[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - bureau_de_change=yes

[korneysan]

Hello all.I propose you a feature to indicate the bank have the currency exchange service inside. It is located on wiki pagehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bureau_de_change%3Dyes Please check. Regards,Alexander.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 3, 2020, 07:03 by mark+...@carnildo.com:

> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:39:14 +0200 (CEST)
> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging  wrote:
>
>> Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com> > 寫道：
>> > 
>> >> On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: 
>> >>  > My main point is that out there are things that consist of
>> >>  > visible objects plus objects which have left visible traces,
>> >>  > and also some pieces that have been completely erased, but of
>> >>  > which we have documented knowledge of where they once were. The
>> >>  > entire thing makes sense only with all its parts. These things
>> >>  > be of interest for some end users of OSM data, and hence, if
>> >>  > someone has gone to the length of mapping them, should find
>> >>  > space in OSM. In my view a general rule that any mapper can
>> >>  > erase any object from the map, when he does not see any trace
>> >>  > of it, is certainly not correct , he may be removing parts of
>> >>  > the thing thsat only with all its partsmakes sense. 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >>  Where an old railway line has been built over by houses,
>> >> factories, shops and roads I see no reason to retain the
>> >> (historical) information in OSM.
>> >> 
>> >>  The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but
>> >> where there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.
>> >> 
>> >
>> > Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain
>> > visible even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop,
>> > road) have been made on top of their original site. So that cabnot
>> > be used as a criteria to determine whether that should be removed
>> > or not although the exact situation varies a lot in each individual
>> > cases. 
>>
>> Can you give an example (photos) where entire factory was constructed
>> over former railway and this section of railway remains somehow
>> mappable in OSM?
>>
>> With road I can easily imagine this, with a single small building I
>> can also imagine special cases of this remaining true.
>>
>> But entire factory?
>>
>
> It's not a factory, but how about a car dealership, two storage rental
> facilities, a school bus parking lot, a sports park, and about forty
> city blocks of other things?
>
> https://imgur.com/a/5YObPTP
>
Very interesting one. While I see point about part of the route, I would
disagree about vertical segment where it is no longer recognizable -
even from indirect effects like building arrangements (based on
this aerial images! - maybe something is visible on the ground or
on higher quality aerial images).

I admit that it is something that while stretching "there is something
on the ground" case is also having something on the ground.

Do you have maybe photos from the ground? Or info where it is located?
I want to add it to the wiki article, it would be a good case of something
borderline.

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

[Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Recreational route relation roles

[Peter Elderson]

Voting has started! Voting is open till 2020-06-17.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles


The proposal will not change during voting. I will answer clarifying
questions. Comments, even if it's just about wording or examples and
doesn't change the proposed roles, will be considered after the voting.

Thanks everyone for useful comments and suggestions so far. I am confident
we will get this improvement done.

I know some people had expected more. And I agree! Even then, please vote
yes to this basic proposal, it lays the groundwork for things to come.


Best, Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Volker Schmidt]

Mark,
can you tell us the place? The photo seems to show a US city, but which one?
Even at thrìe small scale of the image I can see several traces that look
very much like ex-railway tracks (it's easy  in US cities as they do not
follow the block structure).

Please don't forget that I am not saying that we should map every single
ex-railway, I am only asking do not remove them, where someone has inserted
them.
Ex-railway corridors are often major landscape objects, in that sense they
are part of the geography. The argument has been made in this discussion
here; to map an ex-railway, only by mapping every remaining trace of it
(embankments,  roads; buildings only) but "seeing the e-railway is often
far easier on aerial photographs than on maps that's why it is helpful to
sometimes to add in the map even completely razed bits of ex.railways to
tie the visible bits together.

I invite you all to have a look at the excellent web site "
bahntrassenradwege.de ". Has nothing to
do with OSM, but illustrates why documenting ex.railways is important and
can also have a big impact on the economy when converted to a bicycle
tourist attraction.





Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 07:05, Mark Wagner  wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:39:14 +0200 (CEST)
> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging  wrote:
>
> > Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com> > 寫道：
> > >
> > >> On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > >>  > My main point is that out there are things that consist of
> > >>  > visible objects plus objects which have left visible traces,
> > >>  > and also some pieces that have been completely erased, but of
> > >>  > which we have documented knowledge of where they once were. The
> > >>  > entire thing makes sense only with all its parts. These things
> > >>  > be of interest for some end users of OSM data, and hence, if
> > >>  > someone has gone to the length of mapping them, should find
> > >>  > space in OSM. In my view a general rule that any mapper can
> > >>  > erase any object from the map, when he does not see any trace
> > >>  > of it, is certainly not correct , he may be removing parts of
> > >>  > the thing thsat only with all its partsmakes sense.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  Where an old railway line has been built over by houses,
> > >> factories, shops and roads I see no reason to retain the
> > >> (historical) information in OSM.
> > >>
> > >>  The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but
> > >> where there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain
> > > visible even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop,
> > > road) have been made on top of their original site. So that cabnot
> > > be used as a criteria to determine whether that should be removed
> > > or not although the exact situation varies a lot in each individual
> > > cases.
> >
> > Can you give an example (photos) where entire factory was constructed
> > over former railway and this section of railway remains somehow
> > mappable in OSM?
> >
> > With road I can easily imagine this, with a single small building I
> > can also imagine special cases of this remaining true.
> >
> > But entire factory?
>
> It's not a factory, but how about a car dealership, two storage rental
> facilities, a school bus parking lot, a sports park, and about forty
> city blocks of other things?
>
> https://imgur.com/a/5YObPTP
>
> --
> Mark
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping Ecomuseum

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

I collected some data about one particular ecomuseum, the “Ecomuseo della 
resistenza” [1].

The ecomuseum is composed of 8 different municipalities (Aprica, Corteno Golgi 
[2], Edolo, Monno, Tirano, Villa di Tirano, Sonico e Malonno), so I will create 
a multipoligon and map it as:
type = boundary
boundary = ecomuseum
name = Ecomuseo della resistenza

But it has also a location inside a building in the municipality of Corteno 
Golgi, close to this node [3] and map it as a node with the tag:
tourism = museum
museum = ecomuseum
name = Ecomuseo della resistenza

It is ok? Are there other better options?

Best,
Lorenzo

[1] 
http://www.cortenogolgi.it/index.php/territorio/storia-e-tradizioni/ecomuseo-della-resistenza-in-mortirolo
  this link is just for your knowledge I don’t take the data from here.
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/46856
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/892479645


Il giorno 31 mag 2020, alle ore 15:38, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> ha scritto:



sent from a phone

On 31. May 2020, at 14:45, Lorenzo Stucchi 
mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>> wrote:

But since the ecomuseum is not just a physical limited space but it is a sum of 
areas of different municipality, I should add the tag on that big area?


you could create a multipolygon and make them one distributed museum or map 
them as distinct museums (and maybe connect them through a tag, maybe 
“network”).



Should I use the tag museum=ecomuseum?


it’s up to you, it isn’t an established tag


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] Mapping Ecomuseum

[Alexey Zakharenkov]

It would be interesting to test if some existing boundary value means the same.https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/boundary#valuesMaybe "boundary=traditional" tag is mostly used in the same sense?Best regards,Alexey  03.06.2020, 15:05, "Lorenzo Stucchi" :I collected some data about one particular ecomuseum, the “Ecomuseo della resistenza” [1]. The ecomuseum is composed of 8 different municipalities (Aprica, Corteno Golgi [2], Edolo, Monno, Tirano, Villa di Tirano, Sonico e Malonno), so I will create a multipoligon and map it as:type = boundaryboundary = ecomuseumname = Ecomuseo della resistenza But it has also a location inside a building in the municipality of Corteno Golgi, close to this node [3] and map it as a node with the tag:tourism = museummuseum = ecomuseumname = Ecomuseo della resistenza It is ok? Are there other better options? Best,Lorenzo [1]  http://www.cortenogolgi.it/index.php/territorio/storia-e-tradizioni/ecomuseo-della-resistenza-in-mortirolo  this link is just for your knowledge I don’t take the data from here.[2]  https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/46856 [3]  https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/892479645  Il giorno 31 mag 2020, alle ore 15:38, Martin Koppenhoefer  ha scritto: sent from a phone On 31. May 2020, at 14:45, Lorenzo Stucchi  wrote:But since the ecomuseum is not just a physical limited space but it is a sum of areas of different municipality, I should add the tag on that big area?you could create a multipolygon and make them one distributed museum or map them as distinct museums (and maybe connect them through a tag, maybe “network”). Should I use the tag museum=ecomuseum?it’s up to you, it isn’t an established tagCheers Martin___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging,___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Another user would like to add the tag man_made=spoil_heap to Map Features:

"The tag man_made =
spoil_heap is used to map a spoil heap or Spoil tip
, a pile or piles of waste rock
removed during mining."

This tag was documented in 2015 as "in use" when it was used 600 times, and
has now been used 2400 times:
https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/man_made/spoil_heap

Usage is fairly concentrated in Scotland, Russia, central Europe, plus a
couple of spots in the USA and in South America:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=man_made&value=spoil_heap#map

The one issue is whether it is clearly different than landuse=landfill.

Thoughts on whether this tag is common enough and well established enough
that it should be on Map Features?

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 23:56, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> The one issue is whether it is clearly different than landuse=landfill.
>

Different.

Spoil heaps are, as the Wikipedia article documents, heaps.  Tips.  Piles.
Piles of non-degradable mining waste.  Rock.  Rubble.  You pile them
up and that's how they remain (except in the case of disasters, such
as Aberfan).

Landfills are (generally) holes in the ground that are filled in and often
act as
bio-reactors to degrade organic material.

Not the same thing.  Usually.  At least not in the UK.

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Or Australia!

& is there any reason *not* to add things to the map features page?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 01:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> & is there any reason *not* to add things to the map features page?
>

Things that are rarely mapped are not good candidates for a page listing
things that are frequently mapped.

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

>
>
>>
>> & is there any reason *not* to add things to the map features page?
>>
>
> Things that are rarely mapped are not good candidates for a page listing
> things that are frequently mapped.
>
>
Right now there are 105 documented tags with the key "man_made:", and only
50 of these are listed on Map Features and Key:man_made. (See the number
next to "documented values" on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:man_made)

There are  261 documented amenity=* values (with a wiki page):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tag_descriptions_for_key_%22amenity%22

The Map Features page is already quite long and unwieldy, so it is
reasonable to limit how many more tags are added. Generally these tags
should have community consensus, demonstrated by being used widely in a
number of different places, and hopefully there isn't another identical or
similar tag.

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Jun 2020, at 02:29, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> 
> The Map Features page is already quite long and unwieldy, so it is reasonable 
> to limit how many more tags are added.


yes, it is already so long, it really doesn’t matter so much whether you add 
another item or not, it’s too long to read entirely. My suggestion would be to 
make it either very short so it’s obvious it is incomplete and only major tags 
(examples), or add everything with something like 50+ or 100+ uses.

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Jun 4, 2020, 02:37 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 4. Jun 2020, at 02:29, Joseph Eisenberg  
>> wrote:
>>
>> The Map Features page is already quite long and unwieldy, so it is 
>> reasonable to limit how many more tags are added.
>>
>
>
> yes, it is already so long, it really doesn’t matter so much whether you add 
> another item or not, it’s too long to read entirely. My suggestion would be 
> to make it either very short so it’s obvious it is incomplete and only major 
> tags (examples), or add everything with something like 50+ or 100+ uses.
>
All features with 50+ uses? It would probably not load within minute in a 
typical browser.

In its current state it is still barely usable.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 20:40, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
 wrote:
(about Map Features wiki page)
> In its current state it is still barely usable.

Personally I've given up on the current Map Features page and would
rather use the wiki search or taginfo search than wait for it to load
and probably still not find what I'm actually looking for.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Jun 2020, at 02:41, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> All features with 50+ uses? It would probably not load within minute in a 
> typical browser.


you’re right, make it 500

> 
> In its current state it is still barely usable.


+1

Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Warin]

On 2/6/20 9:44 pm, Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 12:23, Volker Schmidt > wrote:


Anyway the examples you find in OSM are few and in all cases I
know the completely erased bits are a tiny part of the overall
ex-railway.


There are three ex-railways in my area (possibly more). Even though the
rail part of those railways has mostly been removed, the way part of those
railways is still mostly in evidence.  Apart from embankments, 
cuttings, bridges
and tunnels there are the green corridors - either tree-lined hedges 
or trails cut
through woods. Some sections have been repurposed as footpaths and/or 
cycle
paths.  A few short sections have been resurrected as heritage 
railways.  The places
where all traces have been removed and build over are very few and far 
between.


I could delete those tiny sections of ex-railway that somebody spent time
mapping, but then it loses the coherence that aids understanding (unless I
shove the pieces into some sort of relation).

I understand the perspective of the purists, and one day a purist may come
along and remove sections where all traces have gone. But I have other 
things

I could be mapping so I won't bother doing it myself.

--
Paul




Here is an entry by some one who thinks it should be in OSM ...

Way: former Ballarat - Buninyong line (802945247)

  Tags:
    "name"="former Ballarat - Buninyong line"
    "embankment"="yes"
    "railway"="razed"
    "ruined:railway"="rail"


If you look you will see that this 'embankment' does not EXIST ... there 
are two car parks over it that show no sign of any embankment. There is 
a building over it ... roads ... it does not exist.


Yet the person 'maps' it.

Note I put it into OHM some 2 years ago and removed it from OSM. Should 
I report them to DWG?


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

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Yep, there's a lot on it, & it takes a while to open.

But there's also no reason not to make use of it!

The people on this list are, I would say, well & truly towards the more
experienced end of the OSM spectrum, so you may not use it (although I
still do when I can't remember exactly what I want! :-)), *BUT*, if I may
be so bold, that page isn't there for experienced mappers, it's there for
the newbies who don't know all the options, have never heard of TagInfo,
may know the wiki is there but not how to use it & so on.

Yes, I'd like to see Map Features expanded so that everything with over 500
uses is there, but also tidied - maybe only a list of "topics" eg aero,
amenity, highway, man_made etc, each with a brief description & linking to
a separate page with all of those items listed?

Do-able?

Thanks

Graeme


On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 11:33, Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> > On Jun 3, 2020, at 5:45 PM, Jarek Piórkowski 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 20:40, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> >  wrote:
> > (about Map Features wiki page)
> >> In its current state it is still barely usable.
> >
> > Personally I've given up on the current Map Features page and would
> > rather use the wiki search or taginfo search than wait for it to load
> > and probably still not find what I'm actually looking for.
> >
>
> +1
>
> I can’t recall the last time I went to the map features page. Like Jarek,
> I just use the wiki search and/or taginfo.
>
> Cheers!
> Tod
>
>
> ___
> 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] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jun 3, 2020, at 4:19 PM, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 23:56, Joseph Eisenberg  > wrote:
> 
> The one issue is whether it is clearly different than landuse=landfill.
> 
> Different.
> 
> Spoil heaps are, as the Wikipedia article documents, heaps.  Tips.  Piles.
> Piles of non-degradable mining waste.  Rock.  Rubble.  You pile them
> up and that's how they remain (except in the case of disasters, such
> as Aberfan).
> 
> Landfills are (generally) holes in the ground that are filled in and often 
> act as
> bio-reactors to degrade organic material.
> 
> Not the same thing.  Usually.  At least not in the UK.
> 

Not the same thing in the US either.





signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

[Yves]

Graeme is right, plus it's a curated list on the wiki, this had its advantages!
Maybe splitting it in 'main' (50k uses) and 'extended' may help.
Yves ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

[Mark Wagner]

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 12:24:45 +0200 (CEST)
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging  wrote:

> Jun 3, 2020, 07:03 by mark+...@carnildo.com:
> 
> > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 12:39:14 +0200 (CEST)
> > Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging  wrote:
> >  
> >> Jun 2, 2020, 03:52 by c933...@gmail.com:
> >>  
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <> 61sundow...@gmail.com> >
> >> > 寫道： 
> >> >> On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:   
> >> >>  > My main point is that out there are things that consist of
> >> >>  > visible objects plus objects which have left visible traces,
> >> >>  > and also some pieces that have been completely erased, but of
> >> >>  > which we have documented knowledge of where they once were.
> >> >>  > The entire thing makes sense only with all its parts. These
> >> >>  > things be of interest for some end users of OSM data, and
> >> >>  > hence, if someone has gone to the length of mapping them,
> >> >>  > should find space in OSM. In my view a general rule that any
> >> >>  > mapper can erase any object from the map, when he does not
> >> >>  > see any trace of it, is certainly not correct , he may be
> >> >>  > removing parts of the thing thsat only with all its
> >> >>  > partsmakes sense.   
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >>  Where an old railway line has been built over by houses,
> >> >> factories, shops and roads I see no reason to retain the
> >> >> (historical) information in OSM.
> >> >> 
> >> >>  The old railway station that still exists at one end - yes, but
> >> >> where there is nothing, not even a hint, left then no.
> >> >>   
> >> >
> >> > Except, it is relatively common for traces of old railway remain
> >> > visible even after new development (e.g. house, factory, shop,
> >> > road) have been made on top of their original site. So that
> >> > cabnot be used as a criteria to determine whether that should be
> >> > removed or not although the exact situation varies a lot in each
> >> > individual cases.   
> >>
> >> Can you give an example (photos) where entire factory was
> >> constructed over former railway and this section of railway
> >> remains somehow mappable in OSM?
> >>
> >> With road I can easily imagine this, with a single small building I
> >> can also imagine special cases of this remaining true.
> >>
> >> But entire factory?
> >>  
> >
> > It's not a factory, but how about a car dealership, two storage
> > rental facilities, a school bus parking lot, a sports park, and
> > about forty city blocks of other things?
> >
> > https://imgur.com/a/5YObPTP
> >  
> Very interesting one. While I see point about part of the route, I
> would disagree about vertical segment where it is no longer
> recognizable - even from indirect effects like building arrangements
> (based on this aerial images! - maybe something is visible on the
> ground or on higher quality aerial images).
> 
> I admit that it is something that while stretching "there is something
> on the ground" case is also having something on the ground.
> 
> Do you have maybe photos from the ground? Or info where it is located?
> I want to add it to the wiki article, it would be a good case of
> something borderline.

It's in Spokane, Washington, north of the Spokane River between
Division and Market streets.  The railway was removed in the 1970s as
part of the redevelopment of the city center.

The north-south segement on the west side of the image still has
evidence on the ground.  I don't have pictures of it, but the asphalt
on many of the minor roads there still has patches where the railroad
crossings were removed.  (The major roads have all been re-paved).
Additionally, only two buildings cross that part of the old rail route.
Everything else is parking lots, driveways, or just unused land.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Adding man_made=spoil_heap to the Map Features page?

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jun 3, 2020, at 5:45 PM, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 at 20:40, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
>  wrote:
> (about Map Features wiki page)
>> In its current state it is still barely usable.
> 
> Personally I've given up on the current Map Features page and would
> rather use the wiki search or taginfo search than wait for it to load
> and probably still not find what I'm actually looking for.
> 

+1

I can’t recall the last time I went to the map features page. Like Jarek, I 
just use the wiki search and/or taginfo.

Cheers!
Tod




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping Ecomuseum

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Thanks for the suggestion. I saw that tradition is madly used with for describe 
an historical area with some characteristics. So it is not so related with this 
case. I check also all the other 500 values and no one is related with the eco 
museum.

Best,
Lorenzo

Il giorno 3 giu 2020, alle ore 19:20, Alexey Zakharenkov 
mailto:a-z...@yandex.ru>> ha scritto:

It would be interesting to test if some existing boundary value means the same.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/boundary#values
Maybe "boundary=traditional" tag is mostly used in the same sense?
Best regards,
Alexey


03.06.2020, 15:05, "Lorenzo Stucchi" 
mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>>:
I collected some data about one particular ecomuseum, the “Ecomuseo della 
resistenza” [1].

The ecomuseum is composed of 8 different municipalities (Aprica, Corteno Golgi 
[2], Edolo, Monno, Tirano, Villa di Tirano, Sonico e Malonno), so I will create 
a multipoligon and map it as:
type = boundary
boundary = ecomuseum
name = Ecomuseo della resistenza

But it has also a location inside a building in the municipality of Corteno 
Golgi, close to this node [3] and map it as a node with the tag:
tourism = museum
museum = ecomuseum
name = Ecomuseo della resistenza

It is ok? Are there other better options?

Best,
Lorenzo

[1] 
http://www.cortenogolgi.it/index.php/territorio/storia-e-tradizioni/ecomuseo-della-resistenza-in-mortirolo
  this link is just for your knowledge I don’t take the data from here.
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/46856
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/892479645


Il giorno 31 mag 2020, alle ore 15:38, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> ha scritto:



sent from a phone

On 31. May 2020, at 14:45, Lorenzo Stucchi 
mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>> wrote:

But since the ecomuseum is not just a physical limited space but it is a sum of 
areas of different municipality, I should add the tag on that big area?


you could create a multipolygon and make them one distributed museum or map 
them as distinct museums (and maybe connect them through a tag, maybe 
“network”).



Should I use the tag museum=ecomuseum?


it’s up to you, it isn’t an established tag


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

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

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