Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Substation Refinement

The proposal is more or less ready. No recent comments to the proposal. However, we are in the middle of the holiday season and I don't think it would be a good idea to call for a vote before late August or so. On 01/08/2013 01:31, François Lacombe wrote: Hi, It seems there hasn't been so many

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Substation Refinement

On 06/08/2013 10:16, François Lacombe wrote: No comments except my suggestion for hosted features on a pole or tower at the end of Transformer Type chapter. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Substation_refinement#Transformer_type The proposal has been adapted for pole m

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Substation Refinement

On 30/08/2013 11:00, bredy wrote: Another question. But the pole with transformer is a substation? For me is better to tag it as a Pole because really I see a pole, not all people know a transformer. Then if I put transformer=yes I see there is a transformer in the pole. Agree, the transformer

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Substation Refinement

On 30/08/2013 10:55, bredy wrote: In Italy there are many substation like this Cabina Enel the line arrive in the building. How can I tag this? Actually building=yes + power=sub_station, but for JOSM if I connect del line wi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Substation Refinement

On 01/09/2013 19:04, François Lacombe wrote: 2013/8/30 Ole Nielsen mailto:on-...@xs4all.nl>> Agree, the transformer is just a feature of the pole. I wouldn't tag it as a substation. According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/__wiki/Proposed_features/__Substation

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Substation Refinement

On 02/09/2013 09:58, François Lacombe wrote: Ok, but 'yes' has to be added to the transformer=* table of values in the proposal. Done, but with the recommendation to use a more specific value such as "distribution" if possible. It isn't for now, that's why I thought we can't use it in this

Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness

On 21/09/2013 21:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I continue to oppose the usage of man_made=tower for electricity lattice towers (that what has been power=tower until now and which is 4,8 Million times in use). Why should we change this well established practise, which would require 4,8 Million ne

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Substation Refinement)

The Substation Refinement proposal has now been stable for some time. It is therefore time to announce the voting on this proposal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Substation_refinement In short it - introduces a consistent tagging scheme for substation properties and subs

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On 07/10/2013 21:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote: dieterdreist wrote: bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there. If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you. That may not be the case in the UK.

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

On 07/10/2013 22:40, Clifford Snow wrote: It seems that small and large are too granular for the complexities of wind turbines. Wikipedia has numerous sizes of wind turbines. There is a classification for small, 100kw or less wind turbines, but it is not related to physical size, just power outp

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On 08/10/2013 02:33, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with no bicycle pushing. I never heard of that, what sign do you mean? In which contexts is out used? Do you

Re: [Tagging] Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

On 16/10/2013 20:57, François Lacombe wrote: I was wondering if using line=* for busbars and bay is the best thing to do regarding of what line=* is commonly used for : http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=line There are busbar and bay obviously but many other values dealing with public tr

Re: [Tagging] [Power] sub_station vs substation

François you'll need to be a bit patient. As long as the main mapnik map and the major editors don't support the new tag there won't be a quick switch to the new tag. The old sub_station tag (10 uses) will continue to exist for a very long time and renders should keep supporting it. At le

Re: [Tagging] [Power] sub_station vs substation

On 09/11/2013 19:52, fly wrote: On 09.11.2013 18:35, bredy wrote: But is not possible to convert all the old sub_station in substation? The tag is same only correct. You should add a subtag if transferring. @François: Would you please better explain the values for substation= and maybe add so

Re: [Tagging] [Power] sub_station vs substation

On 10/11/2013 02:01, François Lacombe wrote: 2013/11/9 Ole Nielsen mailto:on-...@xs4all.nl>> +1 We should surely not make an automatic conversion of the tag. Keeping the old tag is useful for tracking substations that need reviewing. +1 I asked this question in a

Re: [Tagging] Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

2013 13:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/10/12 Ole Nielsen / osm mailto:on-...@xs4all.nl>> I propose to change the meaning of "substation=distribution" to be used only on substations at the last level of voltage transforming, thus the small street-level transforme

Re: [Tagging] Aerodrome types

Also happens outside the US. In Denmark I know of civil airports sharing the runway with the airforce. Once experienced an aborted approach during a domestic flight because two F16 fighters suddenly wanted to land. Ole On 06/07/2014 20:04, Richard Welty wrote: no need for lots of anecdotes. i

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Power transmission refinement - RFC 2

On 09/07/2014 09:44, Kytömaa Lauri wrote: Calling it "replacement" doesn't mean it's not "deprecation". The proposal is still trying to deprecate power=minor_line, and to remove the simple physical distinction between "really big thing on big pylons" vs. smaller overhead lines that you can often

Re: [Tagging] Track grades

On 09/07/2014 01:08, David Bannon wrote: I don't really care exactly how it is done as long as we end up with a clear model advising people whether or not they should attempt a particular road. I have posted references to lost lives as a result of bad decisions. Its easier to get people to take

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Beach routing

On 11/07/2014 22:43, Richard Weait wrote: On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Elliott Plack wrote: OSM US: I've been using some routing engines to map fitness routes (e.g. Strava) that use OSM data. Along our US coasts, there are beaches. The beaches I'm familiar with are popular with walkers a

Re: [Tagging] access in the wiki

On 02/12/2014 14:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: In short, I think we should add more access classes to the wiki: - armed_forces=yes/no etc. (identifier cannot be "military" because that key is taken) I think military_personnel=* is better. "Armed forces" in my opinion refers to the entire

Re: [Tagging] Power networks European codification scheme

I'm not sure how these codes could benefit OSM. They seem to be mostly for use in transactions between entities such as TSO's and would have little public interest, even for power grid 'nerds' like me. Further, from where would you get these codes (with an odbl compatible license)? I have neve

Re: [Tagging] Breakdown bays?

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 - just like e.g. sidewalk=right. But that's obviously not the case and it is not possible wi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

I'm the one who reverted your edit to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:power The power features template isn't the appropriate place for this tag. The template includes important power infrastructure features such as power=line and some of the most essential attribute t

Re: [Tagging] waterway=stream & oneway=1

On 04/07/2015 21:57, Mike Thompson wrote: Is it really necessary for a way that is tagged waterway=stream to also be tagged oneway=1? Isn't this implied? The oneway tag doesn't indicate the flow direction but is a restriction that applies to boat or ship traffic on the waterway. Thus if it is

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lane_group

This is a new proposal for solving the highway lane tagging problem. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lane_group Please use the talk page for comments. Regards, polderrunner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http:

[Tagging] Star ("*") character in tags?

I'm considering some changes to the syntax of the lane_group proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lane_group . The syntax of the proposal in some cases allows empty lane values in the value list (nothing between two commas), e.g. to indicate default value or 'not appli

[Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Lane_group

The proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lane_group is now open for voting. The proposal has been stable for the last couple of weeks and I find it useful to have a vote on it now (noting that the "competition" has also entered voting status). Ole N / polderrunner

[Tagging] Proposal for some additional power line tags

Please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:power%3Dtower for some additional tags for advanced tagging of transmission towers. I intend to add these tags to the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dtower feature page but first I would like to receive any comments you may

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for some additional power line tags

On 09/04/2012 21:11, Guillaume Allegre wrote: Please add a tag to specify that a specific tower is the point where the line comes from underground to aerial. I previously proposed "raiser=yes", but it didn't seem to match exactly what I meant. Somebody has already proposed 'tower=air_to_ground

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Conditional Restrictions

This is the formal RFC for the Conditional Restrictions proposal which was already mentioned here last week. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditional_restrictions Feel free to discuss the proposal on the talk page of the proposal. Ole / polderrunner ___

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for checkpoints?

Yes, you need to add "access=yes". The router does not know who may pass a checkpoint and "access=yes" is definitely not the default for a checkpoint (private would be more likely). This is a general issue for all point type barriers where a default access is unknown and mappers forget to add

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Conditional Restrictions

After about one month of discussions resulting in some refinements to the proposal I now put the proposal forward for voting. Please make your vote at the proposal page. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Conditional_restrictions Ole / polderrunner __

Re: [Tagging] Emergency lane used by PSV at rush time

On 14/10/2012 14:40, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 14.10.2012 14:04, Eric SIBERT wrote: On a motorway, the emergency lane can be used by psv (bus and taxi) when there is traffic jam on the usual lanes. There is no predefined hours. Just, when traffic jam is detected, light signal are switched to indica

Re: [Tagging] Conditional restrictions accepted – turn restrictions ahead?

I don't think we need to make it complicated. The Conditional Restrictions syntax is a bit overkill here. The restriction type is already known (type=restriction), so is the value (restriction=no_left_turn). What is left is just the condition (plus eventually a transport mode). I already ment

Re: [Tagging] Exclusive access rights

On 29/10/2012 18:29, Martin Vonwald (imagic) wrote: Am 29.10.2012 um 14:27 schrieb Tobias Knerr mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de>>: It is currently not valid - vehicle types can only appear in the key, whereas "groups of users" (forestry, customers, delivery, ...) can only appear in the value. For t

Re: [Tagging] Status of maxspeed:wet

I intentionally chose not to deprecate maxspeed:wet as I had the feeling that doing so might upset some people and I didn't want such minor issues to affect the voting process. Of course I will recommend to use the conditional scheme and hope we can make a recommendation to deprecate the maxspe

Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground

On 15/01/2013 15:31, François Lacombe wrote: But "aerial line" refers to all the conductors transmitting different lives/phases whereas underground power cable, at high voltage, refers to only one phase/conductor. http://www.nexans.no/eservice/Norway-no_NO/fileLibrary/Download_540199654/Norway/f

Re: [Tagging] Powerlines underground

On 15/01/2013 19:29, A.Pirard.Papou wrote: But, while I was readjusting what others have left behind, I found a power line, as it's often the case with those long haul mappings (landuse etc...), that was attached to a bike lane (node in common). Imagine catching 24000 V in the pedals ;-) Serious

Re: [Tagging] Is the difference between power station and sub station clear?

On 21/01/2013 11:02, François Lacombe wrote: But the current usage of a tag doesn't avoid its deprecation, do you? It may be clearly written on the wiki page that power=station is from now deprecated as for starting the swap to the power=sub_station value. There will be a time were power network

[Tagging] Key:circuits added to power template

As already mentioned in a previous thread I have been drafting a definition for a new "circuits" key describing the number of electrical circuits of a power line or cable connection. See the feature page at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:circuits The new key is mainly intended for unde

Re: [Tagging] Key:circuits added to power template

On 22/01/2013 08:43, Volker Schmidt wrote: 1) For a non-expert it is difficult to assess how many circuits a power line carries without having access to the operators' documentation. Right, it will not always be possible to tag the number of circuits when a cable doesn't connect to an overhead

Re: [Tagging] Is the difference between power station and sub station clear?

On 22/01/2013 00:49, John Sturdy wrote: > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:33 PM, François Lacombe > wrote: >> So we have the same opinion so far, that's great! > > And from me, to. > >> Just a question about the OSM sense of "deprecated". >> Why can't we directly display a big message on each "never us

Re: [Tagging] Is the difference between power station and sub station clear?

On 24/01/2013 10:40, François Lacombe wrote: Ok, I agree with you about substation vs sub_station. Consensus seems to emerge from this discussion, I would edit the wiki like polderrunner explained. * Deprecation (not removal) of power=station, power=substation (and all other values), message ad

Re: [Tagging] Is the difference between power station and sub station clear?

On 25/01/2013 19:23, Janko Mihelić wrote: 2013/1/25 fly mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com>> but I also see a problem with using power=sub_station for all now. I think there is a difference between big substations and the real small ones (tagged with as substations right now).

Re: [Tagging] Is the difference between power station and sub station clear?

On 27/01/2013 17:15, Janko Mihelić wrote: You also have to map these two with same tags, but mappers have no problems with that: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3231/3612088299_4886057d1b_z.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_q4w5GY0uBAU/TG2j3tGzz2I/BLg/EQ9YBbhrwz4/s1600/Large+view+of+school.J

Re: [Tagging] Is the difference between power station and sub station clear?

On 29/01/2013 21:00, François Lacombe wrote: Hi everyone, Here is my discussion with aliponte, as suggested by Friedrich Volkmann I've contacted him last week end. I've asked him before if he minds copying it here. Thanks for making the contact with him. He is bringing up some valid points (n

Re: [Tagging] Power Tagging

On 03/02/2013 02:31, Michael Patrick wrote: For reference, see the International Electrotechnical Commission ( http://www.iec.ch/about/ ) Electropedia ( http://www.electropedia.org/ ) or from the Glossary search at ( http://std.iec.ch/glossary ), to the Overhead lines / Towers description page

Re: [Tagging] Power transmission refinement proposal

On 11/02/2013 19:53, Janko Mihelić wrote: 2013/2/11 Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> According to the proposal we would then need to know the exact voltage in order to distinguish between the various sizes of substations We could make a little tool that suggests v

Re: [Tagging] Life cycle group

On 08/04/2013 09:07, Alberto wrote: Well, disused:*=* and abandoned:*=* are widely used, you could simply link to their Wiki pages. For construction, we should make a general proposal separated from power refinements, as you suggest. We really need a consistent life cycle scheme that defines al

Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution

On 08/04/2013 15:02, François Lacombe wrote: I finally agree with you. I've began to update the proposal to remove relations in all cases except when power plant doesn't have any physical permimeter. Thanks! We must keep role=generator for all generators (no need to distinguish them there) i

Re: [Tagging] Life cycle group

2013/4/8 Ole Nielsen mailto:on-...@xs4all.nl>> not so sure, that "historic" is the right term for stuff completely gone, currently the key "historic" is used mainly for stuff that was created a long time ago, but which hasn't necessarily vanished in the meantime

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Substation Refinement

After being developed over a couple of months the Substation Refinement proposal is now ready for comments http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Substation_refinement The proposal is really two proposals in one. 1: New "power=substation" tag for all substations. First of all it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Substation Refinement

On 22/05/2013 17:26, Frank Villaro-Dixon wrote: I wonder if this level of granularity is really that useful ? Where's the limit ? I mean: without knowing all the complete diagram, all of that is a bit useless, no ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would be like changing from mappi

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Power generation refinement

On 11/06/2013 17:08, fly wrote: The next tricks are coming with the substation proposal (RFC) and the power transmission proposal (Draft) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Substation_refinement http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refineme

Re: [Tagging] Bad tag: demolished=: move to a) modify, b) strongly discourage

On 27/06/2013 19:23, Andrew Chadwick (lists) wrote: iii. We should not in general be mapping features which are no longer physically relevant. Demolished items by their very nature are not relevant, and are potentially not verifiable. OSM a map of the the world as it is in reality, verifiably

[Tagging] Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

The substation refinement proposal has been approved by a large majority of voters. The new feature page can be found here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:power%3Dsubstation Afterwards I regret a bit that I didn't reserve a dedicated value in the substation=* tag for the small street level

Re: [Tagging] Substation proposal approved - and a suggestion for a post-vote change

> 2013/10/12 Martin Koppenhoefer >> >> 2013/10/12 Ole Nielsen / osm >> >>> I propose to change the meaning of "substation=distribution" to be used >>> only on substations at the last level of voltage transforming, thus the >>> smal

Re: [Tagging] Cycle lane tagging

> Questions regarding correct cycle lane tagging. > > Regarding a situation like http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle > M3a: > > a) How do I tag the width of the cycle lane? > > b) How do I tag an arrangement like M3a where the lane is signposted as > non-segregated foot and cycle use? > > Do

Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams

> I notice a quicky increasing number of oneway=no tags on roads, probably > due > to editors offering some flashy list box for the oneway key. I wonder > what's > next. bridge=no, tunnel=no...? > > I find these information-less tags annoying, because you have to browse a > long list of bogus tags

Re: [Tagging] Everybody is hiding?

> Hi tagging list, > > the Extended Conditions proposal has been shot down by a majority, and > therefore there is still no "official" way of tagging quite a lot of > things. (As a side note, the Extended Conditions proposal is still the de > facto standard.) > > Therefore, I expected that those pe

Re: [Tagging] Is the difference between power station and sub station clear?

not on 'talk'. > > And first of all you should contact user "aliponte" who did a lot of work > mapping power networks in central Europe. > >> Do everyone agree with that? > > No, I disagree. > > On 24.01.2013 22:46, Ole Nielsen wrote: >> I have now