Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 05-Jan-18 10:46 PM, marc marc wrote: Hello Warin, I find unfair and surprising your last wiki change while the discussion is still ongoing. 1) saying that historic: is one in the category "Repurpose" is amazing. let's take for example the example found of the wiki page of the first key you

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 11:46:51AM +, marc marc wrote: > Hello Warin, > > I find unfair and surprising your last wiki change while the discussion > is still ongoing. > > 1) saying that historic: is one in the category "Repurpose" is amazing. > let's take for example the example found of the

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 3. Jan 2018, at 23:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I have moved some disused:railway=* from OSM to OHM as railway=* with > start and end dates .. that records what was there then, not its

Re: [Tagging] cycleway:both=no in StreetComplete

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Matej Lieskovský wrote: > Someone in the Netherlands might want to assume cycleway=both as the > default. (The cycleway tag is just an example here.) > Maybe for older roads; newer roads would be cycleway=no with parallel cycleways on

Re: [Tagging] Subway vs light rail

> In terms of verifiability, would you map a metro system consisting of > a single line that runs above the ground with full grade separation as > a subway in OSM? That depends. Is it legally a subway/metro/u-bahn? Is it marketed as a metro/subway/underground? E.g.

Re: [Tagging] default value

1) If we can agree that this is needed, I believe it can be built. We would need to first agree on a notation (wiki is not machine readable), but the rest should be fine. Worst case scenario is having a system that takes a planet.osm file and "expands" it, resulting in a separate server with

Re: [Tagging] default value

Le 05. 01. 18 à 13:23, Matej Lieskovský a écrit : > Could we perhaps agree that we need a way to list assumed and implied > values on a smaller than global level? there are two problems: 1) a list of some local default exists (e. g. speed values according to the type of road per country). the

Re: [Tagging] cycleway:both=no in StreetComplete

Ok. Look. I wrote a long rant about how cycleway=no is a horrible idea and then I deleted it. I have no idea where you map, but here, >90% of roads never even heard about cycleways. For us here, it makes sense to consider cycleway=no to be implicit, as the information that someone surveyed it is

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

Hello Warin, I find unfair and surprising your last wiki change while the discussion is still ongoing. 1) saying that historic: is one in the category "Repurpose" is amazing. let's take for example the example found of the wiki page of the first key you put in this category

Re: [Tagging] Subway vs light rail

In terms of verifiability, would you map a metro system consisting of a single line that runs above the ground with full grade separation as a subway in OSM? On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > 2018-01-04 13:32 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien

Re: [Tagging] cycleway:both=no in StreetComplete

Well, by not adding tags with assumed default values, we simply cannot distinguish them from the situation where they have not been verified. For instance, some mappers don't care about cycleways but still map streets. How can somebody that cares about cycleways know that they should verify the