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

On 10/12/19 17:54, Peter Elderson wrote: To sum up, checkpoints and trailheads deserve to be mapped. Once they are features mapped and tagged as nodes, they can be rendered, searched and used as POIs. Questions: Is it useful to include them as node members in the hiking route relation(s) or

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

To sum up, checkpoints and trailheads deserve to be mapped. Once they are features mapped and tagged as nodes, they can be rendered, searched and used as POIs. Questions: Is it useful to include them as node members in the hiking route relation(s) or is the spatial relationship enough? If

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Telecom distribution point

I'm voting "no" because I do not see any discussion of this proposal at this mailing list or on the wiki. Has it been discussed somewhere else? The definition is not clear to me. The page says this is for mapping a "piece of equipment allowing to connect individuals and households to telecom

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

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 5:25 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > There are checkpoints that are used for safety. These are checked by search > and rescue services when people are overdue, or tracks get closed by fires or > very bad weather. They are not tourist 'look at me, this what I have

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

In my area lots of search and rescue teams use maps and services provided by CalTop, SarTopo and other similar providers. And it turns out that CalTopo/SarTopo and others use OpenStreetMap data when generating maps. One reason for this is that OSM has much better (more data and more accurate

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

To me a skatepark is a well defined thing, different and with no major problems of conflict with other places for sport. I don't see particular problems in using an appropriate tag that better characterizes what it is instead of relying a rather vague recipe of tags. I suggest to check the

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

Yes I know... I trust nobody will rely on OSM for their life, unless the rescue service itself checks and guarantees that the data is 100% correct and complete. But it's nice if they are mapped. Fr gr Peter Elderson Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 23:25 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On

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

On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 at 22:34, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: leisure=pitch has never sat well with many sports; > table tennis .. a pitch? > chess .. a pitch? > cricket.. the pitch is the bit in the middle .. not the playing area which > is a 'field'... > > leisure=sports_field might be

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

Yes. I have no principle problem with checkpoint members or other useful node members, if the membership of the relation provides useful information that cannot be easily extracted otherwise, by tagging a feature or simple node as a checkpoint. Same goes for trailheads. Start/endpoints are another

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

On 09/12/19 10:12, Martin Scholtes wrote: 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

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

On 10/12/19 05:09, Paul Allen wrote: On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 at 17:31, Tom Pfeifer > wrote: I'd prefer to keep it leisure=pitch, avoiding top-level tag fragmentation. Refinements about the sport definition can appear in the sport=* subtagging. I can

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

On 09/12/19 19:43, Peter Elderson wrote: Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>>: 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 (

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

On 12/9/2019 3:43 AM, Peter Elderson wrote: I have walked many "Camino" sections in Italy. The "checkpoints" are just stamps, you can get them at many shops, hotels, restaurants, tourist info points and the like on the way. They will stamp anything for anyone who asks. There is no register,

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

On Sat, Dec 07, 2019 at 12:28:23PM -0500, Jmapb wrote: > On 12/7/2019 11:52 AM, s8evq wrote: > >On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 10:30:37 +1100, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>For nodes .. think the roles of ways should be done first, but some > >>thoughts for later proposal/s. > >> > >>Are they

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

On Mon, 9 Dec 2019 at 17:31, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > I'd prefer to keep it leisure=pitch, avoiding top-level tag fragmentation. > Refinements about the > sport definition can appear in the sport=* subtagging. > I can understand that viewpoint. I'm not sure that there is any technical merit, in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

It isn't limited to that. On 12/7/19 4:49 PM, 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? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:park%20ride?uselang=en-US https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/133916328

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

On 09.12.2019 03:13, Scott via Tagging wrote: 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.

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

Jmapb : > 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