Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:45 AM Marc_marc wrote: > Le 03.02.23 à 15:32, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit : > > Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing > > what's the issue with tag if TomTom doesn't reply ? > I suppose it's more for talk than tagging If it's prompting people to do

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

Le 02.02.23 à 17:44, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : sent from a phone On 2 Feb 2023, at 16:04, Marc_marc wrote: I thought there were only open-top tanks there are but they are called basin or reservoir did you mean that man_made=storage_tank open=top (or whatever the exact tag) is a

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

Le 03.02.23 à 15:32, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit : Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing what's the issue with tag if TomTom doesn't reply ? I suppose it's more for talk than tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 4:23 AM Walker Kosmidou-Bradley < walker.t.brad...@gmail.com> wrote: > I understand that having tagging like this does not benefit you, but does > it hurt you? If it doesn’t hurt you and it may help somebody else is there > a problem? > Hi, Let's make sure we're talking

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

TomTom has created the same challenge for the Netherlands: https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/37471 Just days before that challenge was created, I had a discussion on Discord with some other Dutch mappers. I thought it would be easy to tag all remaining highway=motorway without a surface

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

Thanks Andy, We do use country default values and other customizations. I didn’t really want to unpack the entire methodology. The point is the more attribution we have, the easier and faster it is to conduct replicable analysis around the world. It helps from a coding perspective, even if

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

On 2/3/23 09:16, Walker Kosmidou-Bradley wrote: I use routing to measure accessibility to schools and health clinics here in west Africa. I have to make sure that my models also work in South Asia. Having the surface tag attributed makes processing infinitely easier because I don’t have to

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

On 13/1/23 03:02, António Madeira wrote: The main issue is not closed water tanks. That can be a default in OSM. The issue here is how to inform that a storage_tank is open. Mind you that there is an infinitude of storage tanks types, but for firefighting, those are almost exclusively made in

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

Users in Algeria were asked to map motorway surface in tunnels, based on aerial imagery. It become marked as surface=ground, see https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/490378286/history adding surface to motorways is of so dubious utility that for example StreetComplete is not asking to specify such

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

I use routing to measure accessibility to schools and health clinics here in west Africa. I have to make sure that my models also work in South Asia. Having the surface tag attributed makes processing infinitely easier because I don’t have to adjust my default values based on country.  Across

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] New MapRoulette Challenge - Add Surface to Highways

I see that despite this discussion, TomTom is proceeding with its quixotic quest to get mappers to tag surface tags on motorway, just now in other countries: https://maproulette.org/browse/challenges/37540 Would you care to inform the community what it is that you're trying to accomplish here?

[Tagging] Proposed_features: emergency=air_rescue_service

Same for this one, if there are no further comments, I'll move it to voting in a couple of days. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/emergency%3Dair_rescue_service Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

[Tagging] Proposed_features: emergency=water_rescue

Getting back to this after a busy few weeks, if there are no further comments, I'll move it to voting in a couple of days. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/emergency%3Dwater_rescue Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

sent from a phone > On 2 Feb 2023, at 16:04, Marc_marc wrote: > > I thought there were only open-top tanks there are but they are called basin or reservoir, we also have landuse=reservoir as its own tag (although that’s landuse tagging, not countable features, effectively the tag is

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

On 2 February 2023 11:06:04 GMT, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Again sport=soccer implies a rectangular playing field with goals at either >end - that is physical infrastructure. Without the playing field and goals >there cannot be a game of soccer... > Jumpers for goalposts? To

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

Le 02.02.23 à 15:09, António Madeira a écrit : My problem with storage_tank=open is that it still has ambiguity. Open where? On the top, on the side? Which side? This is very important in the case of storage tanks destined to firefighters. I thought there were only open-top tanks, but if not

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

António Madeira : > IlMy problem with storage_tank=open is that it still has ambiguity. Open > where? On the top, on the side? Which side? This is very important in the > case of storage tanks destined to firefighters. > My question is: how to convey the critical information that a storage_tank >

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

The same in Canada… Sent from Mail for Windows From: stevea Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 03:15 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging the

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

I agree with you, Marc, when you say the use of covered=* is kind of a distortion of the tag. That's why I opened this discussion, because I also had that doubt. Às 14:02 de 12/01/2023, Marc_marc escreveu: roof=* is indeed maybe too specific. but closed or not tank and tank covered by another

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

чт, 2 февр. 2023 г., 14:51 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > > > Feb 2, 2023, 12:09 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > Again sport=soccer implies a rectangular playing field with goals at > either end - that is physical infrastructure. Without the playing field and >

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

Feb 2, 2023, 12:09 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > Again sport=soccer implies a rectangular playing field with goals at > either end - that is physical infrastructure. Without the playing field > and goals there cannot be a game of soccer... > > > The sport ping pong implies

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On 2 February 2023 09:34:08 GMT, Volker Schmidt wrote: >I do have a typical traversable roundabout close by. hgv=no is not correct, >there are commercial activities around that need hgv access. The roads are >adequate for that > >The angle between incoming roads is not a suitabla measure, as

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

On 31/1/23 23:34, Illia Marchenko wrote: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: What do you mean by 'a sport'? The sport soccer, for example, could be taken as referring to the physical infrastructure - goads at either end, a rectangular playing field. Similar can be said of many OSM

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

Well, the Highway Code says (Rule 188), "Avoid making U-turns at mini-roundabouts. Beware of others doing this." I assume that "avoid" is not quite as strong as "prohibited", especially as drivers are then warned to "Beware of others doing thís". Also, I know of at least one bus route near me

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

Yes, Phil, I overlooked your last point (and I have UK driving license). In Italy there are no separate rules or road signs for traversable roundabouts, hence no interdiction of U-turns. That needs addressing. Country-specific defaults? "My" traversable roundabout is in fact often used for

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On 2 February 2023 09:59:01 CET, Philip Barnes wrote: >A mini roundabout often doesn't usually have a diameter. Most are jus normal >junctions which have been made mini-roundabouts to set a priority. You mean they don't have a diameter because they are not even close to being circular? In

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

I do have a typical traversable roundabout close by. hgv=no is not correct, there are commercial activities around that need hgv access. The roads are adequate for that The angle between incoming roads is not a suitabla measure, as the traversable roundabout has a circular "belly", providing

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

A mini roundabout often doesn't usually have a diameter. Most are jus normal junctions which have been made mini-roundabouts to set a priority. So in terms of large vehicles it is the same problem as any other junctions, whether they can turn left or right. In the UK, U turns are prohibited

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On Thu, 2023-02-02 at 04:31 +0100, Matija Nalis wrote: > If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply > mark it as `hgv=no`? Besides being simple, it has the additional > advantage that routers will actually already use it and direct HGVs > somewhere where they can

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

And, I would add, exceptional transports of up to maybe 100 tons or more may get one time permissions to use the road, possibly involving removing street furniture to enable the manoeuvre. Changing the physical dimensions of the carriageway is a bit more difficult though. On 2 February 2023

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

sent from a phone > On 2 Feb 2023, at 04:34, Matija Nalis > wrote: > > If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply mark it > as > `hgv=no`? because hgv=no means forbidden to hgv (vehicles which may weight more than 2.8t). There are a lot of different sizes

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On Jan 29, 2023, at 5:31 AM, Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:12:06AM +, Philip Barnes wrote: >> >> When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did think these >> should be mini-roundabouts. > > Thats the main point. In Germany we have a solution of "last

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply mark it as `hgv=no`? Besides being simple, it has the additional advantage that routers will actually already use it and direct HGVs somewhere where they can actually pass. Or if some lenghts of HGVs can pass, but others

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Replace `*:signed` suffix key with `signed:*` prefix key

On 01/02/2023 16:08, Marc_marc wrote: you can obviously just set unsigned=A;B I've got to admit, I didn't see that one coming! "unsigned=yes" is way ahead of all other "unsigned=" uses (see https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/unsigned#values ). However, 24 people have used

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Replace `*:signed` suffix key with `signed:*` prefix key

Hello, Le 01.02.23 à 16:47, Zeke Farwell a écrit : this is the caricature of the confusion between key and value : if a key has only one value then it is the value of another more relevant key in

[Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Replace `*:signed` suffix key with `signed:*` prefix key

Cross postig from the forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proposal-replace-signed-suffix-key-with-signed-prefix-key/8459 Westnordost wrote: > Hey there. > > I’ve created a proposal to replace *:signed suffix key with signed:* > prefix key 7 >

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

There is already very well established tagging for basketball pitches with one basket. Current usage: 8273 sport=basketball + hoops=1 vs. 6 sport=basketball + leisure=practice_pitch On 2023-01-31 01:34, Illia Marchenko wrote: Marc_marc : Hello, Le 30.01.23 à 16:24, Illia Marchenko

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

On 31/01/2023 22:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: But iD, at least, when tagging basketball "pitches" asks for the number of hoops, with 1 as an option. Does that info then go anywhere downstream? Apparently: https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/way/4305950698 hoops

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 20:23, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > but you typically cannot see details like a basketball court with just one > basket. > But iD, at least, when tagging basketball "pitches" asks for the number of hoops, with 1 as an option. Does that info then go anywhere downstream?

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

Le 30.01.23 à 18:34, Illia Marchenko a écrit : unsuitable for normal game - for example, small basketball pitch with one basket. It is a very good counter example: as a child we regularly played on a pitch with one basket, we played... we were not practising ditto for the nearby hocket

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > What do you mean by 'a sport'? > > The sport soccer, for example, could be taken as referring to the > physical infrastructure - goads at either end, a rectangular playing > field. Similar can be said of many OSM 'sports'. So I don't see that as > being a good

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

Am Di., 31. Jan. 2023 um 11:16 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes < p...@trigpoint.me.uk>: > I am with Dave on this one. > > The tag is clear, concise and intuitive. > > It says exactly what a map user would expect to find > > Changing to practice_pitch with sport=cricket loses the descriptive nature > of

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

Am Di., 31. Jan. 2023 um 10:19 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > Soccer pitches have defined dimensions.. but there are smaller soccer > pitches for children to play soccer on, I'd not call those practice > pitches. > we can very easily see the pitch size from the data, but you

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

I am with Dave on this one. The tag is clear, concise and intuitive. It says exactly what a map user would expect to find Changing to practice_pitch with sport=cricket loses the descriptive nature of the current tag. It just becomes where cricket is practiced instead of where there are nets

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

It is current habit in OSM to tag everything that can be played a sports game on as "pitch". Ripping part of those objects out of the name space and tag them differently breaks backward compatibility for data users. For such reasons we have subtagging schemes. So you tag the area with

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

On 31/1/23 04:34, Illia Marchenko wrote: Marc_marc : Hello, Le 30.01.23 à 16:24, Illia Marchenko a écrit : > leisure=practice_pitch is not suitable for full game. I had not seen that this tag was documented and in the history we already see the 2 opinions: when you

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

On 31/1/23 00:54, Illia Marchenko wrote: Hello everyone, I suggest deprecating sport=cricket_nets on the wiki and recommend leisure=practice_pitch & sport=cricket as a replacement, since sport=* generally refers to a sport, not a physical infrastructure. Regards, Illia. What do you mean

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

sent from a phone > On 30 Jan 2023, at 14:58, Illia Marchenko wrote: > > Hello everyone, > I suggest deprecating sport=cricket_nets on the wiki and recommend > leisure=practice_pitch & sport=cricket as a replacement, since sport=* > generally refers to a sport, not a physical

Re: [Tagging] Namensanzeige bei der Sucheingabe / Names presented in the search function

Hallo Ulrich, On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:22:26PM +0100, Ulrich Lamm wrote: > Es ist eine Unverschämtheit, bei Sucheingaben die Namen nur noch in der > Landessprache des Suchenden anzuzeigen und dem/der Suchenden damit die heute > gültigen Namen vorzuenthalten. Es ist eine Unverschämtheit,

[Tagging] Namensanzeige bei der Sucheingabe / Names presented in the search function

Es ist eine Unverschämtheit, bei Sucheingaben die Namen nur noch in der Landessprache des Suchenden anzuzeigen und dem/der Suchenden damit die heute gültigen Namen vorzuenthalten. Diese Art der Anzeige ist der Versuch, die OSM-Nutzer einzusperren und ihnen die Vorteile des internationalen

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

Marc_marc : > Hello, > > Le 30.01.23 à 16:24, Illia Marchenko a écrit : > > leisure=practice_pitch is not suitable for full game. > > I had not seen that this tag was documented and in the history > we already see the 2 opinions: > when you see an XYZ sports field, do you have to be an expert >

[Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

Hello, Le 30.01.23 à 16:24, Illia Marchenko a écrit : leisure=practice_pitch is not suitable for full game. I had not seen that this tag was documented and in the history we already see the 2 opinions: when you see an XYZ sports field, do you have to be an expert in that sport with a

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

I don't sport=cricket_nets is fine. it's clear. it's specific. It doesn't interfere with any other tags. The argument that it's not, technically, a sport & therefore inaccurate is... meh. DaveF On 30/01/2023 13:54, Illia Marchenko wrote: Hello everyone, I suggest deprecating

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

пн, 30 янв. 2023 г., 18:23 Marc_marc : > Le 30.01.23 à 14:54, Illia Marchenko a écrit : > > recommend leisure=practice_pitch > > what's the diff with a leisure=pitch ? > leisure=practice_pitch is not suitable for full game. Regards, Illia. > ___

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

Le 30.01.23 à 14:54, Illia Marchenko a écrit : recommend leisure=practice_pitch what's the diff with a leisure=pitch ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

Hello everyone, I suggest deprecating sport=cricket_nets on the wiki and recommend leisure=practice_pitch & sport=cricket as a replacement, since sport=* generally refers to a sport, not a physical infrastructure. Regards, Illia. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

The old Australian version of what I think is the same thing were nicknamed Silent Cops. Article about them: https://www.shannons.com.au/club/forum/general/who-remembers-silent-cops/ Thanks Graeme On Mon, 30 Jan 2023 at 07:04, Colin Smale wrote: > The "Priority to the right" rule doesn't

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

The "Priority to the right" rule doesn't cover everything. Imagine a junction with two cars coming simultaneously from side roads on opposite sides of another road at right angles. Both want to leave the junction on the orthogonal road, in the same direction. One is making a right turn, and the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of places where whipper chargers / cream blower capsules can be recycled

Personally, I would call it a 'nitrous oxide canister' and not by it's use. E.g. https://www.nlwa.gov.uk/reducereuserecycle/recycle/whatcanwerecycle/laughing-gas-canisters On Sun, 29 Jan 2023, 15:09 Lukas Toggenburger via Tagging, < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Dear list > > I am looking

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On Sun, 2023-01-29 at 14:31 +0100, Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:12:06AM +, Philip Barnes wrote: > > > > When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did > > think these should be mini-roundabouts. > > Thats the main point. In Germany we have a solution

[Tagging] Tagging of places where whipper chargers / cream blower capsules can be recycled

Dear list I am looking for a tag to mark places where whipper chargers / cream blower capsules can be recycled, i.e. a tag `recycling:X=yes`, according to the existing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drecycling scheme. I am referring to these things: -

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 12:12:06AM +, Philip Barnes wrote: > > When I first encountered Canadian four way stops in 1980, I did think these > should be mini-roundabouts. Thats the main point. In Germany we have a solution of "last resort" which is called "Rechts vor links" - So when there

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

I was trying to offer a universal model that would accommodate both "true" roundabouts and mini-roundabouts. In the UK you are expected to make an effort to drive around the "dustbin lid" (painted circle) in the middle of the mini-roundabout, but that only makes sense for smaller vehicles.

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On 28 January 2023 23:47:38 GMT, Peter Elderson wrote: >The mini-roundabout just adds priority on the MR to the general keep left >rule, that is my understanding. They are to give equal priority to all roads at a junction, usually where traffic flow would block traffic from side roads.

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

The mini-roundabout just adds priority on the MR to the general keep left rule, that is my understanding. Peter Elderson > Op 29 jan. 2023 om 00:37 heeft Florian Lohoff het volgende > geschreven: > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 09:12:11PM +, Philip Barnes wrote: >> Diameter implies there

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On 28 January 2023 23:17:59 GMT, Peter Elderson wrote: >Op za 28 jan. 2023 om 23:38 schreef Colin Smale : > >> A form of roundabout common in the Netherlands has an inner ring which is >> often distinctly coloured and slightly raised, thus making it clear that >> traffic is intended to avoid

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 09:12:11PM +, Philip Barnes wrote: > Diameter implies there is something circular. The paint is often > round, not always, but most are just former T junctions or cross-roads > where there is nothing to measure the diameter of . Thats exactly the point. The

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

Op za 28 jan. 2023 om 23:38 schreef Colin Smale : > A form of roundabout common in the Netherlands has an inner ring which is > often distinctly coloured and slightly raised, thus making it clear that > traffic is intended to avoid it and use the outer ring, while keeping it > perfectly usable by

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

Generalising for all roundabouts, I propose a model in which there are three diameters: D1) outer diameter, where the outer kerb is D2) "guide" inner diameter, the outer diameter of the inner ring intended to "discourage" traffic D3) inner diameter, where the inner kerb or wall is (not

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On 27 January 2023 21:29:49 GMT, Florian Lohoff wrote: >Hi, > >On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 09:25:32PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote: >> I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the >> overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road >> surface

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

Diameter implies there is something circular. The paint is often round, not always, but most are just former T junctions or cross-roads where there is nothing to measure the diameter of . Phil (trigpoint) On 25 January 2023 17:50:54 GMT, Volker Schmidt wrote: >Is there an established way to

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

I think the point was that the units are explicitly tagged in meters, whereas in other cases (like ele), the unit assumed to be meters and you can just put a number by itself. On Sat, Jan 28, 2023, 3:14 PM stevea wrote: > Using mm (millimeters) as a unit for this makes no sense. Meters are

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

Using mm (millimeters) as a unit for this makes no sense. Meters are much better in my opinion. I understand water tubes and pipe threads might be well-stated in mm (for "household" and "everyday" use, not hydrology engineers and sewerage architects), but water tubes and pipe threads are not

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 09:44 +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote: > The mm is because it's intended do describe water tubes and pipe threads, > and not roads. That is why I have doubts using it for the mini-roundabout. The Wiki-page for diameter explicitly mentions the use for turning_circle and

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

The mm is because it's intended do describe water tubes and pipe threads, and not roads. That is why I have doubts using it for the mini-roundabout. On Sat, 28 Jan 2023, 09:20 Mark Reidel, wrote: > On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 00:53 +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > What I am after is tagging the

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

On Sat, 2023-01-28 at 00:53 +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote: > What I am after is tagging the dimension of mini-roundabouts. This seems > to be useful information for longer vehicles. The specific mini-roundabout > that triggered the question is this one, and it has a diameter of about > 12m, and,

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

Florian, I saw that discussion on the German list. I don't understand it. I am familiar with the difference between a roundabout and a mini-roundabout. The difference is essentially the traversability of the centre, and the size. In the UK, where the OSM tagging was born, they have different road

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

Hi, On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 09:25:32PM +0100, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the > overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road > surface plus the traversable central part. This is an important measure

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

Thanks Nathan and ael, that makes me moving forward  Sent from Mail for Windows From: ael via Tagging Sent: Friday, January 27, 2023 06:27 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Cc:

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:50:57PM +, Daniel Bégin wrote: > I see your point. I may be mired with language issues (English is not my > native language) but either I create a “business” tag and document it or I > use office? Well, I would be in favour of that. In this sort of context, I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Building Hydrant Inlet

Hi, there have been some changes to this proposal since the last time it was mentioned on this mailing list. Any further feedback would be appreciated. Thanks From: Kyle Hensel Sent: Friday, 30 December 2022 17:48 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

For me: office=electrician should be used for mapping the location of larger electricians company, e.g., as Daniel says, where they employ office staff and, likely, more than one electrician works at the company. The primary function of the tag is that this location acts as an office with

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

I see your point. I may be mired with language issues (English is not my native language) but either I create a “business” tag and document it or I use office? Sent from Mail for Windows From: ael via Tagging Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 09:06:14PM +, Daniel Bégin wrote: > Using the workplace of an electrician as an example, it was made clear that I > should use craft=electrician instead of office=electrician. But what if this > electrician sees its business get bigger (in a North American context)? >

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

Psychologists and psychotherapists are different things... On 25 January 2023 23:00:59 CET, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 02:51, Daniel Bégin wrote: > >> and office=psychologist because they provide services. >> > >I would usually use healthcare=psychotherapist for them. >

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

I recently asked for a clarification and did not get any answer. So here is my question again (with some context): Using the workplace of an electrician as an example, it was made clear that I should use craft=electrician instead of office=electrician. But what if this electrician sees its

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

+1 Get Outlook for Android From: Graeme Fitzpatrick Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 5:00:59 PM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments. On Thu, 26

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2023 at 02:51, Daniel Bégin wrote: > and office=psychologist because they provide services. > I would usually use healthcare=psychotherapist for them. Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

Marc_marc wrote: “I would have rather described the [office] key as being the place of cerebral or administrative tasks, as opposed to craft which is the place of manual tasks”. So basically, you consider that craft refers to any manual activity, from dressmakers to electricians, which could

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

I see that I was not precise with my question: I am after a way to tag the overall diameter of the round surface composed of the mini-roundabout road surface plus the traversable central part. This is an important measure for trucks. I happen to live near one of these with an outer diameter of 12

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

According to the Wiki (with which I happen to agree), a mini-roundabout is defined as: "...a special type of roundabout in which the middle can be traversed by vehicles, and is typically used where there is only limited space available. Road traffic flows in one direction around a point in the

[Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

Is there an established way to tag the diameter of a mini-roundabout? We have the tag diameter, but I could not find it applied to mini-roundabouts. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

Le 25.01.23 à 17:48, Daniel Bégin a écrit : office=* refers to places mainly providing services and frequently selling them. I would have rather described the key as being the place of cerebral or administrative tasks, as opposed to craf which is the place of manual tasks: technically it is

[Tagging] craft vs office for service enterprises/establishments.

I want to tag multiple service enterprises and establishments but I am struggling to find which key I should use between craft=* and office=*. craft=* refers to workshops producing or transforming goods, usually in small quantities, on demand and to order. office=* refers to places mainly

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Approved - Announce proposals on the community forum

Hello everybody, With 53 votes and 90% approve, the proposal  "Announce proposals on the community forum" has been approved. Thank you for everybody who voted and participated in the discussion. I will update the proposal process wiki today. Greetings, Vincent 

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

sent from a phone > On 19 Jan 2023, at 10:25, Philip Barnes wrote: > > The one I mentioned is a bit unique. It's not fake or a folly, it is an > active place for burials. it may not be “fake” in the sense of pretending to be something different, but it mimics neolithic construction

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

The one I mentioned is a bit unique. It's not fake or a folly, it is an active place for burials. The internal construction is clear on the current bing imagery. Phil On 19 January 2023 09:04:14 GMT, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >Am Mi., 18. Jan. 2023 um 19:43 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes <

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

Am Mi., 18. Jan. 2023 um 19:43 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes < p...@trigpoint.me.uk>: > I am using local knowledge here, > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulton_Long_Barrow > > It has been featured on Country File so known outside The Shire. > architectural style: "neoneolithic", ok, a fake

Re: [Tagging] caravans en-de inconsistency

Andy Townsend: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1qjp 1087 examples worldwide combined with "highway" tag where it can be assumed to be an access tag Some also have a motorhome tag. And some, I am skeptical about. E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/981233122 First, the place is

Re: [Tagging] caravans en-de inconsistency

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 09:15:51 +1000 Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >When I created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcaravan, >I defined them as: > >"recreational vehicles such as towed caravans (a.k.a travel trailers, >pop-tops, camper trailers, tent trailers, 5th wheelers etc); powered,

<    6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   >