Re: [Tagging] tourism=attraction

2016-07-18 Thread Daniel Koć
W dniu 18.07.2016 21:30, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a): what about making tourism=attraction a flag? Like attraction=yes/no or tourist_attraction=yes/no? It is already used a bit (among other, more popular types): http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/attraction=yes -- "Low, low, low..." [M.

Re: [Tagging] tourism=attraction

2016-07-18 Thread Volker Schmidt
Good idea! On 18 July 2016 at 21:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > what about making tourism=attraction a flag? Like attraction=yes/no or > tourist_attraction=yes/no? > > > Reason is that otherwise you can't flag stuff in the tourism namespace as > attractions > > > cheers, > Martin > ___

[Tagging] tourism=attraction

2016-07-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
what about making tourism=attraction a flag? Like attraction=yes/no or tourist_attraction=yes/no? Reason is that otherwise you can't flag stuff in the tourism namespace as attractions cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.or

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

2016-07-18 Thread Dirk
Hi Maarten, > I'm seeing some ways tagged with waterway=fairway in the Netherlands. I did this to mark fairways on lakes in simple way and to draw a navigable inland watrways network. These waterways should also have tags like motorboat=yes or CEMT=* to classify. Results can be seen on http://

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

2016-07-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2016-07-18 11:16 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring : > On 18/07/2016 10:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> in the more common natural, waterway, man_made etc. namespaces >> > > Indeed we do encourage the usage of mainstream OSM tags for all natural & > cultural/manmade objects. Where seamark tags are add

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

2016-07-18 Thread Malcolm Herring
On 18/07/2016 10:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: in the more common natural, waterway, man_made etc. namespaces Indeed we do encourage the usage of mainstream OSM tags for all natural & cultural/manmade objects. Where seamark tags are added to these objects, it should be only to indicate addit

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

2016-07-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2016-07-18 10:26 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring : > but like many other ill-fitting tag keys, we are stuck with it. I'm not sure we are stuck with it. Like other ill-fitting tag names we should try to fix it. A very small change and replacing "rk" with "p" would already be an improvement ("seamap:*"

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

2016-07-18 Thread Malcolm Herring
On 18/07/2016 08:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: why "seamark:*"? This is historical. At the beginning of nautical navigation mapping, it was buoys, beacons, lights, etc that were being mapped. As is usual with OSM mapping, feature creep set in to include all objects listed in the IHO catalog

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

2016-07-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2016-07-18 9:44 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring : > Yes: "seamark:type=fairway". Ideally on a polygon, but a linear way will > do. I know this has been discussed before, but as the issue persists, I'm mentioning it again: why "seamark:*"? Are there any plans to transition from "seamark:*" to differen

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

2016-07-18 Thread Malcolm Herring
On 18/07/2016 07:50, Volker Schmidt wrote: but they for sure must have same tags for that. Yes: "seamark:type=fairway". Ideally on a polygon, but a linear way will do. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.or