Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

> On Apr 15, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The easy definition is: A place where you you officially enter or exit a >> wilderness area on a maintained trail or track *and* there is some kind of >> allowance for switching modes of transportation. >> >> > Many 'tra

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

On 2015-04-15 07:40, Dave Swarthout wrote: > Rethinking it again, no router will send you the wrong way on a oneway > street. It would be a pretty poor routing program that would do that. ...except for emergency vehicles possibly? They can ignore legal restrictions (like oneway) but not phys

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

Rethinking it again, no router will send you the wrong way on a oneway street. It would be a pretty poor routing program that would do that. Maybe the whole issue I've raised is a tempest in a teacup. It was my reaction to such a mean-spirited traffic control that made me ask myself how I would ta

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

Alternatively you could use brand=moneygram;western_union;orlandi_valuta On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:28 AM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 05:18 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > As an amenity it is no problem that it is combined with other services > > (like amenity=toilets), althoug

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 05:18 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > As an amenity it is no problem that it is combined with other services > (like amenity=toilets), although here (again) I feel shop would be > better than amenity. I would recommend to use operator=moneygram > rather than money_transfer:mone

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

As an amenity it is no problem that it is combined with other services (like amenity=toilets), although here (again) I feel shop would be better than amenity. I would recommend to use operator=moneygram rather than money_transfer:moneygram=yes to be consistent with other businesses like gas station

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

I think this does it: *barrier=spikes* *oneway=yes* *access=yes* As a node on the one way street way. No router will route around it. A smart router can notice the spikes. The oneway on the node is redundant for emphasis, as that's also implied by the way. _

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

On 15/04/2015 12:13 PM, johnw wrote: On Apr 15, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Bryce Nesbitt > wrote: But there are cases where the trail-head has a given and well known NAME. So far I generally tag that on the parking area, but parking is not necessarily a requirement for hav

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I don't think they are all that common Bryce but I have seen them. And > that is a controlled situation. This is a normal street! It would be good > to be able to alert drivers about something like this when using a GPS for > guidance but

Re: [Tagging] Defacto: man_made=storage_tank

On the other hand, there are thousands of man_made=storage_tank without a building tag. A rendering engine could make the "building" implicit. Or a mechanical retag could add the building tag. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://li

Re: [Tagging] Defacto: man_made=storage_tank

On Apr 15, 2015, at 1:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Technically, buildings are a subset of man made structures, built for humans > occupancy, btw also under German law (de: Gebäude vs bauliche Anlagen). we have building=farm_auxiliary, shed, and roof, so I think it is broader than the g

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

> On Apr 15, 2015, at 11:17 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > On paper maps major trailheads tend to be marked as such. The average > parking lot near a trail may not be. Just because it is unnamed (on the map you happen to be looking at) doesn’t mean it isn’t a trailhead. The maps I was lookin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

That sounds like switching modes of transportation to wilderness hiking to me! Javbw > On Apr 15, 2015, at 11:17 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > A railway station with no parking leading to a trail can be a trailhead. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@o

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 7:13 PM, johnw wrote: > > On Apr 15, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > But there are cases where the trail-head has a given and well known NAME. > So far I generally tag that on the parking area, but parking is not > necessarily a requirement for having a trailhe

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

> On Apr 15, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > But there are cases where the trail-head has a given and well known NAME. > So far I generally tag that on the parking area, but parking is not > necessarily a requirement for having a trailhead. The easy definition is: A place where you

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > The problem is that (for example) in the US, it's a very poor fit as > there aren't businesses dedicated to just money transfer. Sometimes they > will be combined with check cashing places (which I think is tagged with > something else und

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

On 15/04/2015 10:09 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On Tue, 2015-04-14 at 23:37 +, Severin Menard wrote: Hi, In Africa, Which country in Africa specifically? It's a huge continent with many different countries. Example country given later .. keep reading. a frequent amenity in cities and

Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities

On Tue, 2015-04-14 at 23:37 +, Severin Menard wrote: > Hi, > > > In Africa, Which country in Africa specifically? It's a huge continent with many different countries. > a frequent amenity in icties and towns focus on money transfer. It can > be banks abut also specific amenities (called "m

[Tagging] Money transfer amenities

Hi, In Africa, a frequent amenity in icties and towns focus on money transfer. It can be banks abut also specific amenities (called "multi-services" in Senegal). THe number of money transfer services is often high, as you see on this picture

Re: [Tagging] Paintball

Am 12.04.2015 um 18:01 schrieb Andreas Goss: > Since most people here seem to agree on this and we also have > sport=archery I created a wiki page: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dpaintball > > Question is if we should to some retagging with shooting=paintball. Yes, but with c

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

Am 14.04.2015 um 23:35 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:40 PM, fly wrote: >> >> Why not map the amenity/features as own objects ? >> >> If it is important for the route relations I rather have a new role >> similar to guidepost for the starting/end node. > > I agree the toilet/

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:40 PM, fly wrote: > > Why not map the amenity/features as own objects ? > > If it is important for the route relations I rather have a new role > similar to guidepost for the starting/end node. > > cu fly I agree the toilet/parking/information sign should all be tagged

Re: [Tagging] Paintball

On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Andreas Goss wrote: > Since most people here seem to agree on this and we also have > sport=archery I created a wiki page: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dpaintball > Question is if we should to some retagging with shooting=paintball. Yes, I thi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

role=start is used for crosscountry ski routes relations. Yves On 14 avril 2015 21:40:39 UTC+02:00, fly wrote: >Am 14.04.2015 um 21:32 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt: >> +1 >> I've long wanted a tag for trailheads, >> and they are commonly mapped on paper maps. >> >> However that said I've found the def

Re: [Tagging] Paintball

On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Andreas Goss wrote: > Since most people here seem to agree on this and we also have > sport=archery I created a wiki page: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dpaintball > > Question is if we should to some retagging with shooting=paintball. Yes, I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

Am 14.04.2015 um 21:32 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt: > +1 > I've long wanted a tag for trailheads, > and they are commonly mapped on paper maps. > > However that said I've found the definition of trailhead to be slippery. +1 > Is every road/trail/parking lot junction automaticaly trailhead? > Or are we

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead

+1 I've long wanted a tag for trailheads, and they are commonly mapped on paper maps. However that said I've found the definition of trailhead to be slippery. Is every road/trail/parking lot junction automaticaly trailhead? Or are we only talking about named trailheads? ___

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features/camp type=*

The voting was officially closed by today, but I'll leave it open for another week. So far 13 people have voted. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > I agree that we should not use the star sy

Re: [Tagging] Defacto: man_made=storage_tank

> Am 14.04.2015 um 13:05 schrieb fly : > > and not every storage_tank might be a building. well, this is another question. Strictly, most of them are not buildings, they are almost all structures, but OSM seems not to use this technical distinction. Technically, buildings are a subset of m

Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

Am 14.04.2015 um 09:08 schrieb Volker Schmidt: >> How would you tag: >> > > Here are my reformulated answers. > Note that the answers do not apply to all countries, and most certainly not > to the US, where to my knowledge there are no distinctions between bicycle > and pedestrian use of sidewalks

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

On 14/04/2015, Christoph Hormann wrote: > It is the other way round - the riverbank polygon is optional and 'nice > to have'. The waterway line is what actually defines a river in OSM, > it also gets the name tag and other attributes. Yes, this is the same principle that gives us highway=* vs ar

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

uto, 14. tra 2015. 14:34 Dave Swarthout je napisao: All interesting arguments but if a highway has a barrier, won't all access be treated as blocked (access=no) by _most_ routing software? I agree, maybe something like barrier:oneway=spikes would be a better concept. Janko __

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

All interesting arguments but if a highway has a barrier, won't all access be treated as blocked (access=no) by _most_ routing software? I realize one can accommodate almost anything with appropriate styles and rules but how can one know in advance? I guess what I'm saying is, there is a risk that

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

> On Apr 14, 2015, at 8:04 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I'd tend to think this would be an enforcement device and a barrier. Though, > shark teeth would be something different, tagged with highway=give_way where > the centerline of the way crosses the pavement marking. Wouldn’t the enforceme

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

Am 14.04.2015 um 12:52 schrieb Christoph Hormann: > On Monday 13 April 2015, Torstein Ingebrigtsen Bø wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm currently importing topological data of Norway to OSM. From the >> data set we have riverbanks; however, we do not have the deepest >> middle way as required by the wiki [1]

Re: [Tagging] Defacto: man_made=storage_tank

Am 14.04.2015 um 11:34 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > 2015-04-14 7:20 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > >> I think that building=storage_tank would be even better. > > > > you can use both. Building is about a building typology, while man_made is > about a function. +1 and not every storage_tan

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

I'd tend to think this would be an enforcement device and a barrier. Though, shark teeth would be something different, tagged with highway=give_way where the centerline of the way crosses the pavement marking. On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Dave F. wrote: > I've tagged these a spikes, althoug

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

Am 14.04.2015 um 11:45 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > 2015-04-14 11:35 GMT+02:00 Dave F. : > >> IMO oneway on the node is inconclusive as a node has no direction & it >> should already be on the way. >> > > > +1, but the spikes are oneway spikes, so I think we should have this > distinction at t

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

On Monday 13 April 2015, Torstein Ingebrigtsen Bø wrote: > Hi, > > I'm currently importing topological data of Norway to OSM. From the > data set we have riverbanks; however, we do not have the deepest > middle way as required by the wiki [1]. This middle line is therefore > drawn manually. This is

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

2015-04-14 12:04 GMT+02:00 Dave F. : > Those are stingers used to catch nefarious car jacking criminals or > operate temporary road blocks in down town Baghdad. Are there examples of > permanent ones? yes, they are typically removable and somehow temporary, but if they are there for a longer ti

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

Those are stingers used to catch nefarious car jacking criminals or operate temporary road blocks in down town Baghdad. Are there examples of permanent ones? I'd have thought a more obvious barrier, such as a fence would be built if it were to be long term. The 'one-way' spikes are often used

Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

Am 14.04.2015 um 07:28 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: On Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:08:31 +0200 Volker Schmidt wrote: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Separated_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg I would add also surface (and maybe smoothness) as this one seems to be quite bad. 3) How would y

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

On Tue Apr 14 07:16:54 2015 GMT+0100, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Dave Swarthout > wrote: > > > Take a look at this nasty device that prevents traveling the wrong way on > > a oneway street. I've seen several of these here in Istanbul. Some have > > signs to alert mo

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

Now I see you said that the direction is not necesarry. I can't agree with this, it's a pretty important fact. Anyway, I don't see a problem with you just importing incomplete data and waiting for someone else down the line to complete the ways inside areas. Janko. uto, 14. tra 2015. 11:48 Janko

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

How do you know the direction of water flow if you don't have the way? Janko uto, 14. tra 2015. 11:45 Torstein Ingebrigtsen Bø je napisao: > Hi, > > I'm currently importing topological data of Norway to OSM. From the data > set we have riverbanks; however, we do not have the deepest middle way

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

2015-04-14 11:35 GMT+02:00 Dave F. : > IMO oneway on the node is inconclusive as a node has no direction & it > should already be on the way. > +1, but the spikes are oneway spikes, so I think we should have this distinction at the top level (i.e. barrier-key). It is fundamental that you can cro

[Tagging] Way inside riverbank

Hi, I'm currently importing topological data of Norway to OSM. From the data set we have riverbanks; however, we do not have the deepest middle way as required by the wiki [1]. This middle line is therefore drawn manually. This is a time consuming (and dull) job. For one municipal it takes around

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

I've tagged these a spikes, although I think I saw some described as 'shark teeth'. IMO oneway on the node is inconclusive as a node has no direction & it should already be on the way. Dave F. On 14/04/2015 09:16, Dave Swarthout wrote: I had not seen the barrier=spikes tagging before. That m

Re: [Tagging] Defacto: man_made=storage_tank

2015-04-14 7:20 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > I think that building=storage_tank would be even better. you can use both. Building is about a building typology, while man_made is about a function. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org ht

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

2015-04-14 10:16 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout : > That might be the best one to use even though barrier=one_way_spikes > describes the situation better. +1, that's why I wrote "some kind of" ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreet

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

I wonder if we want to limit it to spikes only. What about these things: http://www.siapress.ru/images/news/main/24438.jpg http://park-ur.ru.images.1c-bitrix-cdn.ru/upload/medialibrary/bee/beebb476f5dc4c2cccedd1ab6f41.jpg?142435251415224 My proposal would be to add "oneway" to the existing b

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

I had not seen the barrier=spikes tagging before. That might be the best one to use even though barrier=one_way_spikes describes the situation better. And the Enforcement Relation is also new to me. It might apply here but I'm not interested in modifying the current page to include it. By the way,

Re: [Tagging] Highway barrier

> Am 14.04.2015 um 07:45 schrieb Dave Swarthout : > > > It is surely a barrier of some sort yet it does allow traffic to flow > unimpeded in one direction. +1, is some kind of spike barrier. Maybe literally it is also a kind of enforcement but the current OSM definition limits its use to

Re: [Tagging] Defacto: man_made=storage_tank

Sorry, I thought about using man_made=storage tank and in addition building=storage_tank (rather than mentioned building=yes). On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 22:43:18 -0700 Clifford Snow wrote: > That ship has sailed. man_made=storage_tank is the standard. Maybe > early on it should have been man_made=buil

Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

> How would you tag: > Here are my reformulated answers. Note that the answers do not apply to all countries, and most certainly not to the US, where to my knowledge there are no distinctions between bicycle and pedestrian use of sidewalks and cycleways. More specifically, I believe my replies are