the wiki.
OSM has an open tagging system, and many users never read or interact with
the wiki.
Success of a wiki vote may or may not lead to a change in mapping behaviour.
On Sat, Mar
The dump station tagging proposal has been cleaned up and migrated:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dsanitary_dump_station
A related mechanical edit has been completed.
Other than some canal pumpouts in the UK, the world now is using just one
tag for this feature.
--
I encourage
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 12:26 +0100, Marc Gemis wrote:
If I am on a large campsite I want to use the map to find my way to
all amenities. If you have put everything on 1 node it's a pretty
useless map, not ?
Agree in principle Marc but don't think its always practical. I have
been to many camp
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com
wrote:
Just a note about using semicolon-delimited lists. Most renderers do not
handle such lists very well so a tag like the following:
amenity=bar;restaurant;picnic_table;sanitary_dump_station
Most rendering will show
You have to edit the Map Features template.
Michał
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't find how I get this in Map_Features. Can anybody help?
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:04 PM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
The voting period
Just a note about using semicolon-delimited lists. Most renderers do not
handle such lists very well so a tag like the following:
amenity=bar;restaurant;picnic_table;sanitary_dump_station
might not show you all of the amenities. There have been many discussions
about this issue on this list and
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
I might use OSM to identify camping sites nearby, but would never stop
there.
The next step is a web search. Thus the website= link is the most
important
tag, after camp_site.
+1, if you want to go to a campsite in
Am 28.03.2015 um 07:17 schrieb Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com:
g that clearly isn't the real shape ( a small square or a circle) and put all
nodes within it.
a square clearly reduces impact on the db, as 4 nodes are sufficient, from that
point of view, a triangle is even
Am 28.03.2015 um 15:31 schrieb Hubert:
For example a lot of cross country cycleways (like this one
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Altmarkrundkurs.jpg )
can't possibly be mandatory, since there is no road next to it. But they are
designated and official.
There is no such thing as
Conclusion for my own mapping efforts from the discussion so far: start
with stacked amenities until you know something about the campsite
topology, then make nodes/polygons per amenity.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:58 PM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Am 28.03.2015 um
Am 28.03.2015 um 13:24 schrieb Simon Poole:
I have to say that this adds yet another value to the bicycle tag that
doesn't solve any problems (note: if at all it naturally should be
mandatory however that is not my primary concern).
+1
We have bicycle=designated and bicycle=official for
I believe this is the issue here.
For me bicycle=designated and bicycle=official don't say that a cycleway is
mandatory. It only says that this way is meant for cyclist or is built for
cyclist only. And while bicycle=official is mostly used for mandatory cycleways
there are also cases where it
Am 28.03.2015 um 14:23 schrieb Hubert:
I believe this is the issue here.
For me bicycle=designated and bicycle=official don't say that a cycleway is
mandatory. It only says that this way is meant for cyclist
or is built for cyclist only. And while bicycle=official is mostly used for
For example a lot of cross country cycleways (like this one
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Altmarkrundkurs.jpg )
can't possibly be mandatory, since there is no road next to it. But they are
designated and official.
-Original Message-
From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
Am 27.03.2015 um 17:21 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com:
Site relations are clearly the best solution when micro-mapping.
site relations are only adding value when you want to connect objects that are
not already spatially connected, or when you want to use fancy roles (eg
Am 2015-03-28 um 00:54 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
Adding new value to a bicycle tag is a terrible idea. There is a widespread
support for bicycle=designated
and retagging cycleways to bicycle=obligatory would result in a breaking
data.
Note also existence of bicycle=use_sidepath that is
1) Well, sometimes it's the best way
2) I'll look it up. Cyclelanes: Same in Germany.
3) Valid point. For now I would say, one should look for bicycle=use_sidepath
on the road. Also, if that cycleway is truly mandatory, it means one has to use
it, so both roads off limits, so to speak. But I
Am 28.03.2015 um 12:26 schrieb Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com:
If I am on a large campsite I want to use the map to find my way to all
amenities. If you have put everything on 1 node it's a pretty useless map,
not ?
+1, IMHO the ideal mapping should be an area for the camp site, and
I have to say that this adds yet another value to the bicycle tag that
doesn't solve any problems (note: if at all it naturally should be
mandatory however that is not my primary concern).
We have bicycle=designated and bicycle=official for mandatory use
cycleways (where the concept of such
I’m not sure if I understand your question. So please tell me whether I did.
A parallel cycleway to a road with bicycle=no could be very close, even
separated by a curb only. If cyclist are prohibited from those driving lanes in
general, that cycleway should not be considered
There will always be cases where a new tag is breaking data. Just consider
those :right/:left/:forward/:backward tag.
The support of bicycle=designated is great, but in many cases it's IMO wrong.
While highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated (22198 uses in DE) just seems
unnecessary, since
Hi Dave, I agree with that. I am thinking about camp_type=*. Also usable
for scout camps?
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:11 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 07:09 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
1. Get a high level of classification of campsites based on
BTW
the apparently equivalent sign in Italy (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Italy?uselang=it#/media/File:Italian_traffic_signs_-_percorso_pedonale_e_ciclabile.svg)
is a footway (marciapiede) on which bicycles are allowed. Bicycles have
to give precedence to pedestrians and they
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 3:09 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 07:09 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
1. Get a high level of classification of campsites based on the
relation between the land owner and the camper
2. Get a classification of
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 2:27 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
Bryce
This is not the right example. All tags in your example are attributes
that belong to the camp_site, no need for extra nodes; you are fully
correct there.
What I am talking about is multiple namespace tags
Some participants in this discussion feel we are making little progress.
The cause is that contributors have two different agenda's:
1. Get a high level of classification of campsites based on the relation
between the land owner and the camper
2. Get a classification of regular campsites
On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 07:09 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
1. Get a high level of classification of campsites based on the
relation between the land owner and the camper
2. Get a classification of regular campsites based on available
facilities.
Agreed Jan. Different
David Bannon, a great approach to rendering information on the
OpenStreetMap which should be adopted for deciding all symbols... HOW DOES
AN END USER USE THE DATA.
If the overall area rendering for a campsite remains the same and a node
symbol within the campsite is rendered in the colour
What do I see on the map when I use the stacked amenity model? A campsite
symbol with a restaurant below it or a restaurant symbol with a campsite
below it? A search in OsmAnd will give me the campsite in all cases, but it
cannot always show all tags below it, so I don't know all amenities by
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com
wrote:
What do I see on the map when I use the stacked amenity model?
Tagging for today's rendering is hazardous.
The stacked amenity model is quite common. Nothing seems broken about it
at all.
For example:
Bryce,
This is not the right example. All tags in your example are attributes that
belong to the camp_site, no need for extra nodes; you are fully correct
there.
What I am talking about is multiple namespace tags in a single node:
tourism=camp_site
amenity=restaurant;shower;bar;swimming_pool
1) Please no new tag that breaks existing tagging.
2) Please can you give me the missing link in your proposal (But it
remains disputed (*Insert Link*) whether that obligatory cycleway has to be
mapped as a separate way ...). I am interested in that for a different
purpose which regards the
42 matches
Mail list logo
