Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

>> Add relations and direction of ways (forwards, backwards) and it's a very time consuming task to upgrade v1 to v2, especially if bus routes change. > Do you mean 'forward' and 'backward' roles? I think what was meant was that in v2 you want to create a forward relation and a backward relation,

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

Hi, Your intent is to simplify but I don't understand how replacing one tag by three or more with different syntaxes key/value according to the type of transportation and their introduction in OSM can make things easier. I share your view when you say that two schemas is too much to maintain bu

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

I have spent some time reading https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/435 and https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/331 It seems that one major issue was that, given a simple public_transport=platform situation, which icon should be used to render it? In ma

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

PT v2 says you CAN map stops using 2 objects. People reading that understood that you MUST use both a stop_position node and a platform way/node. Then it was interpreted as: both of those HAVE TO be added to the route relations. To make things look consistent in the route relations, then some map

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

Interesting. Musée d'Orsay in Paris offers another possibility: building=disused:train_station https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2853923 ... as well as tourism=museum (reflecting the current use) On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:02 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 28.03.2018 23:20, Dave F wrote: > >

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

sent from a phone > On 29. Mar 2018, at 10:05, Johnparis wrote: > > Interesting. Musée d'Orsay in Paris offers another possibility: > building=disused:train_station usually the disused prefix is used on the key, but it wouldn’t make sense in this case as the building is used. If disused:tra

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

> It seems that one major issue was that, given a simple > public_transport=platform situation, which icon should be used to render it? > In many cases there isn't a {mode}=yes tag. This is because according to the PTv2 proposal the transportation vehicle tags (bus=yes, tram=yes etc.) have to be

[Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

Sorry, english is not my first languange and I'm not sure of have been used the correct word in the subject. I'm looking for a key to denote if you have to refuel by your self or not. I meant if the station operates on self service mode. Didn't found nothing in the wiki or taginfo. I'm confused a

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

> Otherwise, public_transport=stop_position could be abandoned, which would > make PTv2 tagging a lot easier and more time-efficient. Or at least exclude them from route relations. On 29 March 2018 at 12:33, Selfish Seahorse wrote: >> It seems that one major issue was that, given a simple >>

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

That's what I would like to see happen. Last year I created a wiki page about it (with screenshots): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/PT_Assistant/Mapping_Public_Transport_with_JOSM#Downloading_data Polyglot 2018-03-29 13:09 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse : > > Otherwise, public_tra

Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Javier Sánchez Portero wrote: > Sorry, english is not my first languange and I'm not sure of have been used > the correct word in the subject. I'm looking for a key to denote if you have > to refuel by your self or not. I meant if the station operates on self > se

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

On 28/03/2018 23:02, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 28.03.2018 23:20, Dave F wrote: Hi I've a building to tag which used to be a train_station but currently has a different use. The building=train_station tag remains, since it describes the building type, independent of the current usage. No. Th

Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

Opsss! There was a mention to it in the Tag:amenity=fuel wiki. I didn't see it. Thank you. 2018-03-29 13:14 GMT+01:00 Michal Fabík : > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Javier Sánchez Portero > wrote: > > Sorry, english is not my first languange and I'm not sure of have been > used > > the corre

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

On 29/03/2018 09:05, Johnparis wrote: Interesting. Musée d'Orsay in Paris offers another possibility: building=disused:train_station But that doesn't account for what it currently is. DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

Mapping public transport in detail was in part started to aid impaired people and people with diminished mobility.  The stop_position is an attempt to tell for large/long platforms at which subarea of the platform you can expect a public service vehicle to have an entrance (regardless of its lengt

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

On 29.03.2018 15:38, Dave F wrote: The building=train_station tag remains, since it describes the building type, independent of the current usage. No. The building tag is for current usage. OSM maps the present with its primary tags. If contributors want to indicate it had previous use, as I d

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

Le 29. 03. 18 à 15:38, Dave F a écrit : > On 28/03/2018 23:02, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >> On 28.03.2018 23:20, Dave F wrote: >>> I've a building to tag which used to be a train_station >>> but currently has a different use. >> >> The building=train_station tag remains, since it describes the >> buildi

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

On 29/03/2018 10:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 29. Mar 2018, at 10:05, Johnparis > wrote: Interesting. Musée d'Orsay in Paris offers another possibility: building=disused:train_station usually the disused prefix is used on the key, but

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

> Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 22:20:21 +0200 > From: "Michael Reichert" > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms > > - If someone writes such a complicated proposal, he should ask the > authors of map styles (if he isn't someone himself) fo

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

On 29/03/2018 15:38, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 29.03.2018 15:38, Dave F wrote: The building=train_station tag remains, since it describes the building type, independent of the current usage. No. The building tag is for current usage. OSM maps the present with its primary tags. If contributors w

Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

Although very few mappers will tag self service as it is usually the norm in most places. Phil (trigpoint) On 29 March 2018 15:22:17 BST, "Javier Sánchez Portero" wrote: >Opsss! There was a mention to it in the Tag:amenity=fuel wiki. I didn't >see >it. Thank you. > >2018-03-29 13:14 GMT+01:00

Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

2018-03-29 15:22 GMT+01:00 Javier Sánchez Portero : > 2018-03-29 13:14 GMT+01:00 Michal Fabík : > >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Javier Sánchez Portero >> wrote: >> > Sorry, english is not my first languange and I'm not sure of have been >> used >> > the correct word in the subject. I'm loo

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

> There have been complaints about added pseudo-platforms in the data. This > situation stems from the fact, that platforms are missing on ground (for lack > of money, political decisions or because the halt is seen as a temporary one). Or, very often, because there's a sidewalk and, therefore,

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

W dniu 29.03.2018 o 09:43, Johnparis pisze: > I have spent some time reading   > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/435 > and > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/331 Great! I will try to do it too, but thanks for the summary anyway. > It seems that

Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

In my area there are still some serviced stations and I consider this an added value. El 29 mar. 2018 18:39, "Philip Barnes" escribió: Although very few mappers will tag self service as it is usually the norm in most places. Phil (trigpoint) On 29 March 2018 15:22:17 BST, "Javier Sánchez Port

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

> Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 19:55:34 +0200 > From: "Selfish Seahorse" > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms > > Or, very often, because there's a sidewalk and, therefore, no need for > a platform. In this case it i

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dplatform does have a legacy banner, but contrary https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:public_transport%3Dplatform writes that legacy tags should co-exist (like in forever) even if PTv2 tags are present. If few people read the wiki, then th

Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

On 30 March 2018 at 05:34, Javier Sánchez Portero wrote: > In my area there are still some serviced stations and I consider this an > added value. > Definitely! Question re another variation thanks. We have a service station nearby that has an attendant during the day, but, he only looks afte

Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

It is the norm that you have an attendant coming and filling up the tank for you. Some places will always clean the windscreen while waiting for the refill, but don't this is something to tag special as you can always ask the attendant to clean them. In some countries it differs, so I suggest

Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

In the U.S. almost all service stations are unattended these days. The pumps are automated and accept only credit cards. Persons needing to pay cash have to go to a separate office or shop to pay. Oregon used to be the only state I visit regularly in which customers were not allowed to fuel their v

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

Thanks for that last point, Christian. Always good to read the documentation! The English version (emphasis mine) reads: These 'traditional' tags are still widely used and are not invalidated by this scheme and ***should be kept*** in order to ensure compatibility with legacy software, at the pric

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

> If this is a problem, because the tag should ideally discrimnate built > structure features, then either > > a) find a new tag for wild platforms Maybe public_transport=stop? On 29 March 2018 at 16:30, "Christian Müller" wrote: > Mapping public transport in detail was in part started to aid

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

Heh, never noticed that. iD is now automatically putting bus=yes on the platform node, which seems clearly correct. The proposal page should be amended, I think. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Selfish Seahorse < selfishseaho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It seems that one major issue was that, giv

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

I don't think a tag is needed for "wild" platforms. As already noted, public_transport=platform applies to nodes already. And shelter=yes/no or bench=yes/no can be added if that's the infrastructure Christian means. (Not clear to me what exactly a "wild" platform is.) And if a tag is needed, stop