Re: [Tagging] theme it is for me then | Re: How to map Irish pubs?

2019-10-14 Thread Jmapb
On 10/14/2019 6:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: There are in some areas pubs that would merit a brand tag (maybe it is generally common), they have the beer logo aside their name on the sign, beer mats, menus, glasses , sunshades, everything can be branded (it could happen they’re “recycling”

Re: [Tagging] theme it is for me then | Re: How to map Irish pubs?

2019-10-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Oct 2019, at 22:55, Rory McCann wrote: > > >MC: I would expect brand tag to be brand of pub (what AFAIK is rare), not > > list of brands of its inventory. > > I agree. `brand` is for (e.g.) `brand=Weatherspoons`. You could use > `sells:Guinness=yes` to record that s

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019-10-14 Thread John Willis via Tagging
> On Oct 14, 2019, at 4:31 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: > > I imagine mtb maps showing all kinds of mtb-trails except The Big One that > everybody knows. If I were an MTB'ist, I would probably disxcard OSM as > unusable, because it doesn't even give the biggest MTB-route on the planet! To be cle

[Tagging] theme it is for me then | Re: How to map Irish pubs?

2019-10-14 Thread Rory McCann
On 09/10/2019 00:14, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 8 Oct 2019, 23:43 by t4d...@gmail.com: >> This doesn't directly solve the problem, but you could use the >> brand tag and put in the Guinness and other drinks that are >> traditionally in an Irish pub if you knew their selection. > > I would expect b

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

2019-10-14 Thread Florian Lohoff
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 01:43:41PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Hi > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:59:53PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > >> > I had a quick 10 Minute Look at Mapillary and i have found 10s of > >> > examples of separate way although no physical barrier.  > >> > > >> It

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

2019-10-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Oct 2019, at 20:03, Markus wrote: > > It's a detail, but i think that leisure=sunbathing_area (or > leisure=sunbathing_place) were a more descriptive tag than > leisure=sunbathing. Besides, most leisure=* values are nouns. I agree with sunbathing_area being a bette

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

2019-10-14 Thread Paul Allen
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 19:21, Dave F via Tagging wrote: > > You'd be better off tagging places where sunbathing is explicitly > banned. Much more quantifiable, Much more likely to be designated with a > sign. > +0.5 Explicit signage or published regulations permitting or prohibiting. Anything e

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

2019-10-14 Thread Dave F via Tagging
Better to drop it. it's too vague/general. All the examples in this list are leisure places (Beach, lido, park) at which sunbathing is just one of many assumed activities. Swimming, kicking a ball about, throwing a frisbee etc.There's no requirement to explicitly tag it. You'd be better off

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

2019-10-14 Thread Markus
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 17:51, Vɑdɪm wrote: > > OK. Any more comments or we better go for a vote? It's a detail, but i think that leisure=sunbathing_area (or leisure=sunbathing_place) were a more descriptive tag than leisure=sunbathing. Besides, most leisure=* values are nouns. Regards Markus __

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

2019-10-14 Thread Vɑdɪm
OK. Any more comments or we better go for a vote? -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

2019-10-14 Thread François Lacombe
Le dim. 13 oct. 2019 à 20:45, Markus a écrit : > > It was a visual edit that added the tags to the {{vote}} > template, thus disabling the template. I've fixed it by removing the > tags. > That's right, and I didn't noticed that immediatly. Thank you for the fix François _

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019-10-14 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 14/10/2019 14:50, Dave F via Tagging wrote: PS Can anyone explain what an " academic member" is? Just found out it was a spell-correct typo. Volker is an ACA member DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstr

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019-10-14 Thread Dave F via Tagging
On 14/10/2019 00:17, Warin wrote: On 14/10/19 07:26, Volker Schmidt wrote: (disclosure: I am academic member, but express my personal view) The Great Divide route is, to my knowledge, not signposted. The source for thr route is most likely either a GPX track from ACA or a map set from ACA,  wh

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019-10-14 Thread Richard Fairhurst
brad wrote: > There are several variations and gpx tracks available on the net for > the great divide route.   There are also many websites which > discuss the route and show maps.   It's in the public domain. It is only "public domain" (US usage) if the creators have disclaimed all copyright in

Re: [Tagging] Removal of rendering for waterway=wadi

2019-10-14 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
> Intermittent is being used with the key seasonal=*. > I think you may find the increase in use of intermittent may be from this > dual tagging. > I could say tagging for the render. That's not likely if Openstreetmap-carto is the renderer in question, because all common values of seasonal=* are

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019-10-14 Thread Peter Elderson
I compare it with the Via Francigena in Italy. That route is very well signposted, but even if it were not, you would see signs of its existence and importance in road names, milestones, names and signs of dwellings and café's along the way. There are self-registration points on the way, resting pl

Re: [Tagging] Removal of rendering for waterway=wadi

2019-10-14 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
> If it is a valley, wouldn’t there be water at some time, even if very rarely? Off the top of my head, there are at least 3 types of valleys that never contain running water: 1) Valleys in karst formations, where all surface water disappears into cracks or holes in the limestone and flows underg

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019-10-14 Thread Warin
On 14/10/19 18:28, Peter Elderson wrote: brad: There are several variations and gpx tracks available on the net for the great divide route. There are also many websites which discuss the route and show maps.   It's in the public domain. I've looked at the info for the Great Divide

Re: [Tagging] Removal of rendering for waterway=wadi

2019-10-14 Thread Warin
On 14/10/19 17:58, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: It is proposed to remove the rendering of waterway=wadi from Openstreetmap-carto, the style used in the "Standard" layer on openstreetmap.org - see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3931 As discussed back in January 2015, the tag

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019-10-14 Thread Peter Elderson
brad: > There are several variations and gpx tracks available on the net for the > great divide route. There are also many websites which discuss the route > and show maps. It's in the public domain. > > I've looked at the info for the Great Divide MTB-trail without any prior knowledge. On the

Re: [Tagging] Removal of rendering for waterway=wadi

2019-10-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 14. Oct 2019, at 08:58, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > As discussed back in January 2015, the tag waterway=wadi is ambiguous, > because it is was used both for dry valleys and for intermittent > waterways can you explain the difference between a dry valley and an inter

[Tagging] Removal of rendering for waterway=wadi

2019-10-14 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
It is proposed to remove the rendering of waterway=wadi from Openstreetmap-carto, the style used in the "Standard" layer on openstreetmap.org - see https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3931 As discussed back in January 2015, the tag waterway=wadi is ambiguous, because it is was