Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Leisure=Skatepark

Great question. I'm not a BMXer, just an aggressive inline skater so I am not a definitive authority on BMX culture by any stretch. I thought they were still called skate parks given I've seen organizations like Red Bull have referred to them as such

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

On 12/8/2019 6:44 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: Could you envision a node passed by two hikes, and being a checkpoint for the one and nothing special for the other? Camino de Santiago ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/153968 ) comes to mind. Hikers doing the whole route carry passports

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Leisure=Skatepark

One question (from a *very* non-skateboarder!) ... You've made reference to a "BMX only skatepark". If it's BMX only, would it still be called a skatepark? Thanks Graeme On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 at 12:14, Scott via Tagging wrote: > Description: An area designated and equipped for skateboarding,

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Leisure=Skatepark

Description: An area designated and equipped for skateboarding, in-line skating, BMX'ing, or scootering. Proposal for fixing improper definition of sport=skateboarding, creating skatepark as a result, and other relevant access and equipment tags.

[Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Telecom distribution point

Hi all, Following 7 months of RFC and apparently no problem to tag telecom distribution points, the vote is now open. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Telecom_distribution_points These are really (certainly too) tiny boxes with telecom network references on them that I

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

I have some doubts about the need to link the feature to the relation. The node is already in or possibly very near the route, and the feature could be tagged, displayed and routed as a type of POI. But, if entered into a route relation, role checkpoint sounds ok to me. Then it could be displayed

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

On 09/12/19 10:44, Peter Elderson wrote: Ok, just asking to make sure. As an overview most hiking things are on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Hiking Could you envision a node passed by two hikes, and being a checkpoint for the one and nothing special for the other? Yes. Would a

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 6:45 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > > Ok, just asking to make sure. > > Could you envision a node passed by two hikes, and being a checkpoint for the > one and nothing special for the other? Certainly, for the sort of checkpoint that's to show that a hiker actually took the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

I am now convinced it is useful to have a oneway=yes tag for a route indicating it's not allowed or possible to go the other way. As for routers, I would still expect a router to check all the ways and nodes for access. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 00:36 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

sent from a phone > On 8. Dec 2019, at 16:13, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > : (Unilever-owned) GROM produce their ice cream concentrate in a factory and > then convert that stuff locally into ice-cream for which people queue.("Un > gelato come una volta"). > Is that industrial or "artigianale"

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Ok, just asking to make sure. Could you envision a node passed by two hikes, and being a checkpoint for the one and nothing special for the other? Would a checkpoint need to be a node of a way in the relation? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 00:16 schreef Kevin Kenny : > On Sun,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

sent from a phone > On 7. Dec 2019, at 16:49, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Only-exit ways in zoos, Orla Perć hiking trail, > some tourism routes in castles, mines etc don’t know for the hiking trail, but the other cases are not what I would see as “legal prescriptions”, it’s what the

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 6:10 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > Is a checkpoint a feature in itself? Of course it is. A way segment is also a feature in itself, which doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be part of a route relation: "When you're hiking this route, you'll need to sign in at these

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

Am 08.12.2019 um 05:04 schrieb Alessandro Sarretta: > > Hi Martin, > > my doubt on your proposal is that I think the only useful value would > be "designated" (anyway, can you share any example/picture of a sign > describing a park specificly designated for carpooling?). But in this > case I'd

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Is a checkpoint a feature in itself? Fr gr Peter Elderson Op zo 8 dec. 2019 om 23:48 schreef Kevin Kenny : > On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 12:29 PM Jmapb wrote: > > On 12/7/2019 11:52 AM, s8evq wrote: > > > In my limited experience mapping hiking routes, I have not yet come > across any real use for

Re: [Tagging] Route node roles - was Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 12:29 PM Jmapb wrote: > On 12/7/2019 11:52 AM, s8evq wrote: > > In my limited experience mapping hiking routes, I have not yet come across > > any real use for nodes in hiking relations, but I'm curious if other people > > have good uses. > > As far as I know, there is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 at 21:55, Allroads wrote: > Draw this image over the example, JOSM changes (not uploaded) drawn in. > https://i.postimg.cc/t70p6WXm/Neubr-ckcrossing.png > The area:highway=footway is correctly drawn in, but the footway is all > footway=sidewalk, your still walking on the

[Tagging] surface=paving_stones examples review

I just edited surface=paving_stones page at Wiki to add images with examples, as it seems to be a case of a rare page where gallery can actually be useful. Review of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:surface%3Dpaving_stones is welcomed. ___

Re: [Tagging] state of a proposal

The proposal was not continued and has not been significantly changed since 2015, but the tag (area:highway=*) is documented at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway and it has been used by some mappers. However, note that there were two different proposals which described slightly

Re: [Tagging] state of a proposal

This proposal is abandoned. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Street_area=history As with any other tag: - review how tag is actually used - document it at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway - use it in way matching de facto standard (or not

Re: [Tagging] state of a proposal

On 08.12.19 18:37, Catonano wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_area > > What' s the state of this proposal ? Well, I wouldn't hold my breath for a vote unless the author (or someone who takes over the reins) reboots it, but this doesn't necessarily mean the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

On 09/12/19 07:14, Peter Elderson wrote: Sarah Hoffmann mailto:lon...@denofr.de>>: The point about the processing you have now made repeatedly in different contexts. You seem to have come to this conclusion because waymarkedtrails does not implement non-linear routes. As

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

https://i.postimg.cc/c43VzBtk/squarelivingstreet.jpg Took the wrong link. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

https://i.postimg.cc/J41D2GSJ/pedestriansquare.jpg [6]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/416303537 I made a mistake. i thought it was a pedestrian square, but it is a livingstreet, so a T connection from steps to middle livingstreet carriageway. This need a *=connection value tag.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

Markus example: Let's use a nearby example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86205950. It does not matter if the stairs are parallel or not! Draw this image over the example, JOSM changes (not uploaded) drawn in. https://i.postimg.cc/t70p6WXm/Neubr-ckcrossing.png The area:highway=footway is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Sarah Hoffmann : > On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 11:54:08AM +0100, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Also, i guess backward and forward roles are for ways only, the other > > roles are more suited for relation members. Or not? Could I enter all the > > ways of a 3 Km medieval castle excursion to a viewpoint

[Tagging] state of a proposal

I am interested in this proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_area What' s the state of this proposal ? The tag says: rfc start 2015 08 15 and then ? What happened since then ? Is the rfc still open ? When will it close ? Will it close ? I mean it was 2015

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

8 Dec 2019, 15:25 by mfbehren...@gmail.com: > This diagram should help to better visualise the structure At least in my case diagram was lost and not displayed___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

We all tend to think in pre-established categories. Another one: " The distinction that I find important is between ice cream made in an artisanal fashion (like cakes, pastry) vs. ice cream that is produced industrially," We have a famous (at least expensive) hybrid between the two her in Italy:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Use of Subrelations and Superrelations[Quelltext bearbeiten ] Some user requested to use subrelations to map parts of hiking trail and then assign a role to the subrelation instead of each

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

I fully agree with this argument and I also wrote a comment on the Wiki Talk page. What do you thing about using main:forward, main:backward, alternative:forward and alternative:backward. Another problem is that whenever there the main trail has a forward or backward we automatically have two

Re: [Tagging] shop=ice_cream vs amenity=ice_cream and OSM Wiki vs tagging

11 Nov 2019, 12:04 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 11:55 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <> > matkoni...@tutanota.com> >: > >> Again, is there some difference >> in use by general population of mappers? >> >> I am not looking for differences in use >> wanted by specific

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

What about routes that have oneway segments, without paths having a legal restrictions on direction of walking? 6 Dec 2019, 19:28 by jan...@gmail.com: > I think the "forward" and "backward" don't belong in a role of a relation. > Oneway=yes on a way should be enough. In the Wiki discussion it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

On 08.12.2019 00:49, Martin Scholtes wrote: Am 07.12.2019 um 18:59 schrieb brad: We already have park_ride tag.   I don't see the new tag adding anything? "park and ride" rather describes the change to public transport and not the continuation of driving with others in a private vehicle.