Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:golf=cartpath

> what about pedestrians, can they walk on cart paths? And other vehicles, > e.g. lawnmowers or tractors? > Shouldn’t these get a highway tag? Yes, they should get a highway tag, in my opinion. The current proposal requires the use of highway=* with golf=cartpath. Either "highway=service" or "hi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:golf=cartpath

> if I want all the path in a park, I create a propal with park=path ? > then forest=path ? and so on with all "this object is inside this one" That's a theoretical risk and I wouldn't support adding any such tags, but in this case there is already a well-used key "golf=*" for golf course features

Re: [Tagging] New way to use tagging: simple questions with no prep_discussion: tag for a IT School ?

Hello, yo and Paul. 2019年6月9日(日) 8:16 Paul Allen : > On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 at 23:46, yo paseopor wrote: > >> >> Whats is the tag for a IT school like this? >> http://www.mecabit.com/ >> > > If it's an educational facility then it looks like amenity=college. If > it's more of a "get people into > e

Re: [Tagging] New description of waterway=pressurised

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 04:27:36PM -0400, Nita Rae Sanders wrote: > Here is one possible example of what you seem to be describing … way 84255726 > > Within Florida's Oleno State Part, the Santa Fe River vanishes into a > sinkhole. It then reappears at River Rise Preserve State Park. the > route,

Re: [Tagging] New way to use tagging: simple questions with no prep_discussion: tag for a IT School ?

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 at 23:46, yo paseopor wrote: > > Whats is the tag for a IT school like this? > http://www.mecabit.com/ > If it's an educational facility then it looks like amenity=college. If it's more of a "get people into employment by various means" thing then social_facility=outreach + s

Re: [Tagging] New description of waterway=pressurised

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 08:59:08PM +, marc marc wrote: > I don't understand the logic of changing the meaning of a tag recently > validated by a proposal without prior consultation. > a natural siphon was before your modification a waterway=pressurised, > now no more. > > the fact that the ap

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:golf=cartpath

thanks for your previous reply but sorry I fail to understand how that answers my question, so I ask again more simply: if I want all the path in a park, I create a propal with park=path ? then forest=path ? and so on with all "this object is inside this one" you tell yourself that the alternative

[Tagging] New way to use tagging: simple questions with no prep_discussion: tag for a IT School ?

Hi! Whats is the tag for a IT school like this? http://www.mecabit.com/ Thanks yopaseopor PD: education scheme has to be improved. A non-schoolar education scheme would be interesting. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.ope

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

Le 08.06.19 à 17:46, Johnparis a écrit : > there are one or more devices inside the building that's the main issue. if you fill a hole with water, it doesn't matter to have one object or 2 because the water can fill the whole v1olume. but on a site that includes cables, switches, motors, tagging

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

Thanks for the explanation. I see your point. On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 7:10 PM François Lacombe wrote: > Hi Colin, > > Le sam. 8 juin 2019 à 18:53, Colin Smale a écrit : > >> If we want to describe the overall transfer function of the whole >> "building", then we need to describe the input and ou

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

Hi Colin, Le sam. 8 juin 2019 à 18:53, Colin Smale a écrit : > If we want to describe the overall transfer function of the whole > "building", then we need to describe the input and output characteristics, > and some aspects of the path from input to output. Just stating a couple of > voltages d

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

On 2019-06-08 18:08, François Lacombe wrote: > Specifically on the topic, a converter hall will never have only one feature > inside : you'll find the converter, but cooling and auxiliary power stuff > also, and all that world should get individual features > >> By the way, your last example:

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

7 Jun 2019, 19:48 by ok...@johnfreed.com: > I believe the key phrase is "single-use" in the sentence you cite. That is, > for instance, if you have a building that is a café (tagged as building=yes) > with a node inside it with the details of the café (name=Rick's Cafe; > amenity=cafe), then

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

Le sam. 8 juin 2019 à 17:48, Johnparis a écrit : > I disagree with the premise. There is no confict at all between building=* > and power=*. See https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/142321228 for a > typical case. > Not between building=* and power=* but with power=transformer and building=* (for in

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

I looked at the actual proposal and I think on the Talk page here is a problem I see. You write: Since power =converter isn't compatible with building

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

Le sam. 8 juin 2019 à 17:08, Johnparis a écrit : > I agree with Marc that you should never "create nodes at a random position > with the equipment to avoid the tag for the characteristic". If you place a > node, it should reflect as closely as possible the actual position, > although if the posit

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

I agree with Marc that you should never "create nodes at a random position with the equipment to avoid the tag for the characteristic". If you place a node, it should reflect as closely as possible the actual position, although if the position is uncertain, it's typical in OSM to place a node rathe

Re: [Tagging] Splitting places and hosted devices in mapping

Thank you two for the elaborated answers I agree that currently many mapping practices split sites and devices. Then the idea should spread as to not get in arguments like the one in the proposal. Nevertheless I have comments regarding Marc examples : * " bin/shelter/bench=yes on a bus stop for t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:tourism=camp_pitch

On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 at 15:11, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Any additional comments on this updated proposal to use > tourism=camp_pitch to tag individual pitches within a campsite or > caravan site? > How do you handle sites that accept both caravans and tents on different pitches? There are quite a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:golf=cartpath

sent from a phone > On 8. Jun 2019, at 16:13, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Any additional comments on golf=cartpath? > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:golf%3Dcartpath what about pedestrians, can they walk on cart paths? And other vehicles, e.g. lawnmowers or trac

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:golf=cartpath

Any additional comments on golf=cartpath? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:golf%3Dcartpath On 5/27/19, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I've created a complete proposal page for golf=cartpath: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:golf%3Dcartpath > > This

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:tourism=camp_pitch

Any additional comments on this updated proposal to use tourism=camp_pitch to tag individual pitches within a campsite or caravan site? This proposal would deprecate camp_site=camp_pitch (which failed to win approval but is in use) and camp_site=pitch, instead using the "tourism" key. A tourism=c