[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Railway tracks on highway

Dear All! Since two weeks have passed from the latest modification to the RFC and no without further comments have arisen, as per the proposal process, I will now advance the proposal to the voting status! Please leave your vote and comments at:

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

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 13:10, John Willis wrote: > > iD has a rough type hiding ability, “map data” icon on the right (“F” key > shortcut), and has 12 categories of elements you can turn on and off. I > keep boundaries turned off, for example - > That's it - thanks! Graeme

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

> On Jan 11, 2019, at 3:00 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > was always under the impression that the ones I encounter between > farmland and meadows, which typically are surrounded by dirt, ground, > plants are ditches. That drains are constructed with concrete or > similar material and that there

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:40 AM Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > > Hi all, > Can anyone please explain the difference between waterway=ditch and drain? > As far as I understand the description on the English wiki they differ in > usage: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway > > drain -

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

> On Jan 10, 2019, at 10:31 AM, Bryan Housel wrote: > > Stopped reading here and Unsubscribing. > You are not funny, and I don’t need the stress that this mailing list brings. > > Good luck with tagging & Bye  How unprofessional and dismissive. For someone making tools that implement

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

> On Jan 11, 2019, at 11:44 AM, Xavier wrote: > > JOSM you can use its filter capability to hide any elements iD has a rough type hiding ability, “map data” icon on the right (“F” key shortcut), and has 12 categories of elements you can turn on and off. I keep boundaries turned off, for

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

> On Jan 11, 2019, at 9:34 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Was mapping the other day (using iD), marking buildings in an industrial > area. As I said, the photo's weren't the clearest, but I was also peering > through the purple haze of the mapped area=industrial, which certainly >

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

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:34:40AM +1000, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On the subject of clarity of images. Was mapping the other day (using iD), marking buildings in an industrial area. As I said, the photo's weren't the clearest, but I was also peering through the purple haze of the mapped

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 3:49 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Ditches are also used to drain excess water. > > In the USA we have irrigation ditches in dry areas and drainage ditches in > wet areas. > > Joseph - I live in rainy western Washington. We have drainage ditches that are used for both.

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

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 20:57, Michael Patrick wrote: > > Actually, you can, especially if you have imagery from multiple platforms > at different times of year, or better yet, different times of day. > > Shadows are usually the primary clue. Partial obstruction of other objects > in the scene is

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 10:11, Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > If you use "ditch" for both land irrigation and drainage, what do you use > the "drain" tag for then? > I've always worked on "drain" looking more artificial eg lined with concrete / rocks etc, while "ditch" is more-or-less only dirt,

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

пт, 11 янв. 2019 г. в 02:50, Joseph Eisenberg : > Ditches are also used to drain excess water. > > In the USA we have irrigation ditches in dry areas and drainage ditches in > wet areas. > > Britain seems to lack irrigation - plenty of rain there. If you use "ditch" for both land irrigation and

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

> On Jan 11, 2019, at 8:49 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Ditches are also used to drain excess water. > > In the USA we have irrigation ditches in dry areas and drainage ditches in > wet areas. it is especially difficult where I am, because the irrigation ditiches cascade from on

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

On 10/01/2019 23:39, Eugene Podshivalov wrote: But the Russian wiki says that irrigation waterways should be tagged as drains. OSM usage may be different, but to me as a native speaker a drain is by definition about taking water away. -- Steve --- This email has been checked for

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

>> >> If you had street-level imagery that may change things? > > As Graeme says - you cannot tell from satellite imagery. on this particular imagery, I can tell because they are trucking distribution warehouses, which have a distinctive cantilevered roof that is easily discernible form

Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch

Ditches are also used to drain excess water. In the USA we have irrigation ditches in dry areas and drainage ditches in wet areas. Britain seems to lack irrigation - plenty of rain there. On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:40 AM Eugene Podshivalov wrote: > Hi all, > Can anyone please explain the

Re: [Tagging] Quick Building tracing question... -> Area Selector JOSM plugin

On 2019-01-10 03:42, John Willis wrote: I am tracing and repairing existing traces of warehouses in an industrial district. On a slightly different but similar subject. To do serious fast building tracing, one should use JOSM with Area Selector Plugin and

[Tagging] Drain vs ditch

Hi all, Can anyone please explain the difference between waterway=ditch and drain? As far as I understand the description on the English wiki they differ in usage: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waterway drain - usually lined with concrete or similar and used to carry superfluous water

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

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:47 PM Daniel Koć wrote: > BTW: if we want to use proportion of length to area, we claim that we > know this area somehow. If the feature is represented as a polygon, we do. If we have confidence that at least some shoreline is unambiguously part of the peninsula's

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

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 07:47, Daniel Koć wrote: > > Maybe we could also start with real life examples first to know where is > the most common limit of size/proportion etc. for both types. > OK, here's a few examples from Australia - & it turns out most of them are already in OSM under a

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

Let me just add a general note to this discussion. I continue to be interested in studying how to do better label rendering for elongated features such as certain seas (e.g. the Red Sea), gulfs (the Gulf of Bothnia or the Gulf of Aqaba), bays (Chesapeake Bay), peninsulas (Cape Cod), isthmuses,

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

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 06:39, Markus wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 17:07, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > > So is Andorra within or outside the Iberian peninsula? > > I was wondering the same. I'd say that it's on the (blurred) verge. > Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra " is a

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

W dniu 10.01.2019 o 22:29, Christoph Hormann pisze: > On Thursday 10 January 2019, Markus wrote: >> I've replaced *nearly surrounded by water* with *surrounded by water >> on the majority of its border*, but i'm unsure whether this is >> clearer. If you or someone has a better idea, please tell

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

On Thursday 10 January 2019, Markus wrote: > > I've replaced *nearly surrounded by water* with *surrounded by water > on the majority of its border*, but i'm unsure whether this is > clearer. If you or someone has a better idea, please tell me. That is a fairly toothless criterion because you

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

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 20:39, Markus wrote: I've replaced *nearly surrounded by water* with *surrounded by water > on the majority of its border*, but i'm unsure whether this is > clearer. If you or someone has a better idea, please tell me. > >From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula A

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

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 14:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 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

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

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 17:07, Eugene Alvin Villar 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? I was

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

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 13:53, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > So if you want natural=peninsula to mean something more specific > than 'some named land area at the coast' (like bay tagging on polygon > meanwhile just means 'some water area near the coast a mapper wanted to > label') you better try to

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 00:15, Tobias Knerr wrote: > > But with great power comes great responsibility, if you forgive the > stale quote. And while I'm not opposed to doing some sanity checking > (i.e. not automatically supporting poorly thought out tags just because > they are common), I do feel

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

wikipedia tag should be on trailhead solely in case where Wikipedia article is about this specific trailhead AFAIK there is no existing tag to cover linking to Wikipedia pages describing type of feature, and at least I see no use for it (but feel free to invent new one - though sooner or later

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

No it’s not. Please rethink your analogy. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 10 jan. 2019 om 13:34 heeft Marc Gemis het volgende > geschreven: > > On the wiki page for the Wikipedia tag [1] > > "only provide links to articles which are 'about the feature'. A link > from St Paul's Cathedral in London to

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

What you ask has been given repeatedly here in this discussion. Please do not make me repeat everything again. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 10 jan. 2019 om 13:39 heeft Marc Gemis het volgende > geschreven: > > When I said "struggle", I mean that you still haven't given a > definition of a

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

sent from a phone > On 10. Jan 2019, at 11:05, Konrad Lischka wrote: > > (1) tagging charitable operators of an amenity=kindergarten > operator:type=charitable > > and > operator:type=religious (according to > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Dkindergarten) this doesn’t

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

When I said "struggle", I mean that you still haven't given a definition of a trailhead that covers what non-Dutch mappers understand as trailhead and that covers all TOP-defined trailheads (as Andy pointed out in one of his last mails). If you are not struggling, please point me to the definition

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On the wiki page for the Wikipedia tag [1] "only provide links to articles which are 'about the feature'. A link from St Paul's Cathedral in London to an article about St Paul's Cathedral on Wikipedia is fine. A link from a bus depot to the company that operates it is not (see section below)."

[Tagging] Quick Building tracing question..

> I've just traced what I can see as the visible roof area & called it > "building", as it's impossible to tell from an overhead image what is > enclosed building & what is only a roof over an open area? > If you had street-level imagery that may change things? > As Graeme says - you cannot

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

Jan 9, 2019, 11:59 PM by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > 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 <>>> si...@poole.ch >>>

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

My understanding of the 3D aspect of building:part is that if you draw a portion of a building using building:part you have to do the rest of the building using building:part as well or the whole building will not render in 3D, since 3D software is programmed to ignore the base building footprint

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Someone asked what the requirements for a TOP in Nederland were. Not the OSM definition, but the actual requirements for the operators. I've answered that, without implying that these were OSM requirements or definitions. I have made that explicitly clear in several messages. Please do not suggest

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

On Thursday 10 January 2019, Tomas Straupis wrote: > > In order to have correct labelling you need polygon geometry for > peninsulas (as well as for other objects), [...] Just for the record: This is not correct (discussed plenty of times in the past, no need to repeat). Note the proposal

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Where can I find that discussion / decision? Op do 10 jan. 2019 om 10:16 schreef Marc Gemis : > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > > > > 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

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

I try to sum up what I took away from the discussion in regard to my original questions: (1) tagging charitable operators of an amenity=kindergarten operator:type=charitable and operator:type=religious (according to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:amenity%3Dkindergarten) At least

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

2019-01-10, kt, 10:54 Dave Swarthout rašė: > We just went through a whole discussion about mapping bays as > polygons. (see > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-November/040911.html) > <...> Yes, I agree with everything. You are describing why polygons are needed for

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Jan 10, 2019, 10:13 AM by marc.ge...@gmail.com: > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson <> pelder...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> >> The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is in >> Nederland. A wiki page about trailhead tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

So we are back to what I wrote a couple of days ago, after I saw that Peter was struggling to come up with a trailhead definition that fits all the "TOP"s. We have on one hand trailheads (for which we seem to have a consensus) and on the other hand TOPs, which sometimes fit the definition of

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > > 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. Just as it was

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

Tomas, We just went through a whole discussion about mapping bays as polygons. (see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-November/040911.html) This is a similar one. I was one of the people who promoted converting nodes that describe bays into polygons in order to better

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

sent from a phone > On 10. Jan 2019, at 08:54, Tomas Straupis wrote: > > Sorry, I did not get it. How saving only vertexes is better than > having a polygon (made out of those vertexes)? > > Full geometry is required to be able to calculate label positions on > all scales. The full

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

Hi > Am Do., 10. Jan. 2019 um 02:33 Uhr schrieb Bryan Housel : > > On Jan 9, 2019, at 8:23 PM, Stefan Keller wrote: ... > > 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