Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

Am 20.03.2020 um 16:38 schrieb Paul Allen: On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 13:50, Tobias Wrede <mailto:l...@tobias-wrede.de>> wrote: I don't get your point here. Either someone wanted a package delivered to his residence. In that case they gave the wrong address information to the

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

Hi, Am 20.03.2020 um 12:30 schrieb Paul Allen: One of the parcel delivery companies noted for delivering to the wrong address (Hermes and DHL, I'm looking at you) has dumped a package outside my door.  The address is PO Box 123.  Which of the houses near me has that mailing address? I don't

Re: [Tagging] Addresses with PO Box, and other delivery type addresses.

Hi Warin. Isn't the addr:* scheme used to describe the physical address of a location/building/amentiy/etc.? PO Boxes, privat bags etc. are addresses where mail for someone residing at said location is delivered to. As addr:* I would always put in what is needed to find the place as a

Re: [Tagging] Whispering asphalt

Am 02.05.2019 um 23:23 schrieb Yuri Astrakhan: I don't think we should do asphalt classification -- too difficult for many cases, and very little value, especially in this case because it is not the "type" of asphalt, it is rather a "feature" of asphalt. Multiple features could exist in the

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Am 30.04.2019 um 20:18 schrieb s8evq: - bidirectional=no - signed_oneway=yes - signed_direction=yes - designated_direction=forward|both|backward - signed=forward|backward|both|none Personally, I like signed_direction=yes. It's simple and avoids using the word oneway. Also, using the value

Re: [Tagging] Status of oneway=cw oneway=ccw

Am 30.04.2019 um 21:05 schrieb Kevin Kenny: On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 2:19 PM s8evq wrote: Personally, I like signed_direction=yes. It's simple and avoids using the word oneway. Also, using the value forward|backward might not be necessary, as it's possible to deduce this from the order of

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Connectivity

Leif, there already is a similar proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/turn_lanes It has never left draft status but it has been used by some mappers. There even is a JOSM plugin to create such relations. Tobi Am 23.04.2019 um 16:32 schrieb Simon Poole: Be

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Am 17.04.2019 um 13:32 schrieb marc marc: Le 17.04.19 à 11:34, Sven Geggus a écrit : tourism=camp_site camp_site=camp_pitch which would make sense, as single pitch camp-sites_do_ exist. indeed, but a parking with one place, is not mapped as amenity=parking parking=parking_space Actually,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Camp_site=camp_pitch

Hi, I follow Martin's reasoning that camp_site=camp_pitch more looks like it being a specification of camp_site rather than describing a feature within. Following Marc's examples (parking and sports centre) tourism=camp_pitch (following tourism=camp_site and tourism=caravan_site) would be my

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 18.02.2019 um 00:48 schrieb Dave F via Tagging: As already stated, sidewalk is to indicate a physical object. Sidewalk has no legal implications. 'Foot' is used purely to indicate legality. So? I don't think this is disputed. The reasoning here is that the absence of a sidewalk in some

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 17.02.2019 um 17:45 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: this is oversimplified, you are indeed legally required to walk on the road even in the presence of sidewalks: if carrying big loads. Sure there are exceptions to every rule. We usually don't map that. When there is no signage, foot=no is

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 15.02.2019 um 17:09 schrieb Hubert87: why not use foot=use_sidepath and/or sidewalk=no? In combination with hw=primary/secondary, routers should be able to work out that that route is a bad one. Well, not all foot=no roads do have a sidepath. And anyway this discussion is on whether the

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 17.02.2019 um 20:44 schrieb Andy Townsend: I don't think that a "global" encouragement to add foot=no makes sense; there'll be lots of countries where it'd be silly. I don't think the app "encourages" anything. In this quest the app merely speculates that the sidewalk=none could maybe

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 17.02.2019 um 21:57 schrieb Dave F via Tagging: I should have been clearer. I was indicating a case where foot=no would be appropriate, but I should have stated there are also cases where 'yes' or 'designated' are required. I'm still unsure why Tobias W. thinks tracks shouldn't be queried

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 15.02.2019 um 11:54 schrieb Rory McCann: On 14/02/2019 19:51, Tobias Zwick wrote: > Let's be pragmatic: We don't tag things just because and also do not > live in clouds. So, why do we tag access restrictions at all? - (IMO) To record the *legal* restrictions.  > To be of use for routing

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 15.02.2019 um 12:35 schrieb Tobias Zwick: So, while a tag to denote that a road is rural does not exist (yet), I could filter out uninteresting roads using tell-tale tags. So, I could further filter out roads with.. - lit != yes (so, also if lit is not set) to exclude most of the

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 14.02.2019 um 23:32 schrieb Tobias Zwick: Agreed. I don't see much of a difference between residential and higher class roads. I would even argue that around here a sidewalk=no + foot=no is even less likely on higher class roads than on residentials. How so? Think of all the residential

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 14.02.2019 um 22:10 schrieb Volker Schmidt: I am sorry, this is not the correct approach. We have here plenty of streets in other categories (unclassified|teritery|secondary|primary) without sidewalk where it is perfectly legal for pedestrians to use the road. This does not say whether it's

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 14.02.2019 um 21:28 schrieb Kevin Kenny: On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 3:13 PM Tobias Wrede wrote: Still, they are the very minority of situations where a residential (or any other road) has no sidewalk. Local cultural assumptions are in play here! In my (suburban) township, few residential

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 14.02.2019 um 20:50 schrieb Tobias Zwick: Alright, I will change it so that the question whether a road is accessible for pedestrians is never asked for residential roads (and living streets, service roads, pedestrians roads) for v10.1 I think you lost me. Didn't you explain in the beginning

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

Am 14.02.2019 um 19:51 schrieb Tobias Zwick: This is, by the way, a bit of a different topic now, because the thread was originally about tagging foot=yes on residential, not whether foot=yes/no is limited to a *legal* access restriction. Anyway: I doubt access restrictions are used that way in

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Am 18.01.2019 um 09:48 schrieb Marc Gemis: So limiting it to named trails would be an option, however, the tourist agencies seem to replace all such named walks with walking node networks, so "trails" are now everywhere. This means that you can start almost anywhere on a signposted walk. Just

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Am 17.01.2019 um 08:32 schrieb Marc Gemis: A trailhead is the start of a trail, but I haven't seen the definition of a trail yet. An American trail seems like a long distance walking route in the wilderness. It's probably the same in Australia, Is that interpretation correct ? Is that a

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Am 11.01.2019 um 18:15 schrieb Andy Townsend: On 11/01/2019 17:05, Peter Elderson wrote:  The Trans-Pennine Trail trailhead is a trailhead No - it really isn't.  That was my entire point.  I'm willing to bet a small round of beer in the pub up the road that almost no-one walking past that

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Am 11.01.2019 um 15:45 schrieb Kevin Kenny: Despite your repeated denials, you're continuing to try to invent a set of definitions that, at least in NL, will encompass all TOPs and nothing else. If that's your aim, then invent a tag for TOP and use it, That's a good summary I can second.

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

. Permalinks? What? Never heard of...) so we don't link deep but refer to a list/search/map/filter page. Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 23:43 schreef Tobias Wrede <mailto:l...@tobias-wrede.de>>: As a side note: Looking at the examples I found that you added keys like wikipedia=nl:To

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

this mixes two distinct features into one as I described before: 1) the actual trail access, i. e. a point on the trail or a highway section leading to it and 2) the information infrastructure (information board, stele, you name it). Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 12:23 schreef Tobias Wrede <mailt

Re: [Tagging] Trail register

Am 05.01.2019 um 08:24 schrieb Warin: On 05/01/19 14:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 07:23, Jmapb > wrote: On 1/4/2019 4:10 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > Has anyone here tagged anything similar to the case I have in mind of, > "you must

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Am 03.01.2019 um 00:57 schrieb Peter Elderson: Thanks for the comments. Please understand that the mentioned proposal is not my proposal. You were referring to it and in my opinion you tried to tweak it a bit too much for your purposes. But let's continue this on the other sub-thread. :-)

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Am 04.01.2019 um 18:18 schrieb Peter Elderson: Let's agree to agree! Op vr 4 jan. 2019 om 16:52 schreef Kevin Kenny mailto:kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>>: On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Peter Elderson mailto:pelder...@gmail.com>> wrote: > I'm trying to go for the minimal tagging that

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Am 02.01.2019 um 19:42 Kevin Kenny wrote: At the risk of repeating myself: I think I'd need more concrete examples before I'd support such a proposal. Yes, I second this request. If 'trailhead' degenerates into 'any intersection of a trail and a highway' (which is what it is in that

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Wouldn't it make sense to add the trail head (node) to a route relation with role=trail_head? Am 01.01.2019 um 12:54 schrieb Peter Elderson: At this point, I settle for just requiring that it's a named location visibly designated as access point for one ore more recreational routes. So just

Re: [Tagging] request for review: OSM wiki rewording of tourism=motel based on Wikipedia

In Germany my experience is that actually most hotels in the cities charge for parking. On the other hand you find very very few that call themselves "motel". I can only think of one currently that does, and it is located within a motorway rest area. The exception is the chain Motel One which

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Hi eveyone, Am 21.12.2018 um 19:55 schrieb Peter Elderson: Well, in Nederland I'm through, got them all. To initiate a rendering on osm-carto the usage should increase by some 500+ (now on 1400+). I need Germany or Italy! While on vacation I have mapped trail heads in the US pretty much the

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a named river bend

Am 28.09.2018 um 03:06 schrieb Dave Swarthout: @Joseph - I wanted to avoid using that particular top-level tag, waterway, because there would be no simple way to add a name different from that of the waterway=river itself. Unless we invent a new tag something like name:bend=Harper Bend. The

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

needs to be retained with the present definition. If the use of the lanes tag or a separate service road tag is not good enough for these longer 'turn outs' then there needs to be some new tag. On 06/09/18 22:56, Tobias Wrede wrote: Hi, I've just come back from three weeks vacation

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

The solid line is a special case. So many other turn-outs/climbing lanes/... have a dashed line or even no line at all. I wouldn't make a difference based on markings. I also strongly favor the lines solution but wonder if we could not stretch the turn key a bit. Something along

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

Am 10.09.2018 um 02:27 schrieb André Pirard: What should I do? building=terrace describes mapping separate houses as an *alternative*. Erase what another mapper did, and replace that element with houses? That's what I do. You may

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

Hi, I've just come back from three weeks vacation in the Sierra Nevada with an RV. I've used turnouts there extensively. Mostly, they were long enough to me not having to stop while I let the traffic pass. But there were also the occasional ones (marked) that were just a 10m paved patch next

Re: [Tagging] shop=discount

Am 25.06.2018 um 17:12 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: 24. Jun 2018 22:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com : sent from a phone On 24. Jun 2018, at 22:00, Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote: It sounds like any type of shop

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

Am 18.06.2018 um 22:21 schrieb Paul Allen: Then again, I've never seen an outdoor public phone that isn't in a booth also lack an acoustic hood.  So should mappers and consumers assume a hood is present unless booth is specified?  Except I can conceive of a phone in a building passage having

[Tagging] pied headquarters (was: emergency=lifeguard)

Speaking of the wiki. May any native speaker explain to me what "operated _pied_ headquarters" are? What does "pied" mean" Or am I missing an obvious typo here? from the wiki: "The station is near to be guarded waters and serves the emergency services of the organization as operated pied

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

Am 19.06.2018 um 13:41 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: water_rescue_station vs. lifeguard_base there are 216 emergency=water_rescue_station which to me seems a pretty self explanatory tag to indicate a somehow permanent presence of lifeguards with some infrastructure. The wiki says it is in

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

Am 11.06.2018 um 23:09 schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick: Had a look at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserrettungsstation & it's a purely German organisation, which would appear to be life guards, although with possibly a bit of Coast Guard / Marine Rescue included? Actually, this would be the

Re: [Tagging] Street exits

Hi, Am 15.06.2018 um 18:14 schrieb osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au: They DO have exactly this type of living street in the Netherlands too, see https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf But the particular street Peter is talking about is, on purpose, NOT such a living street. The street

Re: [Tagging] Combined use of addr:place and addr:street

Am 14.07.2017 um 14:32 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2017-07-14 10:16 GMT+02:00 Tobias Wrede <l...@tobias-wrede.de <mailto:l...@tobias-wrede.de>>: Have a look at this place "Siesel": http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.22209/7.90369 <http://www.

Re: [Tagging] Combined use of addr:place and addr:street

For what it's worth answering a bit late. I am not sure I completely agree. 2017-06-23 10:18 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer >: I agree with you, either use addr:place or use addr:street As the reason for using

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"

Am 16.05.2017 um 23:42 schrieb John Willis: On May 16, 2017, at 4:29 PM, Tobias Wrede <l...@tobias-wrede.de> wrote: May I suggest to focus the proposal on the frontend for now? The front end is the most difficult part, and having a proposal that covers the chain and many permut

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"

Am 16.05.2017 um 12:20 schrieb Warin: On 16-May-17 06:01 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: The tag in the first proposal wasn't chosen badly, it was insufficiently defined. Office is not a good tag for the public facing frontend with counters etc. I disagree. Shops frequently have counters

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"

Am 16.05.2017 um 10:27 schrieb Marc Gemis: On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: For shops that offer courier services as a minor part / not primarily, it should be a property for the shop, maybe with the carrier in the key, e.g. amenity=fuel,

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"

Am 15.05.2017 um 14:59 schrieb John Willis: My email accidentally got sent before I was finished, but I think you see where I am going. What you write makes a lot of sense. Just, that a lot of that exactly applies to post offices/postal services as well. So why should post_office be an

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"

Hi, Am 15.05.2017 um 12:45 schrieb muzirian: I think I tried to address suggestions made.Are you suggesting to scrap the proposal and use post office instead? Regards Well, when reading through the comments of the no voters (and the comments here in the thread) I believe that it was only a

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"

Am 12.05.2017 um 11:43 schrieb muzirian: Is it okay to push this to voting again? Regards On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 2:08 PM, John Willis <jo...@mac.com <mailto:jo...@mac.com>> wrote: On Apr 25, 2017, at 8:46 PM, Tobias Wrede <l...@tobias-wrede.de <mailto:l...@tobia

Re: [Tagging] Very large multipolygons

Am 02.05.2017 um 11:05 schrieb Frederik Ramm: Hi, I have removed three very large multipolygons from OSM today. * I DELETED a "place=sea" for the Adriatic Sea (http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4590486) because I think we shouldn't even start with that kind of thing (place=ocean

Re: [Tagging] mandatory restriction with via way as members

Am 02.05.2017 um 10:11 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: On 2. May 2017, at 08:53, Michael Tsang wrote: What would you say this restriction means? Does it mean that once a vehicle starts the from way it must go along the whole length to the to way? it means you can't go any

Re: [Tagging] Proper parking lot separation

Am 28.04.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Warin: The disadvantage is that it lacks the where these things are in the larger parking area. Unless you map each as a separate area. That you have to do anyhow if you want to make any distinction. Unless you just tag different capacities. Tobi

Re: [Tagging] Proper parking lot separation

Am 28.04.2017 um 02:04 schrieb Warin: On 28-Apr-17 09:43 AM, John Willis wrote: When tagging a large facility I need: - car(understood) - car with trailer (usual in home renovation/building centres) -bus -"large" (truck/tanker/semi,etc) -motorbike (understood) -disabled car only -disabled

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"

Am 25.04.2017 um 11:21 schrieb John Willis: If I search for a supermarket and you send me to a 7-11, you failed. Post offices have different scopes in different places, ways we usually separate by tag, because we separate "duckiness" by tag. This varies by region, so we need a way to

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"

Am 25.04.2017 um 10:29 schrieb Marc Gemis: On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Tobias Wrede <l...@tobias-wrede.de> wrote: With this proposal how would I tag an amenity that sells stamps, offers registered mail, receives parcels but does not accept commercial mass mail and does not offer b

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"

Am 25.04.2017 um 05:13 schrieb Marc Gemis: I still believe that for the feature at hand it is enough to have amenity=courier, just so we can distinguish it from the traditional postal_office. Do we need subtags for courier yet ? I do not think so. We are mapping supermarkets/convenience stores

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"

Am 16.04.2017 um 17:30 schrieb muzirian: >And (speaking as an American), if someone asked me to direct them to a post office, unless they were obviously about to send a parcel, I wouldn't send them to FedEx or the local copy shop (most of which offer shipping services, and some of which also

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"

Am 15.04.2017 um 20:04 schrieb Marc Gemis: As I wrote before, it is not because something does not exists in one country, that one has to vote against a proposal. One has to try to understand that different countries with different traditions and tagging needs. Exactly, but these proposals do

Re: [Tagging] mandatory restriction with via way as members

Hi Michael, Am 15.04.2017 um 11:14 schrieb Paul Johnson: On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Michael Tsang > wrote: I have created a restriction (mandatory route) where if vehicles coming from way must go through a section of a trunk route

Re: [Tagging] Spillways

Hello, actually, I have used warterway=spillway intermittent=yes in the past, reasoning that this particular spillway (http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/451309286) is rarely put to use, while others might be more permanently flooded (regularly during high tides for example) Tobias Am

Re: [Tagging] Busways

Am 06.11.2016 um 10:15 schrieb Tijmen Stam: On 06-11-16 02:30, Mark Wagner wrote: How sure are you that the situations are similar? A bus-only driveway giving access to a transit center and a bus-only road through a city are both "access=no, psv=designated", but they're not similar sorts of

Re: [Tagging] Masts vs Towers yet again

Am 15.04.2016 um 17:43 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: there's clearly a difference in meaning (the words are not synonymous), so why would we want to remove this distinction? If there clearly was a difference in meaning or better if there was a clear difference in meaning we wouldn't have the

Re: [Tagging] Masts vs Towers yet again

Maybe before discussing if some structure is better named tower or mast you/we should reflect why we should make a distinction at all: Is the difference whether... 1) the structure is free-standing or not? 2) the structure has one contact point to the ground or several? 3) there are