Re: [Tagging] Tagging estuaries: estuary=yes or river=estuary?

"An estuary is a partially enclosed body of water, and its surrounding coastal habitats, where saltwater from the ocean mixes with fresh water from rivers or streams" - https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/estuaries/estuaries01_whatis.html Some tidal channels are part of an estuary, but

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 00:05, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > For the rare situation like a "kreisfreie Städte" which can be a > "city" or a "county, it could make sense to use > "border_type:de=, or "designation:de="? > I have an innate dislike of such countrification on a global map. It's better

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

For the rare situation like a "kreisfreie Städte" which can be a "city" or a "county, it could make sense to use "border_type:de=, or "designation:de="? On 10/29/19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > >> Il giorno 28 ott 2019, alle ore 10:00, Sarah Hoffmann >> ha scritto: >>

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

sent from a phone > Il giorno 28 ott 2019, alle ore 10:00, Sarah Hoffmann ha > scritto: > > It is one possibility to tag such administrational oddities > as German "kreisfreie Städte" where an admin_level=6 may be > a county or a city. thank you, this is indeed a case where it actually

Re: [Tagging] Tagging estuaries: estuary=yes or river=estuary?

A friend, who works in this area of research, pointed me to an easy to read article [1] on estuaries. According to the article there are five types of estuaries based on their geology, coastal plain, bar-built, deltas, tectonic and fjords. (Note I'm skipping the classification based on water

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Access Aisle

Thanks for all the comments. SomeoneElse wrote on the proposal talk page: The page currently uses both "handicap" and "disabled"; I'd suggest using "disabled" throughout (see e.g. https://www.gov.uk/apply-blue-badge ) as that's the terminology used in UK versions of English. I'm not exactly sure

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

28 Oct 2019, 18:29 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 17:17, Kevin Kenny <> kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:54 AM Tom Pfeifer <>> t.pfei...@computer.org >> >> > wrote: >> > >>>

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of bicycle anti-features

I though about it but it may be unclear in case of multiple features - road itself (noexit:bicycle may happen in case of sudden bicycle=no on the main carriageway) - track on one side may terminate suddenly and may continue on the other side 28 Oct 2019, 20:31 by vosc...@gmail.com: > In the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of bicycle anti-features

In the case of a separate cycleway: noexit:bicycle=yes In case of cycleway=lane I would stop the. cycleway key at the last point you can exit on the main-traffic lane On Mon, 28 Oct 2019, 20:04 Michael Reichert, wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > Am 28.10.19 um 19:45 schrieb Tobias Zwick: > > Most

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

A segunda, 28 de out de 2019, 08:46, Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com> escreveu: > "sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged > type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital" > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign > > For me it seems a horrible

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of bicycle anti-features

28 Oct 2019, 19:45 by o...@westnordost.de: > It would be interesting to tag also anti-features. Most commonly, a cycleway > that just ends without merging it back onto the street. > I tag it with noexit=yes at the end of a highway=cycleway  > How could this be tagged, for cycleways mapped on

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Approved - Utility markers

Hi, should position=* be kept when retagging pipeline markers to the new scheme? If yes, then this tag should be added to the wiki documentation. Michael  Am So., Okt. 27, 2019 at 18:35 schrieb François Lacombe: Hi all, Voting of Utility markers proposal is now over and it was approved

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of bicycle anti-features

Hi Tobias, Am 28.10.19 um 19:45 schrieb Tobias Zwick: > Most commonly, a cycleway that just ends without merging it back onto the > street. Do you have images illustrating this? Best regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[Tagging] Tagging of bicycle anti-features

We know how to tag certain bicycle features such as the "advanced stop line" [1] It would be interesting to tag also anti-features. Most commonly, a cycleway that just ends without merging it back onto the street. Currently, such a situation would be tagged the same as a track that is merged

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

Am 28.10.2019 um 11:11 schrieb marc marc: > Le 28.10.19 à 09:44, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : >> "sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged >> type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital" >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign > Yes it's horrible > > the

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 17:17, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:54 AM Tom Pfeifer > wrote: > > >>> type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital" > > >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign > > I concur with all those who said this is a horrible idea. > So

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:54 AM Tom Pfeifer wrote: > >>> type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital" > >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign I concur with all those who said this is a horrible idea. > I had a look at the original proposal, and it does not contain the

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

There are some other "weird" things, for example using "intersection" instead of "via" for the via role, which means that the handling needs to be special cased relative to turn restrictions and similar relations. Am 28.10.2019 um 15:51 schrieb Tom Pfeifer: type=destination_sign +

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

Le lun. 28 oct. 2019 à 09:46, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > For me it seems a horrible and unacceptable tagging - amenity=hospital > should be on hospitals > and nothing else. > +1 Same kind of directions are given for marker=* key https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:marker#How_to_map

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign I had a look at the original proposal, and it does not contain the word 'amenity'. Thus I conclude it had been later fiddled into the wiki page. Anyway looking into the voting results the

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

On 10/28/19 2:59 AM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: >> +1, I have never understood why some people are double tagging >> administrative entities not only with admin_level and boundary but also with >> place tags. > > It is one possibility to tag such administrational oddities > as German "kreisfreie

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

+1 I'd support updated the wiki page to favour tagging the symbol and not using amenity=hospital. On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 21:13, marc marc wrote: > Le 28.10.19 à 09:44, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > > "sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged > > type=destination_sign +

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

On 28/10/2019 10:11, marc marc wrote: Le 28.10.19 à 09:44, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : "sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign Yes it's horrible the next line said

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

On 28/10/2019 09:42, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On 10/28/19 03:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: "sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign For me it seems a horrible and

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

Le 28.10.19 à 09:44, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > "sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged > type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital" > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign Yes it's horrible the next line said destination:symbol=hospital it's

Re: [Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

On 10/28/19 03:44, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > "sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged > type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital" > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign > > For me it seems a horrible and unacceptable tagging - amenity=hospital >

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 06:17:29AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > Il giorno 28 ott 2019, alle ore 02:56, Clifford Snow > > ha scritto: > > > > Counties in the US are tagged as admin_level=6 + boundary=administrative. > > > +1, I have never understood why

[Tagging] amenity=hospital on things that are not hospitals - is it a good idea?

"sign having a hospital icon and no name can simply be tagged type=destination_sign + amenity=hospital" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:destination_sign For me it seems a horrible and unacceptable tagging - amenity=hospital should be on hospitals and nothing else. Is it just me,

Re: [Tagging] place or border_type ?

28 Oct 2019, 06:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> Il giorno 28 ott 2019, alle ore 02:56, Clifford Snow >> ha scritto: >> >> Counties in the US are tagged as admin_level=6 + boundary=administrative. >> > > > +1, I have never understood why some people are double