Re: [Tagging] How to tag entire group of rentable holiday cottages?

How about "holiday park"? A google search for that brings up some caravan parks but also some with chalets / "lodges". On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 8:53 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Dec 15, 2020, 03:33 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > On Mon, 14 Dec 2020

Re: [Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

I would say that is a “motor_vehecle” https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motor_vehicle Javbw > On Sep 2, 2020, at 5:33 AM, Mike Thompson wrote: > >  > > In specifying access constraints for the roads it manages, the US Forest > service makes a distinction between ATVs, highway

[Tagging] Intermittent highways?

I've been adding some detail to a site that is used annually for a festival (not happening this year because of Covid-19), where there are paths in the same place year after year, but the paths are not there when the festival is not happening, although increased wear on the ground around them is

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Javbw > On May 25, 2020, at 1:28 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote: > >> We do have that: `sac_scale=hiking` And that is a good example of bad tagging I want to correct. There are more people walking local wilderness trails with their dog in a single day than all “backpackers” on earth in a year.

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

stop mismapping them ASAP! People who love trails and use OSM for trails will chew on it. I work on mapping cycleways in my area where few mappers do - it is possible for a single mapper to make a big difference. Trail mappers can handle existing trails in a large city pretty easily. A place

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

:03 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote: > >  > > >> On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 07:42, John Willis via Tagging >> wrote: >> =path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely entrenched >> - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag, similar

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

=path is such a horrible catch-all tag and one that is extremely entrenched - I am surprised no one has implemented a path=trail subtag, similar to sidewalk, so we can separate all the hiking trails and other “hiking” paths, and then apply different hiking limitations you wouldn’t expect to

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

> On May 1, 2020, at 8:00 PM, Florimond Berthoux > wrote: > > +1 for highway=pedestrian + area=yes > That how we map a town square in France (and every where else I guess ?)’ +1 for plaza mapping and any other predominantly foot-dominated expanse in any usage like a plaza or wherever

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

If you are talking about a simple wetland you may find in a small pond or lake, It’s easy, but natural formations are often very messy and complicated - especially when a wetland covers an area larger than most villages. There is often overlap where I am where a wetland lives permanently in

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

> On Apr 22, 2020, at 8:38 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > but the building is also a thing, it has its own properties, e.g. start_date, > wikipedia reference, architect, operator, name, height, etc > > yes, often you can understand which tag belongs to

Re: [Tagging] Points vs Polygons

> On Apr 20, 2020, at 7:22 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >> we end up with most POIs [e.g. shops] added as nodes, as it appears to be >> currently the best compromise in terms of mapping efficiency, accuracy, >> complexity and editability. > > +1 +1 as well, but I do not want this to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 8:34 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > > The traffic lights control the junction We have a lot of traffic light controlled crossings in Japan that are just for a crosswalk, while the smaller intersecting road is stop-sign controlled for cars. Only the crosswalk is controlled by

Re: [Tagging] tagging the landuse of resevoirs & basins.

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 10:40 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >> I suggest landuse=industrial + industrial=water > > Perhaps industrial=water_management or =flood_control or something > elsemore specific would be better? good values, water_management might be good. Some of these are for

[Tagging] tagging the landuse of resevoirs & basins.

When mapping stormwater reservoirs and basins here in Japan, they often have a mappable landuse around them - the land around the basin is controlled, often with an access road and and fence of some type. Mapping the water feature is easy, but what is the landuse of the entire facility? it is

Re: [Tagging] Add man_made=goods_conveyor to Map Features or vote on the proposal first?

+1 Javbw > On Mar 12, 2020, at 8:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > I am in favor of adding it right away. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

> > Given that iD still seems to scramble sorted routes in some circumstances, > one should not assume that editors will correctly handle any changes we make. > I might be being unfair to iD here, I didn't check the route was still sorted > before I added a spur, so maybe somebody else doing

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

> > I suggest again: Make the route a separate route relation and include it as > an optional member of the PTv3 routing relation as proposed. Everybody happy > (routing lobby AND route lobby), all bases covered including backward > compatibility. > > Thank you for that suggestion,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

really new. Just a alternative to > > routing which has been around since relations were introduced. > > Definitely not 'PTv3'. The 'via' option appears almost as difficult to > > maintain as including ways. > > > > > > On 08/03/2020 01:41, John Doe wrote: > &g

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

Hey, thanks for sharing your views  07-Mar-2020 03:01:41 Phake Nick : > [...] for such renderer to work, access restriction for public transit > vehicle need to be complete, which is rather difficult not just because of > the work it take or the current incompleteness of the amount of keys

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

08-Mar-2020 03:56:45 Joseph Eisenberg : > > > routes without fixed stops can easily be represented using only via points > > and stop positions > > > > I think you mean "bus stops" (or railway platforms), not > "public_transport=stop_position", since those nodes are usually > unnecessary, and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

As mentioned in the Caveats section of the proposal, hail and ride _has_ been in our thoughts.  (Buses operated by NMRTC in Noida are all hail and ride, and so are all share autos in Delhi, making it quite important for me personally.) My idea, initially, was to have this proposal serve as

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

06-Mar-2020 20:39:30 Peter Elderson : > > [...] Is it a significant burden to include a router with a renderer? > I wouldn't know. It seems strange to me that established routes have to be > re-routed to display or use them. How can you be sure the re-created route is > the one that is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

ything first, then render instead of just > render the route from OSM? Seems so. Is it a significant burden to include a router with a renderer? > Vr gr Peter Elderson > > Op vr 6 mrt. 2020 om 11:08 schreef John Doe < music.kash...@gmail.com > [mailto:music.kash...@gmail.com] >:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

m] then including the > platform in the relation means you need to include ways as relation members. Thank you for pointing that out. The ways it referred to were highways and railways - it has, of course, no objection to platforms as ways or areas. I have reworded the section, hopefully it is clearer.

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Public Transport v3

Stereo and I have been working on a schema that makes it easier to create and maintain public transport route relations. We would like to invite feedback, questions, and suggestions, so it can mature and hopefully gain widespread use.

Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows

I'd call such a place a "fairground" or "showground", but I'm not sure whether it would come under "tourism", "leisure", or "amenity". I'm not so keen on "landuse" for it, as the land may also be used for something else. A particular example is the Cappamore Agricultural Show in Ireland; its

Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows

> On Feb 28, 2020, at 12:58 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> this would interfere the least with existing mapping. > I think existing mapping would ignore the tagging completely. If people are tagging for the renderer by naming Landuse features or amenities the name of the

Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows

> On Feb 28, 2020, at 12:58 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Why limited to outdoor only? Because then we would just be mapping events held inside event halls. They are not worth mapping because they do not alter the OSM data. If a farmland becomes a parking lot, if a road

Re: [Tagging] Annual Shows

I can’t see why we can’t create a simple tourism=outdoor_event pin at the location of the event and list it’s time in something like event=seasonal/ date / existing time mapping, and could use admin_level for scale - and use additional tags ina relation for larger events or micromapping. we

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

at 11:48 AM Jez Nicholson wrote: > In general, are these signs physically on the camera, or are they in the > vicinity? If so, should they be tagged objects in their own account? > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, 10:54 John Sturdy, wrote: > >> Whatever the concensus in another di

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

Whatever the concensus in another discussion was, I think that double negatives will risk confusion, and that *:signed=yes and *:signed=no seems to be a reasonable proposal. I have noticed that some but not all of the surveillance cameras (city council, I believe) in Cambridge (UK) have signs.

Re: [Tagging] Unremovable bollards

I think that by default bollards are not removable, and that if a bollard is not tagged as removable, it is reasonable to assume it's not removable. On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 6:54 PM Hauke Stieler wrote: > Hi all, > > there's the "bollard" key with documented value "rising" and "removable" > [0]

Re: [Tagging] Tagging small areas of bushes, flowers, non-woody perennials, succulents, etc

> On Feb 9, 2020, at 5:09 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> and not >> everyone is happy about using natural=scrub for this case. +1 When I go to a garden, there is not natural=scrub growing in manicured rows along the garden paths, separating the flower beds. that’s like using

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

> On Feb 7, 2020, at 7:48 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: > > If area=yes is added to say a leisure area surrounded by a hedge, that is a > mapping mistake. If that results in the area displaying as a hedge area, the > mapper has to correct that, not the renderer. exactly! If I want a hedge

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

> On Feb 6, 2020, at 5:14 AM, Jeroen Hoek wrote: > > Keeping the rendering for `barrier=hedge` plus `area=yes` for the time > being seems sensible and in keeping with the general use of those two > tags in combination. +1 Javbw___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap Carto release v4.25.0

> On Feb 3, 2020, at 10:09 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > > It isn't wrong to use barrier=hedge, since it does provide a visual > barrier It also provides a physical barrier. Try riding a bike through one, or sleeping on one, or taking a shortcut through one! Hedges are physical barriers made of

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

> On Feb 4, 2020, at 3:29 AM, Florimond Berthoux > wrote: > > I agree that buildings/sheds should not be used for this key, since we cannot > precise the type of "rack" inside the shed/building. I agree that “=shed” should not be a value. building=shed amenity=bicycle_parking

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

Okay, a lot of notes: Javbw > On Feb 3, 2020, at 4:06 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> > > I > surface=paved says nothing about if the bicycle can be secured and what too. Surface= tag is different from =surface value. Amenity=parking Parking=surface Surface=asphalt For cars.

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bicycle_parking looking over the discussion page, they added =floor in sept 2017 (in response to various questions) to not only be a =surface substitute, but for it to be combined with

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

> On Feb 3, 2020, at 8:02 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > But it will not be replaced by the surface key as the tag represents 2 things. I think trying to represent the two ideas is too difficult. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

On the OSM wiki for bicycle_parking=, there are ~10 different values for racks/stands/trees/bollards of various types. Our cup runneth over. we are talking about one value, =floor, which would be called =surface if it was car parking. I want to change that value to =surface before =floor

Re: [Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

Bicycle parking is full of different kinds of stands. “Floor” is Currently the the lack of anything - just an open area to park. But A) “floor” doesn’t mean “lockable” or not. All the others describe stands and poles and whatnot, but ** “Floor” doesn't explicitly mean “no locking

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

> On Jan 30, 2020, at 8:36 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: > > the things that we tag in OSM won't necessarily map 1 to 1 onto wikipedia > pages. Generally this is true, but I think most active volcanoes - especially ones OSM mappers would be mapping - have wiki pages.

[Tagging] change bicycle_parking=floor to surface

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bicycle_parking It lists “floor” as the value for a wide open outdoor space with no stands or other affordances designated for parking bicycles. this seems weird to me. the ground / asphalt area

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

I agree with you that this is the scale that volcanologists use, but people want to draw a distinction between something that erupted recently compared sometime in the last 200 years Perhaps it is easier to just apply the “active” and “Frequently active” tags via this third-party data source,

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

Yep - I live at the base of Mt Akagi in Japan. Locals know the volcanoes. Some of that is historical, some is local knowledge. I have been hiking on many volcanoes around me. Kusatsu-Shirane was closed in 2014 after a small steam eruption killed/injured some skiers. The hiking, skiing and

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

> On Jan 21, 2020, at 12:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > if the sheets are the topmost thing before the air of the atmosphere, surface > would be fine as an FYI, I am only interested in mapping any of these types of things if they are clearly visible all the time and installed

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

I am familiar with all of those materials. I agree that they are all different (landscaping paper, farming plastic, weedblocker, tyvek house moisture barrier). I use all of them at my house. This is something different. Something very very thick (2-3mm!) , made with tar or other marital that

Re: [Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

l=scree/sand/etc. or area:highway=, or whatever is relevant, and > then add surface=plastic_sheeting, surface=tar_paper, etc. > > If you don't know the landuse or function, and there is no natural > vegetation, I would use surface=* alone. > >> On 1/16/20, Warin <61sundow...@g

[Tagging] How to tag Landscaping tarpaper / weedblocking paper

here in Japan and other places where unwanted vegetation grows very quickly and/or has heavy rain, heavy tar paper / plastic or metal mesh / or plastic “weedblocking” sheeting is commonly used on embankments, traffic islands, and other places where people want to stop weeds from growing and to

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

Thank you for this clarification. I will try to repair the lots I have tagged. Javbw > On Jan 14, 2020, at 5:02 AM, Markus wrote: > > In order that data understand your example and before we've found a > solution for parkings for multiple vehicle classes, i would recommend > to tag it as

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

To me, there are a few requirements of “designated” parking lots: 1) it is signed as such: "Cars go here and HGV go there” , “cars, right” and “HGV, left”, directing you to different lots. Lots are labeled on signage telling which vehicle types to go where (cars/HGV/motorcycle/ + disabled).

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

en you do that. We could ignore that and use nested > amenity=parking tags. > > . > > >> On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, 15:52 John Willis via Tagging, >> wrote: >> If I have a sign that says all cars go here, and all HGV goes over there, >> and one is painted for 1000 c

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

If I have a sign that says all cars go here, and all HGV goes over there, and one is painted for 1000 car spots and one has 50 giant bus spots, those are designated lots. I have used parking_space when I have found A lone disabled space - but a group of 50 spots for busses is a bus lot. At

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

> On Jan 7, 2020, at 3:37 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > For a municipal tourist bus parking, who is "customers" referring to? > Customers of what? Tollway service area lots inside the toll area are “customers” of nexco, the operators. There are “permissive” lots outside the toll

Re: [Tagging] amenity=tourist_bus_parking

> On Jan 6, 2020, at 1:27 AM, Florimond Berthoux > wrote: > >> I have just detected the wiki page "amenity=tourist_bus_parking" Why is this it’s own amenity, instead of amenity=parking bus=designated access=customers ? Many Service areas in Japan has an HGV/BUS parking lot with amenities

Re: [Tagging] Discourage use of landuse=churchyard?

Landuse=religious. We don’t have mosqueyard or shrineyard or templeyard. Wether or not there is a graveyard, a parking lot, a memorial, a statue, a bell tower or whatever inside the fence - doesn’t matter - the land designated to the main POW is tagged as landuse=religious. Everything on the

Re: [Tagging] Tag for "tax free shopping"

Almost all department stores in Japan advertise this for travelers, as it is part of their standardized signage, so you will see it even in rural or remote branches (not just near the airport or In. Tokyo. While I wouldn’t expect this service at small shops, it is a common sight to see “tax

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

> On Dec 13, 2019, at 2:20 AM, Michael Behrens wrote: > > I would agree that a 'link' should be tagged as a approach Then the word "approach" shouldn’t be used - use “link”. Use the same vocabulary as other route relations. We shouldn't use bespoke words when the standardized synonym word

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

Links - as in a relation role value “link” - as in small pieces of trail that link some other trail or way to the main route. Just thinking of routing Terms we use for other types of routes. Javbw > On Dec 12, 2019, at 2:22 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What links? urls? or do

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - hiking_trail_relation_roles

> On Dec 9, 2019, at 6:36 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > individual ways that have the direction, not the entire relation. some routes (made of many overlapping pieces of trail) are considered ascents and decents. the named “trail" is made of the ascent route and descent route.

Re: [Tagging] Foot or foot.cycle crossing

I think of highway=path as referring to a standalone path, such as a hiking trail, and not part of a set of parallel ways. __John On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:13 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > I do have a topological problem with the mapping of a junction of two > roads one of which has parallel

[Tagging] Long term detour routes ?(construction, disaster)

Tagging cycling roads on levees. Levees have construction projects that can be years in length (building a new sluice gate, enlarging the levee), and the route is detoured around this construction. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/36.1327/139.7509 Route=detour exists for *permanent

Re: [Tagging] How to tag earth walls in a shooting ramge

Not yet, but it is an option. Similar to bridge is man_made=bridge + whatever ways it has on it, my thinking is that the levee is the man_made=dyke way and then additional details of what it’s made out of. The earthen barriers are man-made, and are barriers, so some kind of barrier= tag is

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

Although they are constructed the same (pile of dirt), they are named and mapped differently. The man_made=levee tag exists, and I just want to extend it. Perhaps the man_made=embankment Can have a embankment=* to tag different types of berms and other man-made slopes, but in this case, the

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 19, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Is there something else that we are expecting could be done by mapping > this in great detail which cannot be done with a simpler > representation + a DEM? I understand that, topographically speaking, we can get information about

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

On Nov 19, 2019, at 6:53 AM, Richard wrote: > > Other than that, "dyke_area" or "area:dyke" in analogy to > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway ? I think dykes/levees are made of inner and outer embankments, and pairing them might be the only way to do it properly. Whatever

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link

+1 Make the proposal cover all non-road ways (footway, cycleway, path, bridleway, etc) While we may not imagine a use-case for all of them, it is *far better* to have it standardized so mapping is similar - and when the issue comes up for a mapper in an unexpected situation, it’s there

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Pedestrian lane

I use “unmarked crossing” for all connections of sidewalks where they dead-end and have to be connected into the road. could be useful there too. there is is no “sideway_link” or similar “footway routing link” to use, so unmarked crossing works really well, espcially considering it is where

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

for straight embankments, cuttings, slopes, if they are done with an area that shares nodes, then I don’t think you need a relation. if they are jsut two lines that happen to be near each other, and do not share nodes, you might need a relation to associate them. also, if a levee is made of

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 16, 2019, at 7:50 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: > > A complicated scheme dreamt up here isn't going to get taken up by anyone. I took these 3 pictures yesterday while out cycling: https://imgur.com/gallery/Wqc5Ems The largest of the 8 levees I rode

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

? Javbw > On Nov 13, 2019, at 8:56 AM, John Willis wrote: > > I think there is a need for a basic relation, if I understand Martin > correctly, to simply associate the two lines, (for example, an =embankment > and an =embankment_base pair). When mapped, they are not joined. The

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - mimics

You can keep “concealed” and use the “theme” extension idea from playgrounds? A playground isn’t a pirate ship or an octopus, but it appears to be one. Tower:construction=concealed Tower:theme=palm_tree There are several towers that are mimicking religious symbols in the US, beyond trees and

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

reply should be enough, that's what I do and it works. > > Fr gr Peter Elderson > > > Op do 14 nov. 2019 om 11:46 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer > mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 14. Nov 2019, at 04:08, John Willis via

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

Sorry, I am continuing to have trouble properly replying to the tagging group, it keeps defaulting to the individual. > On Nov 13, 2019, at 4:48 PM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > For a levee it can just go around the whole levee If I understand your suggestion correctly, this is

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

(I mis-sent this email) > On Nov 13, 2019, at 3:44 AM, Richard wrote: > > We need new tags for the bottom of embankmets, top of cuttings, bottom of > cliffs, earth_banks > and maybe a few others if we want to map them. that is very true. I think we can cleanly do this with the ways you

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 13, 2019, at 3:44 AM, Richard wrote: > > We need new tags for the bottom of embankmets, top of cuttings, bottom of > cliffs, earth_banks > and maybe a few others if we want to map them. that is very true. I think we can cleanly do this with the ways you mentioned. We need to

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 12, 2019, at 10:26 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > If you are mapping an area, as in this case, just use a closed way or > multipolygon. How would a closed way (area polygon) denote “top” and “Bottom”? if embankments can be easily expressed as

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 11, 2019, at 6:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > I agree we should have a way to map both limits, upper and lower, for all > kind of similar features, e.g. embankments, slopes, and similar. > On Nov 11, 2019, at 7:40 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I have stood in front of

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 11, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > We use two tags for rivers: `waterway=riverbank` (or natural=water + > water=river) for the area and waterway=river for the central line of > the river. Thanks so much for all of the clear and thoughtful replies. I sometimes

Re: [Tagging] Additional detail of Levee mapping via embankments

> On Nov 11, 2019, at 11:16 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > "it should be tagged on a way drawn with the lower side on right side > of way direction" - Tag:man_made=embankment for some reason, I remember reading documentation about using a pair of embankment lines to denote the extent of

Re: [Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

the government released photos of the water control features I’ve mentioned being filled by the recent typhoon. The “flooding” pictured is by design, controlled by short inner and large, tall outer levees. This should give people a better idea of the scale of the water features I am talking

Re: [Tagging] Service road - Can it be a driveway if serving multiple houses?

I think of a driveway as typically leading to only one house, and would generally call the shared ones something else, probably "service roads". I'd make an exception for the access to a pair of houses e.g. semi-detached, or adjacent but linked by their garages/carports. __John On Tue, Nov 5,

Re: [Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

> On Oct 26, 2019, at 6:01 AM, marc marc wrote: >> >> Man_made=flood_mitigation_basin sounds good. > > that look like 2 infos into one key :s > > man_made=basin usage=flood_mitigation ? Yes, my bad. I think that is a good solution for the basin. One big question. Something has been

Re: [Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

> On Oct 25, 2019, at 10:53 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > The value should have something that suggests that it will be flooded. > I would think of "flood_mitigation" as something like a levee or dyke > which prevents flooding, rather than an area that is supposem to be > flooded. > >

Re: [Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

> On Oct 24, 2019, at 10:22 PM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > rendering for areas that are "subject to inundation". That is a good idea. I think if you have a large area(unrelated to tides) that sometimes floods during extreme weather, mapping it as an area would be a good idea. I

Re: [Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

> On Oct 24, 2019, at 9:08 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > >  >> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 10:56, John Willis via Tagging >> wrote: >> > >> Inside, there are three “retarding basins” (numbered 1, 2 & 3), with #1 >> having with a large traditional reservo

[Tagging] tagging extremely large flood control features.

With the recent typhoon in Japan, I was able to see the giant river flood control systems used for the first time (since I moved here in 2011). they are the size of cities, covering many sq KM. There are some photos here, showing a cycling trip I took downriver to see how it works.

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

> On Oct 22, 2019, at 2:18 AM, Jan Michel wrote: > > foot:lanes = ||designated (allowing foot access to this lane) Thanks for the tagging example! ^__^ have never tagged lanes before. Is "foot:lanes" An established value? Or is that what we are discussing? Javbw

Re: [Tagging] Amenity=Gambling & adult_gaming_center tagging conflict

> On Oct 22, 2019, at 3:11 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > > leisure=amusement_arcade ? This is between =gambling and =adult_gaming_center, two established tags that both claim to be the proper way to map a Pachinko parlor. A Pachinko machine is a type of "gaming machine" in the gambling sense,

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

> On Oct 21, 2019, at 3:40 PM, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > There is no kerb or other barrier at all, but still it's obviously a sidewalk. I agree with you that this is is a sidewalk. I spoke too quickly when I said that all sidewalks have kerbs. There is clear delineation that there is

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

> On Oct 21, 2019, at 2:08 AM, Markus wrote: > > * It doesn't make sense: if it doesn't have a kerb (or any other > physical barrier) it isn't a sidewalk. This is the most important information. it should be tagged as a “footway lane” or “pedestrian lane” or similar. Javbw a "sidewalk

Re: [Tagging] How to tag pedestrian lanes?

> On Oct 20, 2019, at 4:44 AM, Markus wrote: > > However i think that a sidewalk requires a physical separation to the > roadway I agree with you, and I tag all separated standard sidewalks as “sidewalks” (iD preset). however, there are a lot of narrow roads in Japan where the side of the

Re: [Tagging] Amenity=Gambling & adult_gaming_center tagging conflict

Javbw > On Oct 17, 2019, at 5:45 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > I am not personally familiar with pachinko, It is a machine that is a slot machine crossed with a pinball machine. It is a luck-based machine. A Pachinko parlor (often Pachinko, as both machines are present) is a

[Tagging] Amenity=Gambling & adult_gaming_center tagging conflict

While Tagging Pachinko parlors in Japan, I came across a wiki documentation conflict. 2 different tags say that they are the proper ones to use when tagging pachinko parlors: Amenity=gambling wiki page says: > A place for gambling, not being a bookmaker, lottery shop, casino, or adult >

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

> On Oct 14, 2019, at 4:31 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: > > I imagine mtb maps showing all kinds of mtb-trails except The Big One that > everybody knows. If I were an MTB'ist, I would probably disxcard OSM as > unusable, because it doesn't even give the biggest MTB-route on the planet! To be

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

On Oct 12, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a good way to go. Route= cycle_touring road_touring cyclist road_cyclist road_cycling ? I think the word “race” should be left out, unless it is for mapping actual racing routes. Javbw

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

> On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Phyks wrote: > > Hi, > > I've found similar issues in France recently. Cycling routes is too > broad and diverse and covers various realities. From a rendering > perspective (disclaimer: I'm one of the maintainer of the new CyclOSM > rendering style,

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

> On Oct 11, 2019, at 8:52 PM, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > Can anyone make a route relation for any Way regardless if it is actually a > designated oute by a city, signed, or publically documented? > Such tagging for rendering happens > but is incorrect and should be deleted. This is what

Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse

2019, at 5:58 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/10/19 18:04, John Willis via Tagging wrote: >> Questions about using cycle relations properly: >> >> I am mapping and repairing cycle roads in the Kanto/Tokyo area. There are a >> lot of designa

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >