Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On 14/03/19 01:02, Paul Allen wrote: One problem that I don't see a solution for in PTV1, PTV2 or "we don't tag it PTV3" is a stop that is ignored on the first pass but comes into play on the second pass.  The bus starts at the bus station A, passes through nodes B, C and D and turns right

Re: [Tagging] mapping large memorial objects that roads pass through.

sent from a phone > On 13. Mar 2019, at 10:54, Tony Shield wrote: > > How to proceed? If there is agreement does it need voting on? Or can the wiki > be expanded to show this as a tag? if you want to vote, you should create a proposal for it. Otherwise you can put a proposal as well :)

Re: [Tagging] Expand the key:opening_hours

Separating it from the current system might have the advantage that it will not need to use the same syntax to support all regional specific methods of day counting and time counting at once, but even after separated it will still need to support the full set of current opening_time specification

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:19 AM Paul Allen wrote: > I've hesitated to ask this question for months now: what's the > consensus on superroutes? > Coherently and cogently mapping large countries with long routes (such as the United States) would be essentially impossible without them. I think

Re: [Tagging] Expand the key:opening_hours

On 2019-03-14 01:28, Warin wrote: > Think best to separate it from the present opening hours. > > Perhaps   opening_hours:persian=* (example - where the Persian calendar is in > use).??? Good idea! Sergio smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: [Tagging] Expand the key:opening_hours

On 14/03/19 10:52, Simon Poole wrote: Just a PS: any grammar extension need to be compatible with the use of OH strings in conditional restrictions too, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions . While I haven't looked at in detail your proposal for a timezone

Re: [Tagging] Multipolygon (several outers) forest with different leaf_types: mapping strategy?

On 14/03/19 10:36, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Normally we should map features that are “real” and “current”, and is easiest to do for things that can be observed in person. This suggests mapping each patch of trees as a separate polygon or closed way, based on having the same leaf_type and

Re: [Tagging] mapping large memorial objects that roads pass through.

+ 1 on gate way - can be applied to many items. A node for each pillar and a way to connect them? Each pillar with man_made=pillar?? and the way with man_made=gateway??? Then sub tags for gateway=*. On 13/03/19 21:32, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: A Torii is not exactly an arch, but it is a

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 14/03/19 02:37, s8evq wrote: If you want to indicate the preferred direction of a walking route that is basically loop-shaped, a concept that is different from the legally binding oneway, then some kind of clockwise / anticlockwise tagging should be used. Yes Volcker, this is what I'm after.

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On 2019-03-14 00:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 08:06, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> > wrote: > > > I was advicing somebody something completely different as of lately: to > form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals > that are

Re: [Tagging] Expand the key:opening_hours

Just a PS: any grammar extension need to be compatible with the use of OH strings in conditional restrictions too, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions . While I haven't looked at in detail your proposal for a timezone extension might have difficulties with that. Am

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On 2019-03-14 00:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > “form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals” > > 臘‍♂️ > > I might support this if all men, Europeans, and people of European ancestry > were excluded from this cabal of illuminati.  > > [guilty as charged ☺️] All

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

On 14/03/19 06:49, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote: Hi all, After some discussion about the idea of this project, we think to better capt all the idea to create a wiki page with the purpose of better understand the problem and find the better way to tag this situation. So we create a wiki page

Re: [Tagging] Expand the key:opening_hours

The basic problem with proposing an extension to the current OH grammar is that it is already far too complicated and full of ambiguities, there are afaik currently only two parsers that handle > 90% of the grammar and most of the other ones are rather broken, adding more stuff is definitely not

Re: [Tagging] Multipolygon (several outers) forest with different leaf_types: mapping strategy?

Normally we should map features that are “real” and “current”, and is easiest to do for things that can be observed in person. This suggests mapping each patch of trees as a separate polygon or closed way, based on having the same leaf_type and leaf_cycle. Usually it’s only necessary to use a

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 22:42, Jo wrote: > I think we should move to subrelations for bus routes at some point. > Actually doing it is somewhat tricky. We'd definitely need editor support > to show that a route which consists of subroutes is continuous or not. > Not a big problem. Not compared

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 08:06, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > I was advicing somebody something completely different as of lately: to > form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals > that are already agreed upon by at least "some" before going public with > the proposal... >

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On 14/03/19 00:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Mi., 13. März 2019 um 14:31 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi >: If a "/superroute/" has an official status (/like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20773/), I'm all-in for that. If instead it is something

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

> “form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals” 臘‍♂️ I might support this if all men, Europeans, and people of European ancestry were excluded from this cabal of illuminati.  [guilty as charged ☺️] Seriously though, it’s much more helpful if authors of proposals

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

I think we should move to subrelations for bus routes at some point. Actually doing it is somewhat tricky. We'd definitely need editor support to show that a route which consists of subroutes is continuous or not. The biggest point of contention seems to be whether the stops should go into the

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 00:05, Paul Allen wrote: > or should I stick to eating babies as that would be more socially > acceptable? > I guess that sort of depends on whether or not they're Irish babies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal & we're having Roast Peasant under Glass for

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On 2019-03-13 22:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > It would just be good if there was only  place that these discussions on new > proposals took place. I was advicing somebody something completely different as of lately: to form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

sent from a phone > On 13. Mar 2019, at 21:30, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > As far as regards Giovanni's import, my position is that I'm pretty sure that > the work he has done is of high quality, > the thing is, Giovanni can do the best work in the world, the resulting data will still

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 17:54, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > It will rather reduce discussion. People from OSM wiki are more likely to > stop commenting rather > than start using mailing list. And why commenting on talk page would be > worse than commenting on ml? > Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest

Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 19:07, Marc Gemis wrote: > totally off-topic: > Indeed :-) > I know plenty of people that cannot do that without GPS, When we were talking about GPSs a few years ago, a mate was telling a story that one of the ladies he works with didn't show up for work one morning,

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-13 21:30, Sergio Manzi wrote: > I also think that, as you correctly pointed out, both me and *Peter*, (/I > guess.../) forgot about "armchair mapping" which is neither "import" nor > "locally sourced" and probably represent a huge amount of data in OSM. My bad! Please read: I also

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-13 19:04, Volker Schmidt wrote: > On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 15:45, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> > wrote: > > Have mappers walked along the whole world coastlines? Have they descended > all world's rivers by canoe? > > No, these are examples where imports make sense as these are

[Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

Hi all, After some discussion about the idea of this project, we think to better capt all the idea to create a wiki page with the purpose of better understand the problem and find the better way to tag this situation. So we create a wiki page

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-13 20:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 13. Mar 2019, at 16:34, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> > wrote: > >> ... an example of massively imported data (/which I agree with, btw.../): >>

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

sent from a phone > On 13. Mar 2019, at 16:34, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > ... an example of massively imported data (which I agree with, btw...): > https://blogs.bing.com/maps/2018-06/microsoft-releases-125-million-building-footprints-in-the-us-as-open-data This data wasn’t generally imported

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 3:04 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > It's about loop-shaped walking/hiking/cycling routes, that should only by > > done in one direction, because of way-marking and signposts. (Most of the > > bicycle routes in this overpass query fall in that category > >

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

sent from a phone > On 13. Mar 2019, at 15:44, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > Have mappers walked along the whole world coastlines? Have they descended all > world's rivers by canoe? Have all Mumbay, New York, Rome, Shanghai, etc., > streets and alleys been walked by volunteers mapping their

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

sent from a phone > On 13. Mar 2019, at 16:37, s8evq wrote: > > It's about loop-shaped walking/hiking/cycling routes, that should only by > done in one direction, because of way-marking and signposts. (Most of the > bicycle routes in this overpass query fall in that category >

[Tagging] Expand the key:opening_hours

I found that the current way of mapping opening time of features in OSM map are too limiting, and the opening time of some features cannot be properly represented with only the current syntax, therefore I have written a brief idea about how the syntax in key opening_hours could have been expanded

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 15:45, Sergio Manzi wrote: > Have mappers walked along the whole world coastlines? Have they descended > all world's rivers by canoe? > No, these are examples where imports make sense as these are feature that change slowly (normally) Have all Mumbay, New York, Rome,

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

Hi Sergio, Thank you for feedbacks, my answers below. One general reminder: I'm not the one who start to map nor line attachments, nor substations shared between pipelines and power lines. tower:type=anchor, tower:type=suspension and pipeline=substation were already widely used and reviewed.

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On 12.03.2019 12:30, s8evq qrote: > [...] I see there is also the tag "direction=" with a lot more usage. On mini-roundabouts (as documented in the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:direction#Clockwise_and_anticlockwise), but sometimes even on route=foot, route=hiking and

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 16:27, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > And you're just envious because the voices won't talk to you! > I really hate it when people can figure out my inner motivations. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:03 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > I can't answer the question for busrelations. (neither can I) > For long hiking routes and walking node networks, relations containing > relations are very important. > Without those, maintenance of long hiking routes becomes a p.i.t.b,

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 11:47 AM Paul Allen wrote: > Something may appear > in the wiki for no reason other than the voices in somebody's head told that > person to put it > there. Moreover, because we as a community usually try to respect the work of other mappers (as much as we bicker on this

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 15:38, s8evq wrote: > > I have not seen anybody on this mailing list defend the usage of method > (2). Can I ask the question: why it is in the wiki? > Because somebody put it there. Oh, you wanted the ultimate cause not the proximate cause. The thing about the wiki is

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

> If you want to indicate the preferred direction of a walking route that is > basically loop-shaped, a concept that is different from the legally binding > oneway, then some kind of clockwise / anticlockwise tagging should be used. Yes Volcker, this is what I'm after. It's about loop-shaped

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-13 15:44, Sergio Manzi wrote: > On 2019-03-13 15:27, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> >> >> >> Mar 13, 2019, 12:53 PM by s...@smz.it: >> >> On 2019-03-13 12:15, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >>> I think you misunderstand. OSM is based on locally sourced, handcrafted >>> data. That creates the

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

I can't answer the question for busrelations. For long hiking routes and walking node networks, relations containing relations are very important. Without those, maintenance of long hiking routes becomes a p.i.t.b, sometimes near impossible. Rendering can be done without superroutes, just by

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-13 15:27, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > Mar 13, 2019, 12:53 PM by s...@smz.it: > > On 2019-03-13 12:15, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >> I think you misunderstand. OSM is based on locally sourced, handcrafted >> data. That creates the high quality. > > That's totally inaccurate. >

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

Mar 13, 2019, 2:34 PM by cascaf...@gmail.com: > > Il giorno mer 13 mar 2019 alle ore 12:16 Tom Pfeifer <> > > t.pfei...@computer.org > > ha scritto: > > > I think you misunderstand. OSM is based on locally sourced, handcrafted > > data. That creates the high

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

Just my five €cents: My experience with the massive imports in Veneto is, under many aspects, negative. I have tried in vain to stop or revert them. There are a number of problems, just to list a few basic ones: - we import perisahbale data which are at best remotely related to what should

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

Mar 13, 2019, 12:53 PM by s...@smz.it: > On 2019-03-13 12:15, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > >> I think you misunderstand. OSM is based on locally sourced, >> handcrafted data. That creates the high quality. >> > > That's totally inaccurate. > > > The reality is that OSM is based on imported

Re: [Tagging] Multipolygon (several outers) forest with different leaf_types: mapping strategy?

Le 13.03.19 à 14:59, David Marchal a écrit : > the JOSM validator claims that contiguous outer members is an error yes it's- the sum of all outer should not have a "internal" way like this one https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9393253#map=17/48.42219/5.92713 so draw a new way for the outer

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 13:29, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 13/03/2019 13:18, Paul Allen wrote: > > I've hesitated to ask this question for months now: what's the > > consensus on superroutes? > > In what context are you asking the question? I can think of examples > where the answer would be "a

[Tagging] Multipolygon (several outers) forest with different leaf_types: mapping strategy?

Hello, there. I mapped a forest made of several pieces of woodland, some contiguous and some isolated, with differents leaf_types. I mapped this (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9393253) with a landuse=forest multipolygon, with common tags such as name and operator on the relation, and

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-13 14:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am Mi., 13. März 2019 um 12:54 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi >: > > On 2019-03-13 12:15, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >> I think you misunderstand. OSM is based on locally sourced, handcrafted >> data. That creates the high

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

Am Mi., 13. März 2019 um 14:36 Uhr schrieb Cascafico Giovanni < cascaf...@gmail.com>: > > Il giorno mer 13 mar 2019 alle ore 12:16 Tom Pfeifer < > t.pfei...@computer.org> ha scritto: > > > I think you misunderstand. OSM is based on locally sourced, handcrafted > data. That creates the high

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 13/03/2019 13:34, Cascafico Giovanni wrote: Have you ever seen hot tasks results? Huge building polys, mixed misalignments, nonxistent tags... lots of poor quality stuff and, worst of all, everything mixed to (few) high quality surveys... but it seems they are useful...of course they are:

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

Am Mi., 13. März 2019 um 12:54 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi : > On 2019-03-13 12:15, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > I think you misunderstand. OSM is based on locally sourced, handcrafted > data. That creates the high quality. > > That's totally inaccurate. > > The reality is that OSM is based on imported

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

Am Mi., 13. März 2019 um 14:31 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi : > If a "*superroute*" has an official status (*like this one: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20773 > *), I'm all-in for that. > > If instead it is something "*invented*" by the

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

> Il giorno mer 13 mar 2019 alle ore 12:16 Tom Pfeifer < t.pfei...@computer.org> ha scritto: > I think you misunderstand. OSM is based on locally sourced, handcrafted data. That creates the high quality Have youi ever seen hot tasks results? Huge building polys, mixed misalignments, nonxistent

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

If a "/superroute/" has an official status (/like this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20773/), I'm all-in for that. If instead it is something "/invented/" by the mapper, than I'm all-against it. Can you please provide more information/examples/context? Sergio On 2019-03-13

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On 13/03/2019 13:18, Paul Allen wrote: I've hesitated to ask this question for months now: what's the consensus on superroutes? In what context are you asking the question?  I can think of examples where the answer would be "a really bad idea" and others where the answer would be "essential;

[Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

I've hesitated to ask this question for months now: what's the consensus on superroutes? Going by all I can find on the wiki, forums and past discussions, they're highly controversial. One wiki page mentions them and says don't use them. They were either never well documented on the wiki or

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

maybe we can use some keys like eta_link:shortnameofbuscompanyA=* and eta_link:shortnameofbuscompanyB=* to show different operators information 在 2019年3月13日週三 15:01，Graeme Fitzpatrick 寫道： > > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 14:30, Phake Nick wrote: > >> but in term of GTFS I don't think anyone in the

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 2019-03-13 12:15, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > I think you misunderstand. OSM is based on locally sourced, handcrafted data. > That creates the high quality. That's totally inaccurate. The reality is that OSM is based on imported data, augmented by locally sourced information (/of ///sometimes

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

Hello, Le 13.03.19 à 10:50, Cascafico Giovanni a écrit : > - since there is one (1) ML unaswered doubt if "01 Jan - 31 Dec" should > be replaced by 24/7: import is anyway bad I find that they are 2 totally different things: one informs that the poi is open all year round, the other all day.

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

On 13.03.2019 10:50, Cascafico Giovanni wrote: The lattest is great and leads to grotesque consequences: when a colleague hands me 12 guidepost locations to geocode, I must message planet import ML, local ML, write an import page and ask my fellow a consent form with certified signature. Is

Re: [Tagging] Hotel dataset import? / Re: Baby-sitting

> > Il giorno lun 11 mar 2019 alle ore 14:11 Mateusz Konieczny < > matkoni...@tutanota.com> ha scritto: > > Fixed in > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Import=1820348=1551233 > > I took a 600+ dataset, geocoded them, manually conflate 53 of them, put source references on umap, put

Re: [Tagging] mapping large memorial objects that roads pass through.

A Torii is not exactly an arch, but it is a gateway (at least symbolically). Perhaps man_made=gateway is a more general term, which can incude archways as well as rectangular gateways If you would like, you can start a proposal page. On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 7:26 PM Tony Shield wrote: > Been

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Am 13. März 2019 00:33:02 MEZ schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick : >I have no idea how we could improve things so there is more feedback - >maybe remove the discussion page from the proposals, so all discussion >has >to happen on the tagging list? Or promote proposals better, may by consistently (or

Re: [Tagging] mapping large memorial objects that roads pass through.

Been wondering for months how to tag arches in general - not a mention in Wiki. I do like man-made = arch. I do think that there are several major types of arch which help, so this discussion started with torii and a possible answer is given as Perhaps they could be man_made=archway and

Re: [Tagging] Use of old_name (was Re: Mapping deforestation)

> > If I decide to meet with a friend AGAIN in front of Whizzo, we both > > already know where it is. > > congratulations if you ever need gps to go to a place where you have > already been (I wonder in this case why commercial gps have a "go home" > shortcut since everyone has already been there)

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

sent from a phone > On 13. Mar 2019, at 00:33, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Of those 76 active on the list in Nov, 16 people commented on your proposal. > When it came to the vote, 33 people voted, but only 2 of them had made > comments on the list, but, strangely enough, only 2 people who

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

sent from a phone > On 13. Mar 2019, at 09:20, Markus wrote: > > If pedestrians are also only allowed to walk in one direction, it > seems you need to add oneway:foot=yes or foot:backward=no. right, this is a typical situation around here: oneway pedestrian roads where the oneway applies

Re: [Tagging] mapping large memorial objects that roads pass through.

sent from a phone > On 13. Mar 2019, at 01:35, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > We considered man_made=gantry (which in general can be used > for any sort of structure than goes over a road) or man_made=archway. +1, there is also man_made=arch (32 uses vs 7 for archway) > > There was also

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 22:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > But oneway=yes is definitely the way to go (sorry, that just slipped out!), > rather then clockwise. I thought that oneway=yes doesn't apply to pedestrians. [1] Thus, oneway=yes on a highway=path would only apply to cyclists and

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Mar 13, 2019, 12:33 AM by graemefi...@gmail.com: > I have no idea how we could improve things so there is more feedback - maybe > remove the discussion page from the proposals, so all discussion has to > happen on the tagging list? > It will rather reduce discussion. People from OSM wiki are

Re: [Tagging] New Tag "Departures" voting results.

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 14:30, Phake Nick wrote: > but in term of GTFS I don't think anyone in the world supply data > individually for each stops. > Of course! It would be nice (but probably impossible) to have a single worldwide answer but I don't think that will be possible in the

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

sent from a phone > On 13. Mar 2019, at 00:31, s8evq wrote: > > most of these are roundtrip seems you are confusing “roundtrip” with “loop”, happened to me as well, until it was discussed here some time ago. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Mar 12, 2019, 10:53 PM by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > On 13/03/19 08:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at04:51, Philip Barnes <>> >> p...@trigpoint.me.uk >> >wrote: >> >>> Although the oneway

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 20:16:46 -0400, Kevin Kenny wrote: > In my notes, the plan is: > > (1) Put oneway=yes on the route relation, not on the ways. > (2) Add the ways to the route relation in their proper sequence. > (3) Give the ways the 'forward' or 'backward' role according to >