Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground
A campsite number seems a direct analog to a house number. "Site 52, Evergreen Campground" is a form of address that in olden days a mailman might actually have delivered to. I don't see this as a rendering hack... it seems pretty clean to me. But do place the node where the little number post is: that post is what you're actually mapping. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground
As someone who lives in a campground, that's a hack. My address is similar to how most American apartment complexes or office buildings handle addresses (house number, street, unit number). On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > A campsite number seems a direct analog to a house number. "Site 52, > Evergreen Campground" is a form of address that in olden days a mailman > might actually have delivered to. I don't see this as a rendering hack... > it seems pretty clean to me. > > But do place the node where the little number post is: that post is what > you're actually mapping. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground
In the case I am looking at now there is no street number for the campground. At least there is no sign indicating one nor have I seen a street number on an any map. So I guess that addr:housenumber might work. But I imagine that there are campgrounds that actually have an street number assigned to the whole complex, so overloading addr:housenumber would not work. For what it is worth, the practice in the area I an interested in for dispatching emergency services is to use the campground name and then the written reports, if for Forest Service, use the old township and range location. Other agencies might be using UTM grid nowadays. addr:unit seems like a reasonable choice for tagging the individual campsite. In the case where the whole campground has an street address, it seems like adding a unit number to the campground address is sufficient. But the Forest Service campgrounds in many of the areas I visit have no obvious street address and the service roads within the campground are usually unnamed too. So what, if anything, should be used for the addr:street tag? Any objections to using a addr:housename tag set to the campground name? Seems like that fits Bryce's old mailman analogy as an address that might have been deliverable. Paul: I assume that you've mapped your campground. Can you give me a location to look at so I can view your tagging? Thanks! -Tod On Jun 17, 2013, at 12:30 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > As someone who lives in a campground, that's a hack. My address is similar > to how most American apartment complexes or office buildings handle addresses > (house number, street, unit number). > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > A campsite number seems a direct analog to a house number. "Site 52, > Evergreen Campground" is a form of address that in olden days a mailman might > actually have delivered to. I don't see this as a rendering hack... it seems > pretty clean to me. > > But do place the node where the little number post is: that post is what > you're actually mapping. > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground
I haven't mapped it yet at a space level detail. I can't really say I like the idea of using house number as the space number for some campgrounds but not others, that's just a bad hack. I remember some space number proposal in the wiki, but it wasn't clear how it was supposed to work. On Jun 17, 2013 8:21 AM, "Tod Fitch" wrote: > In the case I am looking at now there is no street number for the > campground. At least there is no sign indicating one nor have I seen a > street number on an any map. So I guess that addr:housenumber might work. > But I imagine that there are campgrounds that actually have an street > number assigned to the whole complex, so overloading addr:housenumber would > not work. > > For what it is worth, the practice in the area I an interested in for > dispatching emergency services is to use the campground name and then the > written reports, if for Forest Service, use the old township and range > location. Other agencies might be using UTM grid nowadays. > > addr:unit seems like a reasonable choice for tagging the individual > campsite. In the case where the whole campground has an street address, it > seems like adding a unit number to the campground address is sufficient. > But the Forest Service campgrounds in many of the areas I visit have no > obvious street address and the service roads within the campground are > usually unnamed too. So what, if anything, should be used for the > addr:street tag? > > Any objections to using a addr:housename tag set to the campground name? > Seems like that fits Bryce's old mailman analogy as an address that might > have been deliverable. > > Paul: I assume that you've mapped your campground. Can you give me a > location to look at so I can view your tagging? Thanks! > > -Tod > > > > On Jun 17, 2013, at 12:30 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > As someone who lives in a campground, that's a hack. My address is > similar to how most American apartment complexes or office buildings handle > addresses (house number, street, unit number). > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > >> A campsite number seems a direct analog to a house number. "Site 52, >> Evergreen Campground" is a form of address that in olden days a mailman >> might actually have delivered to. I don't see this as a rendering hack... >> it seems pretty clean to me. >> >> But do place the node where the little number post is: that post is what >> you're actually mapping. >> >> > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:19:48 Tod Fitch wrote:
> In the case I am looking at now there is no street number for the
> campground. At least there is no sign indicating one nor have I seen a
> street number on an any map. So I guess that addr:housenumber might work.
> But I imagine that there are campgrounds that actually have an street
> number assigned to the whole complex, so overloading addr:housenumber would
> not work.
>
> For what it is worth, the practice in the area I an interested in for
> dispatching emergency services is to use the campground name and then the
> written reports, if for Forest Service, use the old township and range
> location. Other agencies might be using UTM grid nowadays.
>
> addr:unit seems like a reasonable choice for tagging the individual
> campsite. In the case where the whole campground has an street address, it
> seems like adding a unit number to the campground address is sufficient.
> But the Forest Service campgrounds in many of the areas I visit have no
> obvious street address and the service roads within the campground are
> usually unnamed too. So what, if anything, should be used for the
> addr:street tag?
>
> Any objections to using a addr:housename tag set to the campground name?
> Seems like that fits Bryce's old mailman analogy as an address that might
> have been deliverable.
Yes. Instead, I suggest that you use tourism=camp_site and put the name in
name=*
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site
I would also suggest that addr:*=* is inappropriate for pitches on the site.
addr:*=* would be for the campsite itself, probably the site office, but if
there is no address (for the campsite) then you can't make one- just use
name=* as above.
How about making a set of tags for a pitch? ("pitch" is the area upon which
the caravan or tent is situated). You can create a node or an area (probably
a rectangle) and use ref=* for the pitch number. I don't know quite how to
do the namespace, but something like:
camp_site=pitch (this is a pitch for a tent or caravan or motorhome)
camp_site:parking=yes/no (you can park next to your tent)
camp_site:electric=yes/no (there is an electrical hookup for this pitch)
camp_site:water=yes/no (there is a water tap for this pitch)
camp_site:drain=yes/no (there is a grey water drain for this pitch)
camp_site:type=tent;caravan;motorhome/static (the things we can put on this
pitch)
camp_site:surface=grass/gravel/concrete
Best wishes,
Andrew
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding
Am 17.06.2013 01:19, schrieb Steve Doerr: > On 16/06/2013 15:09, fly wrote: >> you still talk about species and later are mentioning "dog/cat/horse" > which are genera. > > 'dog - A domesticated carnivorous mammal, Canis familiaris (or C. lupus > familiaris)...' > 'cat - A well-known carnivorous quadruped ( Felis domesticus) ...' > 'horse - A solid-hoofed perissodactyl quadruped ( Equus caballus)...' > > (all definitions from Oxford English Dictionary). > > They all look like species to me. Sorry, I was wrong with the specific example dog. Though I have to say, that cat is unclear weather your are talking about the species "house cat" or the genus cat, the same with horses as the Mongolian horse and the "domestic wild horse" are different species. The dictionary should not mention a single species but show the differences. Still the main point remains as there are already established tags why not using them and if there is a problem with latin names you can still use language code as subkey (e.g. species:ru=*) Please, do not get me wrong. We had a similar discussion with plants (e.g. trees) two years ago and I just wanted to get it right from the beginning, this time. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
On 16.06.2013 22:50, Rob Nickerson wrote: >>@Rob: >>Did you ever try to describe the junction with the Lane and Road >>Attributes? > > No, I didn't. And as I've been busy with organising SOTM I didn't even > fully read the tag proposal (hence I didn't vote). I hope you agree that > my general comment about reading through and attempting to address the > critical points on the through_route proposal is the right way forward. > Yes, this may mean dropping the tag proposal altogether and working with > a different tag instead. > > In my opinion, what the through_route tag was aiming to do is still a > good idea. I see it as more important for small unclassified country > roads, rather than multi-lane highways. Here in the UK many small > historic rural roads can have tight bends and often, if there is a > connecting road, a satnav will give an instruction to turn right/left > when one is not in fact needed (or not give an instruction when one is > needed). Now, I get your problem. We are talking about unclassified roads (no ref) right ? Stiil the Lane and Road Attributes should work as you can tag the "through_route" and the turning_lanes which might be also the single lane leading straight and allowing a turn. As you tag the direction on the turns (left/right) the router could get infos about the turns. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - reference_point
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Johan Jönsson > Could it be possible to use addr: as is the case with all other adress- > references? > addr:reference_point=Little_tree +1 Also, there is no reason to restrict its usage on nodes. Ways (e.g. a building) or relations (e.g. a "site") may also apply here. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - reference_point
Thanks for the feedback!! On 06/17/2013 09:53 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Johan Jönsson >> Could it be possible to use addr: as is the case with all other adress- >> references? >> addr:reference_point=Little_tree > +1 Actually we started this proposal as "addr:reference_point=*": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/addr:reference_point But we realized in the first conversation on the list, that "addr:*" belong always to the addresses and isn't anything that would define the reference points. Johan described this in the following mail from last year: On 03/26/2012 02:25 PM, Johan Jönsson wrote: > [...] I have been looking at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses and it seems that the > key addr: is used on each and every single address. an example, the > addr:street isn´t used on the street but on the surrounding buildings > that uses that street in their adress. with a similar approach, > addr:reference_point would be used on all houses having "the railway > station" as a reference. > > My conclusion is that you should not use addr: for this tag. I suggest > to use only reference_point=yes or reference_point=address. [...] Check the archives for the whole conversation: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2012-March/009633.html Further, we have to take in account that one place could have several reference points. For example I have three reference points in my area I could use to tell my address. This is all a little bit more "flexible" here and people can freely choose which reference points to use. So besides that, specifying "addr:reference_point=*" on every building seems to be "micromapping" and a not trivial task. The approach of this proposal is thought to be much more simple: We just want to mark reference points as what they are, so they could be used in routing systems, etc.. > Also, there is no reason to restrict its usage on nodes. Ways (e.g. a > building) or relations (e.g. a "site") may also apply here. Good point. I changed this. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground
Instead of duplicating the campground name: addr:street=CampgroundName addr:city=CampgroundName addr:housenumber=SiteNumber How about use of "addr:street" for the most specific subdivision available, usually the campground name: addr:housenumber=*53* addr:street=*Upper Pines Campground* addr:place=*Yosemite National Park* addr:district=*Mariposa County* addr:postcode=*95839* In the case of a house one "finds the street", then the "address". For a campground the road names are less important. You often "find the campground", then "find the number". See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features And http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Tod Fitch wrote: > In the case I am looking at now there is no street number for the > campground. At least there is no sign indicating one nor have I seen a > street number on an any map. So I guess that addr:housenumber might work. > But I imagine that there are campgrounds that actually have an street > number assigned to the whole complex, so overloading addr:housenumber would > not work. > Common cases for campgrounds include: 1) The roads have names, but they exist only in a database somewhere, the actual roads are not signed or known by those names. 2) The roads developed over time and were never planned or named, and may in fact shift based on season. 3) All the roads are collectively known by some name (e.g. "South fork campground loop"). 4) The sites are walk-in, far from a road. --- I think the EMS/911 use case is just as good as the mailman analogy. If you wrote what you mapped on a slip of paper describing an emergency, could the EMS crew get there without confusion? I think rendering is the least important consideration: if there is sufficient mapping of any particular style, the rendering will follow starting with the maps most oriented towards camping (open cycle map, for example, might be an early adopter). -- But that said addr:housenumber has a certain elegance. You can imagine entering that into a generic OSM routing engine and getting a sensible result (directions to that particular campsite). You're not really overloading addr:housenumber in the case the campground has postal address. The camp itself exists on a road. The camp sites then relate to the camp: name=Camp Hypothetical addr:housenumber=153 addr:street=Hypothetical Street website=* addr:housenumber=153 addr:street=Camp Hypothetical group_only=yes Thus all campgrounds can use *addr:housenumber* for the space number. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding
Ok, I've a solution. I will change the word with . animal_breeding=;;... Where in place of animal you must write the English common name of animal bred. This is simple and maintains consistency with animal_shelter and animal_boarding. If you want to specify the scientific name, you can add other tags like taxon=* or species=* or genus=*. Is this a good deal? Alberto ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Photo links in OSM
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > While there is considerable interest in historical data attached to OSM > objects, the image tag is not the place to innovate. > > Photographs are inherently historical: weather and lighting can (and, obviously, will) change; vantage points may be inaccessible or cumbersome to reproduce; bystanders come and go. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging barrier open to disabled, plus some visitors?
How do I best map a barrier that is: * Open to any vehicle with a disability placard * Open persons walking or cycling * Open to visitors with reservations. * Open to park personnel * Closed to every other type of vehicle. (This is at Point Cabrillo Light Station, California. During my visit, I was misled by OSM as to the walk distance, as OSM showed an apparently open parking lot that in fact was only open to the disabled). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > How about use of "addr:street" for the most specific subdivision > available, usually the campground name: > > addr:housenumber=*53* > addr:street=*Upper Pines Campground* > addr:place=*Yosemite National Park* > addr:district=*Mariposa County* > addr:postcode=*95839* > > In the case of a house one "finds the street", then the "address". > For a campground the road names are less important. You often "find the > campground", then "find the number". > This would be tagging for the renderer in many cases. And still breaks situations where the campground has a house number (ie, pretty much everywhere in the US). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding
That sounds better to me. Alberto wrote: > Ok, I've a solution. I will change the word with . > animal_breeding=;;... > Where in place of animal you must write the English common name of > animal > bred. This is simple and maintains consistency with animal_shelter and > animal_boarding. > If you want to specify the scientific name, you can add other tags > like > taxon=* or species=* or genus=*. > Is this a good deal? > Alberto > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding
On 17/giu/2013, at 20:26, "Alberto" wrote: > Ok, I've a solution. I will change the word with . > animal_breeding=;;... > Where in place of animal you must write the English common name of animal > bred. This is simple and maintains consistency with animal_shelter and > animal_boarding. > If you want to specify the scientific name, you can add other tags like > taxon=* or species=* or genus=*. > Is this a good deal? +1 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] RFC: wheelchair:toilets=yes/no
Hi, here's the request for comments on my first proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/wheelchair:toilet http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/wheelchair:toilets Please give me feedback. Thanks! Holger --- http://wheelmap.org http://holger-dieterich.de ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - image=http://xxxx
Based on objections about determining the license status of the linked image, I have removed: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Image >From voting for now. I encourage discussion. How can an agent, using an image link, determine the license status of the image? Clearly there is no problem with the URL itself, but the image could be restricted from reuse. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Through_route next steps
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 17:35 +0200, fly wrote: > On 16.06.2013 22:50, Rob Nickerson wrote: > >>@Rob: > >>Did you ever try to describe the junction with the Lane and Road > >>Attributes? > > > > No, I didn't. And as I've been busy with organising SOTM I didn't even > > fully read the tag proposal (hence I didn't vote). I hope you agree that > > my general comment about reading through and attempting to address the > > critical points on the through_route proposal is the right way forward. > > Yes, this may mean dropping the tag proposal altogether and working with > > a different tag instead. > > > > In my opinion, what the through_route tag was aiming to do is still a > > good idea. I see it as more important for small unclassified country > > roads, rather than multi-lane highways. Here in the UK many small > > historic rural roads can have tight bends and often, if there is a > > connecting road, a satnav will give an instruction to turn right/left > > when one is not in fact needed (or not give an instruction when one is > > needed). > > Now, I get your problem. We are talking about unclassified roads (no > ref) right ? > > Stiil the Lane and Road Attributes should work as you can tag the > "through_route" and the turning_lanes which might be also the single > lane leading straight and allowing a turn. As you tag the direction on > the turns (left/right) the router could get infos about the turns. You are correct, we are talking about unclassified and tertiary roads. Although this problem also occurs on secondary, primary and trunk roads, a classification is a measure of importance and not always quality. But where did the turning lane come from? or even lanes in many cases? Here is an example of why this tag is needed, and obviously support from routers. http://osrm.at/3Hs This route misses two important left turn instructions, the instructions should be Turn left onto B5065 in both cases. Here is the first junction http://goo.gl/maps/ouXTC and the second, which is a very definite left turn, but easily missed as routers assume you are continuing on the same road, without the instruction anyone following instructions is likely to carry straight on http://goo.gl/maps/DSDbt And again further along the route a vital right turn is missed. http://osrm.at/3Ht http://goo.gl/maps/bfuaS Roads were not planned, they do not go in straight lines and have evolved over time and we need a means to reflect this and provide meaningful information. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] ref tags
The excuse I've heard is that European countries "don't have
concurrencies." Which conveniently ignores the E roads...
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Because, as I understand it, route relations are not used as extensively
> in some regions / countries as they are here in the U.S. and we cannot
> impose this reliance on relationships for numbered route relations on
> everyone. Perhaps if we make it a switch / option in osm2pgsql so folks can
> choose based on their local situation?
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jason Remillard <
> remillard.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why not just patch osm2pgsql? It seems like the right place for this
>> is on the relation.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I wanted to get an opinion on the right place for 'ref' tags on numbered
>> > routes.
>> >
>> > From what I understand, osm2pgsql and the downstream rendering process
>> uses
>> > the ref tags on the way object to render highway 'shields'.
>> >
>> > The following example corroborates this. Consider this (long) way:
>> >
>> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/13649057
>> >
>> > See how this segment has no 'shields' on the map because the way itself
>> has
>> > no ref tag:
>> >
>> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.5419&lon=-89.4744&zoom=13&layers=M
>> >
>> > Even though the way is part of the properly tagged relation
>> >
>> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/23246
>> >
>> > I see two issues here:
>> >
>> > 1) Information already present in the relation object being duplicated
>> on
>> > the way to satisfy the renderer
>> > 2) Incomplete coverage of ref information on ways
>> >
>> > I don't think we can solve 1) in the short term. There are likely many,
>> many
>> > numbered route networks in the world that are poorly covered by
>> relations,
>> > because the renderer does not encourage it, because relations were
>> > introduced after a lot of numbered routes were already tagged before the
>> > arrival of relations, because the wiki is ambiguous, perhaps other
>> reasons.
>> >
>> > There are perhaps a few thousand ways in the U.S. that are part of a
>> > numbered route, yet do not have ref tags on the way. My question is: how
>> > should we deal with these?
>> >
>> > My proposal is to 'fill the gaps' by manually tagging these ways using
>> the
>> > existing conventions for route relation ref tagging ('US 98', 'I 20',
>> 'MS
>> > 467', etc.) wherever this information can be derived from an existing
>> route
>> > relation. We have folks here at Telenav willing to spend some cycles on
>> > this, but I want to see if this is a sane approach before we do
>> anything.
>> > --
>> > Martijn van Exel
>> > http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
>> > http://openstreetmap.us/
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Talk-us mailing list
>> > talk...@openstreetmap.org
>> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Martijn van Exel
> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
> http://openstreetmap.us/
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging camp sites within campground
I'm thinking it might be time to revive this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site In which, the space my 5th Wheel has been for the last half a year would be part of a site relation. The node or closed way representing my spot would be tagged... addr:housenumber=801 addr:street=North Mingo Road ... lot:number=252 caravan=designated tent=no On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> >> This would be tagging for the renderer in many cases. And still breaks >> situations where the campground has a house number (ie, pretty much >> everywhere in the US). >> > > Could you illustrate so I understand? > > --- > name=Camp Hypothetical > addr:housenumber=153 > addr:street=Hypothetical Street > website=* > > addr:housenumber=153 > addr:street=Camp Hypothetical > group_only=yes > --- > > My intent is to map to the router, not so much the renderer. > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
