Re: [Tagging] RFC proposed water property key 'ephemeral '

I would like to repeat (slightly extended) the contents of my previous post of how to interpret these tags: The default state (no tags) is: water (usually) always present The seasonal, intermittent and ephemeral tags (allowing season or month timeframes in addition to yes) say: The v

Re: [Tagging] RFC proposed water property key 'ephemeral '

On 29/05/18 20:52, Paul Allen wrote: On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: Adding intermittent=yes to seasonal=yes adds no usefull information either. That depends how you interpret it.  Which would depend, to some exten

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

On 30/05/18 01:14, Tod Fitch wrote: It might be generally useful to have a tag that can be used for more than just water features. Can we please keep that concept separate from hydrological permanence? I want a more nuanced way of tagging water features. If we try and build one key to do ev

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

On 29/05/18 21:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 29. May 2018, at 12:50, Andrew Davidson wrote: assuming that people would think that natural=wetland + stream=ephemeral would look odd--otherwise no need for a new key). on which kind of object would you tag this? Usuall

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

29. May 2018 17:14 by t...@fitchdesign.com : >> A generic tag indicating when the feature is likely to be present could be >> used for both water features and other non-water features. >> > > I used seasonal in some cases like this (with opening hours having

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

> On May 29, 2018, at 4:36 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > > sent from a phone > >> On 29. May 2018, at 12:50, Andrew Davidson wrote: >> >> assuming that people would think that natural=wetland + stream=ephemeral >> would look odd--otherwise no need for a new key). > > > on which

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

Because it is one-sided. 29-05-2018 10:49 tarihinde Peter Elderson yazdı: > Why would we want to document which side of the bus comes first? Just > think of it as a two-sided vehicle, like trams and trains.  > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstre

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: > > So, in this > > case, the route wasn't designed for the benefit of a hot-shot on the > council or for a single person with COPD > > (as others have suggested) but for the benefit of a large number of > people. > > Sorry about that, I sho

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

sent from a phone > On 29. May 2018, at 12:50, Andrew Davidson wrote: > > assuming that people would think that natural=wetland + stream=ephemeral > would look odd--otherwise no need for a new key). on which kind of object would you tag this? Usually a stream is mapped on a linear way, a w

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

> So, in this > case, the route wasn't designed for the benefit of a hot-shot on the council or for a single person with COPD > (as others have suggested) but for the benefit of a large number of people. Sorry about that, I shouldn't have attempted humor. 2018-05-29 13:16 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Jo wrote: The odd thing about this route is that it serves 1 stop at the start of > this cul-de-sac then continues and turns around. There is no other stop at > the end, where it makes the maneuver. > A few things. 1) Once the bus gets to that stop it is then d

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

29. May 2018 12:50 by thesw...@gmail.com : > assuming that people would think that natural=wetland + stream=ephemeral > would look odd--otherwise no need for a new key). It looks like a tagging mistake, I would advice using rather a new tag name for people intere

Re: [Tagging] RFC proposed water property key 'ephemeral '

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Adding intermittent=yes to seasonal=yes adds no usefull information > either. > > That depends how you interpret it. Which would depend, to some extent, how it was documented. The seasonal=yes says it is non perennial all

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

Residence of a local hotshot whose wife has COPD and heartfailure? 2018-05-29 12:23 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes : > I can think of a couple of these odd routes. The bus turns off the main > route, travels about 300m to a bus stop, reverses around a corner and goes > back to continue the main route. >

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

On 26/05/18 23:27, Tod Fitch wrote: > Those definitions match up with my understanding. So something like waterway=* (or natural=spring | water ) presence=perennial | seasonal | intermittent | ephemeral If the presence is seasonal, then the existing seasonal=* could be used to describe what ti

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

There are some bus routes in my region where the bus needs to reverse into a narrow road even with passengers aboard, and more frequently in case of minibuses, for example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3174915 [https://www.openstreetmap.org/assets/osm_logo_256-cde84d7490f0863c7a0b0d0

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

I can think of a couple of these odd routes. The bus turns off the main route, travels about 300m to a bus stop, reverses around a corner and goes back to continue the main route. My logical brain asks why don't they just move the bus stops 300m and avoid the risky manoeuvre? Phil (trigpoint)

Re: [Tagging] RFC proposed water property key 'ephemeral '

29. May 2018 01:06 by 61sundow...@gmail.com : > > On 29/05/18 01:47, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > >> >> >> >> 28. May 2018 02:22 by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com >> >> : >> >>

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

2018-05-29 11:05 GMT+02:00 Andrew Davidson : > On 29/05/18 14:04, Jo wrote: > >> >> We're talking about PT v2. >> >> > In which case I don't understand why we want to create a new role. If you > are using PTv2 then you will have the same way listed twice at the point > that the route turns around.

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

sent from a phone > On 29. May 2018, at 10:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > and making all seats turnable would seem to raise costs for little gain, not that it is impossible, I have recently seen an historic tram with turnable seats, and as new trams don’t have them I think there’s a rea

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

On 29/05/18 14:04, Jo wrote: We're talking about PT v2. In which case I don't understand why we want to create a new role. If you are using PTv2 then you will have the same way listed twice at the point that the route turns around. If you add more of the stops to your route it will be more

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

sent from a phone > On 29. May 2018, at 10:00, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Electrification will change that, mmw I would not expect this, because most people prefer to look in the direction the vehicle goes, and making all seats turnable would seem to raise costs for little gain, given that

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

Electrification will change that, mmw. 2018-05-29 9:52 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > sent from a phone > > > On 29. May 2018, at 09:49, Peter Elderson wrote: > > > > Why would we want to document which side of the bus comes first? Just > think of it as a two-sided vehicle, like trams and

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

sent from a phone > On 29. May 2018, at 09:49, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Why would we want to document which side of the bus comes first? Just think > of it as a two-sided vehicle, like trams and trains. only if it has a steering wheel and pedals etc. on both ends. Very rare. Cheers, Mar

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

Why would we want to document which side of the bus comes first? Just think of it as a two-sided vehicle, like trams and trains. 2018-05-29 9:43 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > sent from a phone > > > On 29. May 2018, at 01:09, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: > > > > Could you fool the routers

Re: [Tagging] new role for route relations: reverse

sent from a phone > On 29. May 2018, at 01:09, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Could you fool the routers / system by inserting an imaginary mini-roundabout > at the end of the cul-de-sac? > > That way the router would think that the bus drives in, goes round the > roundabout, then drives out