Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 11:15, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > My question to everyone on this forum: does option 2 makes sense to > you as a mapper? Yep, does to me. Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

[Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

Currently place=locality is main in the database from imports, and it is also used as a way to tag a feature which is not currently rendered by most map renders so that the name will show. Since place=locality was originally defined as "a named place that has no population" it's easy to see how

Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1

Gates can be mapped as nodes, so the fence or hedge or wall can be mapped as a single way that goes around the field, and the gates or stiles as nodes of that way. I agree with everyone who says that it is best practice to map a "barrier=hedge" as separate feature from a "landuse=meadow", but in

Re: [Tagging] airport check in counters

On 15/04/19 06:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 13. Apr 2019, at 15:21, bkil wrote: * Check-in counters: yes! Also include their count and whether there are any restrictions between the different counters (with/without bags, online only, etc). I am also supporting the

Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1

A barrier on a park will have some means of getting in!!! So the barrier will not be continuous - having gate/s or gaps etc. The park boundary would then consist of the way that is the fence/barrier and other ways (possibly a gate etc) and that then meets the definition for a multipolygon

Re: [Tagging] tags for a live stock sale yard

In Australia commercial livestock (sheep, cattle) are sold through these livestock markets. They may be transported for several days to get to the market, rested there before sale to recover from their trip. As such the market can be large with feeding etc. Once sold they are then

Re: [Tagging] Waterway tributary role

Le 13.04.19 à 16:25, Florian Lohoff a écrit : > On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 11:48:28AM +, marc marc wrote: >> It's a little more than a personal note. >> >> I feel like I remember several discussions about this on talk-fr, >> but I didn't look for any other links that had been posted. >> I also

Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1

Le 13.04.19 à 02:37, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > Will validators in JOSM and other editors be able to point out a > problem if a closed way is tagged with both "area=yes", > "barrier=hedge" and "landuse=meadow"? a area with a fence as an attribute of this area is better described with fenced=yes

Re: [Tagging] Was barrier=jersey_barrier approved in a proposal?

The same plastic barriers are used in Australia. While they may be capable of retaining water .. I am yet to see one with water in it ... probably too much trouble and we do have a lack of water too. Where weight is required the concrete ones look to be used, possibly easier and quicker  to do

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Le 14.04.19 à 21:35, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : >> On 14. Apr 2019, at 18:36, marc marc wrote: >> one of the problems is that each key has its own logic >> a part of a amenity=building is building:part=* >> a part of the amenity=parking is amenity=parking_space >> a part of a

Re: [Tagging] airport check in counters

sent from a phone > On 13. Apr 2019, at 15:21, bkil wrote: > > * Check-in counters: yes! Also include their count and whether there > are any restrictions between the different counters (with/without > bags, online only, etc). I am also supporting the idea of specific proposed tags for

Re: [Tagging] shelter_type=rock_shelter

sent from a phone > On 14. Apr 2019, at 14:13, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > The Australian community has indicated that amenity=shelter + > shelter_type=rock_shelter is not an appropriate tag in this case since these > are natural features not man made features so shouldn't be under the amenity

Re: [Tagging] shelter_type=rock_shelter

Le 14.04.19 à 14:13, Andrew Harvey a écrit : > natural=cave_entrance if it were to be done from scratch, the right way would have been natural/man_made=cave on a node if we don't know its extent + entrance=yes > The Australian community has indicated that amenity=shelter + >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

sent from a phone > On 14. Apr 2019, at 18:36, marc marc wrote: > > one of the problems is that each key has its own logic > a part of a amenity=building is building:part=* > a part of the amenity=parking is amenity=parking_space > a part of a leisure=sports_centre is leisure=pitch unless it

Re: [Tagging] Was barrier=jersey_barrier approved in a proposal?

I was unfamiliar with the term jersey_barrier - but then there are other barriers I was unfamiliar with. I'm happy to use it - I'm English in England - as there are no dual-uses I am aware of. https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/Wp18aKeOYiiFWti5nTqorQ  in my opinion shows some very posh

Re: [Tagging] what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

sent from a phone > On 12. Apr 2019, at 15:47, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > My understanding is that highway=path is rather problematic if there > are no additional tags, because it's not clear if all paths are open > to bicycles or horses. See >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Le 14.04.19 à 17:28, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > Camping pitches could become their own key: one of the problems is that each key has its own logic a part of a amenity=building is building:part=* a part of the amenity=parking is amenity=parking_space a part of a leisure=sports_centre is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

sent from a phone > On 14. Apr 2019, at 15:46, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > By using a different key, like "camp_site=*", this is more clearly a > "sub-feature" of tourism=camp_site IMHO the tag indicates a subtype of camp site, rather than a feature. I am not opposing a new key, but why

Re: [Tagging] Was barrier=jersey_barrier approved in a proposal?

sent from a phone > On 14. Apr 2019, at 14:43, "ajt1...@gmail.com" wrote: > > but I can't think of anything other than "concrete barrier" for these. yes, which is very unspecific and doesn’t include those made of plastic Cheers, Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] Was barrier=jersey_barrier approved in a proposal?

Thanks! I usually browse the wiki with images turned off to save on data (I pay $20 per Gigabyte), so sometimes I miss these things. I wish all the important images had an alt-text. On 4/14/19, Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 14.04.19 11:56, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >> Thanks, Martin! I couldn’t find

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Martin, do you have a suggestion for a different key or value for this tag? I mentioned "tourism=camp_pitch" or "amenity=camp_pitch" above, but I think this could cause people to start using this as a stand-alone feature, perhaps for small or remote campsites that have only one pitch. However, I

Re: [Tagging] Was barrier=jersey_barrier approved in a proposal?

On 14.04.19 11:56, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Thanks, Martin! I couldn’t find that link. On many wiki pages, the infobox template will show an icon next to the status (e.g. "approved"). Clicking that icon links to the proposal. The link is based on the "statuslink" field of the template, and I

Re: [Tagging] Was barrier=jersey_barrier approved in a proposal?

Great. Thank you On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 9:45 PM ajt1...@gmail.com wrote: > On 14/04/2019 10:56, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Can anyone from England confirm that this tag is intelligible in your > > dialect? Are there other names for these that should be mentioned on > > the page? > > It's not

Re: [Tagging] Was barrier=jersey_barrier approved in a proposal?

On 14/04/2019 10:56, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Can anyone from England confirm that this tag is intelligible in your dialect? Are there other names for these that should be mentioned on the page? It's not in common non-trade use in the UK, but trade sites certainly use that name.  Maybe others

Re: [Tagging] Was barrier=jersey_barrier approved in a proposal?

Thanks, Martin! I couldn’t find that link. I wish the OSM wiki search feature had a better algorithm. Can anyone from England confirm that this tag is intelligible in your dialect? Are there other names for these that should be mentioned on the page? Joseph On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 4:57 PM

[Tagging] shelter_type=rock_shelter

The wiki documents amenity=shelter + shelter_type=rock_shelter [1] as "A rock shelter is a shallow cave-like opening at the base of a bluff or cliff." It has ~500 uses globally. In Australia these rock shelters known as rock overhangs or cliff overhangs are extensively mistagged as

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I would not say it is used frequently, we have 100.000 camp sites tagged, > and only 7000 pitches with this tag Given the fact, that about half of them do not have more tags than name (about a quarter lack even name) this ratio is not all that bad. Regards Sven

Re: [Tagging] Was barrier=jersey_barrier approved in a proposal?

>From Wikipedia: Jersey barriers were developed in the 1950s, beginning in the U.S. state of New Jersey as separators between lanes of a highway. Over time, they grew taller (as their effectiveness was demonstrated) and became more modular (as their

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [OSM-talk] [Wiki] Proposed wiki policy - Voting - Deletion policy

Thanks for the link. One man's trash is another man's treasure. On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 4:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > This was posted to OSM-talk but is relevant to tagging and the proposal > process > > --Forwarded message > From: Tigerfell > > We would like to invite you to

Re: [Tagging] Was barrier=jersey_barrier approved in a proposal?

sent from a phone > On 14. Apr 2019, at 04:43, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I want to know so that the wiki page can be edited to show the correct > status: approved vs in use. I went back into the archives and it seems it was included and approved in my more barrier types proposal

Re: [Tagging] tags for a live stock sale yard

In Hungary, market auctions do not exist. Instead you go to the livestock market, purchase some chicks, then go to the producers' market to grab some grain for them. Many markets are open to a little haggling, though. We de have online auctions and also some official ones related to liquidation

Re: [Tagging] What is the role of "role=guidepost"

Apr 14, 2019, 12:37 AM by pelder...@gmail.com: > But I would say, practically, guideposts do not need to be in the route > relation. If a guidepost is part of a route, it is also part of a way so the > point location is already in there. > AFAIK most (many?) guideposts are not tagged this wat,

Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1

sent from a phone > On 14. Apr 2019, at 08:37, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > This makes even less sense and is even clumsier, especially for those > using iD if memory serves correctly. I did not experience problems with id in such cases, but I also would not let the mapping concepts be lead

Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1

sent from a phone > On 14. Apr 2019, at 06:15, Phake Nick wrote: > > area=no would also applies to amenity=park or landcover=* if you are tagging > them in the same object. you cannot map them on the same object. The name would also apply to the fence, the height would also apply to the

Re: [Tagging] Requiring area=yes with barrier=wall, barrier=hedge and other usually linear features when mapped as an area`1

On 4/13/19 15:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > On 13. Apr 2019, at 19:58, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: >> >> It makes no sense to have to add separate ways for barrier=fence and >> leisure=park when the fence surrounds the entire park. > > you could make the park a multipolygon. This makes even less

Re: [Tagging] What is the role of "role=guidepost"

sent from a phone > On 13. Apr 2019, at 23:45, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Some of these are simply small signs with symbols only, nailed to a farmers > fence post or tree and may be easy to miss unless you are looking for them. There is also the