Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-10, kt, 09:06 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė: > coding the geometry into the db does not necessarily mean creating polygons > though. > You could also store just 3 nodes and a hint that these are representing a > polygon, to store a triangle (for example). Sorry, I did not get it. How saving

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Top up

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 11:40, Daniele Santini wrote: > > The proposal for mapping which shops sell prepaid top ups is now under > voting: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Top_up Isn't prepaid_top_up:network= redundant because (e.g. PayPoint) is also a brand and thus prepaid_

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

Le 10/01/2019 à 00:19, Warin a écrit : No - that is a terrible page. and the work in progress at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Handicaps/R%C3%A9f%C3%A9rentiel Much better .. but unordered. Hopefully we are using a wiki, this could be improved by anyone for sure ;-) Regards, Adri

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

sent from a phone > On 10. Jan 2019, at 07:23, Tomas Straupis wrote: > > In order to have correct labelling you need polygon geometry for > peninsulas (as well as for other objects), but having them in current > OSM database is not practical. coding the geometry into the db does not necessa

Re: [Tagging] Quick Building tracing question...

sent from a phone > On 10. Jan 2019, at 03:42, John Willis wrote: > > - map the building as a warehouse and map an attached polygon as the roof > (which I haven’t done yet). I would do it like this, or maybe map everything as a warehouse and the roof as building:part Cheers, Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

2019-01-09, tr, 19:36 Mateusz Konieczny rašė: >> And here we're one more step closer to introducing gis layers in OSM. > > I have no idea how natural=peninsula tagging is related to that. In order to have correct labelling you need polygon geometry for peninsulas (as well as for other objects),

Re: [Tagging] Quick Building tracing question...

On 10/01/19 13:54, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 12:43, John Willis > wrote: I am tracing and repairing existing traces of warehouses in an industrial district. I've recently been doing the same, John. if I am mapping this kind of warehou

Re: [Tagging] Quick Building tracing question...

Most of my imagery is at an angle, so I have to be careful to map the building footprint, but this also means I can easily see the roof overhang on most buildings, so it is easy for me to map most of them. If it was directly overhead, most of them are cantilevered roofs with very thick support

Re: [Tagging] Quick Building tracing question...

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 12:43, John Willis wrote: > I am tracing and repairing existing traces of warehouses in an industrial > district. > I've recently been doing the same, John. if I am mapping this kind of warehouses, which should I: > > - map the whole structure as a warehouse > I've just

[Tagging] Quick Building tracing question...

I am tracing and repairing existing traces of warehouses in an industrial district. Many of the warehouses have large (3-6m) roofs over the loading dock gates, making the building appear bigger. here is an example. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/494766956

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

> On Jan 9, 2019, at 8:23 PM, Stefan Keller wrote: > > Hi, > > As one of the originators of this thread I'd like to second that the > Wiki is important. It's not only a documentation tool but also a > communication. We all need patience with Wikis and it's curation and > users - like we e.g. ha

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

Hi, As one of the originators of this thread I'd like to second that the Wiki is important. It's not only a documentation tool but also a communication. We all need patience with Wikis and it's curation and users - like we e.g. have patience with when we're discussing things about iD presets or iD

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

Most mosques here in Indonesia have a separate men and women’s section. (Actually the churches do too!) On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 9:41 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 9. Jan 2019, at 19:11, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > > > I started discussion how to tag this some

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

sent from a phone > On 9. Jan 2019, at 19:11, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I started discussion how to tag this some time ago, with access=adherents as > the best candidate > to tag that probably also woman=no Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

On 10/01/19 10:13, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 07.01.19 16:12, Bryan Housel wrote: I encourage everyone to just disregard everything that’s on the wiki and go by what taginfo says as far as how the tags are used and what the accepted values are. The wiki is an invaluable source for understanding

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

On 09/01/19 21:06, althio wrote: On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 at 00:31, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: The page could be about those OSM tags that are relevant for Disabled features, how to map these things .. not about 'missing tags' nor "information relevant for disabled persons" Perhaps a new

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

On 07.01.19 16:12, Bryan Housel wrote: > we can’t use the same key `service=*` to contain both things like `tyres` (a > few thousands) and `driveway` (a few millions). Sorry, but the > `service=tyres` has to go. These two different meanings of 'service=*' would not need to coexist on the same e

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 16:17, Mark Wagner wrote: > On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 07:54:00 +1000 > Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > Possibly something like caravan:type=caravan / motorhome / Winnebago / > > camper trailer etc, but then you get to the problem of what is > > difference between a camper van, mot

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

On 10/01/19 05:27, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Jan 8, 2019, 10:33 PM by graemefi...@gmail.com: On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 23:36, Simon Poole mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote: I'm not convinced that we really want to model such a level of detail in the first place, Agree with you t

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On 09/01/2019 18:35, Kevin Kenny wrote: Are we back to trying to warp the definition so that only Toeristich Overstappunt qualifies? The reverse of that, actually - based on my limited knowledge of these in Noord Holland (which to be fair Peter said weren't typical of the Dutch ones) they didn

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

First, my apologies for sending out a quoted message with no response. I have slapped my own wrist. On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 20:01, Andy Townsend wrote: One of the problems with the wiki is that inherently "the last editor > has the last say" - nuances felt by previous editors to be important can

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

On 09/01/2019 19:03, Bryan Housel wrote: It’s not documentation.  It’s just a bunch of prescriptive advice by random people.  Most of the people involved don’t even work on software.  They’re just really into tagging and arguing, and I don’t have time for it. At its worst its that, sure -

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 8:04 PM Bryan Housel wrote: > It’s not documentation. It’s just a bunch of prescriptive advice by random > people. Most of the people involved don’t even work on software. They’re > just really into tagging and arguing, and I don’t have time for it. Wow, you leave me

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

On Wednesday 09 January 2019, Bryan Housel wrote: > [...] Most of the people involved don’t even work on > software. Despite accurate critique of dysfunctional dynamics and developments on the wiki i smell a software development supremacist here. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Wednesday 09 January 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > on second thought, if the Iberian Peninsula is already a Peninsula, > does that invalidate all Peninsula claims on land masses protruding > from it, or can there be cascading Peninsulas? Of course, and you can measure the level of completeness

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 18:13, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Jan 7, 2019, 11:58 PM by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > > Nonmuslims are forbidden to enter nearly all mosques in Morocco. > > I started discussion how to tag this some time ago, with access=adherents > as the best candidate > to tag that.

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

Jan 9, 2019, 8:03 PM by bhou...@gmail.com: > Most of the people involved don’t even work on software. > I thatink that it is not a good minimal requirement to document existing tagging schemes or propose new ones. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@opens

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

> On Jan 9, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Jan 9, 2019, 7:33 PM by bhou...@gmail.com: > On Jan 9, 2019, at 1:18 PM, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > Jan 7, 2019, 4:12 PM by bhou...@gmail.com : > And on “the wiki”, I have basica

Re: [Tagging] A fool with a tool ... Vehicle service tags

Jan 3, 2019, 5:13 AM by th...@gmx.de: > Thoughts ? > Ideas how to fix that ? > Given that "fool" is strongly negative and derogatory any attempts to improve any situation should not have this word in the title of the thread. Insulting people is one of the worst possible arguments. . ___

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 1:28 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: (sorry, the headers are making me lose attribution here..) someone: > It would be nice to be able to store that info - it would allow search for > nearest shop > selling motorbike tyres that would be automatic and take less than second > rat

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

Jan 9, 2019, 7:33 PM by bhou...@gmail.com: >> On Jan 9, 2019, at 1:18 PM, Mateusz Konieczny <>> matkoni...@tutanota.com >> >> > wrote: >> Jan 7, 2019, 4:12 PM by >> bhou...@gmail.com >> : >> >>> And on “the wiki”, I have basically given

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:32 AM Andy Townsend wrote: > I'm not convinced that the things on that page > https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeristisch_Overstappunt really are > "trailheads" in any accepted English sense ("trailhead" is mostly an > American English concept rather than a British English

[Tagging] Proposed features/insulated - vote started

proposal page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/insulated it is intended to be an alternative to power=cabble tagging scheme that promotes using unimportant and extremely hard to survey attribute as a primary f

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

> On Jan 9, 2019, at 1:18 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Jan 7, 2019, 4:12 PM by bhou...@gmail.com: > And on “the wiki”, I have basically given up on the OSM wiki because it > contains so much wrong information and opinion, and I’m tired of having my > edits reverted. I just recently had another

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

Jan 8, 2019, 10:33 PM by graemefi...@gmail.com: > On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 23:36, Simon Poole <> si...@poole.ch > > > wrote: > >> >> I'm not convinced that we really want to model such a level of detail >> in the first place,  >> >> > Agree with you there! > > If the pla

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

Jan 7, 2019, 4:12 PM by bhou...@gmail.com: > And on “the wiki”, I have basically given up on the OSM wiki because it > contains so much wrong information and opinion, and I’m tired of having my > edits reverted. I just recently had another issue where we added a traffic > signal tag that wa

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

Jan 7, 2019, 11:58 PM by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > “You may find that a Mosque may not be happy if a non-Muslim walks in” > > I’m not aware of any mosques that prohibit non-Muslims > > Nonmuslims are forbidden to enter nearly all mosques in Morocco. I started discussion how to tag this some t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Jan 9, 2019, 5:43 PM by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > And here we're one more step closer to introducing gis layers in OSM. > I have no idea how natural=peninsula tagging is related to that. Can you consider using quoting, so it is clear to what you respond? ___

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

sent from a phone > On 9. Jan 2019, at 16:36, Paul Allen wrote: > [fractal coastline] > Good luck mapping that. the sense of mapping natural features like peninsulas is putting toponomyns on the map. If nobody bothered to call a thing like this with a name, you would not map it. Cheers, Ma

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

And here we're one more step closer to introducing gis layers in OSM. Not there yet, but as maps created from OSM data start aproaching cartographic conventions, the only other way is to use other - non OSM sources. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openst

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On 09/01/2019 15:18, Peter Elderson wrote: The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is in Nederland. .. If other trailheads (non-TOP) would be mapped, they would not get this particular reference. I'm not convinced that the things on that page https://nl.wikipe

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:35 PM Phake Nick wrote: > I believe many time the boundary of a peninsula are politically defined, > for instance most would often see the Iberia peninsula end at where Spain > meet France > So is Andorra within or outside the Iberian peninsula?

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 15:28, Frederik Ramm wrote: on second thought, if the Iberian Peninsula is already a Peninsula, does > that invalidate all Peninsula claims on land masses protruding from it, > or can there be cascading Peninsulas? > Coastline geometry is fractal. A fact summed up with thi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

I believe many time the boundary of a peninsula are politically defined, for instance most would often see the Iberia peninsula end at where Spain meet France, Indochina peninsula's boundary will probably be the southern border of China, and Sinai peninsula's boundary would be the current border be

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Hi, on second thought, if the Iberian Peninsula is already a Peninsula, does that invalidate all Peninsula claims on land masses protruding from it, or can there be cascading Peninsulas? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" __

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Hi, On 09.01.19 14:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > The only reasons I see for > approving "small" peninsulas" but not big ones, are of technical nature Yes. People will create a new "multipolygon" or "boundary" relation containing each and every way of the Spanish coastline for every geographic

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is in Nederland. A wiki page about trailhead tagging is not the right place for that. I think this is within the scope of the wikipedia key. It facilitates one-click access to the wikipedia description from a rendering of the objec

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

I think several valid arguments could be made, depending on what specific example you think of. Most TOPs are one feature (<5m) sporting several functions, by design. In that case it makes sense to add the functions as tags to one node. In other cases it's more like a collection of spearate feature

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

I was referring to the 'organisation'. On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 2:40 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > Am Mi., 9. Jan. 2019 um 05:17 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis : >> >> While I was first thinking of brand like Warin, I think this is the >> better solution. Just as, we do not map the share holders of

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

Am Mi., 9. Jan. 2019 um 05:17 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis : > While I was first thinking of brand like Warin, I think this is the > better solution. Just as, we do not map the share holders of companies > (even when they are other companies) on shops, man_made=works object > etc., we typically do not m

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Am Mi., 9. Jan. 2019 um 10:36 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm : > I fear that people will otherwise with great diligence and fun tag > things like the "Iberian Peninsula" which will not be of any use and > just lead to more relation clutter. (Cf. discussion about bays.) while I would not advocate e

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Wednesday 09 January 2019, Markus wrote: > > > > * seen from water: landmark at the coast to circumnavigate > > * seen from land: coastal extreme point on land in a certain > > direction > > Couldn't 'a point to circumnavigate' lead to confusion because > peninsulas needs to be circumnavigated t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula

2019-01-09 10:35, Frederik Ramm wrote : [ ... ] I fear that people will otherwise with great diligence and fun tag things like the "Iberian Peninsula" which will not be of any use and just lead to more relation clutter. (Cf. discussion about bays.) I mentioned the discussion of bays to a friend

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Top up

The proposal for mapping which shops sell prepaid top ups is now under voting: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Top_up -- Daniele Santini http://www.dsantini.it ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openst

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpooling park and ride parkings

I'd like to propose a new park_ride value 'hov': https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Tag:park_ride%3Dhov Description: Parkings where people forming a carpool can meet and riders may park their car/motor_cycle/bike, called "carpool parking" hereafter. I propose to extend the

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 at 00:31, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > The page could be about those OSM tags that are relevant for Disabled > features, > how to map these things .. not about 'missing tags' nor "information relevant > for disabled persons" > > Perhaps a new page - "Mapping accessibi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 10:37, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > I think we need to map peninsulas in three ways, as nodes, areas, and ways. > > Areas when the land border is obvious. Nodes for little ones, when you don't > have time to draw an area and the shape of the peninsula is obvious. Then > there a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Hi, On 01.01.19 16:59, Markus wrote: > Thanks for your comments so far! I've changed the proposed tag to > natural=peninsula: It would be great if you could make it clear that the tag should be used for *small* peninsulas (peninsulae?) only, and is not intended as a vehicle to catalogue everythin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 22:46, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > Accordingly it would be good if the suggestion is not: Use natural=cape > for capes and natural=peninsula for peninsulas but if there is an > discerning abstract definition that is language independent. > > As written on the wiki natural=ca

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – Voting – crossing:island=*

Hello everyone, I'm opening voting on crossing:island=*, a tag for specifying whether a pedestrian crossing has a refuge island: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:crossing:island Thanks in advance for your participation in the vote. Best regards Markus