Re: [Tagging] Variable position
On 25 December 2017 at 01:46, Michal Fabík wrote: Can anybody think of other examples like this? Cranes? I was thinking about Hammerhead cranes that are used on (usually) high-rise construction sites & are in place for maybe 12 months (+/-) at a time, depending on duration of construction. These are also visible from quite a distance to give a navigation reference, although, of course, they're usually found in built-up areas (& are also on construction sites, which will also be marked as such in OSM! :-)) Also just thought about dockside cranes for loading shipping containers. They would always be on this particular dock, but may travel up & down along the length of the dock? Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] cycleway:both=no in StreetComplete
Hi There's been quite a few recent additions of 'cycleway:both=no' being added by users of StreetComplete. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8609990 There's no mention of this tag on the wiki & to me appears a bit ambiguous. Most (all?) are the sole cycle tag on the entity. Both=no suggests that a cycleway could exist in one direction. What is the reason the developers aren't using the established tagging scheme: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway Note under 'cycleway=no' as a tag of "dubious usefulness". I concur with this view DaveF --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cycleway:both=no in StreetComplete
Hello, Le 26. 12. 17 à 00:22, Dave F a écrit : > There's been quite a few recent additions of 'cycleway:both=no' being > added by users of StreetComplete. > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8609990 > > There's no mention of this tag on the wiki & to me appears a bit > ambiguous. Most (all?) are the sole cycle tag on the entity. Both=no > suggests that a cycleway could exist in one direction. I agree that cycleway:both=no is not a good tag. cycleway=no is better. > What is the reason the developers aren't using the established tagging > scheme: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ask the dev :) > Note under 'cycleway=no' as a tag of "dubious usefulness". I could help to see what road have been surveyed and somebody see that this road doesn't have a cycleway. Put in urban area, it's a (minor) added value. Without a cycleway tag, the cycleway is unknown. > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. it's also a dubious usefulness :) Regards, Marc ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cycleway:both=no in StreetComplete
This sounds similar to those that suggested adding oneway=no to all streets that are not explicitly tagged as oneway=yes. All roads without cycleways could conceivably be tagged this way. Unless there is some cause for such a tag, for example, noting that a cycleway once existed here but is no longer present, this tag is totally unnecessary and adds needless data to OSM. On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 6:50 AM, marc marc wrote: > Hello, > > Le 26. 12. 17 à 00:22, Dave F a écrit : > > > There's been quite a few recent additions of 'cycleway:both=no' being > > added by users of StreetComplete. > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8609990 > > > > There's no mention of this tag on the wiki & to me appears a bit > > ambiguous. Most (all?) are the sole cycle tag on the entity. Both=no > > suggests that a cycleway could exist in one direction. > > I agree that cycleway:both=no is not a good tag. > cycleway=no is better. > > > What is the reason the developers aren't using the established tagging > > scheme: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway > > ask the dev :) > > > Note under 'cycleway=no' as a tag of "dubious usefulness". > > I could help to see what road have been surveyed and somebody see that > this road doesn't have a cycleway. Put in urban area, it's a (minor) > added value. Without a cycleway tag, the cycleway is unknown. > > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > > it's also a dubious usefulness :) > > Regards, > Marc > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
