Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Please don’t change the established meaning of amenity=police; it should keep meaning “a public police station”. Most database users are only going to be interested in public police stations, that’s why we’ve gotten by for over 10 years with just amenity=police. It’s fine if the police=* tag isn’

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

Hi, We don’t propose anything related with time because we think that this information can came with the historical evolution of the area, so this information is inside the history of every polygons. The idea is to have mapathon in different time, when new imagery are available and after check

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Am 15. März 2019 00:19:22 MEZ schrieb althio : >Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> > If this seems viable, I would expand the proposal by a migration >proposal from amenity=police to police=station >> >> I don’t think we should abandon amenity=police and it will likely not >happen unless people tag s

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

I also regard "cycleway:left=lane" "cycleway:left:oneway=-1" as the currently preferred method and have been mapping/tagging like this for a while now. Just my two cents Hubert87 Am 15.03.2019 um 00:12 schrieb althio: Discussed: maybe there https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/taggin

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

sent from a phone > On 14. Mar 2019, at 09:20, Markus wrote: > > Unlike a site or multipolygon relation, a > group relation does *not* constitute a new object, but is merely the > name of its members as a whole. actually it does constitute an object, a group, and the fact that there is a pr

Re: [Tagging] Tagging disputed boundaries

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 7:24 PM Phake Nick wrote: > Come to think of it, if the goal is to represent different perspective of > disputed territory, then mapping disputed territories as disputed territory > using claimed_by=* controlled_by=* does not seems like a good idea, as such > an area in OS

Re: [Tagging] Tagging disputed boundaries

Come to think of it, if the goal is to represent different perspective of disputed territory, then mapping disputed territories as disputed territory using claimed_by=* controlled_by=* does not seems like a good idea, as such an area in OSM would need to include a line separating the disputed terri

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > If this seems viable, I would expand the proposal by a migration proposal > > from amenity=police to police=station > > I don’t think we should abandon amenity=police and it will likely not happen > unless people tag so many different things with the tag that it be

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

I mean, these route variants can probably be remapped as superroute if superroute become more popular 2019年3月15日 06:34 於 "marc marc" 寫道： a route_master isn't a superroute, isn't it ? it's a collection off all variant of a "single" route and not several part of one route like superroute for E-n

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

On 15/03/19 04:39, Paul Allen wrote: On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 16:44, Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: > On 14. Mar 2019, at 16:49, Tony Shield mailto:tony.shield...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Can they currently be edited with JOSM? of course, you simply ad

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

Discussed: maybe there https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-May/036164.html Decided : I don't know > Cmuelle introduces rather complex combinations of tags such as > cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:left:oneway=-1, that should in his view be used > instead of cycleway:left=opposit

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

It is indeed interesting to store that the signs work only for one direction, therefore oneway=yes/no is documented for hiking routes - in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking#Tags_of_the_relation since Jan. 2013 - in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=hiking#Tags_of_the_rela

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

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 22:58, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > There are indications that at least 2 other secret groups operating in osm > are suspicious about the plans for a new group and are planning to covf > +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openst

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

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 22:34, marc marc wrote: > a route_master isn't a superroute, isn't it ? > it's a collection off all variant of a "single" route > and not several part of one route like superroute for E-network > That's how I understand it. But I may be wrong. > > route_master are well

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

There are indications that at least 2 other secret groups operating in osm are suspicious about the plans for a new group and are planning to covf ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

sent from a phone > On 14. Mar 2019, at 23:13, Antoine Riche via Tagging > wrote: > > Cmuelle introduces rather complex combinations of tags such as > cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:left:oneway=-1, that should in his view be used > instead of cycleway:left=opposite_lane. Does anyone on this

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 https

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 07:30, Tod Fitch wrote: > > > On Mar 14, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Kenny > wrote: > > > > > I just saw two replies to Lorenzo that were suggesting that his source > > data were unmappable because they didn't support a sufficiently > > detailed taxonomy of landcover, and I wa

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

a route_master isn't a superroute, isn't it ? it's a collection off all variant of a "single" route and not several part of one route like superroute for E-network route_master are well documented/used for bus route but if someone want to convert a single type=route into a superroute (so a type

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

It really depends on exactly how complex the route is, something like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4776035 this bus route can definitely use it. (and I haven't mentioned other similar bus routes with different numbers in different relationship yet) 在 2019年3月15日週五 03:31，Paul Allen 寫道： >

Re: [Tagging] Expand the key:opening_hours

在 2019年3月14日週四 20:38，Simon Poole 寫道： > Some more comments: > > - the OH values are currently always evaluated in the local time zone > (or to go even a bit further in a local context as the location they > apply to is always known), so a time zone indicator would be only needed > in the cases tha

[Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

Hello. (message resent without annoying formatting, apologies) Yesterday Wiki user Cmuelle8 (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Cmuelle8) changed a number of Wiki pages with the following comment :(opposite_lane is a value for unaffixed legacy cycleway=* tags (!!), it has no meaning with

[Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

Hello. Yesterday Wiki user Cmuelle8 (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Cmuelle8) changed a number of Wiki pages with the following comment :(opposite_lane is a value for unaffixed legacy cycleway=* tags (!!), it has no meaning with cycleway:left, cycleway:right and cycleway:both and mu

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

sent from a phone > On 14. Mar 2019, at 20:17, Jan S wrote: > > If this seems viable, I would expand the proposal by a migration proposal > from amenity=police to police=station I don’t think we should abandon amenity=police and it will likely not happen unless people tag so many different

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

adding top-level categories to the landcover value is maybe the best idea, it allow incremential mapping : - you 'll add true value depending of your "level" and the quality of the source - another day another mapper may improve it. Le 14.03.19 à 22:33, Lorenzo Stucchi a écrit : > Hi all, > > sor

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

Hi all, sorry I change the idea from just landcover to sat_landcover because I saw it as reasonable for a draft landcover in an area for which I don’t know exactly if what I’m mapping is a meadow or a cultivated land or something similar, but I understand in which of the categories it fall, as

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

> On Mar 14, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM marc marc wrote: >> no:landcover=trees ? >> or, as the previous landcover/imagery show tress, was:landcover=trees > > However you want to spell it. > > I just saw two replies to Lorenzo that were suggesting

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM marc marc wrote: > no:landcover=trees ? > or, as the previous landcover/imagery show tress, was:landcover=trees However you want to spell it. I just saw two replies to Lorenzo that were suggesting that his source data were unmappable because they didn't support a

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

Le 14.03.19 à 21:47, Kevin Kenny a écrit : > there's no way to distinguish, > "we haven't read and mapped the imagery yet" from > "we've mapped the imagery, and there's no forest here." no:landcover=trees ? or, as the previous landcover/imagery show tress, was:landcover=trees

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:37 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I would advise to tag just forest landcover is satellite images are unusable > to tag > other features properly and to not introduce incompatible tagging scheme just > because > you really want to vectorize this specific low quality data

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

Mar 14, 2019, 9:28 PM by lorenzostucch...@outlook.it: > From previous messages we think to change the different tag from landcover to > hrg_landcover, the idea came form the professor Brovelli. Because we can > think every type of landcover came from a satellite and the HRGLandCover > (High

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

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:33 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > I second Martin. No "oneway" key in this case. However you want to spell it. Given that the circular route I had in mind was subsequently signed in the opposite direction, I haven't got a use case at the moment. (The nearest thing I've got is

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

that look like a bad idea, let's me explain with some ex hrg_landcover for HRGLandCover a made a survey ? surv_landcover a use mapilary ? mpl_landcover ? of course not... fill changeset source in stead of duplicate a tag depending of the source Le 14.03.19 à 21:28, Lorenzo Stucchi a écrit : > Hi,

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

I second Martin. No "oneway" key in this case. On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 21:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 14. Mar 2019, at 11:43, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > > > > or oneway=signed if you think it clashes with the legal > > restriction tags). > > > or bidirectional=no

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

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 10:39 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > The order of ways in the relation definitely determines the direction > to which oneway=* refers. It oneway=yes or oneway=signed (or whatever > we settle on) is present, the ways are traversed from the first > relation member to last - irrespec

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

Hi, thanks for your ideas. From previous messages we think to change the different tag from landcover to hrg_landcover, the idea came form the professor Brovelli. Because we can think every type of landcover came from a satellite and the HRGLandCover (High Resolution Global Land Cover) is more

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

sent from a phone > On 14. Mar 2019, at 11:43, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > > or oneway=signed if you think it clashes with the legal > restriction tags). or bidirectional=no or signed_oneway=yes it shouldn’t be a value of the “oneway” key, there’s nothing preventing you from doing the route in

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

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 19:23, Peter Elderson wrote: > Op do 14 mrt. 2019 om 18:17 schreef Paul Allen : > >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 15:09, Jo wrote: >> >>> I would definitely want routes to be composed of subroutes which are >>> shared with other routes, >>> >> >> I see that as less than useful f

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

Op do 14 mrt. 2019 om 18:17 schreef Paul Allen : > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 15:09, Jo wrote: > >> I would definitely want routes to be composed of subroutes which are >> shared with other routes, >> > > I see that as less than useful for any route I know of. > It's useful for longer routes through

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Le 14.03.19 à 19:43, Markus a écrit : > This is why i'm unsure whether it's sensible > to introduce a new tag for police stations. I didn't check if the propal have been update right now but imho it's better to split out police station. it's allow to check if ppl like all other items and vote on

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Am 14. März 2019 19:43:52 MEZ schrieb Markus : >On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 23:11, Jan S wrote: >> >> I'll collect more opinions on the abolition of amenity=police. > >Note that every software that uses OSM data would need to be updated >before amenity=police can be removed. Therefore it is is unlikel

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 23:11, Jan S wrote: > > I'll collect more opinions on the abolition of amenity=police. Note that every software that uses OSM data would need to be updated before amenity=police can be removed. Therefore it is is unlikely that amenity=police would disappear soon. Instead, pe

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

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 16:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 14. Mar 2019, at 16:49, Tony Shield wrote: > > > > Can they currently be edited with JOSM? > > > of course, you simply add a relation as member to another relation. > Can you? It's not clear to me from the documentation that I c

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

There have been no further comments on the proposal for several days now, neither were there comments on the proposal page. Would it be an issue if I started the voting this weekend although the proposal is less than two weeks old? Best, Jan Am 11. März 2019 17:32:13 MEZ schrieb Martin Koppenh

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

Am 14. März 2019 01:02:56 MEZ schrieb Sergio Manzi : >On 2019-03-14 00:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >> >> 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, grou

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

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 15:09, Jo wrote: > I would definitely want routes to be composed of subroutes which are > shared with other routes, > I see that as less than useful for any route I know of. But I suppose it's a matter of how short a subroute you're willing to put up with. I probably wou

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

sent from a phone > On 14. Mar 2019, at 16:49, Tony Shield wrote: > > Can they currently be edited with JOSM? of course, you simply add a relation as member to another relation. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org h

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

Hi Is there a PTV2 example of route with ways and subroutes? Can they currently be edited with JOSM? TonyS On 14/03/2019 15:07, Jo wrote: I would definitely want routes to be composed of subroutes which are shared with other routes, hence the reasoning of keeping the stop sequences in the r

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

I would definitely want routes to be composed of subroutes which are shared with other routes, hence the reasoning of keeping the stop sequences in the route relations. Polyglot On Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 15:41 Paul Allen On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 11:21, Tony Shield > wrote: > > Am I right in thinking

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

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 11:21, Tony Shield wrote: Am I right in thinking that a superroute is a sequence of ways and > relations of ways? > I'm not 100% certain. The documentation on the wiki isn't entirely clear. I suspect some of it may have been scrubbed by those who dislike the concept of su

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

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 6:45 AM Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > I was pointed to the discussion from the waymarkedtrails issue > tracker. I haven't followed the whole discussion. Here's just my > two cents as somebody how processes route data. I know that you and I have pretty strong disagreements on the

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

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 03:44, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 st

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

> This can be hard to identify in large area with not optimal images > so the proposal is to create the tag landcover=barren. If things can not be tagged from aerial images then it is better to wait for new ones rather than add something like that. > Two types of classifications exist: > natu

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

Mar 14, 2019, 12:03 AM by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > > “> form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft > > proposals” > > 🤦‍♂️ > > I might support this if all men, Europeans, and people of European ancestry > were excluded from this cabal of illuminati. 😂😁 > Proposing d

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

In my experience this kind of "lets drop bunch of fixmes and others will map it properly" leads to nothing good. It is better to map less but properly rather than add low quality data. Mar 14, 2019, 10:50 AM by lorenzostucch...@outlook.it: > Hi, > > thanks for your very interesting point, this

Re: [Tagging] Expand the key:opening_hours

Some more comments: - the OH values are currently always evaluated in the local time zone (or to go even a bit further in a local context as the location they apply to is always known), so a time zone indicator would be only needed in the cases that require different processing, the question is if

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

Warin Great description of PTV2. Paul Am I right in thinking that a superroute is a sequence of ways and relations of ways? The relation of ways could be called a route-segment or similar. A I see it routes for most trains and buses are a sequence of ways and route-segments, and a route-segm

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

Hi, I was pointed to the discussion from the waymarkedtrails issue tracker. I haven't followed the whole discussion. Here's just my two cents as somebody how processes route data. On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 04:37:19PM +0100, s8evq wrote: > > If you want to indicate the preferred direction of a walki

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

You may want to look at this project: http://geacron.com/the-geacron-project/ The tool can display/browse historical geo-data as year-to-year browseable maps. There probably are other tools out there, mayebe even osm-based. (This is where the real experts kick in...) Fr gr Peter Elderson Op do

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

Hi, thanks for your very interesting point, this can be a good point to thinks to pass to the tag landcover to sat_landcover to better distinguish the different vision. And sat_landcover can be a first draft info just for isolated land where is hard to go and check what is mapped and after this

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

On 13/03/2019 13:59, David Marchal wrote: 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 op

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

I think your idea is good, but the scale and viewpoint are different from the regular mapping perspective. OSM-mappers map "What's on the ground" as seen from the ground, as detailed as possible. Satellite imagery is only used to estimate and confiirm. Wjhat one doesn't know, is left open. Where t

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

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 01:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > A site relation could be the best solution? A group relation [1] seems to be the best fit. This is a relation for a named group of objects. Unlike a site or multipolygon relation, a group relation does *not* constitute a new ob

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

Hi, Thanks for your reply. Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 00:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha scritto: A good guide is to only map what you know, if you don't know - leave the map blank. Colouring in the map may look pretty, but it may hide errors that would