Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Utility markers

Just letting you know that something has happened to the page in that the normal voting options to copy don't appear when you go to Edit Source? Somebody may have accidentally pasted in the wrong spot on the page? Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Tagging forest parcels

There may be a misunderstanding here: what I mean about forest parcels is a piece of forest which is numbered and whose number is displayed on site, with a plate or a painted text. Such data can be useful for orientation in a forest and, until some years ago, these numbers were displayed on

[Tagging] junction=approach

Looking around my local area and trying to fix issues flagged by the iD editor, I came across a number of road sections on the approach to roundabouts, tagged as “junction=approach”.  I can find no documentation in the Wiki to support this usage and it seems illogical to me, as “junction=*”

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

> This can be handled by looking at  > roads/cycleways building relation, > right? Not really, the good metrics here would rather be the traffic (amount of traffic, type of motor vehicles, destination) rather than the underlying infrastructure and OSM at the moment has no such tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Utility markers

Hi all The vote is now open on the proposal regarding utility markers, until October 26. Many comments allowed to find a nice and versatile tagging for markers useful to be added in OSM. It have been under test in France for the last month and didn't show any significant issue.

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

On 12/10/19 20:13, John Willis via Tagging wrote: On Oct 12, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a good way to go. Route= cycle_touring road_touring cyclist road_cyclist road_cycling ? I think the word “race” should be left out, unless

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

Netherlands usage is: the route must have some physical representation on the roads. Preferably waymarked all the way. But long routes tend to use local/regional/national sections as parts, so the waymarking does not have to be the same everywhere. Also, some routes are scarcely or even barely

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

On Oct 12, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a good way to go. Route= cycle_touring road_touring cyclist road_cyclist road_cycling ? I think the word “race” should be left out, unless it is for mapping actual racing routes. Javbw

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

Phyks wrote: > * Some are dedicated to a very particular category of cyclists, > often racing bikes. We have `route=mtb` for mountain bikes, > we might have `route=racing_bikes` for racing bikes? Typical > example is https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/163266 > (which might actually fall

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

11 Oct 2019, 18:28 by ph...@phyks.me: > with varying quality of > infrastructure but always a legal status. See for instance > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2246847 (very bad infrastructure, > but official signs in the streets) or > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6445738

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

12 Oct 2019, 04:27 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > > >> On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Phyks <>> ph...@phyks.me >> >> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I've found similar issues in France recently. Cycling routes is too >> broad and diverse and covers various realities. From a