Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 1:34 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > The car park in town, is that barren? > If it's well maintained, hopefully it is. If it's crumbling, it might > not be! My previous residence had a paved driveway that, strictly > speaking, was not barren. In a wet climate like the one I

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 18:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >> (I would probably use access=permissive for e.g. a mall parking lot, >> where it's not strictly public, but where you wouldn't be expected to be >> visiting a particular building or organization such that it's much less >> clear whether

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 00:33, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > - Semi-detached house: A set of row houses with exactly two connected > units. (IMO this is a somewhat stupid distinction likely created by > realtors for marketing purposes.) > & for us, that's a duplex eg

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

On 7/10/20 09:04, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > (I would probably use access=permissive for e.g. a mall parking lot, > where it's not strictly public, but where you wouldn't be expected to be > visiting a particular building or organization such that it's much less > clear whether or not you are a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 19:19, Michael Montani wrote: > > Tag: natural = bare_ground (but many other options are open to discussion). > Description: "An area covered by soil, without any vegetation" > I agree that we need some way to tag areas like those in Somalia that you posted, but I have

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 00:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > I was thinking about space that explicitly welcomes walk-ins and exists > solely to > handle them (office of an energy company - handling issues such as > resolving > billing mistakes, handling

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 00:05, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > I think this makes sense also. To a previous point, I take > access=customers to mean someone intending to visit the associated > location, whether that's a store, a church, a doctor's office, ... > > BTW, I've used access=customers for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

> On Jul 10, 2020, at 9:26 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > On 10/07/2020 11.24, Peter Elderson wrote: >> Well, if you do a couple of intersections it's no big deal, but if every >> intersection would need this and it breaks relations, no matter whose fault >> it is, it is a problem. Then it's

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

sent from a phone > On 10. Jul 2020, at 21:52, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > I have to strongly disagree. Consider an intersection of dual carriageways > (so, four intersection nodes) where signals are tagged on the intersection > nodes. that’s the problem, they should not be tagged on the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 15:53, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 10/07/2020 15.01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> On 10. Jul 2020, at 16:17, Matthew Woehlke > >> wrote: > >> My use case isn't the only one that has issues with this sort of > >> thing; routers can "see" more traffic lights than

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

On 10/07/2020 15.01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 10. Jul 2020, at 16:17, Matthew Woehlke wrote: My use case isn't the only one that has issues with this sort of thing; routers can "see" more traffic lights than actually exist and can (so I hear, anyway) give directions that are potentially

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

sent from a phone > On 10. Jul 2020, at 16:17, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > My use case isn't the only one that has issues with this sort of thing; > routers can "see" more traffic lights than actually exist and can (so I hear, > anyway) give directions that are potentially confusing. this

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

IMHO this discussion is going offtopic as we generally do not map ownership. If you want to dig deep into american legislation specifics only, it is not so relevant for the international mailing list, because these things tend to work differently in different countries. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

For illustrative purposes, I went ahead and tagged https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/175473372. (I chose this intersection because the way was already split, so the only edit needed was to add the tag.) On 10/07/2020 10.15, Matthew Woehlke wrote: As some of you may recall, I'm working on a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On 10/07/2020 11.25, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 15:41, Matthew Woehlke wrote: On 10/07/2020 09.32, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:10, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also paved surfaces, Ummm, not really.

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

Re: “a unit that is *sold* is not an "apartment" in America." While in most of the United States this is the common meaning of "apartment", in New York City (and nearby cities in the northeast) it is common to refer to buying an "apartment" in a Co-op building or a condominium building. In some

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

On 10/07/2020 12.57, Tod Fitch wrote: In the old days the wiki said you could put a highway=stop or highway=give_way node on a way and the data consumer would determine the nearest intersection and just do the right thing. I mapped several thousand, yes thousand, stop signs that way. Later it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

On 10/07/2020 12.22, Clifford Snow wrote: Interesting suggestion. The sumo github page doesn't appear to have any open issues that involve OSM and intersections that I could find. (I only looked at intersection issue titles) Has this been reported to the sumo developers? Sumo documentation does

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

On 10/07/2020 11.24, Peter Elderson wrote: Well, if you do a couple of intersections it's no big deal, but if every intersection would need this and it breaks relations, no matter whose fault it is, it is a problem. Then it's not just modeling, but forced repair work. Sure, but my point was

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

Matthew, Interesting suggestion. The sumo github page doesn't appear to have any open issues that involve OSM and intersections that I could find. (I only looked at intersection issue titles) Has this been reported to the sumo developers? Sumo documentation does suggest fixing OSM issues but other

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 15:41, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 10/07/2020 09.32, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:10, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also > paved > >> surfaces, > > > > Ummm, not really. Not in British

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

Well, if you do a couple of intersections it's no big deal, but if every intersection would need this and it breaks relations, no matter whose fault it is, it is a problem. Then it's not just modeling, but forced repair work. May be worth it, but I would like to know that at proposal time, not by

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

Jul 10, 2020, 15:57 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com: > On 09/07/2020 17.34, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> Jul 9, 2020, 20:38 by pla16...@gmail.com: >> >>> Maybe not ideal, but if you're looking for an immediate solution then >>> access=customers and access=private? >>> >> I like it,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

On 10/07/2020 10.36, Peter Elderson wrote: Question: does it break anything? I am thinking about existing relations of various kinds. If splitting ways breaks relations, well, a) that's an editor problem, and b) I've already been breaking those left and right from splitting ways to improve

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On 10/07/2020 09.32, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:10, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also paved surfaces, Ummm, not really. Not in British English. I'd never describe paved surfaces as barren. Technically, I suppose

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

Question: does it break anything? I am thinking about existing relations of various kinds. Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 16:17 schreef Matthew Woehlke < mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com>: > As some of you may recall, I'm working on a project to do traffic > simulation with the help of OSM

Re: [Tagging] How to map terrace buildings with names

On 09/07/2020 21.51, Warin wrote: On 9/7/20 12:44 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: both is possible, each one can own a precise list of apartments, or both can own 50% of all apartments. Here apartments are usually sold separately, each as a title dead. Other than 100% ownership it would be

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - junction=intersection

As some of you may recall, I'm working on a project to do traffic simulation with the help of OSM data and SUMO¹. One of the issues that SUMO has is that the typical method of modeling intersections (which I don't propose to change, mostly) results in SUMO thinking there are multiple

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

(Apologies if this double-posts; my mail client is telling me it couldn't be sent, but I've known it to lie about that...) On 09/07/2020 18.57, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Jul 9, 2020, 23:58 by pla16...@gmail.com: I take "customers" to mean "non-employees who may access the facility

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

I think bare_soil or barren_soil are ok values for bare/barren soil. I am convinced that these areas exist, bare soil without spontaneous vegetation, whatever causes it to remain bare for many years. Barren sounds to me to imply nothing can grow there.Bare sounds more neutral and factual to me,

Re: [Tagging] Distinguishing closed office spaces and client service locations?

On 09/07/2020 17.34, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Jul 9, 2020, 20:38 by pla16...@gmail.com: Maybe not ideal, but if you're looking for an immediate solution then access=customers and access=private? I like it, but it is a bit tricky as I can walk into many offices without being a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:10, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > Jul 10, 2020, 15:04 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > I've just realized what prompted the back of my mind into writing the > preceding paragraph. landcover=barren (or natural=barren) seems > to handle

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Jul 10, 2020, 15:04 by pla16...@gmail.com: > I've just realized what prompted the back of my mind into writing the > preceding paragraph.  landcover=barren (or natural=barren) seems > to handle things nicely without worrying about soil/clay/humus > distinctions. > barren is horrible as it can

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 13:19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/7/20 9:30 pm, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, being > a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter. > > To me it is hard to imagine an area as

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

sent from a phone > On 10. Jul 2020, at 14:40, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I'd imagine that pollution and erosion would result in a surface of mineral, > rather than organic soil; lack of water still remains a possibility. For small areas you can also imagine so many people walking or driving

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:19 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/7/20 9:30 pm, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, being > a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter. > > To me it is hard to imagine an area as

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

On 10/7/20 9:30 pm, Peter Elderson wrote: Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, being a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter. To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil. Wouldn't there always be some kind of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

sent from a phone > On 10. Jul 2020, at 13:33, Peter Elderson wrote: > > To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil. > Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year? not if there isn’t water at all, or if it is heavily contaminated Cheers

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Unfortunately I don't have photos of the terrain at the moment, but I will see if I can come back with some on the ground example. For now, I put some example photos in the Talk page of the feature proposal . Feel free

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, being a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter. To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil. Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year? Best, Peter Elderson Op

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

I agree it could be considered as humus. The distinction between organic soil and humus is ambiguous according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus , but I think it is general enough to target mostly organic soil. Shall we consider to add this specification on the tagging? Or would humus be

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

sent from a phone > On 10. Jul 2020, at 12:05, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Organic without any mineral, would you still call that soil? I’d call it humus, not sure whether the term soil can apply or not, I am not a native English speaker. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Organic without any mineral, would you still call that soil? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 11:55 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Independent of what i already said in https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-July/053795.html i am always wary of tags lacking any examples for on-the-ground mapping or a practically locally verifiable definition. And defining a tag negatively trough the lack of something

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

sent from a phone > On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil? +1, I also disagree that “soil can be organic or mineral”. It has typically both, organic and mineral components, but organic

[Tagging] R: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

>Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil? Using "ground" and defining it as "soil, not all kinds of ground" will not go well. natural=bare_ground for me is clearly including also natural=bare_rock, while natural=bare_soil would avoid this This is a good point. The two

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil? Using "ground" and defining it as "soil, not all kinds of ground" will not go well. natural=bare_ground for me is clearly including also natural=bare_rock, while natural=bare_soil would avoid this Jul 10, 2020, 11:16 by

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

"meant any soil area (which can be organic or mineral" - what you mean by that? Soil is mixture of mineral and organic material. See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Landcover_Barren It seems that this proposal avoid many mistakes of this very similar one, but

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Dear mappers, after the discussion we had through the tagging ML "Are we mapping ground on OSM?", it has been open a feature proposal to map ground on OSM. Tag: natural = bare_ground (but many other options are open to