Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

On 19/05/18 13:06, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: -Original Message- From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, 19 May 2018 12:33 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Think I have raised this before but not come to any firm conclusion myself. I think that

Re: [Tagging] tagging arbiters (gone OT)

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 10:38 PM, wrote: > It’s not an carto-osm bug, it’s a level lower: > > > > https://github.com/openstreetmap/osm2pgsql/issues/230 > > > > If that ever gets implemented properly, then carto-osm and other data > users can make use of it… > >

Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

> On May 18, 2018, at 7:33 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I seek comments and thoughts on > > - > > Seasonal: > > The seasonal tag in well established. I don't think there is much confusion > with it. > > > --- > > Intermittent: > > The

Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

> -Original Message- > From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> > Sent: Saturday, 19 May 2018 12:33 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > > Think I have raised this before but not come to any firm conclusion > myself. > > I think that tagging > > seasonal=summer > >

Re: [Tagging] tagging arbiters (gone OT)

It’s not an carto-osm bug, it’s a level lower: https://github.com/openstreetmap/osm2pgsql/issues/230 If that ever gets implemented properly, then carto-osm and other data users can make use of it… From: Paul Johnson Sent: Saturday, 19 May 2018 12:12 To: Tag

[Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

Hi, I seek comments and thoughts on - Seasonal: The seasonal tag in well established. I don't think there is much confusion with it. --- Intermittent: The intermittent tag continues to be confused with seasonal. Possibly this is because some want to use it to

Re: [Tagging] tagging arbiters (gone OT)

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Dave F wrote: > On 13/05/2018 22:34, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I've long said that the final arbiters of tagging should be... the people > who implement the routers, renderers, navigation systems,. search engines, > and so on > > > No. >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

As I said, it has poles, areas people wait, a fixed route, a repeating timetable, there is a "driver" and it's purpose is specifically to transport people from one location to another. The fact that you have to put in personal effort (walking) during the transportation within this framework

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

On 19/05/18 09:47, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: I agree that it definitely is "transport" and that it has all the features (pole, waiting area, timetable, fixed route) that make it very suitable to map as public_transport. Huh? I would have thought that a key requirement would

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

I agree that it definitely is "transport" and that it has all the features (pole, waiting area, timetable, fixed route) that make it very suitable to map as public_transport. The only thing we have to decide upon is how "public" a public_transport must be. Does it have to be available to all

Re: [Tagging] marking missing opening hours signs

18. May 2018 21:56 by pla16...@gmail.com : > These days, wouldn't opening_hours:sign=no be the preferred way to go?  This is my favorite at this moment. I plan to modify proposal to use this one. > it's possible that the hours are on the site's Farcebook page but

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

Le 18. 05. 18 à 17:14, Jo a écrit : > > 2018-05-18 17:11 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Stucchi > > After the discussion about that a walking school bus is not a > public transport, so the proposal is to change the tag to amenity, > like for taxi rank. > >

Re: [Tagging] marking missing opening hours signs

Le 18. 05. 18 à 21:17, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > 18. May 2018 21:03 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com > >> for ex unsigned=opening_hours > It would be problematic as soon as there is more than one unsigned > parameter. we can use the common ";" separator for that unsigned=key1;key2;key3 for

Re: [Tagging] marking missing opening hours signs

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Seems OK, but I still prefer opening_hours_sign=no - it seems simpler. > These days, wouldn't opening_hours:sign=no be the preferred way to go? Also, it's possible that the hours are on the site's Farcebook page

Re: [Tagging] marking missing opening hours signs

18. May 2018 21:03 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com : > for ex unsigned=opening_hours It would be problematic as soon as there is more than one unsigned parameter.   > or unsigned:opening_hours=yes (maybe strange due to "one only" value) > Seems OK, but

Re: [Tagging] marking missing opening hours signs

Le 18. 05. 18 à 20:46, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > record that some objects miss opening hours sign. > I started using opening_hours_sign=no use/extend unsigned key and/or into a namespace https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:unsigned for ex unsigned=opening_hours or

[Tagging] marking missing opening hours signs

One may want to walk along the street and map info from available opening hour signs. In this situation it may be useful to record that some objects miss opening hours sign. Such tag would allow to prefer objects with completely unknown opening hours over ones where opening hours are

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

2018-05-18 17:11 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Stucchi : > Hi, > > After the discussion about that a walking school bus is not a public > transport, so the proposal is to change the tag to amenity, like for taxi > rank. > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

Hi, After the discussion about that a walking school bus is not a public transport, so the proposal is to change the tag to amenity, like for taxi rank. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Walkingbus_stop Hi, Lorenzo Stucchi ___

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

access=disabled sounds much like access=disallowed. 18-05-2018 10:03 tarihinde osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au yazdı: > With emergency and disabled as part of access restrictions, they central > question becomes, are these access tag values (like yes, no, private, > destination, delivery,

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

With emergency and disabled as part of access restrictions, they central question becomes, are these access tag values (like yes, no, private, destination, delivery, customers, ...) or transport modes (like foot, bicycle, motor_vehicle, ...) access=no emergency=yes implies that it is a

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On 18/5/18 16:03, Warin wrote: On 18/05/18 15:44, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: "disabled" is not one of the access types documented on the wiki. "emergency" is not documented either. As there are over 400 uses of it .. I am tempted to document it .. along with emergency - I have

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

On 18/05/18 15:44, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: "disabled" is not one of the access types documented on the wiki. "emergency" is not documented either. As there are over 400 uses of it .. I am tempted to document it .. along with emergency - I have used both. I would say