Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 22:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/6/20 10:14 pm, Paul Allen wrote: >> access=no >> access:conditional=yes @ (above water) > > Conditional key does not look to have text base entry ... might be better to > use opening hours? > opening_hours= "above

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:51, Paul Allen wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 15:40, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: >> cycleway route is verifiable, but route took by army is not) > > Quite a few motor roads in the UK follow those "unverifiable" routes. Some > are even named after those

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On 9/6/20 12:10 pm, Jack Armstrong wrote: On 8/6/20 10:57 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote: The point is they are no longer 'in our environment' .. they are gone, no longer here, vanished. At times this discussion reminds me of a heated argument over whether a thing was a dead parrot

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

On 8/6/20 10:16 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Jun 6, 2020, 06:20 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: On 3/6/20 7:22 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by stevea...@softworkers.com : "this IS residential

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

On 8/6/20 10:14 pm, Paul Allen wrote: On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 10:33, Cornelis > wrote: With these tags and the surrounding footways the bridge is treatey as normal (foot)way by OSRM and graphhopper, altough it only falls dry roughly every other autumn. Is

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On 8/6/20 10:57 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote: The point is they are no longer 'in our environment' .. they are gone, no longer here, vanished.  At times this discussion reminds me of a heated argument over whether a thing was a dead parrot or not

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

On 9/6/20 12:15 am, Paul Allen wrote: On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: Jun 8, 2020, 15:05 by pla16...@gmail.com : The whole world is dangerous.  Just label the entire planet as

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On 8/6/20 10:57 pm, Volker Schmidt wrote: Warin, Jack, your comments are really off my main point. We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different opinions on whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in OSM. In the middle of that discussion the abandoned railway

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 15:40, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Jun 8, 2020, 16:11 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > > There may be other indicators of older lines: >

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:07, Paul Allen wrote: > > The whole world is dangerous. Just label the entire planet as a hazard. > > Last I heard it was "mostly harmless". ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 02:57:29PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Warin, Jack, > > your comments are really off my main point. > We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different opinions > on whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in OSM. In the > middle of that

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 16:11 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: >   > >> I added explicit "even if rails are gone". >> > > Thank you. > > >> "the way will still be visible from the ballast that remains." >> >> Can

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:48, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Jun 8, 2020, 15:05 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > > The whole world is dangerous. Just label the entire planet as a hazard. > > > railway=abandoned > hazard=tagging_discussions > +1 -- Paul

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 14:08, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I added explicit "even if rails are gone". > Thank you. "the way will still be visible from the ballast that remains." > > Can you find a good photo of that on https://commons.wikimedia.org/ ? > I

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

Jun 8, 2020, 15:05 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:32, brad <> bradha...@fastmail.com> > wrote: > >> I think it would be absurd to try to tag dangerous wildlife areas. It >> would just be an enormous region for rattlesnakes and mountain lions in >> the US.  Same for

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 15:02 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> Jun 8, 2020, 14:28 by >> pla16...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>>> >>>

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 14:57 by vosc...@gmail.com: > Warin, Jack, > > your comments are really off my main point. > We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different opinions on > whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in OSM. > This discussion appeared multiple times

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 14:45 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> I added explicit "Everyone agrees that overgrown railway rails remain >> mappable.", >> removed explicit claim that "road geometry as sole

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:32, brad wrote: > I think it would be absurd to try to tag dangerous wildlife areas. It > would just be an enormous region for rattlesnakes and mountain lions in > the US. Same for grizzlys up north or snakes in the south. We have > signs warning of rodents carrying

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Jun 8, 2020, 14:28 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > For example >

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Warin, Jack, your comments are really off my main point. We have an unfinished mailing-list thread where we have different opinions on whether a razed (on the ground) railway can be mapped in OSM. In the middle of that discussion the abandoned railway wiku page gets completely rewritten by one of

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 13:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > I added explicit "Everyone agrees that overgrown railway rails remain > mappable.", > removed explicit claim that "road geometry as sole trace" is not mappable. > "Road geometry" is a little

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 14:28 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> Jun 8, 2020, 13:18 by >> pla16...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> Have these objects left traces or not? >>> >>>

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

I think it would be absurd to try to tag dangerous wildlife areas. It would just be an enormous region for rattlesnakes and mountain lions in the US.  Same for grizzlys up north or snakes in the south.   We have signs warning of rodents carrying plague around here, should we tag that too? On

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 12:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Jun 8, 2020, 13:18 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > Have these objects left traces or not? > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-52911797 > Are they mappable? > > But verifying it seems problematic at

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 6, 2020, 00:02 by vosc...@gmail.com: > I need to reopen this thread. > > We have not arrived at a consensus so far in this talk, > Nevertheless the wiki page > Demolished_Railway > > was completely > rewritten on 07:17, 27 May 2020

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

Jun 6, 2020, 06:20 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > On 3/6/20 7:22 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> >> >> >> Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by >> stevea...@softworkers.com>> : >> >>> "this IS residential landuse." (Not COULD BE, but IS). Yes, this >>> land might be "natural" now,

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 10:33, Cornelis wrote: > > With these tags and the surrounding footways the bridge is treatey as > normal (foot)way by OSRM and graphhopper, altough it only falls dry roughly > every other autumn. Is this a tagging issue that may be resolved with > correct/additional tags?

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 13:18 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 11:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> >> We are generally OK with mapping things where some traces remained. >> It is accepted that thing totally and completely gone are not

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

Jun 8, 2020, 13:14 by jan...@gmail.com: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 14:27 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> > wrote: > >> Wikimedia Commons has no notability requirements, see >> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope >> >> It is perfectly fine to

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 11:31, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > We are generally OK with mapping things where some traces remained. > It is accepted that thing totally and completely gone are not mappable. > > Have these objects left traces or not?

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 12:50 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 12:28 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <> > matkoni...@tutanota.com> >: > >> >> Jun 8, 2020, 11:39 by >> dieterdre...@gmail.com>> : >> >>> Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >>> <>>>

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

On Fri, Jun 5, 2020, 14:27 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Wikimedia Commons has no notability requirements, see > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope > > It is perfectly fine to upload things like that there. > Ok, you convinced me.

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing, importance of trails in OSM

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 01:27, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 19:17, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As for tagging 'dangerous areas' .. areas that pose danger such as some > favelas cannot be tagged in OSM. I see the same logic applied to dangerous > areas caused by

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 12:28 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > > Jun 8, 2020, 11:39 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 8, 2020, 11:39 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <> > tagging@openstreetmap.org> >: > >> On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt <>> vosc...@gmail.com>> > wrote: >> I do object strongly to the invitation to

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

>Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 11:31:20 +0200 >From: Cornelis >To: tagging@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs) >Message-ID: >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" >This thread is a great help to me, as I recently discovered this

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

Hi Martin, Similarly, our project might not be around forever ... once single-use plastic is a thing of the past :) Which is why we seek to store user contributed images on Wikimedia Commons (if they will accept them) rather than on our server. https://europeanwaterproject.org/photos/index.html

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 11:20 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the > razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been > replaced by

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

This thread is a great help to me, as I recently discovered this bridge and wondered if it can be tagged in a more appropriate way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.18387/8.95239 Currently it is tagged like that (shortened): historic=bridge intermittent=yes layer=-1 man_made=bridge

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

Am Mo., 8. Juni 2020 um 10:48 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > Dear Martin, > > For-profit companies have different levels of openness, I think it would > be a mistake to put them all in the same bucket. > > While all their data and images are not open,

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

Jun 7, 2020, 23:36 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 6. Jun 2020, at 00:04, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> >> I do object strongly to the invitation to remove the >> razed/dismantled-railway tag in the case of railway tracks have been >> replaced by roads with the same

Re: [Tagging] Adding mapillary tags to every building

Dear Martin, For-profit companies have different levels of openness, I think it would be a mistake to put them all in the same bucket. While all their data and images are not open, Mapillary shares many geolocalized images through creative commons licensing - in a more open manner than many

Re: [Tagging] Features underwater (inside reservoirs)

sent from a phone On 6. Jun 2020, at 11:22, Lanxana . wrote: But how to indicate that it’s underwater partially or totally and its access is occasionally possible, when the water drops? an area with natural=water around it? I find these tags, but none convinces me:... Location=underwater

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

sent from a phone > On 7. Jun 2020, at 03:32, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > How hard you look for them? I would hope that does not extend to ground > penetrating radar that is used to find old buildings that used to exist > ultimately things under the surface would be included,

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

sent from a phone > On 7. Jun 2020, at 23:54, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > Do you also object when the geometry of the railway and the road is a > straight line? yes Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org