I recently came across a track that was severely destroyed by heavy
foresting machinery.
(KNee-deep mud with tire tracks over a meter deep and wide.)
How to tag this?
It was no longer usable on foot or for any normal sized vehicle except
maybe tanks or said heavy machinery under normal conditions
>
>
> Why don't you just add anotd tag?
>
> note=This traffic light enforcement camera mapped as relation. Only edit
> if you are an experienced mapper!
>
At the moment I've done exactly that, but in addition to the
highway=speed_camera tag.
(note=actualy a red-light camera; mapped with enforcemen
I've mapped some traffic light enforcement cameras lately and
stumbled across the somehow missfitting tag highway=speed_camera.
It was obvioisly invented for cameras enforcing only speed limits.
Now the actual enforcement can be quite flexibly tagged by the enforcement
relation and technically, t
> > There can be a way that IS connected on both ends and still is a dead
> end. A
> > road can end in a wall or a fence, where on the other side the road
> > continues.
> > There may be other tags there (barrier=*), but still it would be hard to
> > quickly spot the dead end side with noexit=yes t
2014-04-09 10:47 GMT+02:00 Pieren :
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:38 PM, André Pirard wrote:
>
>>
>>1. noexit cannot be used on ways because that does not show what end
>>"cannot pass"
>>
>>
> eeh, what "what end" ? Either the highway line is linked to another
> highway at both ends, then "no
I used so far:
shop=photo
For shops that sell cameras, equipment and related services (cleaning,
repair), offer printing (either off- or on-site) and maybe simple portrait
photos for use on ID documents
shop=photo_studio
For shops that offer, in addition to the above, artistic photo services
like
2014/1/28 Peter Wendorff
>
> one building (b1) and the outer space (s) are used by a kindergarten,
> the second building (b2) and the outer space (s) are used by a primary
> school.
>
> Our proposal for the tagging was:
> 1) use a multipolygon with outer s and inner (b1) and tag it as primary
> s
2014/1/28 Peter Wendorff
> Hi Ronnia,
> as the use case was an outer area shared by two amenities in different
> building, it's a multipolygon with one outer and one inner member, and
> that should be fairly common around the world, as it's the most simple
> case for an osm multipolygon, right?
2014/1/28 Janko Mihelić
> I would make two multipolygon relations, not site, and put no tags on the
> area.
>
>
Could you explain why?
A multipoligon relation with just one outer member
is not common practice (at least not here in my region.)
Regards,
Chaos
_
2014/1/28 Janko Mihelić
> I would make two multipolygon relations, not site, and put no tags on the
> area.
>
>
Could you explain why?
A multipoligon relation with just one outer member
is not common practice (at least not here in my region.)
Regards,
Chaos
_
Hi,
I'd like to get some opinions on a mapping/tagging problem I have here.
Usually I would tag an amenity (inside a building) that is enclosed by an
area that is clearly part
of the amenity (like playgrounds around a kindergarten, outdoor area of a
botanical garden) *not* on the building (or eve
I would also tag these things as free text.
The problem space is just too big to encode this in standard tags with a
fixed set of values.
If you can express the problem more specific and even with less words in
free text then in key-value pairs, I would clearly vote for the former.
Especially as a
2014/1/17 Gerald Weber
>
>
> But why only roads?
>
> So why not a more generic tag to alert people about all sorts of problems?
>
>
>
Oh please restrict that to official warnings! I can already see thousands
of hazard tags of
concerned citizens warning me about every ditch in the road, cold weath
>
> In contrast, if the information that the road can be passed by off
> road vehicles is given by local people
> then it is probably very reliable. It is not interpretation, it is
> experience.
>
If these local people are somewhat responsible, their answer could only be:
"It depends".
As mention
Robert argued here that country-specific restrictions should be always
expressed by tags so that routers don't need to know those specific
rules/laws.
He gave the maxspeed tags as an example, which we explicitly tag even if
they are based on implicit laws.
I think this generalization is goes too f
2013/10/23 Dominic Hosler
>
>
> I think in my opinion the distinction between a playground and a soft
> play centre is that a playground generally has a hard ground (or
> sometimes rubbery), whereas a soft play centre (in the play area) has
> a padded ground. In a soft play centre all the equipme
There are centers like this in Germany, mostly just called "indoor
playground".
(I haven't seen one so far, but I heard awful stories from parents all
around.)
The term "soft play" wasn't known to me and I didn't think of child's
entertainment when I read it
(actually, I thought the opposite). The
Hi,
I'm in the process of adding more detail to the major junctions in terms of
lane counts, turn lanes, width, etc.
There seem to be two tagging schemes in parallel:
- the turn:lanes[1] scheme which adds lane descriptions as tags to way
segments.
- the turnlanes:turn[2] scheme which adds lane c
The proposed tagging scheme doesn't sound too bad to me.
It's easily expandable for those who want to map more detail
utilities:sewage=underground
utilities:electricity=overhead
utilities:communications=underground
But I would vote for just mapping what is somewhat verifiable on the ground.
(Over
2013/8/30 Frederik Ramm
> Hi,
>
> On 29.08.2013 16:07, André Pirard wrote:
> > "This tag was created for the specific needs
> > of logging [to tell which timbering vehicle can pass a bend]"
>
> More background here:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Round_wood_transport_in_the_forest
>
This
Am 13.08.2013 20:41 schrieb "Bryce Nesbitt" :
>
> And a trickier example: a camp complex with four buildings, all with a
name=.
> At lower zoom levels which building's name should show? The rendering
> needs a hint to know what "name=Camp Office" is of broader interest than
"name=Maintenance Shed
2013/8/12 André Pirard
Imagine seeing on a shop poster "10 OFF" or "0.1 OFF" and you've got the
> answer to THAT point.
>
>
> Can I extract from your snippy comment, that in your opinion we should
omit the % sign because one can clearly distinguish between a pure ratio
and a percent-scaled ratio?
Imho the original question was not about the scientific details of what is
a "unit" or how to represent inclines, but simply if the "%" sign should be
included in the tag value or not. Especially in the case where it is set by
an editor template.
Could we get some opinions on THAT point?
Regards,
On 24 Jul 2013 16:44, "Janko Mihelić" wrote
>
> I don't think we should be so inflexible with the "object vs attribute".
It depends on the context.
>
> If you are a data consumer, and are making a list of all addresses in a
town, then the addr:housenumber + addr:street is your object, and
buildin
2013/7/24 Andrew Chadwick (lists)
>
> As described in the proposal, "inquiry" is partly about practical
> locking mechanisms so a better way which factors out those concerns is
>
> access=private
> locked={yes|}[1] (or some other tag)
>
While I can see your intention here, that is the mo
I used to tag the area as leisure=water_park and the pools within as
leisure=swimming_pool (with sport = swimming for those that are deep and
long enough for competitive swimming).
Usually there are other things withing the area like leisure=playground or
leisure=pitch.
I found no suitable tag to
Yes, highway=path or =track normally allow foot access by default.
You can still add the foot=yes tag to show that you have actively verified
the fact that indeed access is granted on that way.
For example when other ways around have foot=no or the Bing layer looks
like it's not accessible etc...
How
On 05/lug/2013, at 04:28, Shu Higashi wrote:
>
> > amenity=restaurant
> > sticker=yes
> > image:sticker=http://www.heartbarrierfree.com//image/logo.png
> > website:sticker=http://www.heartbarrierfree.com/
> > name:sticker=Heart Barrier Free Project
>
How about an even more generic tag? Nob
> Nothing wrong but different as said the second one is just a gap in a
> linear barrier where you can pass while the first one is an entrance to
> something.
>
> So you won't use entrance=* if you can't define an inside and outside?
Well, at least that's an easy to follow rule.
I'm not exactly su
>
> I do use the two tags in a different way. If it is an entrance leading
> to something (eg. building/amenity) I would use entrance=* but for a
> small opening within a wall/fence I use barrier=entrance. This way I do
> not have to cut the linear barrier.
>
What's wrong with entrance=* in the se
Am 06.03.2013 03:56 schrieb "Steve Bennett" :
>
>
>
> Fortunately there is no such thing as regional trams :)
>
I learned very early on that there is no such thing as 'no such thing' in
OSM.
There are quite a few regional trams here in Germany alone:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cberlandstr
2013/2/26 A.Pirard.Papou
>
>
> The specification I'm trying to suggest is exactly that.
> There is a gap in an OSM route and the sole idea is to bridge it.
> We must indicate "go from here to there in an unspecified way".
> It is just to
>
>- make sure that those who follow the route will go
This also doesn't differ very much from the practice used for pedestrian
areas in cities.
Usually the area/plaza/village square will be drawn as an area, but
additionally some crossing highway=pedestrian ways are added to guide the
router
straight across instead of only along the edges.
I'm not re
2013/2/4 Janko Mihelić
> 2013/2/4 Ronnie Soak
>
>>
>> Works exactly as long as no piste belongs to more than one resort. If
>> anyone does, you still need to switch to relations.
>> I don't know about nordic pistes, but there are definitely lifts for
>>
2013/2/4 Janko Mihelić
> 2013/2/4 Martin Koppenhoefer
>
>>
>> if they don't have a common operator and the resort doesn't have a
>> "border" (i.e. it isn't an area but a mixture of areas and routes) you
>> cannot map them? Btw.: the OP is asking for nordic pistes, so there
>> won't necessarily b
>
>
> +1, generally building typologies (that's what the value of building
> is about) are not refering to the actual usage but to the type of
> building (e.g. a defiled church building which is now used as a disco
> would remain building=church without being an
> amenity=place_of_worship).
>
> +1
2013/1/15 Martin Vonwald
>
> To me landuse=meadow means an area where grass is grown for some
> purpose. One purpose may be grazing/pasture. Another may be to lay on
> it. If a meadow is really used for grazing I add meadow=pasture.
>
Beware! Off-topic:
So technically, we could also use it for
> Maybe I explained that wrong. I didn't want a 'background' tag just for
> the
> > rest of the area, but
> > one for the well kept green used as recreational area, taking a sun bath,
> > let the children play etc.
> > (As opposed to additional unkept green, bushes, trees and areas not meant
> > fo
2013/1/15 Martin Vonwald
>
> > (I may also add landuse=basin, but this may be overkill.)
>
> I don't think it's overkill I think it's wrong. Although a swimming
> pool is "An area of land artificially graded to hold water." it
> doesn't feel right. Have a look at the subkey "basin" and its values
2013/1/15 Guttorm Flatabø
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Ronnie Soak <
> chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Best solution I could come up with: tag the whole thing as
>> leisure=water_park [1] (even if it is not that fancy as in the wiki
>> defin
Hi,
this topic has been discussed earlier and some wiki edits have been done.
But I feel no real solution has been found and I still find it hard to tag
what I see on the ground.
So here we go again:
How to tag an enclosed piece of land where, after paying a fee to the
operator, you can use diffe
Hi Martin,
>
>> 2. I have problems with the tag because it is (to my knowledge) the
>> first 'meta-tag' to be actively used by consumers.
>> It doesn't describe a feature of the real world but how a feature is
>> described by our tagging.
>> I much rather would like to see this information embedde
Hi Martin,
I surely get the intention of enabeling renderers of any kind to draw
more precice representations of lanes on a way.
But I have two comments for you:
1. I think it PARTLY IS about position. Your tag does two things:
allowing the renderers to position the lanes correctly in reference t
2012/12/4 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> if you see the address as "feature" it should be an area and not a
> node, but if you add it to a POI I'd see it as an attribute and there
> is no problem in adding it multiple times. Putting an address-node on
> a building-outline to mark an entrance seems odd,
>
> Of course
> It's not the first time I see such process : propose a new tag, do not
> say it would deprecate anything until vote is accepted (or - if you
> don't like "vote" : consensus is reached, or no more complains), wait
> few months, change the wiki from "do not deprecate" to "recommen
Hi Rob,
We already had this discussion some time ago. There wasn't a complete
consensus on the matter, but here is how I tag now:
One amenity per building: the addr: tags and the amenity tags on the
building outline. One or multiple entrance nodes on the outline.
Several amenities per building,
If you have a data set of nodes representing street signs, why don't
you import them as such?
traffic_sign=BE:C43
maxspeed=30
source=?
Of course you still need to manually match those to the ways and tag
the maxspeed=* to them.
But you can use the traffic_sign=* nodes to create a josm filter or
e
2012/11/2 John Sturdy :
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
>> It is rare to prohibit hgvs as such, the way this is achieved is by weight
>> or length. The most common is to prohibit vehicles over 7.5t, the historic
>> breakpoint between a vehicle that could be driven on a ca
Try to see it from a data consumer point of view.
Let's say you are a bicycle routing engine and want to know if you are
allowed to drive here.
With the current scheme you see an access = no. so you assume you
don't have access.
Then you look if there are special permissions for bikes (because,
af
Thanks Pieren,
Yes, 'I should use the search function' is something I should tattoo
onto the back of my hand or something. (Maybe I start with a post-it.)
Your tool is nice. Maybe something like that can be integrated into OSMI too?
Lets see what Richard says about the trac ticket for Potlatch 2
Can we at least slow down the effect?
I just checked with my original problem, a newbie mapper plastering
the map with POIs that contained their name also in the designation=*
tag.
He used Potlatch 2.
And now I found it. Potlatch offers a field for 'Official
classification', with a help text that
Hi,
I've recently stumbled upon some confusing usages of the key
designation=* in my area, so I tried to find out what it really means
and how it is used correctly.
I haven't succeeded.
Of course there is the wiki page [1] at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation
which explains that
If it fits, you might also add highway=emergency_access_point [1]
Actually, this is a perfect match for the emergency=* key, but for
historical reasons, it is tagged as highway=*.
(Feel free to be the first to switch over)
regards,
Chaos
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Demerge
2012/10/1 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>>
>> natural=water
>>
>> - wiki page doesn't specify, but details, examples and name imply the
>> use for a natural feature
>
>
> IMHO natural=water is flawed, for several reasons: it is not a
> geographical feature (that would be natural=lake, etc.), but it is
> al
Hi,
recently someone mapped a lot of fountains here, so tried to find out
how they should be tagged. But I failed.
I found both natural=water or landuse=basin to be in use for those
features, but both have their flaws.
natural=water
- wiki page doesn't specify, but details, examples and name imp
Hi again,
>
> there are more traps in that example. :-)
>
Traps? I've found a stray CR tag in the EC file, which I silently corrected.
And one part of the way was tagged 120@wet even though it was probably
meant as without restriction, which I now also changed to be
symmetrical to the other side.
Hi Eckhart,
I've done your exercise and I did see your point: It is easier to ADD
an additional restriction to an existing one with the EC scheme than
with the CR scheme, because you simply add a new key instead of
modifying an existing one.
Did you want me to upload the result somewhere?
How fa
I'm sorry. Here it is again in English:
Eckhart,
I've added a column for the Extended Conditions scheme to the examples
table on the discussion page of the Conditional Restriction
scheme. [1]
(Why doesn't have the Extended Conditions scheme it's own examples?)
Would you please help me fill in t
Eckhart,
Ich habe gerade eine Spalte für das Extended Conditions Schema zur
Beispieltabelle auf der Diskussionsseite des Conditional Restriction
Schemas hinzugefügt. [1]
(Warum hat das Extended Conditions Schema eigentlich keine Beispiele?)
Würdest du mir helfen die Lücken zu füllen? Du scheins
In Germany, this question is easier to answer.
There actually are streams and creeks that have the word stream or
creak in the name, just that Germans pull the words together, making
it more obvious that its part of the actual name.
Also it is almost exclusively used for smaller water features, li
Another anecdotal example:
I'm a non-native speaker (being German) and I don't know a word in
french. But I did know the term 'potable' very well.
And so will everybody else who ever went camping in either New
Zealand, Canada and probably many other English-speaking countries.
Camp sites and also
>
>
>>
>> there are
>> 145428 int_ref
>> 60611 nat_ref
>> 12 ref:de
>> 0 ref:DE
>>
>>
>>
Ok, you are right. I'm just wondering why the country classifier is used on
so many other tags and not on this one.
Best regards,
Chaos
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagg
What about ref:DE= or ref:UK= for the national and just ref= for the
international ID?
best regards,
Chaos
2012/6/19 Martin Vonwald
> Hi!
>
> What value would you put into the ref tag if national and
> international reference differs? I seems to me that mostly the
> national ref is used, whi
2012/5/15 Colin Smale
> On 15/05/2012 16:30, Anthony wrote:
>
>
> I hope not...OSM currently has no way of reflecting priority at junctions.
> Introducing this distinction just for "circular junctions" is a bit
> pointless.
>
>
> Well there IS highway=give_way. Not that I tagged it so far. But al
Anecdotal backstory:
I've been passed by busses in very narrow, walled streets in Cornwall at
full speed, where I thought even careful passing would not be physically
possible. (For the record: The bus drove full speed, I cowardly stopped
with my side-mirror touching the wall)
So this was clearly
In my opinion, lanes=1.5 is a very bad choice. We have a tag for this
> situation: width . According to taginfo, lanes=1.5 is used, but not too
> often. What should we do? I would recommend not to use it and advise to
> specify a width (which is also objective rather than subjective as 1.5 is).
>
I think most points are adressed on the proposal or talk pages, but here we
go:
>
> Putting lots of traffic signs on nodes on the way would result in a lot of
> new nodes on the ways, which will need optimising out by routers/mkgmap
> etc.
The node count will increase anyway, the tools need to s
Please also see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hazard_warning
What about a combination of both? Tagging the traffic_sign=* at the
node on the way roughly where the sign is, then tag the hazard=* along
the way or on the node where the actual danger is.
Regards,
Chaos99
_
This is a complex matter.
Verbose names are good. Looking up numeral codes is tedious for the
human mapper and hinders wider usage of the tag. Also the country
prefix is redundant, as this can be determined out of the location of
the sign. Also linking together signs of the same meaning in differe
2012/3/14, Pieren :
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Ronnie Soak
> wrote:
>
>> But take a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability
>> If he has no sign on the door, he probably shouldn't be mapped.
>
> You might verify in different ways. A sign
If he operates an 'office' where public customers or partners might
want to go to: Yes, why not?
But take a look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability
If he has no sign on the door, he probably shouldn't be mapped.
I just ask myself when mapping businesses: How likely is it that
som
May I ask were the definition of 'turning_cycle' comes from?
(I'm not a native English speaker)
As far as I've read on the wiki, it's a standing term in the UK
describing the 'widened end of a road intended to enable easier
turning of vehicles' and does not necessarily have to be of a circle
shape
> 2012/3/13 Josh Doe :
>> Ah, another UK peculiarity. I guess I've been misapplying
>
> As far as I know it is the same e.g. in Hungary.
>
In Germany, here is no difference in law, sign or language between a
mini-roundabout and roundabout.
>> highway=mini_roundabout; but if so, we need to change
73 matches
Mail list logo
