Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status "Approved" to "Published"

2015-04-07 14:07 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > 2015-04-07 13:50 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald : > >> If one wants to avoid conflicts, one will always use different tags than >> tags that are already in use. >> > +-0, typically mappers want to use the same tags that oth

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status "Approved" to "Published"

board idea that will only be used after some vote, just to find out five minutes later that it can't handle some common cases. 2015-04-07 13:40 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > 2015-04-07 13:33 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald : > >> Don't mistake "voting" with "do

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status "Approved" to "Published"

Don't mistake "voting" with "documenting". And btw: neither the one nor the other prevents any mapper of misusing any tag. 2015-04-07 13:30 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > 2015-04-07 13:00 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald : > >> Especially there should be no

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status "Approved" to "Published"

In my opinion changing the word doesn't get rid of the problem. Especially if the "word" - no matter if it is published, approved, whatever - is the result of another glorious vote. There should be no "vote" at the end of any discussion, because the discussion never ends! Especially there should be

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

2015-04-03 10:01 GMT+02:00 Lukas Sommer : > I think this template should be deleted or be changed to reflect > exactly what Map_Features/Units says. (But probably even a direct link > to Map_Features/Units would be easier and clearer – so I don’t see any > need for this template.) > +1 for the de

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

2015-04-03 9:39 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > It's not a contradiction, it's a proposal. > Then you should label it accordingly. Currently it is nowhere identified as proposal. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap

Re: [Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary

This contradicts in many cases our current page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units * The use of "meters" is discouraged * "cm" should not be used generally, maybe only on some specific tags * There should always be a space in front of the unit * Neither "feet" nor "inches" should

Re: [Tagging] Wiki page "Vehicle types"

I labelled the page now for deletion. Thanks for your comments. br, Martin 2015-03-31 15:26 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt : > +1 for deleting > On 31 March 2015 at 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > 2015-03-31 9:40 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : > >> +1 on deleting it > > +1, seems the access page is d

[Tagging] Wiki page "Vehicle types"

Hi! I just stumbled upon this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vehicle_types What is this page? A proposal or a should it be a complete list of vehicle types? Anyone ever heard about the tag "automobile"? Or "animal_drawn"? In my opinion this page should either be updated or - better -

Re: [Tagging] Separating usage docs from design docs (was: Increasing voting participation)

2015-03-18 14:14 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > On 18/03/2015, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > So please, don't go over board here by trying to force-involve every > > mapper in tag votes; they're simply not important enough, and they > > *should not be*. Don't try to make them important, lasting, or b

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

2015-03-18 12:47 GMT+01:00 Markus Lindholm : > A thought, how difficult would it be to include in the wiki-page how > many different mappers have actually used a specific tag. Perhaps via > TagInfo. > This in fact would be a very helpful information! Although - please everyone correct me if I'm

Re: [Tagging] Increasing voting participation (Was Accepted or rejected?)

2015-03-18 8:21 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm : > "The following 35 people think that this proposal is a good idea and > would recommend using it" > > rather than > > "This proposal has been accepted" > +1 (thousand) I already decided some time ago, that I will not put any of my proposal up for votin

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

Hi! 2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David : > > No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like > the values much, but at least it's clear that "good" is better than "bad". > > But Martin, its not a "good" or "bad" situation, thats the point. Some > people seek out extremely ch

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-12 10:36 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > I believe that the main problem are the value names. If these were called > grade1 to grade8 many more people would likely use these values and I guess > there would be much fewer objections. > Is grade1 now excellent or horrible? No, numeric va

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

2015-03-11 13:53 GMT+01:00 Pieren : > I search an adjective about this tag and I hesitate between "very_bad" > and "horrible" ;-) > In my opinion this tag is pretty bad. > Btw, what's different today about its verifiability ? I think most of > the people rejecting this tag simply ignore the di

Re: [Tagging] domestic fuel transport delivery мазут

2015-03-09 12:28 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > 2015-03-09 11:50 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald : > >> The description of the key service also ... >> > I meant the key "office" and not "service", sorry for that. ___

Re: [Tagging] domestic fuel transport delivery мазут

2015-03-09 10:45 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > what about shop=fuel_delivery? > To me "shop" means a place where I can buy things. If I'm looking for a service, I would go to an "office". The description of the key service also starts with "A place predominantly selling services.". Sounds go

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps

2015-03-05 8:00 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 5/03/2015 5:48 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > For areas area:highway should be used, not highway. > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/area:highway > > Proposed ... 2011. > And this is a problem because...? P

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

Hi! 2015-02-27 16:22 GMT+01:00 fly : > Did sleep one night and now think we should include bays and lanes > within the lanes:-Tagging > > lanes=3 > lanes:forward=2 > lanes:backward=1 > access:lanes:forward=yes|yes|emergency > access:lanes:backward=yes|emergency > To me it just does not feel righ

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

2015-02-25 19:56 GMT+01:00 Ole Nielsen : > On 25/02/2015 16:41, Martin Vonwald wrote: > >> I don't think of them as lanes, so I wouldn't use some :lanes-tag. I >> thought that there is already a tag, that I simply put on the road for >> the length of the bay -

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

2015-02-25 16:52 GMT+01:00 fly : > Well, emergency=bay might interfere with access tagging and we should > probably use left/right as you will find them not only on dual carriage > roads. > > emergency_bay=both/left/right ? > That seems reasonable to me. > How do we tag emergency lanes ? > I

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

2015-02-25 16:34 GMT+01:00 fly : > So what do you have in mind ? Tagging them as additional tag on the way > with highway=*? Using lanes:-Tagging ? > I don't think of them as lanes, so I wouldn't use some :lanes-tag. I thought that there is already a tag, that I simply put on the road for the len

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

gt; http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/emergency_bay > > On 25 February 2015 at 15:33, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> 2015-02-25 15:20 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald : >> >>> I obviously forgot how to tag breakdown bays (lay-bys, german: >>> Pan

[Tagging] Breakdown bays?

Hi! I obviously forgot how to tag breakdown bays (lay-bys, german: Pannenbucht), something like this: http://binged.it/1LCYpoM Couldn't find anything in the wiki or taginfo. Any tips? Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.

Re: [Tagging] Wiki edits on junction=roundabout

ction%3Droundabout&diff=1143455&oldid=1142769 [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Pmailkeey003 2015-02-23 15:26 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt : > > > On 23 February 2015 at 11:02, Martin Vonwald wrote: > >> I asked the user for an explanation and revert: >>

Re: [Tagging] Wiki edits on junction=roundabout

make it circular, roundabouts don't have to be > circular. > > Phil (trigpoint ) > > On Mon Feb 23 07:43:36 2015 GMT, Martin Vonwald wrote: > > Hi! > > > > Can someone please explain these edits to me: > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.p

[Tagging] Wiki edits on junction=roundabout

Hi! Can someone please explain these edits to me: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ajunction%3Droundabout&diff=1142769&oldid=1107975 A little overkill - isn't it? And since when is area=no needed? Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging m

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

2015-02-16 11:18 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić : > Maybe > If you read a documentation and afterwards you "maybe" know what it means, the documentation might need some kind of improvement. ;-) I think we got enough good examples in this thread. Anyone willing to update the wiki? Best regards,

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

Hi! 2015-02-16 11:16 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri : > The width of the vehicle that could use the way can be wider than the way > itself, even if it depends on the conditions whether they're allowed to. > For an example, a way in a park might be, say, 2 meters wide, but if > there's just grass around

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

Hi! 2015-02-16 10:58 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > * maxwidth:physical: according to the wiki page: a physical limit >> > > > IIRR there were users of latin american countries telling that their > bridges sometimes had 2 height informations signposted: maxheight and > maxheight:physical and t

[Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

Hi! I just stumbled upon the wiki article regarding maxwidth:physical. From reading it - and the articles about maxwidth and width - I don't really understand when to use each key. My understanding so far: * width: this is the actual width of a feature * maxwidth: this is a legal limitation; noth

Re: [Tagging] Tram tracks running in a road

Just one quick question: are there any tags describing the track bed and ties? 2015-02-07 11:19 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald : > 2015-02-07 0:31 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić : > >> I think this is the best way to tag this. There's a great map paint style >> for seeing roads in town

Re: [Tagging] Tram tracks running in a road

2015-02-08 17:48 GMT+01:00 fly : > > Let me know if there's a place with a lot of such tags and I try to > update > > the style. (Please contact me directly via martin (the usual) vonwald > > (dot.) info for this) > > +1 > Keep your +1 until I tried AND succeeded ;-) And yes: some consistent tag

Re: [Tagging] Tram tracks running in a road

2015-02-07 0:31 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić : > 2015-02-06 17:29 GMT+01:00 Luca Sigfrido Percich : > >> >> We could also user a lanes modifier: >> lanes=3 >> lanes:backward=2 >> tram:lanes:backward=yes|no >> tram:forward=yes >> >> > I think this is the best way to tag this. There's a great map paint s

[Tagging] Whole planet flooded at main map?

Hi! Is it just me or is currently the whole planet flooded on the main map? At least at zoom level 1-6. Starting with 7 countries reappear. regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/taggi

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

in the middle of the carriageway? Maybe you can >> illustrate your scenario. >> >> Under normal circumstances (one way per carriageway) >> shoulder=left/right/both should cover it. >> >> Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by "shoulder"? >> >&

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

2015-02-03 12:18 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > That's an easy one: shoulder=yes. > Can you please explain to me, how this answers the question WHERE the shoulder is? It does NOT have to be the leftmost or rightmost lane. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@ope

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Hi! 2015-02-03 11:54 GMT+01:00 Richard Welty : > On 2/3/15 4:36 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > >> Then they are access=no (with foot=yes or whatever as appropriate) or >> barrier=boulder. The way is blocked both for emergency services and mere >> mortals. No need for access=emergency. >> > then how do

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Fine. But how do you specify where this lane is or if there is a lane at all? 2015-02-03 10:05 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > Surely there is never a law against breaking down. When your car dies, > it dies. If the intention is to persuade people to try to get their dying > vehicle as far as possible

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Hi! 2015-02-02 18:06 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson : > On Feb 2, 2015 8:47 AM, "Martin Vonwald" wrote: > >> Yes - and what tag would that be for emergency stopping only? I think >> that is my main question. Do we have one for that? >> > > parking:lane=emergen

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Still the question is unanswered: if, for example, one lane is a emergency/shoulder lane during night and a regular lane during day, how may we map this? access:lanes=yes|yes|now_it_is_a_shoulder @ night access:lanes=yes|yes|yes @ day So what should we use for now_it_is_a_shoulder? Any what about

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

2015-02-02 15:41 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson : > Typical restrictions in the US would be emergency stopping only > Yes - and what tag would that be for emergency stopping only? I think that is my main question. Do we have one for that? ___ Tagging mailing lis

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

I agree that access=no (or vehicle=no) leads in the right direction, but we are still missing the information that it might be accessed in case of break downs or similar. No? Or don't we care about that? 2015-02-02 15:07 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > Assuming you are talking about the "hard shoulder

[Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Hi! If shoulder lanes are mapped (for whatever reason!), what access restrictions should we apply? A simple vehicle=no doesn't seem right to me. In some countries those lanes may be accessed regularly, e.g. by pedestrians or motorcycles, so foot=yes + motorcycle=yes is obvious, but what would be t

[Tagging] Looking for photos of italian motorways

Hi! I'm looking for photos of italian motorways, especially south Italy, e.g. between Napoli and Reggio Calabria, but also for north Italy. I couldn't find any on the usually suspects (Mapillary, autobahn-bilder). If you have some photos available, please let me know. If you plan any journeys ther

[Tagging] JOSM 7995 (January 2015) released

Spreading the word. Thanks to the devs. -- Forwarded message -- From: Dirk Stöcker Date: 2015-02-01 13:40 GMT+01:00 Subject: [josm-dev] JOSM 7995 (January 2015) released To: josm-...@openstreetmap.org Hello, the new JOSM tested version for last month is out. Feel free to spread

Re: [Tagging] length=

2015-01-28 8:58 GMT+01:00 Florian Lohoff : > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:18:57PM +0100, Martin Vonwald wrote: > > 2015-01-27 16:13 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe : > > > > > I personally recommend to use the length key while mapping street > cabinets

Re: [Tagging] RFD pipeline sub tag substance

Hi! 2015-01-28 8:48 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > I note that"if the medium of a pipeline you are tagging is not listed > here, please choose a meaningful value at your own discretion."However that > will lead to multiple values all meaning the same thing or be too > restrictive. >

Re: [Tagging] length=

2015-01-27 16:26 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe : > In my mind, a road climbing a mountain won't have the same length in > reality than in the DB : the Z dimension may have influence too. > Ok - understood. Although I doubt, that there is real usage for that example. But I had a quick look in overpas

Re: [Tagging] length=

2015-01-27 16:13 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe : > I personally recommend to use the length key while mapping street cabinets > as nodes. > > On a node it makes perfect sense. At least as long as it is not possible/wanted/allowed to

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

Who has admin power in the Wiki? I again request a ban of this user. Martin 2015-01-27 11:31 GMT+01:00 jgpacker : > Not five minutes later, he already reverted my changes, justifying it as a > "single user opinion" and "undiscussed changed". > > I also fixed some of his additions in other pages

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

2015-01-24 17:20 GMT+01:00 Никита : > Are you an idiot? I mean really. > I hereby request a ban of this individual from this mailing list and I definitively support an OSM-wide ban. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openst

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

2015-01-24 14:29 GMT+01:00 Никита : > Clueless people > Once again I want to thank you for your kind words. The end. > Any chance, that you will follow this rule anytime soon? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstree

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?

Hi! 2015-01-24 13:21 GMT+01:00 Serge Wroclawski : > There seems to be conflation of this list as having some kind of > administrative function. It doesn't. > > This isn't an OSMF working group, it's a discussion list, and as such > there is no administrative function for this list beyond the > bo

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

2015-01-22 15:48 GMT+01:00 Dmitry Kiselev : > Anyway none of programmers couldn't be freed out of burden to support both > of them. > But, at least we could try to establish one delimiter. > Thanks for those clear and true words. ___ Tagging mailing lis

Re: [Tagging] Motorroad does not apply to all lanes

2015-01-21 18:08 GMT+01:00 715371 : > Here is a picture of the situation. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Special_motorroad_situation.jpg > Interesting... and confusing ;-) Is there any motorroad signpost before that part of the road? When looking at the photo I'm tempted to say tha

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

2015-01-21 7:35 GMT+01:00 Никита : > > Probably because these are for developers, not for users. > Nonsense like any of your words. > Stop it right here! This is now really enough! If you are completely unwilling to accept other peoples opinion, OSM is _not_for_you_! Friedrich clearly demonstrat

Re: [Tagging] Motorroad does not apply to all lanes

2015-01-20 14:56 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > Am 20.01.2015 um 08:44 schrieb Martin Vonwald : > > 2015-01-20 3:36 GMT+01:00 715371 : > >> motorroad:lanes=yes|yes|yes|no >> >> > Seems absolutely fine to me. One alternative (for better com

Re: [Tagging] Motorroad does not apply to all lanes

2015-01-20 9:06 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt : > So the correct mapping is that yo remove put motorroad=no on the short > stretch on the bridge. > "yo remove put" -> "you put" ;-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetma

Re: [Tagging] Overhead signs (Überkopfwegweiser)

Hi! 2015-01-16 10:19 GMT+01:00 Andreas Labres : > heading Brno: > +---+ > | Brno,... [A23]| > |^^ ^ /> | > ||| |// | > +---+ > It might be quite hard for the consumer to determi

Re: [Tagging] Motorroad does not apply to all lanes

Hi! 2015-01-20 3:36 GMT+01:00 715371 : > motorroad:lanes=yes|yes|yes|no > Seems absolutely fine to me. One alternative (for better compatibility) would be motorroad=yes + motorroad:lanes=yes|yes|yes|no . Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list T

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

2015-01-19 13:01 GMT+01:00 jgpacker : > > If I had to guess, I would think that most people find the second > alternative much more complicated than the first one. > > Oops, my bad; that's actually what I meant. I agree with you. > I understood you that way and just wanted to add one more voice.

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

Hi! 2015-01-19 12:34 GMT+01:00 jgpacker : > I.e. How is this: > > amenity=library > > library:stock=books;newspapers;recorded_music > > better than this?: > > amenity=library > > library:stock:books=yes > > library:stock:newspapers=yes > > library:stock:recorded_music=yes > > As a programme

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

I support the revert. The edits by Xxzme are in my opinion completely unacceptable. Best regards, Martin 2015-01-19 11:03 GMT+01:00 NopMap : > > There seems to be an edit war on the wiki page > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Avoid_semi-colon_value_separator > > I personally think that the pr

Re: [Tagging] Tag destination vs. relation destination_sign

2015-01-15 19:48 GMT+01:00 Lukas Sommer : > To clarify the wiki a little bit more, I would also add to the > key:destination page a sentence like “Where to use? Use destination=* > on the highway (OSM way) after the position of the > signpost/groundwriting.” And I would remove (as explained above)

Re: [Tagging] Tag destination vs. relation destination_sign

2015-01-15 22:12 GMT+01:00 fly : > Please, do not forget to mention direction:lanes*. > destination:lanes ;-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...

2015-01-14 17:02 GMT+01:00 fly : > Am 13.01.2015 um 13:38 schrieb Martin Vonwald: > > When writing the :lanes-proposal I used those tags in an example. But in > > my opinion bicycle:lanes=...|designated|... fits better. > > I was irritated by your example, as well. Maybe

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...

2015-01-13 13:52 GMT+01:00 Hubert : > +1 to all. Except "none" in this case was meant to be the default value > from the :lanes proposal. > The "default value" is always an empty value, e.g. minspeed=|80|50. The value "none" might be defined by the main key, e.g. maxspeed=none. If the main key do

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...

2015-01-13 13:38 GMT+01:00 Hubert : > I would not. IMO bicycle:lanes is an access Tag while cycleway:lanes > defines es the type. So one could have cycleway:lanes:forward=none | lane > and bicycle:lanes:forwad= yes | designated , for example. > That's correct. AFAIK it is common understanding, th

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...

When writing the :lanes-proposal I used those tags in an example. But in my opinion bicycle:lanes=...|designated|... fits better. "mass-replace" is a word that might cause some adverse reactions on this mailing list ;-) Have fun, Martin 2015-01-13 13:28 GMT+01:00 Andrew Shadura : > Hi, > > Som

Re: [Tagging] Tag destination vs. relation destination_sign

2015-01-10 19:40 GMT+01:00 Lukas Sommer : > +1. Key:destination for the simple cases the the relation for the > complex cases seems fine for me. > I'll wait until monday and if up to then nobody complains, I'll update the wiki as mentioned before. bg, Martin _

[Tagging] Tag destination vs. relation destination_sign

Hi! Currently it reads in the section "When to use" on the wiki page of the key destination [1]: "Attention: Do not use them for mapping at highway=primary and highway=secondary (or smaller). In such cases, a destination sign relation is the recommended way for direction directives. " Also above

Re: [Tagging] hrmpf.

Hi! 2015-01-02 0:34 GMT+01:00 Rainer Fügenstein : > FR> I think it's a slippery slope problem. Agreed that 13 nodes is not a > FR> lot. But at how many would you draw the line? 20? 100? 500? > > all 13 nodes have been checked and edited by me manually (not using > search-and-replace). since this

Re: [Tagging] lanes=-1 especially in Canada

2014-12-30 22:36 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić : > 2014-12-30 22:16 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge : > >> >> It may well mean what it says, a one-lane road. Some rural areas in the >> USA still have one-lane roads, with occasional wider spots where one >> vehicle can pause to allow a vehicle going the othe

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs., optional cycletracks)

2014-12-22 14:50 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > I think the only need for 'obligatory cycleway' is to remove bicyclist > from certain roads! e.g. > > I'm bicycling north to south.. there is an obligatory cycleway 1000 kms > west of me .. > Do I have to use it? No. Totally unreasonable.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

2014-12-22 13:58 GMT+01:00 Richard Fairhurst : > Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: > > Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > No, no, no. > > In my opinion, there are a few "no"s missing here. So I'll add at least > > one more: no. Well, make that two: No. >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

Here's the link to the proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Proposed_features/Obligatory_vs._optional_cycletrack 2014-12-22 6:24 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > No, no, no. > In my opinion, there are a few "no"s missing here. So I'll add at least one more: no. Well, make that two: N

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

2014-12-19 14:05 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > > -1, there is no reason to tag two identical playgrounds (outdoor, standard > set of playground toys) differently just because one > is near mall and other not. > You are right. But we are not talking about "near", we are talking about "part of". T

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

2014-12-19 13:59 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > I wouldn't add secondary criteria to the definition that is only sometimes > or "usually" true. > That's usually not a good idea, because sometimes a common motorway might also be some kind of runway for something similar to an aeroplane ;-) "

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

Hi! 2014-12-19 13:17 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > 2014-12-19 13:07 GMT+01:00 Никита : >> >> leisure=playground (usually outdoor), kids_area (almost always indoor, >> esp in Russia during winter) >> > why can't we get rid of the exceptions ("usually", "almost always") and > state that one is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=public_bookcase

2014-12-19 13:30 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić : > > This might be the most vague tag I've ever seen. > OT - just for a smile: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/building=building ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetma

[Tagging] maxspeed=signals vs. maxspeed:variable=yes + maxspeed=x

Hi! As the usage of maxspeed:variable continues to increase, I would like to draw your attention again to its proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dynamic_maxspeed In my opinion maxspeed:variable is far superior to maxspeed=signals as it provides not only the informatio

Re: [Tagging] Introducting power=terminal and power=connection for power transmission

Just want to thanks François for his very professional approach in introducing new tags and cleaning up existing ones. Thumbs up. That's hard work and it's not always fun ;-) 2014-12-18 10:44 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe : > > They both aren't yet approved and must be used with caution. > Tags does

Re: [Tagging] city walls (was: Watermill attributes)

2014-12-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Philip Barnes : > > http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip-Ma-Whop-Ma-Gate > Never been to York to date, but I already love it! Thanks for that ;-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Amenity=Ufficio_Pubblico

2014-12-15 15:42 GMT+01:00 sabas88 : > > I know we have an unusual amount of bureaucracy in Italy, but we may not > need a custom tag for it > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dpublic_building > Why is this abandoned? I just read the talk page, but it is not really clear to me

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

2014-12-15 13:31 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer : > > I don't see a need for a new key here. > The properties can be easily modelled with sub-tagging of playground: Fully agree. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/l

[Tagging] lanes=x vs. xxx:lanes=a|b|c

Hi everyone, As I received a lot of questions lately, I want to point something out relating to the values of the lanes key and the number of lane-dependent values within any xxx:lanes key. * The number of lane-dependent values within any xxx:lanes key is equal to the number of lanes on the road,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Pipeline Extension)

2014-12-12 22:32 GMT+01:00 Rainer Fügenstein : > > also a big thanks to Imagic, who tutored the very beginnings of the > proposal, among other things. > Did I? This is so long ago, it isn't even true already ;-) You did a fine job there, I merely pushed you a little in the right direction at the

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations & convenience stores

2014-12-12 17:28 GMT+01:00 fly : > > Am 05.12.2014 um 21:30 schrieb Paul Johnson: > > How about site relations? Seems like a good use of a site relation. > > As long as it possible to draw the whole site as a single polygon, there > is no need of a site relation. Correct. I would like to ask ev

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations & convenience stores

2014-12-11 0:52 GMT+01:00 Greg Troxel : > The main reason is that while designign complicated tagging seems to be > what people do, tagging designs should be done from the point of view of > those writing code to consume the database and do something useful. > 100% incorrect.

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations & convenience stores

In my opinion the "gas station" is not the building but the whole area. Also the address belongs to the whole area and that's the way I tag gas stations: - Draw an area to cover the complete gas station and put amenity=fuel together with additional tags like the address on it. In my region i

Re: [Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

Hi! 2014-11-03 18:47 GMT+01:00 Hubert : > But the question is, whether we should abandon cycleway=* tagging on the > main road in favor for, let us say, cycleway:lanes=, or do we allow lane > tagging in addition to the well established cycleway=* scheme. > As I wrote the :lanes proposal I'm obvio

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person

2014-10-14 23:31 GMT+02:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > I think that "who is in which tomb" is information that does > belong in OSM. > > Finding the tomb you want in a cemetery is *hard* and I'd love to be > able to use OSM for it (probably via a specialized smartphone app). A > particular tomb is l

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person

Just a quick note: 2014-10-14 21:19 GMT+02:00 Pieren : > If I find personal data on my own family in OSM, I will > delete them immediatly without any permission. > I guess you wanted to write "asking anyone for permission" instead of "permission". You don't have to ask for permission, because yo

Re: [Tagging] man_made=bridge

Hi! 2014-10-13 12:12 GMT+02:00 Lukas Sommer : > I would add the requirement that the highways/railways/paths that go over > a bridge have to share a node with the outline area. > Second sentence in the section Tagging -> Bridges with one level: "Connect all OSM ways running over that bridge to t

Re: [Tagging] man_made=bridge

There is a reason why I have never started a vote for this proposal (and some others): in many cases voting simply doesn't work. In my opinion it is much better if the community simply votes by tagging - or not tagging. To tag or not to tag, that is the vote! ;-) Best regards, Martin 2014-10-10

Re: [Tagging] landuse=grass => natural=grass

Hi! 2014-09-17 23:44 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć : > We (in Polish forum) think, that changing landuse=grass into natural=grass > would make better tagging scheme, since grass is seldom a "landuse" (like > the tree is natural=tree, not the amenity or something else). How do you > find this idea? > Not

Re: [Tagging] Tag for livestocks pens

Hi! 2014-09-06 9:17 GMT+02:00 Severin Menard : > > >> Am 01.09.2014 12:20, schrieb Severin Menard: >> > How should we map the livestock pens in farmyards? >> barrier = fence >> And (IMHO): it should be a permanet installation and no temporary thing... >> > > Thanks for your answer. Sure for barri

Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human

2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard : > On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : > > Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with > cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two > cave entrances, then information that they are connect

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

Hi! 2014-08-12 22:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. : > what else can I do? > Maybe it's time to open up a change request for the main map style? The tag man_made=bridge seems to be used worldwide [1] in some - more or less - consistent way. It provides useful data, is simple to tag, it should be easy to

  1   2   3   4   5   >