Re: [Tagging] What is a terrace after all?

For an individual dwelling, we have building=house. For the entire row as a single building, building=terrace_of_houses might be better, or otherwise building=housing_terrace. But not building=terraced_house as that implies a single dwelling. On 2018-09-10 09:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

ty water can be distinguished from fresh water, or so tidal influence on river flow speed and direction can be represented, I am sure the OSM community can find some suitable tagging for that, but that is a separate issue to the COASTLINE discussion. On 2018-09-10 01:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

On 2018-09-09 23:35, David Groom wrote: > -- Original Message -- > From: "Joseph Eisenberg" > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Sent: 07/09/2018 04:02:26 > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves? > >> I've now edited the coastline in the area mentioned.

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

Graeme, Baseline is not the same as coastline, so the definition you refer to is not what we are looking for. Coastline is a geographic feature, and is normally based on high water. Baseline is a political feature, based on the low water mark, and simplified around bays, inlets and islands.

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

On 2018-09-03 23:08, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Monday 03 September 2018, Colin Smale wrote: This is essentially the > situation we have right now. Judgement of > local mappers is usually fine (with the exception of political > cases like the Rio de la Plata). Most problems o

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

On 2018-09-03 22:20, Christoph Hormann wrote: >> The estuarine situation will always be hard to deal with, and I think >> we'll simply need to have rough guidelines and then trust the >> judgment of the locals. > > This is essentially the situation we have right now. Judgement of local >

Re: [Tagging] Coastline for rivers, estuaries and mangroves?

Just a reminder that we need a pragmatic, practical definition for OSM. It has to be either verifiable in situ, preferably in a single visit and without specialist equipment, knowledge or access, or it needs to be derivable from openly accessible (and suitably licensed) sources. A discussion

Re: [Tagging] Slash, space, or spaced hyphen in multi-lingual names

On 2018-08-09 08:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> On 9. Aug 2018, at 07:17, Marc Gemis wrote: >> >> The name field is just a label. If you want to know the exact name in >> a certain language you look at the name:xx field. > > the question is about the "name in the

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

On 2018-08-07 15:43, marc marc wrote: > I think there's too much redundancy in using is_in:continent. > it is useless, for example, to say that a street + the municipality > + the region + the country is all in the same continent. > it is enough to tag the largest polygon with is_in:continent and

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

, djakk djakk wrote: > Why not a big polygon for each continent, subcontinent, ocean, sea ... ? > > djakk > > Le mar. 7 août 2018 à 12:28, Colin Smale a écrit : > > As even continents now appear to be subjective, all uses of them should be > associated with the chosen

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

As even continents now appear to be subjective, all uses of them should be associated with the chosen frame of reference, much like one always associates a currency with an amount. A given lump of rock can be in multiple continents, each with its own authority, all correct in their own ways. On

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

On 2018-07-24 23:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > We should not remove the details, and nuances in this field, data consumers > can deal with it, they will either treat all/most buildings the same (so it > doesn't matter to them anyway), or they could be specifically interested in >

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

k parts of a dwelling together in OSM? I guess a relation with type=house containing the parts as building=house? On 2018-07-23 15:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> On 23. Jul 2018, at 14:13, Colin Smale wrote: >> >> The owner would say he lived

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

The owner would say he lived in a bungalow. No stairs, ground floor only. I don't think "terraced bungalow" exists as a phrase, but as a concept it certainly does. On 23 July 2018 10:44:30 CEST, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >2018-07-23 6:17 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale : > >>

Re: [Tagging] building = house vs detached.

On 23 July 2018 04:09:03 EEST, Jmapb wrote: >On 7/22/2018 7:57 PM, Paul Allen wrote: >> You've (perhaps inadvertently) > >> Oh, and then there are bungalows and cottages, which count as houses >> in OSM, so are tagged as >> building=detached. > >Nb, the wiki does offer building=bungalow, and

Re: [Tagging] nautical channels

It sounds like you might be looking for "fairway"? https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/fairway-channel-same-difference.1910166/ http://www.yourdictionary.com/fairway //Colin On 2018-07-01 11:39, Volker Schmidt wrote: > No, the question was about the canali in the open lagoon, which are

Re: [Tagging] Street exits

On 2018-06-15 08:28, Peter Elderson wrote: > Speed is limited to 15 Kmph (living_street rules). Peter, have you got a source for this 15kph maxspeed (wegenverkeerswet) for an uitrit that is not a living street? It may be sensible, given the priority rules and the physical construction, but I

Re: [Tagging] Street exits

On 2018-06-15 09:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> On 15. Jun 2018, at 08:28, Peter Elderson wrote: >> >> The street is residential, but the exit is over a sidewalk, with a dropped >> curb. That's the piece I'm talking about: not the street, just the exit. >> >> Rules

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Why not map objective attributes, such as trees per hectare, species, maybe natural vs managed? If the set of attributes is chosen well, then people will be able to apply their own criteria as to what is an "orchard" or a "forest" when consuming the data. After all, OSM is the data, not the

Re: [Tagging] A system structured approach rather than piecemeal

On 2018-06-10 01:30, Warin wrote: > One of the problem is that these main tags don't come through the tagging > group .. they arrive through common use that sees a demand and satisfies it. > > A problem with that is that the initial users see only their local issues and > don't see it on a

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 2018-06-09 13:00, Warin wrote: > On 09/06/18 19:20, Colin Smale wrote: > > On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: This analogy also means that > competition is essential for progress > in OSM. How do we define &qu

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: This analogy also means that > competition is essential for progress > in OSM. How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is "better" than in the past? Ar

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 2018-06-09 10:00, Christoph Hormann wrote: >> This analogy also means that competition is essential for progress in >> OSM. How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is "better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more mature? Is our data quality improving? Do we

Re: [Tagging] Conflicting wiki docu for aerialway=goods and aerialway=station

Frisian is not a dialect of Dutch. It is an ancestor of both English and Dutch. On 15 May 2018 00:36:02 CEST, Paul Allen wrote: >On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Andrew Davidson >wrote: > >> I think that was Martin's point. OSM tags and values aren't in

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted the emails somewhere. On 2018-05-12 16:41, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 12.05.2018 13:53, Colin Smale wrote: > >> As Thilo had pointed out, removing off-topic info from the Wiki is not a >> documented activity of the DWG so I as

Re: [Tagging] Removing helpful information in wiki pages

As Thilo had pointed out, removing off-topic info from the Wiki is not a documented activity of the DWG so I assume everyone was acting in a purely personal capacity? On 2018-05-12 13:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2018-05-11 18:22 GMT+02:00 Thilo Haug : > >> Hi all, >> >>

Re: [Tagging] brand=* necessary?

On 2018-05-10 12:01, Christoph Hormann wrote: > I should probably add that what can be considered the name of a feature > is ultimately the decision of the local community. ...as long as there are global ground rules. The autonomy of local communities, just like democracy, cannot be unbounded.

Re: [Tagging] Unifying large multi-location store chains

There was an action a couple of years ago in the Netherlands to unify the orthography of shop names. It was very successful, after a consultation. Here's the link to the discussion on the forum - unfortunately it's all in Dutch... https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=33909 The

Re: [Tagging] Route members: ordered or not

Why does a loop make it impossible to sort the ways? It implies that a section of the route is present twice in the relation, but there is surely no distinction between the first traversal of a way and the second traversal? On 2018-05-03 18:42, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I will try to explain this

Re: [Tagging] Route members: ordered or not

Good idea to re-order the ways within a route relation, but please, don't reverse the ways to make them join up nicely head-to-tail! The direction of ways is used for so many things that this could cause untold collateral damage. This might be obvious to many mappers, but it is definitely

Re: [Tagging] Manor tagging

What about modern palaces, or buildings still in use as a palace? A manor is an area of land, not a building. xxx=manor_house would be more appropriate. I agree that neither are hyponym / hypernym of castle - that is something completely different like "fortified against attack". A former

Re: [Tagging] Shop=tailor vs craft=tailor

On 2018-03-18 10:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> On 18. Mar 2018, at 10:09, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> >> Craft and shop are orthogonal. Shop is a location, craft is an activity. > > shop is a business offering s

Re: [Tagging] Shop=tailor vs craft=tailor

Craft and shop are orthogonal. Shop is a location, craft is an activity. On 18 March 2018 05:57:02 CET, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: >“tailor” sounds very much like a craft to me. > > > >On the other hand, it’s hard to argue with 1 tagged objects. > > > >From the title of the

Re: [Tagging] Manor tagging

A Manor is not a building, it's an area of land. A Manor House is a building. On 17 March 2018 19:40:31 CET, "José G Moya Y." wrote: >There are structures which are "manors" and I would't tag as a castle. >As >an example, a Spanish "cortijo" is the center of a big

Re: [Tagging] Manor tagging

I have to agree with Martin on this. A Manor was an estate, which typically had a big house where the feudal Lords lived, called the Manor House. The building therefore cannot itself be a Manor, and any feudal function has long since disappeared. On 17 March 2018 13:17:27 CET, Volker Schmidt

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=cannabis

On 17 March 2018 13:24:04 CET, Paul Allen wrote: >On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 10:17 AM, James wrote: > > For example, Netherlands, where some coffee shops also sell >cannabis (which may constitute the bulk of their business and be the >main >reason people

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: unnecessary admin_level tags

On 2018-03-10 17:41, André Pirard wrote: > Hi all, > > Please all, take a very attentive look at this. > Please note the subject change: unnecessary. > Please note the disambiguation boundary vs borderline. > > The problem with admin_level tags is that numbers need to exist to BE ABLE to >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: unnecessary admin_level tags

On 2018-03-10 17:41, André Pirard wrote: > * "ceremonial" Berkshire [1] that is not administrative, has no level and yet > contains administrative "councils" > Berkshire itself, however, is not a subarea of a higher level but it could > > * Relation Bracknell Forest (113682) [2] as subarea > *

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On 2018-03-10 11:56, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: > I agree that the priorities need to be codified (for the standard style), but > this remains unchanged, no matter if the boundaries are rendered by polygon > or by way. Sorry, you are right, I should have made that clear; I was

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On 2018-03-10 11:31, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: >> There is nothing about the data that's desired on the ways that requires any >> sort of human decision making, it can all be automatically derived from >> information that's already available. One thing that should maybe be

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

Matthijs, This goes against the principle of tagging the relation, not the members. An admin area is syntactically analogous to a multipolygon and it would be a shame to introduce yet another polygon tagging paradigm. What are you thinking for other types of boundaries? boundary=political,

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

Wikipedia says they are also known as hollow way - you learn something every day. Sunken Lane appears to be the preferred terminology however. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunken_lane Why historic? It still is a sunken lane. If you go back a couple of hundred years it probably wasn't though -

Re: [Tagging] Short-term parking zones

Was the speed limit already the responsibility of the regional governments? Or was there a constitutional change to delegate that power to them? If they already had the power, the source:maxspeed value should not have referred to BE but to Flanders specifically (BE:VL?). On 2018-01-23 10:00,

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - Voting - Pressurized waterways

How about waterway=pressurised (with an s instead of a z) for correct (British) English spelling which (unless I have missed something) is still the lingua franca of OSM? On 2018-01-22 19:40, François Lacombe wrote: > Hi Volker, > > waterway=pressurized is compatible with both standard and

Re: [Tagging] drinkable vs. drinking_water

Which law is that? And in which language? In French for example "potable" means "drinkable (without problems)" I think you are a little inaccurate with your suggestion that drinking_water is an antonym of waste water/sewage. There is plenty of water out there which is neither - lakes and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 3))

t its location so "pump:location=bottom_of_well"? How about the type of pump? Centrifugal? Reciprocating? And the medium that is being pumped? In this context it is probably water but in general a pump could be used for all sorts of stuff. --colin On 2017-12-19 17:31, Moritz wrote: &g

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Fire Hydrant Extensions (part 3))

Please don't use "pump:type" as it invites people to use it for loads of different things. You are actually doing it yourself. A "bilge pump" is functional and says nothing about the construction or power source (even if there is such a thing as a typical bilge pump). And "electric_pump" is about

Re: [Tagging] "building=college" tag missing from building key page

This is why the ISCED codes exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Classification_of_Education#ISCED_2011_levels,_categories,_and_sub-categories They are already used in OSM: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ISCED So the original enquiry can be

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating of leisure=common and leisure=village_green

Strictly speaking "common land" in England and Wales is a kind of access qualifier, and doesn't imply anything about land use, surface covering or ownership. It's a bit like "public footpath", in that the rights are (to some extent) enshrined in law. So leisure=common would indeed be technically

Re: [Tagging] Road barrier

On 2017-11-28 11:26, Georg Feddern wrote: > Am 28.11.2017 um 10:00 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > On 27. Nov 2017, at 13:51, Selfish Seahorse wrote: > > Sorry for asking again, but does anyone know if motorcar=no implies > that there is no access for all multi-track

Re: [Tagging] how to map a fr:talus?

This is what is called a "talud" in Dutch. It can be used to mean an embankment carrying a road, but more properly it refers to the slope on one side or the other. I would recommend "slope" as a generic term here. But as it becomes steeper, it starts to look more like a cliff It can't be

Re: [Tagging] Variable Message Signs on Highways

You might think about whether they are intended for per-lane/lanegroup or whole-road info. These things have already been modelled to death in DATEX II. There is some possible inspiration here: http://www.datex2.eu/sites/www.datex2.eu/files/sites/test.datex2.eu/files/DX_VMS_2009-06.pdf //colin

Re: [Tagging] passage only on low tide

Oops, sorry, I had obviously misread the original question... Probably because I am working in a large port at the moment and have tides on my brain... On 2017-11-04 11:45, Colin Smale wrote: > I guess this must be a bridge, with a physical limitation? Or is there a > "legal

Re: [Tagging] passage only on low tide

I guess this must be a bridge, with a physical limitation? Or is there a "legal restriction" with a sign saying "no access except within 1.5 hours of low water?" What is actually the real-world scenario behind this? Depending on where this actually is, tidal patterns can vary tremendously. If it

Re: [Tagging] objectivity

The best way to keep it objective would be to tag what it IS and not what it is CALLED. An outdoor shop is what some people call a shop (not so controversial) which sells camping gear (probably not too controversial) and clothing, safety equipment, ... If we had a taxonomy of classes of things,

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

sea...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 27, 2017 8:03 AM, "Colin Smale" <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >Time for a more philosophical discussion... What is the function of >this >thing we call "address"? Is it to identify a premises? Is it to >describ

Re: [Tagging] Multiple offices at the same address - (Multiple values for one key)

On 2017-10-27 08:07, José G Moya Y. wrote: > But from the outside tou can't see if the office is in "Gran Via 1 shop 2" or > "Gran Via 1 shop 3", despite of the shop number being displayed in the > mailbox. The fact that you can't see it from the outside doesn't make it untrue. Maybe it is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v2 Vehicle Type "coach"

Hi, I have commented on the Talk page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Public_Transport_v2_Vehicle_Type_%22coach%22 In summary, I am not in favour of this proposal as it stands, as it is insufficiently distinct from the existing bus stuff. --colin On 2017-10-04

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On 2017-09-21 14:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2017-09-21 12:10 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe : > >> I mentioned two different situations where access=permit would also be the >> most logical tag: >> >> - access to a Low Emission Zone > > IMHO this has nothing to do

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

On 2017-09-21 11:03, Marc Gemis wrote: > Is there a risk that people will start adding access=permit to > everything in a country for which you need to have a visa to enter the > country ? Not everyone needs a visa of course, so it cannot be a simple attribute of a country. > Or even worse, to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC - Magnetic Levitation Trains

On 2017-09-18 07:49, Erkin Alp Güney wrote: > Maglev is intended for HST usage. Monorail is usually intended for urban > commutes. Different uses, different tagging. Maglev needs to render > prominently, urban monorail does not. But not by virtue of the technology. Maglev can be used for local

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

I would suggest there needs to be a separation between the school as an organisation, a campus, a building, and the courses provided. Here in NL there are many mixed colleges, which provide statutory education to kids (16+), adult academic education and vocational training. Such colleges often

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

On 2017-09-15 20:34, Viking wrote: > On the contrary, now I think that we must made explicit all water sources and > do not use at all waterbody. Stream, river, lake, pond, sea, ocean are clear > enough to be understood by an occasional mapper and correspond to existing > tags. Instead, to

Re: [Tagging] Elevation in Feet as part of Peak Names

Does anyone have any idea whether the elevations, be they in feet or metres, are all respecting the wiki definition of being the height above MSL according to EGM96 (not sure what that would mean in landlocked areas) and NOT WGS84 or (strictly speaking) relative to local MSL? The wiki page for

Re: [Tagging] RFC: Defaults are paramount, abandoning Proposed_features/ is a HUGE mistake

On 2017-09-01 21:32, Nick Bolten wrote: > I also don't know the best way to establish a hierarchy for *which* boundary > settings to honor, if a given street is within admin boundaries for city, > region, and national having different maxspeeds. It makes sense to assume > that the most-local

Re: [Tagging] shop=fashion

Boutique is not a synonym for (expensive) fashion shop! A boutique implies small scale, and can sell things other than clothes such as jewellery and other accessories. The tagging should preferably be objective (what things actually are) and not subjective (what you or I might call a certain

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

IIRC a Dry Riser in the UK goes from ground level UP to the higher floors, so AFTER the fire services's pump, and not from a water source up to the pump. http://www.highrisefirefighting.co.uk/dr.html --colin On 2017-08-21 14:14, Philip Barnes wrote: > The correct English term is Dry Riser.

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

Suction point is probably not the right word in English. I haven't found any specific idiomatic usage of this phrase, so it seems to just mean "point where suction is present/applied". Dry Hydrant seems a better fit for what you are discussing, do you agree?

Re: [Tagging] Rivers classification

We have a hierarchy of "importance" for roads, why not for waterways as well? It's like we have nothing between motorway (river) and unclassified (stream). The problem I see with some of these stream models is that we are starting from the big rivers with no mapping of tributaries in many cases.

Re: [Tagging] Names containing abbreviations that are the official name

Unless the word is "St." for Saint in English where there is no evidence that the full spelling is ever, ever used. And including the word "Township" in the name may also be considered "tagging for the renderer". This place sounds like it is a "township" by virtue of some act of incorporation

Re: [Tagging] Mindistance=*

On 2017-06-25 17:41, Joachim wrote: > It's often used for hgv vehicles in tunnels > (http://openstreetcam.org/details/27490/65) or on old bridges > (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/6ZQory0nWk0uwwuenNM-Rw). > > I will also create a wiki tag page. It there anything else to add? I would suggest

Re: [Tagging] minibus routes

On 2017-06-25 16:51, Michael Tsang wrote: > Dear all, > > Is there a generally accepted way to tag minibus routes? What I mean is that, > the routes are not part of the standard bus route network, operated with > fixed > routing, and use light vehicles (less than 20 passengers). > > I am

Re: [Tagging] Access restriction for gas-powered vehicles

On 2017-06-03 21:40, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Michal Fabík wrote: > >> Hi, >> I'm sure this has been asked before, but I can't seem to find anything on >> the topic in the Wiki. How do you tag access restriction for LPG/CNG-powered >> cars,

Re: [Tagging] Time is now: tag ALL traffic signs in OSM

On 2017-05-22 07:46, Marc Gemis wrote: > As for the useage of the data: inventory for towns so they know how > many signs of a particular type are found within the town limits. > Newspapers could use it in "there are X number of signs that need to > be replaced for this new law". Couldn't they

Re: [Tagging] Time is now: tag ALL traffic signs in OSM

On 2017-05-21 22:23, yo paseopor wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 9:47 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: > >> I also find it useful to know the exact traffic sign combinations that >> the other tags are derived from, as ambiguities in tagging can cause >> that information to be

Re: [Tagging] Time is now: tag ALL traffic signs in OSM

On 2017-05-21 15:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2017-05-21 15:09 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > >> Basically only d) is related to functionality for the consumer of the data - >> a/b/c are about the OSM-internal process of how we get there. If we

Re: [Tagging] Time is now: tag ALL traffic signs in OSM

On 2017-05-21 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2017-05-21 14:05 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > >> WHY do we put traffic signs into OSM? > > I do it because in the past in many occassions I have found the maxspeed I > had mapped, later destroye

Re: [Tagging] Time is now: tag ALL traffic signs in OSM

On 2017-05-21 13:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2017-05-21 13:15 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > this can depend on legislation. Usually the end of the restriction should be > signed (or the restriction will already have indications when it will end/to > whe

Re: [Tagging] Time is now: tag ALL traffic signs in OSM

On 2017-05-21 12:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2017-05-20 11:26 GMT+02:00 yo paseopor : > >> What do you think? > > I'm only using this for cases where I find it important (mostly for other > mappers to understand, where an observation of a sign was made, so they can

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

How about a step back for a second here... What is the stop_position intended for? Who is it intended to help or inform? A bit of context would help to rank the possibilities. I remain by my earlier standpoint that a stop_position is too much detail for a route as it is too variable to be

Re: [Tagging] change recommendation from "depth" to "length" for the adit length?

Then I would suggest "length" is what you mean here, as it has no direct relation with the distance from the surface. On 2017-05-12 09:54, Michal Fabík wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> B) the distance one w

Re: [Tagging] change recommendation from "depth" to "length" for the adit length?

The most confusing thing is when you use one term but mean another... Let's agree on the definition of what we mean here. Is it: A) the distance from the surface, measured perpendicular to the surface, of the end of the adit *** this would probably have to be further refined to be the

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

Hi Bjoern, On 2017-05-11 11:17, Bjoern Hassler wrote: > HI Phil, hi Colin, > > Colin: Actually, in the case you mentioned (short/long trains), I guess there > could also be several stop points. I think that's not a problem. It's just > you would only add one of those to the route relation.

Re: [Tagging] rail routes: how are platforms and stops associated (rail question 2)

Just to add a dimension... At many stations in NL and UK at least, trains of different lengths stop at different places along the platform, roughly so the middle of the train is by the exit. So this will need multiple stop positions on each platform. These are signed for the train driver. On

Re: [Tagging] Tagging 'advance' turn restrictions

On 2017-04-06 14:33, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 05.04.2017 23:42, Kevin Kenny wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >> Where the solid lines start have a separate way for each lane >> >> this way routing engines

Re: [Tagging] address property of features

A tip from CRM systems: addresses have a specific role, just like we have multiple phone numbers: one for work, one for home, mobile, fax etc., we can also have multiple addresses. One may be the legal address of a company, one for postal deliveries (possibly non-geographic such as a Postbox

Re: [Tagging] Tagging cannabis growing facilities

On 2017-03-12 15:33, Clifford Snow wrote: > Dave, > I'd be concerned about tagging cannabis grow operation after the new attorney > general's comments. I live in Washington state. Cannabis shops are well > known, but not the grow operation. I assume because they are regulated by the > state

Re: [Tagging] Orientation of an adit?

On 2017-03-10 14:48, Tod Fitch wrote: > There are a number of abandoned adits and mine shafts in an area I've done > some mapping in. When looking at old USGS topographic maps of the area, I've > noticed that they used to align their symbol for an adit to show its > orientation. > > I'd like

Re: [Tagging] Positioning motorway exits

Navigation systems, including commercial ones, mostly count down to the LAST point - where the white triangle or lines make it illegal for you to transition. This is in line with the wiki and current OSM practice. Countdown signs on the approach to an exit however go to zero at the FIRST point you

Re: [Tagging] Mapping time zones as geometries (relations)

On 2017-03-07 07:43, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Kevin, > > On 03/07/2017 02:06 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > >> There are reasonable use cases for wanting to take a timezone name and >> get back a multipolygon > > Question is, does (the core database of) OSM have to fulfil these use cases! > >> or to

Re: [Tagging] Mapping time zones as geometries (relations)

On 2017-03-06 17:51, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > On 2017-03-06 17:21, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Mar 5, 2017 18:30, "Frederik Ramm" <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > Hi, >

Re: [Tagging] Mapping time zones as geometries (relations)

On 2017-03-06 17:21, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Mar 5, 2017 18:30, "Frederik Ramm" wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I would like to start a discussion about the mapping of time zones. > >> What do you think? > > I'm generally opposed to mapping timezones in OpenStreetMap unless the

Re: [Tagging] Notary Office

On 2017-02-07 18:56, Richard Welty wrote: > office=notary just seems wrong to me, they're > rarely standalone in my experience. Richard, in Europe they are almost always standalone, by definition. They need to be independent and impartial "by law". They have a protected role in many transactions

Re: [Tagging] Non-geometrical ways in boundary relations

Tom, I think we need to have consensus about what we mean by admin centre. The traditional "town hall" is frequently no longer the central office location where the administrative and/or customer-facing staff are located, and indeedn, these functions may be distributed over multiple locations. How

Re: [Tagging] Moving forwards with multi-valued attributes

On 2017-01-23 21:15, Paul Norman wrote: > On 1/23/2017 1:42 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > >> This subject has been discussed so many times in the past, over several >> years. It seems that OSM is incapable of moving forward. The current data >> model does not accommodate

Re: [Tagging] Destination:street

On 2017-01-23 20:12, Marc Gemis wrote: > OSM is driven by people that implement something, not by people > discussing stuff on a mailing list. That model works fine when it comes to editors, tools, utilities, libraries, and other creative ways to manipulate and consume the data. It doesn't work

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] destination:street

On 2017-01-23 09:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> On 22 Jan 2017, at 22:18, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> >> Consumers who are not ready to handle multiple values in their data models >> can stop reading after th

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] destination:street

On 2017-01-22 21:51, Hakuch wrote: > On 22.01.2017 21:20, yo paseopor wrote: > >> As you can see order is not random. In Catalonia is the same. How do you >> make correspondence with the order. > > But I agree, when there is really a important sense in order of the > values, putting them in a

Re: [Tagging] 'ongoing' U-turn restriction

On 2016-12-08 15:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > On 8 Dec 2016, at 12:25, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> Martin, your interpretation is jurisdiction-dependant. There is sometimes a >> distinction between single and double lines as well (Queensland

Re: [Tagging] 'ongoing' U-turn restriction

Martin, your interpretation is jurisdiction-dependant. There is sometimes a distinction between single and double lines as well (Queensland is an example I just found). The objectively verifiable fact is the road marking, thereafter you have to interpret the local laws to understand its effect. A

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >