Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - High seas

(1) In general I agree but I would de-emphasize current issues in specific data consumers ("Areas tagged place=sea without natural=water do not render in major renderers such as OpenMapTiles or the Standard Tile Layer.") which may be trigger for this proposal but is not a good reason for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - yarn shops

What about shops that sell about equal amount of them and as nonspecialist[1] I have no idea which is dominating? Would it be reasonable to use shop=sewing sewing=yarn type of schema? [1] I tried knitting just enough to confirm that it is not a hobby for me, my sewing supplies do not expand

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - yarn shops

Howdy y'all, I am proposing to make official a tag that is already in use to some degree, *shop=yarn*, for shops that primarily sell yarn and other knitting/crochet supplies. Currently the wiki has these falling under shop=sewing. As a long-time sewer who has recently taken up knitting, I

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - High seas

A proposal[1] to recommend the tagging of oceanic seas as nodes rather than areas is now open for comments. This proposal follows a community forum discussion[2] regarding the modeling of the Gulf of Mexico as a node rather than as a crude polygon. This change was made in [3]. This proposal would

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

Vào lúc 08:54 2022-12-30, Jmapb đã viết: On 12/30/2022 2:22 AM, stevea wrote: I agree with Mateusz here:  whether to tag a way after the name of a route which includes it (if it didn't have a name=* tag beforehand) isn't a "one size fits all" situation.  It's difficult to describe what the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a hole in the ground

If you cannot see what it is or what it is, it's just a hazard. Peter Elderson Op zo 1 jan. 2023 om 12:51 schreef Troels Arvin : > Hello, > > When I was trekking south of Olympos in Tyrkey, I came across some ruins > which were not on OSM. Within the ruins there is a hole in the ground, >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a hole in the ground

On Sun, 1 Jan 2023 12:48:30 +0100 Troels Arvin wrote: >Hello, If it can be harmful then https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ahazard%3Dhole >When I was trekking south of Olympos in Tyrkey, I came across some >ruins which were not on OSM. Within the ruins there is a hole in the >ground,

[Tagging] Tagging a hole in the ground

Hello, When I was trekking south of Olympos in Tyrkey, I came across some ruins which were not on OSM. Within the ruins there is a hole in the ground, approximately 6 meters deep. I don't know what the hole has been used for. Maybe it's a dried out well, or it has been used for storage:

Re: [Tagging] Re: Route names being applied to tracks/paths

+1Anne--Sent from my Android phone with WEB.DE Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 30/12/2022, 20:59 Peter Neale via Tagging wrote: +1 PeterPan99 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 20:02, Dave F via Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

I have mapped perhaps tens of thousands of miles of bike routes in OSM. Yes, really. I don't do this sort of "apply the name of the route to the element track/path." We shouldn't. Zeke's example is excellent and is a good reason for "route element naming" to be "case by case" rather than

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:51 PM Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I think this inconsistency is bad for OSM. > > Many ways don't have names, even if they have routes along them. They are > just footpaths, & tracks etc. > > This instance on giving them a name tag is fake.

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

Vr 30 dec. 2022 om 20:51 schreef Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > I think this inconsistency is bad for OSM. > > Many ways don't have names, even if they have routes along them. They are > just footpaths, & tracks etc. > > This instance on giving them a name tag is fake. It'll

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

+1 PeterPan99 Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 20:02, Dave F via Tagging wrote: On 29/12/2022 09:47, Warin wrote: > Hi, > > I think the 'names' should be removed from these 'unnamed' things > ..the 'name' is the name of the route not the individual tracks/paths >

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

On 29/12/2022 09:47, Warin wrote: Hi, I think the 'names' should be removed from these 'unnamed' things ..the 'name' is the name of the route not the individual tracks/paths some of which existed before some routes were created. +1 DaveF ___

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

I think this inconsistency is bad for OSM. Many ways don't have names, even if they have routes along them. They are just footpaths, & tracks etc. This instance on giving them a name tag is fake. It'll mean sections with one route will have their name tag rendered, but where additions

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

One of the names might be the predominant name used locally. On Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 2:19 PM Yves via Tagging wrote: > Remove the name of the way, put a name on each relations. Except if it > makes sense to keep the name also on the way for whatever reason you see > fit. > > Le 30 décembre 2022

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

Remove the name of the way, put a name on each relations. Except if it makes sense to keep the name also on the way for whatever reason you see fit. Le 30 décembre 2022 18:06:12 GMT+01:00, Dave F via Tagging a écrit : >What do you do if there are two routes? > >DaveF > >On 30/12/2022 02:19,

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

What do you do if there are two routes? DaveF On 30/12/2022 02:19, brad wrote: +1 If the only name is the route name I think it makes good sense to put it on the local way too, that's the name of the trail. Brad On 12/29/22 08:59, Zeke Farwell wrote: I've heard the assertion that a way has

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

On 12/30/2022 2:22 AM, stevea wrote: I agree with Mateusz here: whether to tag a way after the name of a route which includes it (if it didn't have a name=* tag beforehand) isn't a "one size fits all" situation. It's difficult to describe what the right thing to do is in all cases. I've

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a point-of-interest sign

Sorry for my email noise, I misread the email & my comment wasn't necessary On 12/30/22 02:03, Volker Schmidt wrote: Thanks, Brad. It is a pass, as there are two identical signs in opposite directions, 175 meters apart. The pass may have a name, after all, which is on another sign. Anyway I

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a point-of-interest sign

Thanks, Brad. It is a pass, as there are two identical signs in opposite directions, 175 meters apart. The pass may have a name, after all, which is on another sign. Anyway I will check with a local person. The signs in question can be considered as geographical information boards. On Fri, 30 Dec

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

I agree with Mateusz here: whether to tag a way after the name of a route which includes it (if it didn't have a name=* tag beforehand) isn't a "one size fits all" situation. It's difficult to describe what the right thing to do is in all cases. > On Dec 29, 2022, at 11:18 PM, Mateusz

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

This does not apply everywhere, even if applies in some cases. Many trails are minor and their names are not actually names of roads/paths where they lead even if this road/path is nameless. In Poland even for https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C5%82%C3%B3wny_Szlak_Beskidzki it is debatable

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Building Hydrant Inlet

Hi All. Following a recent discussion on the tagging mailing list, I have created a proposal for Building Hydrant Inlets. https://wiki.osm.org/Proposal_features/Building_inlet You can discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page or here. ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

+1 If the only name is the route name I think it makes good sense to put it on the local way too, that's the name of the trail. Brad On 12/29/22 08:59, Zeke Farwell wrote: I've heard the assertion that a way has no name but the route that passes over it does many times.  While this is true

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a point-of-interest sign

I think you should check your data.   Looking at USGS topo, that point does look very close to the continental divide. Usually, but I suppose not always,  when you go over the divide you are going over a pass.  This one seems to be fairly flat so perhaps never got named. I don't use mapillary,

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a point-of-interest sign

sent from a phone > On 29 Dec 2022, at 20:47, Jez Nicholson wrote: > > Did you go for tourism:information_board? Personally I would expect it to be > a form of road sign rather than an information board, which is on the spot > itself and not normally aimed at drivers. I agree with Jez

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a point-of-interest sign

Did you go for tourism:information_board? Personally I would expect it to be a form of road sign rather than an information board, which is on the spot itself and not normally aimed at drivers. On Thu, 29 Dec 2022, 18:55 Volker Schmidt, wrote: > I have now checked on Gmaps: that sign is not on

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

I know this problem from cycle routes. Individual ways that are part of a hiking or cycling route should normally not carry the name of the route. First because in most cases it will be factually wrong, but also such invented names will make it difficult to find ways with genuinly missing names in

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 1:08 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > So most of the time this would be an error, but you can't be sure without > survey. > I agree on the survey part, but not on the "most of the time" part. Sometimes it's an error, sometimes it's not. How likely it is to be one or the other

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a point-of-interest sign

I have now checked on Gmaps: that sign is not on the continental divide, but it is announcing the continental divide. About 175m further there is an identical sign on the other side of the road, and facing the opposite direction. Hence there is a pass, but the highest point itself is not marked. I

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

I have seen some paths which actually had the same name as the hiking trail running over it. Normally this is not the case, the path usually has is own local name or no name at all. So most of the time this would be an error, but you can't be sure without survey.Fr Gr Peter EldersonOp 29 dec. 2022

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

It makes sense to me that each segment of a long distance walking/hiking route should be looked at individually. It might have no name (uses a section of a driveway), it might have a name of its own (the “San Clemente Beach Trail” near me is part of the long distance “California Coastal

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

I've heard the assertion that a way has no name but the route that passes over it does many times. While this is true in some cases, in others it is not. Where the primary purpose of the way is not for the route, this does make sense. For example mentioned by Jmapb where the Appalachian trail

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a point-of-interest sign

This example should also be mapped as a pass, with a node tagged mountain_pass=yes on the highway, with the elevation On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 2:26 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > I would like to tag signs that do refer to Points of Interest like this > example

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

On 12/29/2022 10:13 AM, Zeke Farwell wrote: Yes, the way name tag should be the most local trail name. However, sometimes there is no local trail name and the long distance route name is the only name.  In this case putting the long distance route name on the ways also makes sense. I've been

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

On 29/12/2022 15:13, Zeke Farwell wrote: On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 9:15 AM Dave F via Tagging wrote: The actual way routes progress along often have their own, different, name. These should be ithe name placed in the way's name tag. Yes, the way name tag should be the most local

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 9:15 AM Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > The actual way routes progress along often have their own, different, > name. These should be ithe name placed in the way's name tag. > Yes, the way name tag should be the most local trail name. However,

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

On 29/12/2022 12:32, Yves via Tagging wrote: The simpliest way to map a long route is to give the same name to every ways it is composed of. The reason route relations were created was because long routes share the /same/ ways. It avoids cluttering up the name & ref tags The actual way

Re: [Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

The simpliest way to map a long route is to give the same name to every ways it is composed of. Then, in second position, you can also create a relation. Regards, Yves Le 29 décembre 2022 10:47:44 GMT+01:00, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit : >Hi, > >It appears that route name are being

[Tagging] Route names being applied to tracks/paths

Hi, It appears that route name are being applied to track/path names, I believe this comes about due to signs that state the route names and point along the track/path that appear to the name of the track/path. For example Way 228853104

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a point-of-interest sign

Hi Volker, you can use tourism=information+information=board, as described here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dboard HTH. Kai 28.12.2022 23:28:12 Volker Schmidt : > I would like to tag signs that do refer to Points of Interest like this >

[Tagging] How to tag a point-of-interest sign

I would like to tag signs that do refer to Points of Interest like this example ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

sent from a phone > On 22 Dec 2022, at 20:56, Raphael wrote: > > (i.e. whether the > pavement has to be used or not - although i normally don't see any > reason not to use an existing pavement) and when there are specific reasons why the sidewalk cannot be used, the legislation (in some

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

Le 22.12.22 à 18:10, Raphael a écrit : I think we should rather decide where the tagging discussion should take place and then announce proposals at that place. the power of discourse, when it 'll be in a "full working state" is that is that it allows a unified communication between the users

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais wrote: > > When a sidewalk is mapped separately, foot=use_sidepath should be used on the > road itself (like Cyton mentioned). [...] But when I am editing inQuebec > province, I use sidewalk:both/left/right=separate also to specify on which > side(s) there is a separate

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

Hello everybody Sorry for joining this discussion late. I think we should rather decide where the tagging discussion should take place and then announce proposals at that place. Currently, there are many places where tagging discussion take place: mainly on this mailing list and on the new

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water outlet

On 9/10/22 19:55, Illia Marchenko wrote: I withdrew this proposal. Thanks for your feedback! Thanks for the effort. Something does need to be done.. but what is an acceptable solution? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

On 19.12.2022 21:21, Asa Hundert wrote I can conceive of a case, where even without a sign changing the software would be wrong: A motorway tunnel. They have sidewalks, to escape in case of accidents. And guess what, foot=no applies to the sidewalk! How can they be sidewalks if they are not

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Am So., 18. Dez. 2022 um 21:32 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano : > > I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would like to > understand how folks in various places would interpret this: > > highway= > foot=no > sidewalk=separate > > In my software's logic, I've made the

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

For routing, foot=use_sidepath and foot=no have almost the same implications. foot=use_sidepath can be treated as foot=no (complete prohibition) or sometimes as foot=discouraged (with a very high penalty instead of a complete prohibition). But foot=no is used in a variety of situations (and was

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 2:15 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > foot=use_sidepath was invented to mark "yes, on carriageway you cannot > walk, but you can walk on separately mapped sidewalk" > This makes sense to me, but the wiki[1] is somewhat confusing about

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gender

Thanks for the review! I replaced unisex=yes with unisex=only and unisex=separate, except for hairdressers, where unisex=yes is not a problem. Regards, Illia. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] uphill vs. incline=up - direction of travel

Hello, Le 18.12.22 à 20:19, Patrick Strasser-Mikhail a écrit : It was pointed out[3] that 'incline' is a tag and intended to indicate a *direction* and amount of inclination of *the road in relation to the mapping direction*, not the direction of the *vehicle driving* on the road. that's not

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Le 18.12.22 à 21:29, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit : I would like to understand how folks in various places would interpret this: highway= foot=no sidewalk=separate I interpret it exactly as you describe it in the text: there is a carrierway not allowed to pedestrians there is another object

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gender

If we have inconsistent tagging of unisex=yes and it is unclear which is its meaning then passing proposal does not really solve it unisex=yes data will still have the same problem in case of such damaged tag[1] it would be better to introduce a new one (though if vast majority is using this

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

That is an irritating case. 1) with you assumptions it is possible to argue that it refers to case where there is a separately mapped sidewalk that nevertheless is inaccessible (some technical/escape route in a tunnel or on motorway?) 2) in practise it is far more likely to be used in case where

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

18 gru 2022, 23:27 od graemefi...@gmail.com: > It would be much nicer to drop the sidewalk=separate from the road, & draw a > separate footway, which would fix everything! > note that sidewalk=separate is used to indicate that separately mapped sidewalk(s) is/are mapped. Not sure why you

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Vào lúc 17:29 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết: On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 6:33 PM Minh Nguyen > wrote: Vào lúc 15:00 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết: > I'll try to answer the original question as succinctly as possible.  As > I understand

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 6:33 PM Minh Nguyen wrote: > Vào lúc 15:00 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết: > > I'll try to answer the original question as succinctly as possible. As > > I understand it, the combination foot=no + sidewalk=separate means > > walking is not allowed at all on this street

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 09:33, Minh Nguyen wrote: > other places where cyclists are required to use sidewalks when present. & then you have places like where I am, where e-scooters are allowed to use marked bike lanes, riding at speeds up to 25kph (15mph?) on streets with a speed limit up to

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 159, Issue 32

When a sidewalk is mapped separately, foot=use_sidepath should be used on the road itself (like Cyton mentioned). This tag combination is used by more and more routing engines (see osrm profiles) to force routing on the sidewalk instead of the road. Using foot=no would have the exact same

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

The way cited here is a highway=footway, and my dataset only includes the roadways themselves, not footway/cycleway, etc, by design and intent. In that case, there is an adjacent highway=trunk road (https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/68648993) which is tagged foot=no, with no sidewalk

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Vào lúc 15:00 2022-12-18, Zeke Farwell đã viết: I'll try to answer the original question as succinctly as possible.  As I understand it, the combination foot=no + sidewalk=separate means walking is not allowed at all on this street and the sidewalk belonging to this street is mapped as a

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Hello, On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 6:08 PM Jens Glad Balchen wrote: > > There are instances that you wouldn't want to include in your router. > E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/658000911, which is similar > except there is no sidewalk=separate. Walking on this "sidewalk" is > probably

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

On Dec 18, 2022, at 3:06 PM, Jens Glad Balchen wrote: > I don't know how you would tell the difference, apart from the lack of > sidewalk=separate on the carriageway. Right, this can be problematic, both for pedestrians (who might not know "the law" or "what pedestrian access am I actually

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

It would be much nicer to drop the sidewalk=separate from the road, & draw a separate footway, which would fix everything! There are separately drawn footways in his Texan cases, just as you could hopefully expect from sidewalk=separate.

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

On 18.12.2022 23:11, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: Currently taking bets on how long it will take before someone actually answers the question I posed  Seems to me, in the situation described, and with the tagging instances in Texas I could find, the tagging is accurate, in that it shows:

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

I'll try to answer the original question as succinctly as possible. As I understand it, the combination foot=no + sidewalk=separate means walking is not allowed at all on this street and the sidewalk belonging to this street is mapped as a separate way. Since the sidewalk belongs to the street,

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

On Mon, 19 Dec 2022 at 06:32, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > I recently came across an unexpected tagging combination and I would like > to understand how folks in various places would interpret this: > > highway= > foot=no > sidewalk=separate > > Would folks regard that as accurate data

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

OSM is anarchy, a process, sometimes (mostly, I think) successful, though often messy. It's not ringing up customer service and getting a Tier 3 professional answer, I'm sure you know that. I don't need to say this, either, but "Patience!" OSM is incremental. (Sometimes, by millimeters or

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Currently taking bets on how long it will take before someone actually answers the question I posed  On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 5:03 PM stevea wrote: > My understanding (in Texas, and other states) in this case (where there is > no sidewalk and it is not legal to walk "in the roadway") is that in

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

My understanding (in Texas, and other states) in this case (where there is no sidewalk and it is not legal to walk "in the roadway") is that in cases like these, there will always be an "easement" along at least one side of the road, where utilities (wired poles, perhaps underground piping...)

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

What I've been told (and someone showed me the law to back it up) is that apparently in Texas, IF there is a sidewalk, you are not allowed to walk in the roadway. On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 4:42 PM Ivo Reano wrote: > Are you saying that in Texas you can't walk on a street that doesn't have > a

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Are you saying that in Texas you can't walk on a street that doesn't have a sidewalk? Only in a city environment or also in a non-city environment? Or in Texas if you're on foot you're going nowhere? Definitely not human! Il giorno dom 18 dic 2022 alle ore 22:31 Brian M. Sperlongano <

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

On 18.12.2022 21:38, cyton_...@web.de wrote: And only if the highway is a streets centerline, not a cycleway or other. Why differentiate? Jens___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Hi, The tagging that I cited was from Texas in the USA. In that location, it is illegal to walk in the roadway (where the cars go), but there was a separate sidewalk where pedestrians are supposed to walk. However, my software works globally so I'm trying to understand how that

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

I don't know in your area if all pedestrians who use the streets just because they don't have a car are punished. In Italy, only motorways and some major traffic routes are formally "forbidden" to pedestrian transit. If I found a foot=yes on a street, simply to indicate that one should not walk in

Re: [Tagging] Re: Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Yes, only if the local legislation infers that pedestrians have to use a (usually car) road-accompanying sidewalk.Also, your project reminds me of wandrer.earth, where craig also introduced a way for running to track ran ways, not only for cyclists. Though i only use it for cycling.--Diese

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Thanks Cyton. Just to be clear, I'm only talking about automobile roads - highway=trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential. On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 3:41 PM wrote: > If and only if there is a separately mapped sidewalk. > Sidewalk=separate means there needs to be such a way. >

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

If and only if there is a separately mapped sidewalk.Sidewalk=separate means there needs to be such a way.However i would tag foot=use_sidepath, which means the same as foot=no but also indicates the existence of a separate way usable for routing.And only if the highway is a streets

[Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

Hello, I am the author of a data consumer which generates a list of streets that are accessible to walkers and joggers. The idea is that a user would have a map of the streets in their town and can challenge themselves to walk/jog down every street, and they can look at statistics on which

Re: [Tagging] uphill vs. incline=up - direction of travel

Am 18.12.22 um 20:19 schrieb Patrick Strasser-Mikhail: **'uphill'** was proposed. Forgot: This is already in use by mtb:scale:uphill[6] specifically and could be adopted. [6]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale#mtb:scale:uphill=0-5 Patrick -- engineers motto: cheap, fast,

[Tagging] uphill vs. incline=up - direction of travel

Hello! I have need for tagging that a restriction on a road is only valid in case a vehicle is driving uphill. The traffic sign states "Snow chains required when ice or snow on road, except for AWD cars driving uphill"[1]. This is indicated on both sides of the road section, both driving

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

Based on the feedback I have received I made some changes to theproposal: 1) I added a smallchange in the proposal template to add notes as reminder that useradds the links of discussion on the forum and ML to the proposal. 2) I removed thewords “new forum” and replaced it with community

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

Made some changes to the proposal to delete reference to helicopters & "rescue-related sites", which will probably both become their own proposals, but your thoughts & comments are still welcome! Thanks Graeme On Sun, 18 Dec 2022 at 10:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > > On Sat, 17 Dec

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 at 18:45, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > 17 gru 2022, 01:19 od graemefi...@gmail.com: > > The other issue with the currently mapped info is that most of it appears > to have come from an unauthorised source. > > Can you link problematic

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gender

Thanks for feedback! Marc_marc : > Le 17.12.22 à 21:58, Illia Marchenko a écrit : > > Gender proposal is ready for voting. After the previous vote, this > > proposal has been reworked. I plan to start voting in a few days. > > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gender

Le 17.12.22 à 21:58, Illia Marchenko a écrit : Gender proposal is ready for voting. After the previous vote, this proposal has been reworked. I plan to start voting in a few days. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Gender

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gender

Gender proposal is ready for voting. After the previous vote, this proposal has been reworked. I plan to start voting in a few days. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Gender ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Homogenize diplomatic tags

Le 17.12.22 à 12:03, Georges Dutreix via Tagging a écrit : 23990 - add office=diplomatic + diplomatic=embassy when [embassy][office!=diplomatic] 23992 - add diplomatic=embassy + embassy=* if [office=diplomatic][!diplomatic][~"^name"~"embass",i] 24031 - change to diplomatic=consulate if

Re: [Tagging] Homogenize diplomatic tags

Le 17/12/2022 à 13:50, Andy Townsend a écrit : The wiki's [...] also suggests that "diplomatic" isn't a top-level tag ("In conjunction with office =diplomatic , this key helps...),

Re: [Tagging] Homogenize diplomatic tags

On 17/12/2022 11:03, Georges Dutreix via Tagging wrote: Hello, As proposed, I continue here our discussion started on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117329397 Thanks You suggest to modify something in the wiki, I am ready to participate, but please I will need a guidance since I

Re: [Tagging] Homogenize diplomatic tags

Hello, As proposed, I continue here our discussion started on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117329397 I am the person having worked on all these diplomatic objects in OSM. To be transparent, I looked in my notes and found all the following maproulette challenges on this subject. I

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

17 gru 2022, 01:19 od graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 17:55, Marc_marc <> marc_m...@mailo.com> > wrote: > >> Le 16.12.22 à 08:30, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : >> >> > In this case amenity=lifeboat is - I expect - used to map lifeboat >> > stationing place, not

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

Further thoughts re air rescue, please. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/emergency%3Dlifeboat_station#Air_rescue Thanks Graeme On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 at 11:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Possibly combine all existing tags under a new top tag > emergency=water_rescue?

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

Possibly combine all existing tags under a new top tag emergency=water_rescue? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/emergency%3Dlifeboat_station#Replace_emergency=lifeboat_station_with_emergency=water_rescue Thoughts & comments please? Thanks Graeme

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=lifeboat station

On Fri, 16 Dec 2022 at 17:55, Marc_marc wrote: > Le 16.12.22 à 08:30, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : > > > In this case amenity=lifeboat is - I expect - used to map lifeboat > > stationing place, not lifeboat itself > > of course, like marina doesn't map boats but the mooring area >

Re: [Tagging] de facto -Status not working?

Can you link any of pages where it is happening? For example https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:taxi_type seems to work fine with it (though it seems dubious to have tag used 156 times as "de facto") 16 gru 2022, 13:29 od dieterdre...@gmail.com: > It seems that for some reason "de facto"

Re: [Tagging] Homogenize diplomatic tags

On 16/12/2022 07:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: If this edit was in violation of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct then I would recommend notifying DWG (for the avoidance of any doubt) I am a member of the DWG, but this was not raised with the DWG as

<    8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   >