Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

[John Willis]

> On Sep 25, 2018, at 3:09 PM, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> Sign posted speeds dont are not telling you "this is the speed which is
> safe for 100% of the vehicles" but this is the maximum allowed. 
> You are still required to drive safely.


+1

Even variable speed roads (where the signs change digitally to reflect road 
conditions, such as wind), this still holds true. 

Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Tobias Zwick]

> the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building - but not 
> the exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building do that. And that 
> building looks like it wants to sell food to tourists.  ^_^

Yes, true. Though I rather had something like building=gastronomic in mind, not 
building=restaurant.

Am 25. September 2018 02:54:02 MESZ schrieb John Willis :
>
>
>
>> On Sep 25, 2018, at 2:15 AM, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
>> 
>> I find it kind of unfitting to tag those as building=retail because
>the
>> kind of building is almost like a residential one (or like a hotel).
>
>the buildings look like a hotel (or was perhaps a hotel in the past) -
>but if it is just a restaurant now, then it is building=retail. 
>
>If it is a place where you can rent a private room to sleep, it is a
>building=hotel with a commercial landuse, a pin for the hotel, and
>another pin for the restaurant  (the lobby restaurant in hotels is
>usually a separate mappable place, as it’s purpose, operating hours,
>and access to the general public is different than the hotel itself. 
>
>there are all kinds of amenities - pubs, restaurants, bed&breakfasts,
>Ryokans, fast food shops, etc,  But if they take up the entire
>building, almost all of them would fall into building=retail or
>building=hotel.  you are tagging the purpose of the building - not it’s
>design, except in the rarest of cases. 
>
>the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building - but
>not the exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building do that.
>And that building looks like it wants to sell food to tourists.  ^_^
>
>I understand the “rest stop” nature of the building - there are similar
>buildings in Japan, some larger complexes registered as official “road
>stations” often using the nickname "Oasis” with the government, and
>others that are merely private businesses that provide a place to sit
>and relax and enjoy a coffee - but mapping the small  private
>businesses that do this as anything other than a “cafe” or “restaurant”
>or “convenience store” is very very difficult without some larger
>complex with a larger landuse with more amenities. 
>
>http://www.nanmoku.ne.jp/modules/oasis/index.php?content_id=4/
>
>
>an official “Road station” on a very narrow road in the mountains. 
>
>http://michinoeki-shimonita.com 
>
>A pretty large road station down in the valley. 
>
>they are a collection of several shops and amenities - not a single
>building with a single purpose. 
>
>Javbw

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-09-25 9:34 GMT+02:00 Tobias Zwick :

> > the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building - but
> not the exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building do that. And
> that building looks like it wants to sell food to tourists.  ^_^
>
> Yes, true. Though I rather had something like building=gastronomic in
> mind, not building=restaurant.



the building tag describes the type of building. This is the solution for
the purpose that was intended for the building at time of construction.
While it often has to do with what is now in the building (because people
will search a building that is suitable for what they do), this is still
somehow orthogonal. Inside the building, you can add objects that describe
the current user (e.g. a school, a hairdresser, etc.), these can be nodes
or polygons. Mixing both is common (some poi tags + building=*/yes), but it
is really a shortcut, a kind of group, not a single entity (it is both, a
building and a user), and when you add more detail about either of them
(building or POI), you will usually do better separating them.

There is no need nor documentation nor practice  to use very generic
building values (* in some fields where we generally still have a less
elaborated/refined tagging scheme, like industrial, it is admittedly
common) if you look at dwellings, a field that is common to everyone, we
use quite detailed values. I would argue the more specific you can become
(within reasonable limits, set by the general knowledge of interested
mappers, not experts), the better. Either you are interested in the
building type, then "residential" is too scarce, or you are not and the
landuse will usually be sufficient for you. We use building=train_station
and not building=transportation, because a train station is a specific
building type (although there are subtypes of course) people can recognize
and it provides the level information they are interested in.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Marc Gemis]

I like the idea of having a separate tag for buildings that are
constructed to be restaurants, pubs, taverns, kro's etc. imho they are
a different type compared to buildings for shops, especially
supermarket-style buildings (which are large rectangles without too
many indoor walls). I see no problem to use a different building style
for a small shop in a town vs. a supermarket / mall / rectangle box.

However, I'm not sure whether gastronomic is the proper
British-English word to use. I think the Brits are already using
building=pub (perhaps only for a subclass of your 'gastronomic'.

regards

m.

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:35 AM Tobias Zwick  wrote:
>
> > the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building - but not 
> > the exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building do that. And that 
> > building looks like it wants to sell food to tourists.  ^_^
>
> Yes, true. Though I rather had something like building=gastronomic in mind, 
> not building=restaurant.
>
> Am 25. September 2018 02:54:02 MESZ schrieb John Willis :
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Sep 25, 2018, at 2:15 AM, Tobias Zwick  wrote:
> >>
> >> I find it kind of unfitting to tag those as building=retail because
> >the
> >> kind of building is almost like a residential one (or like a hotel).
> >
> >the buildings look like a hotel (or was perhaps a hotel in the past) -
> >but if it is just a restaurant now, then it is building=retail.
> >
> >If it is a place where you can rent a private room to sleep, it is a
> >building=hotel with a commercial landuse, a pin for the hotel, and
> >another pin for the restaurant  (the lobby restaurant in hotels is
> >usually a separate mappable place, as it’s purpose, operating hours,
> >and access to the general public is different than the hotel itself.
> >
> >there are all kinds of amenities - pubs, restaurants, bed&breakfasts,
> >Ryokans, fast food shops, etc,  But if they take up the entire
> >building, almost all of them would fall into building=retail or
> >building=hotel.  you are tagging the purpose of the building - not it’s
> >design, except in the rarest of cases.
> >
> >the building=* tag helps define the rough purpose fo the building - but
> >not the exact purpose. The pin or other tags on the building do that.
> >And that building looks like it wants to sell food to tourists.  ^_^
> >
> >I understand the “rest stop” nature of the building - there are similar
> >buildings in Japan, some larger complexes registered as official “road
> >stations” often using the nickname "Oasis” with the government, and
> >others that are merely private businesses that provide a place to sit
> >and relax and enjoy a coffee - but mapping the small  private
> >businesses that do this as anything other than a “cafe” or “restaurant”
> >or “convenience store” is very very difficult without some larger
> >complex with a larger landuse with more amenities.
> >
> >http://www.nanmoku.ne.jp/modules/oasis/index.php?content_id=4/
> >
> >
> >an official “Road station” on a very narrow road in the mountains.
> >
> >http://michinoeki-shimonita.com 
> >
> >A pretty large road station down in the valley.
> >
> >they are a collection of several shops and amenities - not a single
> >building with a single purpose.
> >
> >Javbw
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

> I like the idea of having a separate tag for buildings that are
> constructed to be restaurants, pubs, taverns, kro's etc. imho they are
> a different type compared to buildings for shops, especially
> supermarket-style buildings (which are large rectangles without too
> many indoor walls). I see no problem to use a different building style
> for a small shop in a town vs. a supermarket / mall / rectangle box.
>


One problem is that current tagging practise does not give perfect
orthogonality between building
type and use.  Another problem is that neither does the real world.

Yes, there are two supermarkets in my town (there used to be three, and at
one point there were plans for
a fourth) which are/were clearly building=retail (in your interpretation).
But there are buildings on an industrial
estate which clearly are building=industrial but some of them are, or have
been, used for retail.  Most of the
shops, restaurants and pubs in town are in what were built to be family
dwellings (houses).  Some buildings
have been houses, then pubs, then restaurants, then pubs again, then shops,
then houses again.

The ex-supermarket in town will shortly be turned to a variety of purposes
run by a church: part of it will become their
place of worship, another will be the town's food bank, another will be a
cafe and another will be a small community
area (well, those are the current plans).  It's still building=retail
because it was built as a supermarket, but
arguably it could be tagged as building=yes.

Many barns, stables and milking sheds in the area have been converted into
holiday cottages and look more like
houses than farm buildings (some older barns and stables which are still
used as such are difficult to distinguish
from houses using aerial imagery and even with a survey).

Many churches and chapels around here have been deconsecrated and turned
into dwellings.

Real life is messy.

However, I'm not sure whether gastronomic is the proper
> British-English word to use. I think the Brits are already using
> building=pub (perhaps only for a subclass of your 'gastronomic'.
>
> There is an increasing blur between pubs and restaurants these days.  Many
pubs serve meals.  Many restaurants
serve alcohol.  Some pubs exist in small hotels.

Real life is messy.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-09-25 13:07, Marc Gemis wrote:

> However, I'm not sure whether gastronomic is the proper
> British-English word to use. I think the Brits are already using
> building=pub (perhaps only for a subclass of your 'gastronomic'.

The predicate "gastronomic" implies a certain level of quality, aimed at
good-food-lovers. Fast-food would not be gastronomic, nor would many
restaurants and pubs. However a modern invention is the "gastro-pub"
where they consider their food to be of a particularly high standard,
not just standard pub food.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Marc Gemis]

When a building structure is changed to reflect the new purpose (e.g.
barn -> family house), I have no problem to map them as
building=house.

But the building type of this McDonald restaurant [1] is so different
from the blocks for large chains (DYI, electronics, Ikea, etc) you see
along this way [2] that I think they can both be mapped as some kind
of subtype of retail. Or, since we do not do subtypes, their own
building type.

[1] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/J8z2tOByvXkCg_ChlQRvoA
[2] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/QqQGd0_acODhNvhowymVrQ
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 1:28 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>>
>> I like the idea of having a separate tag for buildings that are
>> constructed to be restaurants, pubs, taverns, kro's etc. imho they are
>> a different type compared to buildings for shops, especially
>> supermarket-style buildings (which are large rectangles without too
>> many indoor walls). I see no problem to use a different building style
>> for a small shop in a town vs. a supermarket / mall / rectangle box.
>
>
>
> One problem is that current tagging practise does not give perfect 
> orthogonality between building
> type and use.  Another problem is that neither does the real world.
>
> Yes, there are two supermarkets in my town (there used to be three, and at 
> one point there were plans for
> a fourth) which are/were clearly building=retail (in your interpretation).  
> But there are buildings on an industrial
> estate which clearly are building=industrial but some of them are, or have 
> been, used for retail.  Most of the
> shops, restaurants and pubs in town are in what were built to be family 
> dwellings (houses).  Some buildings
> have been houses, then pubs, then restaurants, then pubs again, then shops, 
> then houses again.
>
> The ex-supermarket in town will shortly be turned to a variety of purposes 
> run by a church: part of it will become their
> place of worship, another will be the town's food bank, another will be a 
> cafe and another will be a small community
> area (well, those are the current plans).  It's still building=retail because 
> it was built as a supermarket, but
> arguably it could be tagged as building=yes.
>
> Many barns, stables and milking sheds in the area have been converted into 
> holiday cottages and look more like
> houses than farm buildings (some older barns and stables which are still used 
> as such are difficult to distinguish
> from houses using aerial imagery and even with a survey).
>
> Many churches and chapels around here have been deconsecrated and turned into 
> dwellings.
>
> Real life is messy.
>
>> However, I'm not sure whether gastronomic is the proper
>> British-English word to use. I think the Brits are already using
>> building=pub (perhaps only for a subclass of your 'gastronomic'.
>>
> There is an increasing blur between pubs and restaurants these days.  Many 
> pubs serve meals.  Many restaurants
> serve alcohol.  Some pubs exist in small hotels.
>
> Real life is messy.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 25. Sep 2018, at 02:15, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> The page for natural=peak lists natural=hill as a tagging error:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=peak


It should better reference the hill proposal as “see also”. While there is 
likely discussion to be held about hills, simply calling it an ‘error’ is not 
productive.


While this “possible tagging errors” section has some sense in pointing out 
typical spelling errors and expected low usage synonyms, I find it more often 
than I’d like, overshooting the mark by discouraging new tagging ideas and 
dismissing tags with (at least slightly) different semantics.
Please look at these and remove tags from this section when you feel they are 
not actually “tagging errors”.

Cheers,
Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:

>
> But the building type of this McDonald restaurant [1] is so different
>

Until you brought them up, I couldn't think of any distinctly restaurantish
building.  Possibly because my nearest
McDonald is 30 miles away and I haven't even been near enough to see it in
over 10 years, so it's a dim memory.

Industrial, yes: large, blocky with few windows.  Supermarket, yes: large,
blocky with many windows.  Churches and
chapels, yes (but not one of the churches near me, which was based on a
design by a blind person using the only
Lego pieces available 50 years ago in an entry for "ugliest building in
Britain").

But then you get malls in many architectural styles.  And Micky Ds have
many different styles, with only the
arches in common.  Any distinctive frippery is purely cosmetic rather than
structural and could easily be removed.

All the restaurants near me are in converted houses or converted shops or
converted small warehouses, with none
of them built specifically for that purpose.  So, with the possible
exception of Micky D, none of them have a
distinctive restaurant architecture.

Simple test: remove the signage and whitewash the windows and what type of
building is it?  Churches, chapels,
some barns (the style known in the UK as a Dutch barn, which is not what
that term means in the US), supermarkets,
industrial units, railway stations are all recognizable.  Do the same with
most restaurants and the best guess is
"shop" or "house."  Except for one of the restaurants near me in a
converted warehouse with no windows at the
front - remove the signage and the guess is going to be "warehouse."

So building=restaurant (or whatever is used instead) seems to be blurring
the distinction between type of building
and purpose it is put to.  I thought we were moving away from that.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

[Kevin Kenny]

I don't actually mind 'natural=peak' for any named local maximum
elevation. 'Peak' in one of its senses simply means the high or most
important point of anything. You can speak of the peak of a hill, or
of the peak elevation in a region, or talk of a mountain that has
several peaks.

I wouldn't like using 'mountain' to mean 'hill', but 'peak' is more generic.

I'm also fine with 'hill' if people want to use it. But as I said, the
difference between 'mountain' and 'hill' is a matter of local culture.


On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:19 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 25. Sep 2018, at 02:15, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
>
> The page for natural=peak lists natural=hill as a tagging error:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=peak
>
>
>
> It should better reference the hill proposal as “see also”. While there is 
> likely discussion to be held about hills, simply calling it an ‘error’ is not 
> productive.
>
>
> While this “possible tagging errors” section has some sense in pointing out 
> typical spelling errors and expected low usage synonyms, I find it more often 
> than I’d like, overshooting the mark by discouraging new tagging ideas and 
> dismissing tags with (at least slightly) different semantics.
> Please look at these and remove tags from this section when you feel they are 
> not actually “tagging errors”.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Please comment on the talk page if you have any suggestions about this
proposal:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/key:prominence

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:40 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The tag, "prominence=*" has been in use for a number of years, but the
> proposal was abandoned before a vote back in 2009. I have revived the
> proposal and now request your comments and suggestions before bringing
> it to a vote:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/key:prominence
>
> "Use the tag prominence=* to specify the Topographic prominence of a
> natural=peak in meters"
>
> "Topographic prominence is a objective measurement of how significant
> a peak is. For example, lists of tallest mountains use a minimum
> prominence cutoff of 100, 200 or 300 meters to define an independent
> peak. In general, all peaks with very high prominence (over 1500
> meters) are important mountains. But not all important peaks have high
> prominence."
>
> "Prominence might be used to select peaks for rendering, or to select
> significant peaks for analysis by database users. A scheme which can
> work both for Denmark and Switzerland, would be: If too many peaks are
> present within a particular area of the map at a certain zoom level,
> select the ones with highest prominence. Different thresholds might be
> used for when to render a peak symbol only, versus render the peak
> with a name label or elevation."
>
> "The prominence of a peak is the same as its elevation if it is the
> highest point on a continent or island. All other peaks on the same
> landmass have a prominence that is lower than their elevation, found
> by subtracting the elevation of the lowest saddle (also called the
> "key col") along the ridge that connects to the next higher mountain."
>
> Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence
> An introduction to Topographic Prominence
> http://www.peaklist.org/theory/orometry/article/Orometry_1.html
>
> -Joseph
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposal: Default Langauge Format

[Joseph Eisenberg]

There have been a few small updates to the proposal page based on your
suggestions in the past week.
Please comment on the talk page if you have any further ideas or
criticisms:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Default_Language_Format
Thanks!

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:59 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've started a Draft Proposal page
> for
> this language format tag, based on our discussion here. It still needs more
> links and rendering examples, plus your comments
>
> The draft proposal outline:
>
> Specify the default language format used for name labels and tags. This
> tag shows the default language and script that should be used to display
> name labels on an international map. By avoiding the use of the default
> *name=* *tag for the display of name lables, this proposal will encourage
> the use of name tags that include the language code, thereby improving the
> quality and utility of the database.
>
> The key *language:default *with the 2 or 3 letter ISO language code as
> value should be tagged on administrative boundary relations, such as
> countries, provinces and aboriginal communities to clarify the default
> language used for the majority of default *name=**tags within a
> particular region or settlement. If multiple scripts may be used for the
> language, a qualifier may be added to specify the script format. Multiple
> languages can be specified, separated with a semicolon, for an
> administrative boundary or place if the local community has decided to
> include more than one name in the default name label and wishes general map
> rendering to display more than one name.
>
> The language:default tag will be applied to the largest existing boundary
> relation that accurately represents the language used for default names.
> When a smaller administrative boundary has different default language
> format, this boundary should receive a language tag as well. This would
> include boundaries of aboriginal lands and municipalities where a different
> regional or local language is dominant.
>
> The language:default tag may also be applied to individual objects when
> the language format of the object's name is different than the default for
> the region, for example when the common name for a feature is in a language
> foreign to the region, or in a rarely used local language.
>
> If name tags commonly include additional local or official languages in a
> region or settlement, in addition to the default language format, the
> boundary or place may be tagged with language:local=* and
> language:official=* to specifiy the other languages commonly used. More
> than one official or local language can by specified in the value by use of
> a semicolon as a divider. However, the default language should always be
> specified when verifiable, to reduce the need to tag individual map
> features.
>
> See the Proposal Page
> 
> for all the details including futher rational, tagging format, examples,
> possible errors, wiki pages that will be updated, etc.:
>
> wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Default_Language_Format
> Thanks for your suggested improvements and comments!
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
>>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

[John Willis]

> On Sep 26, 2018, at 6:46 AM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> I don't actually mind 'natural=peak' for any named local maximum
> elevation.

In so many places, Lumps and bumps are simply not named. But in some places, 
they are. 

People who see Mount Fuji every day have no idea all 8 high points on the rim 
of a caldera are all named points (unmapped in OSM until yesterday). People in 
their daily lives and the OSM dataset don't know of the blizzard of named 
points that could should be mapped. This is true of mountainous areas all over 
the world - people don't realize the level of naming that occurs. 

In the city near me, there is a hill in a park. It is about 15m AGL. But it is 
an historic hill with a name. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3227944176

It may have an msl elevation of 108m, but my middle school's library is larger 
than this "peak". It is shorter than the trees in the flat part of the park. 

There are places that need some granularity. 

If you want the tag for a top of a mountain, the word is "summit". 

A peak has a different connotation. "Foobar Peak" is usually used to name a 
tall mountain. It is also used to denote the small points on a large or famous 
mountain. 

If people make a peak=* subtag, make =hill tag, or add prominence data, or 
simply add som way denote locally / regionally / nationally / internationally 
famous mountains (which would affect their rendering at zlevels) - whatever - 
something needs to be done to filter out tiny lumps scattered around and small 
named bumps on a larger mountain. 

Javbw. 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:09:12 +0200
Florian Lohoff  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:24:00AM -0700, Mark Wagner wrote:
> > My point is that no such guarantee exists for roads without speed
> > limit signs.  Yes, the numeric limit for something like Glenwood
> > Road might be 50 mph, but the road was designed around farm trucks
> > going no more than 20 mph, and has the tight curves, short sight
> > lines, and poor surface quality you'd expect for that speed.  
> 
> Sign posted speeds dont are not telling you "this is the speed which
> is safe for 100% of the vehicles" but this is the maximum allowed. 
> You are still required to drive safely.

That's not what I said.  To repeat, my point is that, at least locally,
a signposted speed limit *is* a guarantee that, for an ordinary vehicle
traveling under ordinary conditions, the speed is reasonable.  An
unsigned speed limit, on the other hand, does *not* carry that
guarantee.

-- 
Mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Draft Proposal: Default Langauge Format

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 26.09.2018 04:49, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> There have been a few small updates to the proposal page based on your
> suggestions in the past week.
> Please comment on the talk page if you have any further ideas or
> criticisms:

I added a comment on avoiding duplication - I would be very unhappy if
every feature on the planet that currently only has a name tag would now
be amended with an identical name:xx tag just because xx is the language
spoken in that country!

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging