>
> I suspect that either seamark:light:range or seamark:type tag is wrong
> there - but maybe my understanding of seamark:type=light_major/minor is
> wrong?
>
I think it's one of those things that don't have a firm definition?
Did some checking & found:
"All lighted aids to navigation are eithe
There are 17912 objects tagged with "seamark:light:range" in our data. Not
a single one has a unit. They all seem to be in international nautical
miles. Do we add " nmi" to all of them? On the one hand being explicit
seems like the better solutio. On the other hand, who's going to do it in
a verif
Boxed springs like the one you show in your first photo I typically tag as a
spring (natural=spring). The photo on the wiki page for natural=spring is much
like the one you posted.
I usually add a direction=bearing|north|south|east|west so that my topo map
rendering can show what way the spring
While we're on the topic, one thing that's puzzled me how to tag:
On the hiking trails in my part of the world, the volunteers have
constructed a number of piped springs. A typical one looks like
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/6936811420
They may be built by making a stone or concrete box a
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2018-January/018279.html
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Andy Mabbett
wrote:
> On 8 January 2018 at 23:39, Kevin Kenny
> wrote:
>
> > Witness municipalities asking us to remove their
> > streets from the map
>
> When & where did that happen?
>
>
As it is a measure of distance then the default unit is km
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units).
You can use other units if you want by adding the unit (mi = miles nmi =
nautical miles ' = feet).
On 10/01/18 09:32, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
What is the unit of seamark:ligh
W dniu 10.01.2018 o 02:02, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze:
Still, I wouldn’t consider these sufficiently important to merit rendering of
every water tap on osm carto, especially as water taps aren’t particularly rare
in gardens or at petrol stations.
In cases when objects that are important outdoo
sent from a phone
> On 10. Jan 2018, at 01:25, Daniel Koć wrote:
>
> It was mentioned many times that we care about drinking water, however I
> think it's too narrow point of view - washing, watering the garden or using
> for the car engine cooling can be also important, especially in the ou
What is the difference between seamark:type=light_minor and
seamark:type=light_major? Is light visible from 2 nautical miles
"short-range light"? What about 5? 10?
"A major light is a light that is intended to be seen at extended
distances and will indicate the presence of prominent land masses or
W dniu 09.01.2018 o 21:45, Mateusz Konieczny pisze:
My interpretation is that:
amenity=water_point
amenity=drinking_water
mark place used to get water, synonymous for most purposes
- but amenity=water_point may be used also to supply large volume of
water.
I don't think they are synonymous
On 8 January 2018 at 23:39, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> Witness municipalities asking us to remove their
> streets from the map
When & where did that happen?
[off-topic for the tagging list, so please feel free to point me to an
alternative venue]
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.
W dniu 09.01.2018 o 22:50, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze:
We also show amenity=fountain.
there’s also waterway=water_point and there are the drinking_water and
drinkable properties. And man_made=water_tank, landuse=reservoir and there’s
bottled water of course.
Yeah, I know that one can catch a
Use:
amenity=water_point
fee=yes
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 6:20 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> On 10 January 2018 at 08:52, Daniel Koć wrote:
>
>> W dniu 09.01.2018 o 23:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick pisze:
>>
>> It's a generic "key with multiple values" problem, which is as bad as
>> with any other
On 10 January 2018 at 08:52, Daniel Koć wrote:
> W dniu 09.01.2018 o 23:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick pisze:
>
> It's a generic "key with multiple values" problem, which is as bad as with
> any other multiple similar items.
>
> You can simply use vending=ice_cubes;water , you may try something like:
>
>
On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:37:26PM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 07-Jan-18 09:59 AM, Richard wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 07:19:31AM +1100, Warin wrote:
> >
> >>2) I have not put in any examples - just placed the birthing, decay and
> >>repurpose categories on the main page.
> >>
> >>I hoped to
A lot of good food for thought, be it in favor or not in favor of mapping it.
Thanks for the feedback.
I could see room for mapping, potentially in great details even (e.g. is there
under-water exploration, cave exploration, toxic material detected, what kind
of hazards you could be exposed to,
W dniu 09.01.2018 o 23:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick pisze:
Carrying on from that, it would actually be a vending machine=water as
well, not a water_point, because it's selling water, not providing it
for free?
It's a generic "key with multiple values" problem, which is as bad as
with any other mul
On 09/01/2018 22:32, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
What is the unit of seamark:light:range? It is not explicitly defined
athttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Lights
Nautical Miles
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.
On 10 January 2018 at 08:32, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> What is the unit of seamark:light:range? It is not explicitly defined
> at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Lights
It *should* be nautical miles, as all marine distances are supposed to be
measured in nm.
__
Le 09. 01. 18 à 23:29, Fernando Trebien a écrit :
> Verdy_p in the wiki though presents a scenario
Philippe loves to complicate situations to the point of rendering them
unusable.
> difficult to know when passengers can really aboard/alight at a stop.
> If one goes from points A to B to C to D,
What is the unit of seamark:light:range? It is not explicitly defined
at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/Lights
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:NKA/seamark_import mentions
that this import used nautical miles as units, the smae is done at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ta
Yes, I just found that out. So I apologize for the spamming here.
Verdy_p in the wiki though presents a scenario in which it would be
difficult to know when passengers can really aboard/alight at a stop.
If one goes from points A to B to C to D, then back to C, and
passengers can only board/alight
On 10 January 2018 at 08:18, Daniel Koć wrote:
> This looks like a vending machine to me in the first place:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:vending%3Dice_cubes
>
Thanks, hadn't seen that one before.
Carrying on from that, it would actually be a vending machine=water as
well, not a
This looks like a vending machine to me in the first place:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:vending%3Dice_cubes
W dniu 09.01.2018 o 22:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick pisze:
Would the same, or similar, tags apply to provision of ice?
We have a number of these kiosks in our area:
https://www.g
On 10-Jan-18 08:50 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 9. Jan 2018, at 18:21, Daniel Koć wrote:
Currently we show only amenity=drinking_water, but there are also:
- man_made=water_tap
- amenity=water_point
- man_made=water_well (including optional tag pump=powered/manual)
Would the same, or similar, tags apply to provision of ice?
We have a number of these kiosks in our area:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0965236,153.4425271,3a,37.5y,112.37h,89.59t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJC-ffIVL-FDINVBfzVRg-w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DJC-ffIVL-FDINVBfzVRg-w%26
sent from a phone
> On 9. Jan 2018, at 18:21, Daniel Koć wrote:
>
> Currently we show only amenity=drinking_water, but there are also:
>
> - man_made=water_tap
> - amenity=water_point
> - man_made=water_well (including optional tag pump=powered/manual)
We also show amenity=fountain.
there’
On 9 January 2018 at 19:57, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> I was about to fix a mistake I caused in the map due to these
> contradictions in the wiki, then I found a problematic case [1].
>
> According to PTv2, this route needs to be broken into two, one per
> direction, and a route_master relation mus
On 10-Jan-18 08:30 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:00:27 +1100
Andrew Harvey wrote:
So the function of a water tap is primarily to attach a hose to
I would not expect this. I mapped some water taps and none would be
used as source of water for hose.
__
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 08:00:27 +1100
Andrew Harvey wrote:
> So the function of a water tap is primarily to attach a hose to
I would not expect this. I mapped some water taps and none would be
used as source of water for hose.
___
Tagging mailing list
Ta
On 10-Jan-18 05:13 AM, marc marc wrote:
Hello,
Le 09. 01. 18 à 18:21, Daniel Koć a écrit :
- man_made=water_tap
- amenity=water_point
after reading the wiki again and using overpass, it look like that :
water_tap give small amount of water (only in public location) that can
be drinkable of n
On January 8, 2018 11:39:51 PM GMT+00:00, Kevin Kenny
wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>
>wrote:
>
>> are we encouraging / supporting / recommending something because we
>map
>> it?
>>
>
>Some seem to think so. Witness municipalities asking us to remove their
>streets
Even though the reply was in the wiki and not here, I think this
should be considered by those interested in the problem:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Public_Transport#route.2Fforward.2Fbackward_and_special_scenarios
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Fernando Trebien
w
See also
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-November/034023.html.
My comments were:
I agree it's confusing. On one reading of the wiki man_made=water _tap with
amenity=drinking_water would mean the exactly the same as man_made=water_tap +
drinking_water=yes.
On the other hand
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 18:21:58 +0100
Daniel Koć wrote:
> Currently we show only amenity=drinking_water, but there are also:
>
> - man_made=water_tap
> - amenity=water_point
> - man_made=water_well (including optional tag pump=powered/manual)
>
> How they all relate to each other?
My interpretatio
This would result in several different stops reasonably far away from
each other having the same name. Doable, but probably confusing for
map users. For instance, all those located in "Downtown" would be
named "Downtown".
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:09 PM, marc marc wrote:
> use the name the operato
use the name the operator use to talk about this stop.
sometime the name of a bus stop is "downtown" or the hamlet name or
"terminal, city"
Le 09. 01. 18 à 20:40, Fernando Trebien a écrit :
> Well, I should probably start a separate topic on this, but where I
> live most bus terminals have no nam
Hallo.
There is no life without water. I think that amenity=drinking-water is the
most-valuable tag that we deal with. It was created and comes to the map in
a natural way which can be seen in http://taghistory.raifer.tech/
(drinking_water is the opposite of waste water).
Where can we get the wate
So these roles should not be forbidden, at most they should be
inadvisable unless necessary.
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> Fernando Trebien wrote:
>>
>>
>> According to PTv2, this route needs to be broken into two, one per
>> direction, and a route_master relation must be c
Well, I should probably start a separate topic on this, but where I
live most bus terminals have no name and the public administration
reports general descriptive directions (such as "downtown" and
"suburb"). Does that mean that from and to should be blank on those
relations? Or should the local co
Fernando Trebien wrote:
According to PTv2, this route needs to be broken into two, one per
direction, and a route_master relation must be created for them.
Without the forward/backward roles, I believe applications will not be
able to easily find out the direction of travel of either since the
r
app can use from+to to choice with relation to use in each direction.
of course de from match the first stop, and to the last stop.
I don't understand what's the problem.
NB: roundtrip=yes mean a circular route, it's not the case of ours.
Le 09. 01. 18 à 19:57, Fernando Trebien a écrit :
> I was
I was about to fix a mistake I caused in the map due to these
contradictions in the wiki, then I found a problematic case [1].
According to PTv2, this route needs to be broken into two, one per
direction, and a route_master relation must be created for them.
Without the forward/backward roles, I b
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> +1 as well. As an active explorer, I wouldn't encourage mapping those.
> It has no use outside the very close and sometimes closed community, which
> has many means (fora, facebook pages) to share those locations.
>
> Also, most urban explorers
On 09-01-18 08:01, Michal Fabík wrote:
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 1:35 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
Should it be mapped at all?
Hi,
I don't think it should be mapped. I used to take part in it years ago
and I can tell you that the environments where UrbEx can be practiced
are so highl
Hello,
Le 09. 01. 18 à 18:21, Daniel Koć a écrit :
> - man_made=water_tap
> - amenity=water_point
after reading the wiki again and using overpass, it look like that :
water_tap give small amount of water (only in public location) that can
be drinkable of not.
water_point give a larger amount o
It seems like other people have faced this problem before [1]. The link
provided by JOSM developers refers to the text in the proposal, not to the
main article [3] nor the more specific route type articles.
[1] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/13768
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Prop
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:13 AM, Tijmen Stam wrote:
> In PTv2 only a few roles are acceptable: stop and platform (and the
> equivalents stop_exit_only and stop_entry_only) for stops and platforms,
> and _no role_ for the ways in the route.
In that case, the article on route relations [1] should b
Hi,
We're currently trying to add new icons for water sources on osm-carto
and this time it seems that proposed shapes are nice in my opinion, but
we're not sure what's the difference between some popular tagging schemes.
Currently we show only amenity=drinking_water, but there are also:
- m
> Very well. It seems to me that a role such as "route" in PTv1 exists
> only for clarity, as it would be equivalent to an empty role. Could we
> say that "forward" also can be optionally added in PTv2 for clarity?
No.
The forward/backward is not relative to the direction of the _route_, but
rela
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 1:14 PM, marc marc wrote:
> if it is a specialized place for urbex training, it is interesting to
> add leisure=urban_exploration and/or urbex=yes
I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as "urbex training". Urbex is
essentially climbing over rusted chain-link fences, walking
it depends on what it is.
if it is a specialized place for urbex training, it is interesting to
add leisure=urban_exploration and/or urbex=yes.
if it is to describe that this place is usable in urbex as half the city
or is likely to host activities often illegally, I find it inappropriate
to add
Very well. It seems to me that a role such as "route" in PTv1 exists
only for clarity, as it would be equivalent to an empty role. Could we
say that "forward" also can be optionally added in PTv2 for clarity?
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 9:34 AM, marc marc wrote:
> in PTv1, one relation is used for all
in PTv1, one relation is used for all forward and backward route.
therefore ways that is in use only in one-way route must have
forward/backward role.
in PTv2, the previous relation is splited in 2 relations. one with all
ways used in forward, another with all way used in backward (and we
group
The article on route relations [1] doesn't make any distinction
between PT versions regarding those member roles. If the answer would
be different in each case, then I'd like to make the difference
explicit in the wiki, at least while PTv1 is still acceptable
(probably for a long time).
On Mon, Ja
On 09-Jan-18 10:41 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Having said that, yes, we should be mapping some dangerous areas (mine
shafts & minefields are 2 that come to mind), but as a warning to not
go there.
I know of one minefield area that is mapped the same way westerners map
speed cameras
+1 for Michal's thoughts.
Thus not mapping it explicitly. Whoever wants to find spots suitable for
Urbex should
look for ruins/abandoned etc.
Regards
Moritz
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
57 matches
Mail list logo
