Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

> I'd still classify that as crossing=traffic_signals. Ah, now I'm super confused. I would've sworn that you'd recommend mapping that as uncontrolled. > The real world is too messy. Can we map a fictional world instead? People actually love doing that:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 00:44, Nick Bolten wrote: > Having trouble finding a good picture (I'll keep looking), but there are > mid-block crossings where pedestrians can press an APS to turn on traffic > warning lights - usually yellow in the US. Some of these crossings do not > immediately give

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

> I would not expect to see something like that, in any of its regional variations (green walking person/red stationary person in much of Europe) without related lights controlling traffic. So, in the case of a pedestrian warning beacon, which does not control traffic in the cases you've

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

> you have still to show us a crossing with traffic lights only for pedestrians :) Having trouble finding a good picture (I'll keep looking), but there are mid-block crossings where pedestrians can press an APS to turn on traffic warning lights - usually yellow in the US. Some of these crossings

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

> If you search traffic light you will see the same thing, not any strange light in relation with traffic itself. https://www.google.com/search?q=traffic+light=lnms=isch=X=0ahUKEwj3vf-XqJHiAhWhzoUKHYr5D3kQ_AUIDigB=1280=891 > (...) > There is no ambiguosity: point is where is the feature, where the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 23:59, Nick Bolten wrote: > >> - A crossing might be marked on the ground > > > Are there traffic signals which control BOTH traffic and pedestrians? > If so, > > crossing=traffic_signals. If there are JUST road markings, no > crossing=traffic_signals. > > I interpret

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

sent from a phone > On 11. May 2019, at 00:57, Nick Bolten wrote: > > If only one or the other, it is not a crossing=traffic_signals. you have still to show us a crossing with traffic lights only for pedestrians :) Crossing refers to a pedestrian (or bicycle) crossing, when there are only

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

>> - A crossing might be marked on the ground > Are there traffic signals which control BOTH traffic and pedestrians? If so, > crossing=traffic_signals. If there are JUST road markings, no crossing=traffic_signals. I interpret this to mean: the necessary condition for using

Re: [Tagging] Looking for Existing Proposal/Feature - Firearm Restrictions

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 12:46, Jane Smith wrote: > Good Evening, > > I am considering submitting a proposal for restrictions or allowances on > carrying firearms in a particular location. I checked through the proposal > pages and the active features pages and did not see anything related to >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - toll

On 09/05/19 03:22, Paul Allen wrote: On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 18:08, > wrote: I have seen that some people already started to reply to this main. AGAIN: Mails here will not be processed (by me)!! You have pretty much guaranteed that

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On 11/05/19 07:07, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 21:26, Markus > wrote: What kind of name are displayed on these buses? Around here, buses, trains etc. usually only display the route number (or route type) and their destination (e.g.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

sent from a phone > On 10. May 2019, at 23:17, yo paseopor wrote: > > A mark is not a control. A sign is not a control (when yes, when no) signs and markings are commonly considered traffic controls. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

No, don't be innocent If you search traffic light you will see the same thing, not any strange light in relation with traffic itself. https://www.google.com/search?q=traffic+light=lnms=isch=X=0ahUKEwj3vf-XqJHiAhWhzoUKHYr5D3kQ_AUIDigB=1280=891 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_light. If you

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 21:26, Markus wrote: > > What kind of name are displayed on these buses? Around here, buses, > trains etc. usually only display the route number (or route type) and > their destination (e.g. "701 Le Prese Stazione", "201 Villeneuve", "IR > Chur" or "IC 3 Basel SBB"). Route

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

sent from a phone > On 10. May 2019, at 18:16, Markus wrote: > > If the community (or rather its majority) agree that the name tag > shouldn't used that way and as soon as the editors display the route's > description in the relations list [3], i'll fix my mistakes. I don’t take issue from

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top_up (fifth revision)

I've read in the previous rejection comments that many opposed to putting brand details in keys. What do you think about this version: prepaid_top_up:mobile=yes/. The reason is that around here, you could top up your mobile phone either at the given carrier, kiosks over generic online charging or

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 20:00, Paul Allen wrote: > > My natural inclination would be to put the name of the service, as displayed > on the bus > itself, in the name tag. But maybe that's just me. What kind of name are displayed on these buses? Around here, buses, trains etc. usually only

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 21:03, Nick Bolten wrote: > I still don't know when you think we should use crossing=traffic_signals... > > - A crossing might be marked on the ground > Are there traffic signals which control BOTH traffic and pedestrians? If so, crossing=traffic_signals. If there are

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

I still don't know when you think we should use crossing=traffic_signals... Imagine you're outside the UK. Pelican signals don't exist. No animal signals, mythical or real, of any kind. There's just infrastructure: - A crossing might be marked on the ground - A crossing might have lighted

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 19:27, Nick Bolten wrote: > This all makes sense, but the question is: what does > crossing=traffic_lights mean given these contexts? There are at least 3 > types of lights and I've seen all of them referred to as "traffic lights", > even on UK government websites: > > -

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

This all makes sense, but the question is: what does crossing=traffic_lights mean given these contexts? There are at least 3 types of lights and I've seen all of them referred to as "traffic lights", even on UK government websites: - Pedestrian signals, i.e. "walk/do not walk" lights of any kind

Re: [Tagging] Looking for Existing Proposal/Feature - Firearm Restrictions

Hi Jane, Welcome! I'm currently visiting Texas, so I know that firearm restrictions are a fact that may be worthwhile to register in OSM. I suggest you write up a proposal following the guidelines in the wiki and taking other proposals as examples and put it up for comments here. If you feel

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 18:40, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Currently description of route is recommended to be mapped in name tag. > My natural inclination would be to put the name of the service, as displayed on the bus itself, in the name tag. But maybe that's just me. -- Paul

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

10 May 2019, 18:16 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: > as the editors display the route's > description in the relations list [3], i'll fix my mistakes. > > [3]: > https://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Help/Dialog/RelationList > > Is

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

Currently description of route is recommended to be mapped in name tag. It clearly should be placed in description tag, with name tag used for a name of the route. I plan on amending Wiki this way, despite that proposal recommended misuses of name tag. Please comment if such edit would not

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 13:50, Hufkratzer wrote: > > It would probably better to use description=* than from=* and to=* > because not all routes have a named starting point or destination point, > like e.g. a roundtrip route around some village. That's true. I didn't think about that. Regards

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

Hi Kevin, On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 17:35, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Please don't assume that every name that looks like a description is > simply a stopgap. Obviously, if you know you've misused the > description as the name, fix it, but where the guidebooks and signs > agree that the description is

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:11 AM Markus wrote: > I agree that the route description (from - to) is not its name. By the > way, the same problem also affects hiking routes. I must admit that > i've also misued the name=* tag this way. Many of the hiking trails around here have formal names that

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

It would probably better to use description=* than from=* and to=* because not all routes have a named starting point or destination point, like e.g. a roundtrip route around some village. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 23:26, Nick Bolten wrote: > > Yes, but a traffic light for whom? I've seen mappers who assume it means > "walk"/"do not walk" lights like this: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Do_Not_Walk_sign,_Great_Neck,_New_York.jpg. > I've seen mappers who assume it means

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 23:46, Nick Bolten wrote: > > I don't know what it means for a crossing to be supervised, > I assume what is meant by "supervised" is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_guard The supervised crossing may have markings or even lights, or possibly neither. The lollipop

[Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

Regarding the recent changes (from 6 May 2019‎) to the wiki page "Public transport" about the misuse of the name tag for route descriptions (e.g. name="701: Samedan Bahnhof - Le Prese Stazione"). [1] [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Public_transport=history I agree that the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top_up (fifth revision)

1. If I want to find a place where I can have some ice cream, searching for cuisine="*ice_cream*" is a simple solution. Listing each individual product is difficult to maintain due to changes in time, but I usually add general categories that define the shop and for which people would