Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Tramtrack_on_highway)

2018-11-21 Thread Rainer
and Germany (currently not used, but talked about reactivation): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/315375218#map=16/48.8472/8.1177=N Lindaunisbrücke (another combined bridge - in use): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindaunisbrücke#/media/File:Boren_Lindaunis_Eisenbahnbruecke.jpg Bye, Rainer Am 21.11.18

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Tramtrack_on_highway)

2018-11-20 Thread Rainer
embedded_rails=tram | embedded_rails=railway. The latter is even worse for bicycles, because the rail grooves are broader. Best regards, <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:railway%3Dseparately_mapped=edit=1>Rainer Am 20.11.18 um 13:00 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.or

Re: [Tagging] New tag for major recipient postcodes

2017-12-22 Thread Rainer
a geographic location. I would avoid a too generic tag like non-geographic postcode, because it is used on POIs and any map that is made from OSM data would show it and any user of such POI information wouldn't know, what it is. - Rainer Am 19.12.2017 10:50, schrieb althio: I think one mapping

Re: [Tagging] New tag for major recipient postcodes

2017-12-17 Thread Rainer
hose companies in DE, there is an additional physical address which has a different postcode for the street address, which is regularly tagged on the physical location. tom On 17.12.2017 13:42, Rainer wrote: Hi all, recently I came across postal codes in POI addres

[Tagging] New tag for major recipient postcodes

2017-12-17 Thread Rainer
t that are welcome. Best regards, Rainer ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFD pipeline sub tag substance

2015-01-29 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
I'd like to repeat once again that substance doesn't seem to be a nice key descriptor for values like ... during the draft stage, I (we) couldn't come up with an expression that covered everything that might one day be transported in a pipeline. content ... too static medium ... too spooky

Re: [Tagging] RFD pipeline sub tag substance

2015-01-29 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
and what exactly is a neutron bean? correction: should read neutron beam ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFD pipeline sub tag substance

2015-01-28 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
Hello Warin, Wednesday, January 28, 2015, 8:48:16 AM, you wrote: W Request For Discussion W http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:substance thanks for picking up thus topic. I have to leave in a few minutes for a 6 week assignment, therefore only just a few words: - my intention impression

Re: [Tagging] RFD pipeline sub tag substance

2015-01-28 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
hi, first, I wouldn't use the value of substance=* as key for the detailed level, because in this case we would introduce a new key (i.e. fuel=) whenever a new substance is introduced (i.e. substance=fuel). second, I'd stick with two levels (general, detailed), otherwise we'd eventually end

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

2015-01-03 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
michal, MB I don't know whether re-using service=* key is a great idea, as it's MB normally used as a refinement to highway=service I took the idea from the shop=car wiki page. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcar MB (Compare that with MB all these type=* issues where it collides

Re: [Tagging] hrmpf.

2015-01-02 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
andy, thank your for joining this list. S You might be surprised. that's nice to hear. finally, all the work may not have been in vain, after all ;-) S To be clear, I don't think that anyone's criticising the change itself, S just the notification of it. [...] but it would still have been

[Tagging] hrmpf.

2015-01-01 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
hey guys, can you please check the comments on this changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/27805365 short summary: manually editing 13 nodes is a mechanical edit that needs to be discussed in advance, this list here is unimportant, nobody reads proposals and 18:4 yes votes don't

Re: [Tagging] hrmpf.

2015-01-01 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
frederik, 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 case is not covered in the mechanical edit policy,

Re: [Tagging] hrmpf.

2015-01-01 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
hi, IJ Won't this apply to your change: no, because I still insist on the fact that changing 13 nodes manually is not a mechanical edit. neither by the (small) number, nor by the way it was done. the main critique here is that a tag was changed during the proposal process (type=* to

Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey

2014-12-30 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
W Ultimate 'accuracy'? You do realise that the tectonic plates are moving? btw: as a result of the Mar.2011 earthquake, japan has moved by at least 5m. how did OSM react? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

[Tagging] key:support, man_made=surveillance

2014-12-27 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
hi, since the pipeline proposal was approved, I'm currently creating sub-pages for most tags used in the proposal. I took the liberty to create a page for support=* [1], as discussed earlier. two ideas: - support=* could also be useful for man_made=surveillance. the example picture in [2]

Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey

2014-12-25 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
TP It was not clear if the OP indeed wants to map pipelines, TP or was just quoting the pipeline expert for his opinion about TP surveying methods. the latter. I'm referring to all nodes, not just pipelines marker. Just used the conversation I had some time ago as an example. W Terms !! W In

Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey

2014-12-23 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
MK maybe just add a note to the pipeline (note = maped mit GPS with MK guaranteed accuracy of blahblah). I'm rather thinking of something machine-readable, enabling the editor to warn the user in case he/she is about to change high precision data.

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

2014-12-13 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
oh well, couldn't have done it with the valuable input from members on this mailing list and the guys on the proposals talk page. also a big thanks to Imagic, who tutored the very beginnings of the proposal, among other things. cu f Am 11.12.2014 um 23:25 schrieb François Lacombe: This is

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

2014-12-11 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
hi, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/PipelineExtension is now open for voting. tnx cu ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding values to usage=* key for power transmission

2014-12-03 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
FL 2014-12-02 13:02 GMT+01:00 Rainer Fügenstein r...@oudeis.org: LS I agree with you if you say that “usage” LS sounds like a very general key and not a railway specific key. So the LS railway guys have just been a little faster than the power guys and LS “occupied” this key. I would accept

Re: [Tagging] Adding values to usage=* key for power transmission

2014-12-03 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
MR I do not know why anyone should tag one OSM way both with power=* and MR railway=*. and here I contradict my own oppinion: In many cities, there's a gas pipeline running under (almost) every street, providing gas to domestic homes (as do water, sewage ...) just imagine a city like vienna,

Re: [Tagging] Adding values to usage=* key for power transmission

2014-12-02 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
fl.infosrese...@gmail.com: Hi Rainer and thank you. I didn't spend time yet on the update done on the Pipeline proposal but be sure I will. What were the concern against network=* tag ? If they can be avoided with usage=* (or any common key) I'm ok to join you to use the same between power

Re: [Tagging] pipeline flow direction; was: Feature Proposal - RFC - Pipeline Extensions

2014-11-18 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
hi, TK I'm certainly no pipeline expert, so forgive my ignorance. Does TK flow_direction=both mean that there actually is flow in both direction TK at the same time or does it alternate between flow directions? the latter. the direction of the flow within the pipeline may be changed. TK If the

Re: [Tagging] pipeline flow direction; was: Feature Proposal - RFC - Pipeline Extensions

2014-11-17 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
MK +1, also this way you give information about the direction of flow relative MK to the osm way, while flow_direction=oneway doesn't imply any specific MK direction, it only states that the direction is not reversible. proposal updated in this regard.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pipeline Extensions

2014-11-15 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
hi, (I'm cc'ing this to the list; guess that was your intention) f 1. Please do [not] use type (it should by used only for relations) but add f some works like medium_type or pipeline_type. after careful consideration, my GF came up with substance. all other options had some substances that

Re: [Tagging] pipeline flow direction; was: Feature Proposal - RFC - Pipeline Extensions

2014-11-15 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
hi hi f Found one more, loop=* f Some month ago we were talking on this list about flow of waterways and f pipelines. f The far I remember flow_direction=forward/backward/both was mentioned to f tag the direction a pipeline or canal is used. agreed; it is better to define a tag that can also

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pipeline Extensions

2014-11-14 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
I'd like to bring the following proposal to your attention: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/PipelineExtension it describes a set of tags in addition to the existing man_made=pipeline and pipeline=marker tags. thnx for your attention best regards

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pipeline Extensions

2014-11-14 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
hi, f 1. Please do [not] use type (it should by used only for relations) but add f some works like medium_type or pipeline_type. type was largely in use at the time the proposal draft was started, therefore I kept it, but I see the point of changing it. pipeline_type rather implies what's now