Re: [Tagging] Proposed Feature Adoption

Can you save us all a lot of time and provide the link to the proposal? Thanks, clifford On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Dominic Coletti wrote: > Hi all, > > I have proposed a new tag for tagging adoption agencies: > office=adoption_agency. It is currently in "Draft" mode, but I am seeking > c

[Tagging] Proposed Feature Adoption

Hi all, I have proposed a new tag for tagging adoption agencies: office=adoption_agency. It is currently in "Draft" mode, but I am seeking comments from the community in order to refine the proposition. Thanks in advance, Dominic Coletti ___ Tagging mai

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to map?

David Marchal writes: > In fact, the parcels I'm talking about have their number displayed on > their corners, so I thought it could be useful to record them in order > to ease orientation in forests. I'm not thinking about private, > restricted access parts of forests, nor about their ownership

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

On 2015-11-27 22:16, Georg Feddern wrote : > Am 27.11.2015 um 15:46 schrieb André Pirard: >> Have you noticed that some borderlines are *hexaplicated* (that they >> appear in 6 different relations) and that *that* is unhealthy >> redundancy that is made unnecessary by subareas? >> >> And that, unli

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

Am 27.11.2015 um 15:46 schrieb André Pirard: Have you noticed that some borderlines are *hexaplicated* (that they appear in 6 different relations) and that *that* is unhealthy redundancy that is made unnecessary by subareas? And that, unlike wanting to destroy an enemy, the programs I spoke of

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to map?

> From: g...@ir.bbn.com > To: pene...@live.fr > CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to > map? > Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:05:01 -0500 > > > David Marchal writes: > >> 1) forest parcels:

Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to map?

> From: g...@ir.bbn.com > To: pene...@live.fr > CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to > map? > Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:05:01 -0500 > > > David Marchal writes: > >> 1) forest parcels: some people use a boundary relation w

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

I'm not sure either. The crossings are a bit unclear, there are only > pedestrian crossings, and the cycleway explicitly starts after the > crossing, Formally the crossing is bicycle dismount, but, as the cycleway ends and re-starts at the pedestrian crossing, by the wonders of the Italian laws/ru

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-27 13:22 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > Please, no. Spamming oneway=no, cycleway=no, bridge=no, toll=no, > opening_hours=24/7 for nearly all highway=* ways is not helpful (all > are real examples) is not helpful. > yes, these should not go on every highway, but there are cases where put

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

updated query [out:json][timeout:25]; ( rel[admin_level=8](area:3600172385); ); out meta; This does not display a result in the "Map" part of overpass-turbo, as the nodes and the ways are not included. Things can only be drawn when they are included, Look in the "Data" tab. I'm not sure what

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

Hi Marc, Thanks, that looks promising... I notice it starts from a Nominatim lookup (geocodeArea:Kent). The wiki indicates it uses the first result returned by Nominatim. Sometimes there are several entities with the same name and I need to be able to select a specific one. How can I start f

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-27 12:57 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt : > It seems to be a nice smooth cycleway (so smooth hat it has a speed limit > of 20km/h), but a good lawyer could earn a lot of money when it comes to > the question whether this is a cycleway with mandatory use in case of a > serous accident with a cycl

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > 172385 something like http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cY4 ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

On 2015-11-27 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : > > 2015-11-27 12:02 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale >: > > One concrete use case is "return the boundary relations for the > constituent parts of a given boundary relation", for example "all > the district councils i

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

Re: Belgium: I thought at first that the Official Language could be a simple attribute (French, Flemish, French/Flemish bilingual, or German) of a municipality, but I read on Wikipedia that there are actually parliaments for the language communities, which do not exactly coincide with the three

[Tagging] Hospital vs. Clinic refinement; Hospital departments

I would like to sync the distinctive criterion when to use amenity=hospital or amenity=clinic. The hospital page says "often but not always providing for longer-term patient stays" which is a bit fuzzy, while the clinic page clearly says it is a hospital when it "offers inpatient care (beds fo

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

On 2015-11-27 10:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : > > 2015-11-26 20:24 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale >: > > I use the subarea member because it makes cross-checking easy. > Have all the lower-level boundaries in my higher-level admin area > been added to OSM? > > >

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

On 2015-11-27 10:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : > > 2015-11-26 21:12 GMT+01:00 André Pirard >: > > It is even mandatory when you have to make nested boundaries that > have no admin_level like the two boundary systems we have in > Belgium (political and

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Yes, agreed. A case of lost in translation. For me a cycle lane doesn’t count as a cycle way. From: Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] Sent: Freitag, 27. November 2015 13:20 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:23 +0100 Volker Schmidt wrote: > (the trash container and the leaves go into a > separate crowdmap). Trash container is probably mappable also in OSM. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstree

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:58:41 +0100 "Hubert" wrote: > Hallo Volker. > > I'd advise you to map those cycle ways as separate osm ways, even if > this is still globally disputed. AFAIK, it is quite common in the > Netherlands and Poland. And I'm also a fan. :) To clarify information about common ta

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:41:42 +0100 "Hubert" wrote: > The tag "cycleway=lane/track" already implies that the use of the > cycle way is compulsory. If there is no cycle way, you can add > cycleway=no, so that routers know that it's OK for bicyclist to use > that road and fellow mappers know, that i

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

@Hubert I fully agree in case of a separate cycleway or foot-cycleway. I would already consider a kerb as a physical separation. But the so called cycle lanes (only divided from the motorized traffic by a white line) should not be drawn as a separate way parallel to the street. And it's on these t

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

Can you give the query for this? The relation for Kent is 172385, and I want to retrieve the relations for the 12 Districts it contains. On 2015-11-27 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-11-27 12:02 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > >> One concrete use case is "return the boundary relations fo

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

2015-11-27 12:02 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > One concrete use case is "return the boundary relations for the > constituent parts of a given boundary relation", for example "all the > district councils in Kent" you can do this with overpass API (if all boundaries are mapped). Of course you should

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Hallo Volker. I'd advise you to map those cycle ways as separate osm ways, even if this is still globally disputed. AFAIK, it is quite common in the Netherlands and Poland. And I'm also a fan. :) The fragmentation of the main road way will multiply if you use many different tags like oneway, w

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

@Martin "loro riservate" (reserved for them): does this mean that combined > foot/cycleways are not compulsory, because they are not reserved for > bicycles? > These combined foot-cycle-ways in Italy are legally really pedestrian sidewalks on which cyclists are tolerated (implicit speed limit fo 1

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On 27. November 2015 10:51 Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] wrote: > translated: cyclists have to use cycleways, where they exist. It does not > address the question how > far away the cycleway can be from a parallel road. That simplifies the question a lot. The tag "cycleway=lane/tra

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Martin, one of the purposes of my detailed mapping (attempts) is that I want to produce a map that can be used to improve the cycling infrastructure in Padova and also to collect data that improve routing for cyclists. When you try to do that you realise al kinds of inconsistencies. You mention the

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-27 10:50 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt : > I velocipedi devono transitare sulle piste loro riservate quando esistono "loro riservate" (reserved for them): does this mean that combined foot/cycleways are not compulsory, because they are not reserved for bicycles? E.g. would it be compulsory t

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

So these tools are recursing down into relations which are members of the higher-level relation, and then recursing down again? Is that not configurable One concrete use case is "return the boundary relations for the constituent parts of a given boundary relation", for example "all the distric

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-27 10:50 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt : > I should have added at the beginning of this thread that I am looking, in > the first place, at the situation in Italy. > Here is what there is in terms of definition of compulsory cycleways in > Italy: > (articolo 182 comma 9 Codice della Strada) >

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

2015-11-27 10:54 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > Can you describe some *real problems* the use of "subarea" causes? Can you > provide any *workable* alternative for the parties which DO support its > use? I thought that the "O" stood for "Open". Mappers who don't know about > it just carry on. the re

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

Martin, I stated my point of view - I find it useful with clear added value. You "don't see the point". Fair enough, we don't have to agree. Can you describe some *real problems* the use of "subarea" causes? Can you provide any *workable* alternative for the parties which DO support its use? I

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

can you define what a compulsory cycle lane means? Is it that when cycling > on the road you have to use this lane? Or that you aren't allowed to use > any other nearby way if you are on a bike? How far is the range of this > prescription? > I should have added at the beginning of this thread that

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

2015-11-26 21:12 GMT+01:00 André Pirard : > It is even mandatory when you have to make nested boundaries that have no > admin_level like the two boundary systems we have in Belgium (political and > linguistic). can you give an example how this is modeled, e.g. a relation in osm? Having 2 kind

Re: [Tagging] boundary relations and the subarea property

2015-11-26 20:24 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale : > I use the subarea member because it makes cross-checking easy. Have all > the lower-level boundaries in my higher-level admin area been added to OSM? what comes next? Have all the roads in a given administrative area listed with an "administrates" role