Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal – Library Types

sent from a phone > On 3 Aug 2025, at 05:40, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Does access=yes refer to the means of transport that I can use to enter the > library? For example it could mean that I can enter on wheelchair or bicycle. > Does not sound right to me. No, it does not mean which means

Re: [Tagging] railway=subway_entrance vs railway=train_station_entrance

sent from a phone > On 21 Jun 2025, at 09:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Subway, Metro stations I would take as being underground stations. > The other tag is not specific as to being above ground or under ground. subways are also not specific as to being below ground, overgroun

Re: [Tagging] [Voting] Feature Proposal – Deprecate crossing=zebra in favor of crossing:markings

sent from a phone > On 11 May 2025, at 09:11, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > I do not understand difference between "zebra crossing" and "crossing with > zebra markings" > (I know that there is supposedly difference between crossing=zebra and > "crossing with zebra markings" but

Re: [Tagging] [Voting] Feature Proposal – Deprecate crossing=zebra in favor of crossing:markings

sent from a phone > On 11 May 2025, at 07:43, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > note that "crossing=uncontrolled" is not for uncontrolled crossings in their > common meaning > (one more reason to get rid of crossing= key altogether) I thought the common meaning of uncontrolled cro

Re: [Tagging] place=neighbourhood vs landuse=residential

sent from a phone > On 8 May 2025, at 22:59, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > The real North America is messy and inconsistent. Europe has been urbanized > and enclosed for a couple of thousand years longer than the US and has had a > lot more time to tidy up the messes in the field - making it much ea

Re: [Tagging] place=neighbourhood vs landuse=residential

sent from a phone > On 8 May 2025, at 02:29, Andrew Welch via Tagging > wrote: > > To add to this, you can also do a boundary relation with boundary=place to > map the area if it's clearly defined as well. you can do it, but admittedly it is not very common yet, 10,600 such tags, vs. 1.4 m

Re: [Tagging] place=neighbourhood vs landuse=residential

sent from a phone > On 7 May 2025, at 21:34, Evan Carroll wrote: > > Predominantly, doesn't mean exclusively. Schools and parks are fine for > landuse residential. Moreover, _some_ commercial use is even fine for > landuse=residential (though I would never do it) it is all a question of sca

Re: [Tagging] place=neighbourhood vs landuse=residential

sent from a phone > On 7 May 2025, at 17:41, Evan Carroll wrote: > > You're never going to get people to stop using "landuse=residential; name=x". 7.8% of residential landuse objects in OpenStreetMap have a name, 92% do not: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=residential#combinat

Re: [Tagging] place=neighbourhood vs landuse=residential

sent from a phone > On 7 May 2025, at 17:02, Evan Carroll wrote: > > Any ideas on firming this up? there are already many neighbourhoods on areas: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/place=neighbourhood generally, if we want to make it cleaner and give specific advice, I would suggest t

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] make water sources more usable by marking disused ones with lifecycle prefix, rather than extra tags like operational_status = out_of_order

sent from a phone > On 13 Apr 2025, at 19:10, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > > Then IMHO we have to fall back on common sense. Does this non-working water > point look like something that worked until recently and could be made to > work again? here’s an example: https://www.openstreetmap.

Re: [Tagging] MAST RELATION

sent from a phone > On 7 Mar 2025, at 21:16, Tobias Knerr wrote: > > Of course, another reason is that many mappers find relations hard to work > with. this also depends on the editing software. With “overlapping” nodes we loose topological information: that the signs are attached to the sa

[Tagging] VOTING was: [General talk/Tagging general discussion] [Voting] Feature Proposal – Education tag

-- Forwarded message - Von: Quincy Morgan via OpenStreetMap Community Forum < commun...@noreply.openstreetmap.org> Date: Do., 13. Feb. 2025 um 15:51 Uhr Subject: [General talk/Tagging general discussion] [Voting] Feature Proposal – Education tag To: quincylvania

Re: [Tagging] Roads with a postal_code each side

sent from a phone > On 20 Jan 2025, at 20:04, santamariense wrote: > > There are cases where streets are the boundaries and consequently each side > has a CEP, but as the examples above, each side has a different postal_code > precisely because CEP are tied to streets. if the whole admin ent

Re: [Tagging] Roads with a postal_code each side

are we going to split roads even for changing post codes along them? From my understanding, post codes are related to addresses, so the natural thing is to add them to addresses, roads don’t have addresses around here so I wouldn’t add post code information to them. _

Re: [Tagging] RFC: shared_green - pedestrians share green light with vehicles

sent from a phone > On 2 Dec 2024, at 13:21, Jeremy Harris wrote: > > No. You, as a mapper, would not. > Again: the database can do it. you as a mapper would have to query the db and interpret the results in case they are ambiguous. ___ Tagging m

Re: [Tagging] RFC: shared_green - pedestrians share green light with vehicles

sent from a phone > On 2 Dec 2024, at 00:52, Jeremy Harris wrote: > > Ah, but which "you"? Why not the OSM database (and it's up to > it how much of that parent-searching it pre-materializes) ? You would have to do this every time you map something, because it depends on this “inherited def

Re: [Tagging] RFC: shared_green - pedestrians share green light with vehicles

Am So., 1. Dez. 2024 um 13:41 Uhr schrieb Jeremy Harris : > On 01/12/2024 01:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > if you expect that vehicles share the green light with pedestrians, you > could tag shared_green=no where it isn’t the case. Ultimately sooner or > later people will tag

Re: [Tagging] RFC: shared_green - pedestrians share green light with vehicles

if you expect that vehicles share the green light with pedestrians, you could tag shared_green=no where it isn’t the case. Ultimately sooner or later people will tag both cases, to be “complete”… sent from a phone > On 30 Nov 2024, at 05:07, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > maybe ad

[Tagging] RFC: shared_green - pedestrians share green light with vehicles

I am asking for your comments for this proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Shared_green thank you ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Default access permission for indoor=area

Am Fr., 18. Okt. 2024 um 16:42 Uhr schrieb Marc_marc via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Le 15.10.24 à 16:29, Michael Tsang a écrit : > > how should I interpret the default access= value for indoor=area > > for routing purpose? > > we're not supposed to map private premises. > therefore i

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [RFC] Feature proposal - amenity=lounge

yes, absolutely, not every waiting area or waiting room is a lounge, still, nobody would go to such a lounge if they wouldn't have to wait for something, the only purpose is to make waiting a little more comfortable. The presence of seating (which I would usually expect for any waiting area, althou

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [RFC] Feature proposal - amenity=lounge

I think it would be covered also by this proposal, at least when you think about "lounges" at the airport or trainstations, while "lounges" in dancing clubs and similar not so much: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Waiting_area or this one: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal

Re: [Tagging] maxweight : x tons exept for bus

Am Mo., 9. Sept. 2024 um 10:55 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > It has nothing to do with the vehicle specification. > > The sign is there to stop the destruction of the way through overloading > the structure, thus an unload hgv may meet the required weight limit and > use the way, bu

[Tagging] VOTING, Fwd: [General talk/Tagging general discussion] Proposal to replace `denomination=mormon` with `denomination=latter-day_saint`

sent from a phone Begin forwarded message: > From: dknelson9876 via OpenStreetMap Community Forum > > Date: 14 August 2024 at 04:44:16 CEST > To: > Subject: [General talk/Tagging general discussion] Proposal to replace > `denomination=mormon` with `denomination=latter-day_saint` > Reply-To:

[Tagging] RFC: deprecate cycleway=shared (forwarded)

crossposting on behalf of tordans: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/rfc-feature-proposal-deprecate-cycleway-shared/116579 Hello! I am looking into deprecating cycleway=shared (notshared_lane). Please find the proposal at Proposal:Deprecate cycleway=shared - OpenStreetMap Wiki I sugges

[Tagging] [Voting] (Post-comment changes) Add ability to specify ordering-only phone number, sms-only phone numbers and related tags

forwarding on behalf of Jason, Begin forwarded message: > From: Jason Olshefsky via OpenStreetMap Community Forum > > Date: 16 July 2024 at 04:26:10 CEST > To: dieterdre...@gmail.com > Subject: [General talk/Tagging general discussion] [Voting] (Post-comment > changes) Add ability to specify or

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Deprecate crossing=zebra in favor of crossing:markings

sent from a phone > On 28 Jun 2024, at 21:15, Mark Wagner wrote: > > at the current pace, the specific combination of > "crossing=uncontrolled, crossing:markings=zebra" is probably going to > have double the usage of "crossing=zebra" by the end of the year. that’s possible, just currently bo

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Deprecate crossing=zebra in favor of crossing:markings

sent from a phone > On 28 Jun 2024, at 17:52, bauer3--- via Tagging > wrote: > > I would like to introduce my proposal to deprecate crossing=zebra and replace > the instances with the nowadays more popular alternative of > crossing:markings=zebra and crossing=uncontrolled. it is almos

Re: [Tagging] Two way street, but entry of motor vehicles blocked at one end. Relation correct? Tagging correct?

sent from a phone > On 23 Jun 2024, at 12:35, Greg Troxel wrote: > > So I think you should absolutely have the oneway section, even if you > also add another tag. Unless of course there is evidence that the large > majority of routers would do the right thing. there is no oneway section be

Re: [Tagging] Two way street, but entry of motor vehicles blocked at one end. Relation correct? Tagging correct?

sent from a phone > On 1 Jun 2024, at 19:55, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > yes, but tagging very short stretch of road (say 3m where it is not connected > to anything) > conveys the same info without using relations it is tagging for the router, you add a oneway restriction

Re: [Tagging] Two way street, but entry of motor vehicles blocked at one end. Relation correct? Tagging correct?

Am Di., 21. Mai 2024 um 15:01 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > In such case I would typically place such tags on > a short section (meter or two) of way near end where > such restriction is applied. > the restriction is not applied to a section, it is app

Re: [Tagging] Two way street, but entry of motor vehicles blocked at one end. Relation correct? Tagging correct?

sent from a phone > On 20 May 2024, at 21:57, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > I tried that, but could not get the from, via and to nodes to work out. create a node at the actual start of the crossing street (some meters away from the crossing of the center ways) and split it there, that’s your vi

Re: [Tagging] Two way street, but entry of motor vehicles blocked at one end. Relation correct? Tagging correct?

there is also restriction=no_entry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] voting shop=tortilla

sent from a phone > On 11 May 2024, at 23:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > If you do, I will appreciate it if you comment in this thread that you did > crosspost my call for votes on the proposal. I sent it to the tagging ml ___

[Tagging] voting shop=tortilla

forwarding this from the forum: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/voting-feature-proposal-shop-tortilla/113059 Voting will start tomorrow for shop=tortilla at the proposal page. I am not familiar with mailing lists, so, please, cross post this announcement on the tagging mailing list on my

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Industrial tagging scheme complementing man made=works (was:works:type and works:process)

sent from a phone > On 3 May 2024, at 15:39, Daniel Evans wrote: > > This proposal has now been updated on feedback, both here and on the talk page thank you for working on this, the current improvements are promising, I think you could work a little bit on the page structure, now there are

Re: [Tagging] breads of bakeries

Am Fr., 3. Mai 2024 um 14:09 Uhr schrieb Zoon van Michiel < spaanse@gmail.com>: > What is the benefit of putting the breads a bakery sells into OSM? > Otherwise, bread is just bread. I will choose the variety I like best when > I get there. That even bakers might not advertise which sort

Re: [Tagging] breads of bakeries

I agree for specific types of bread, but maybe we can have "classes" of breads, if that makes sense. Personally, when going into a bakery I am interested in the quality of the bread more than the exact type. Typically I would ask "do you have bread made of natural sourdough" and the answers will va

Re: [Tagging] breads of bakeries

what about sells:bread=X;Y;Z (xyz being bread types) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

Am Di., 30. Apr. 2024 um 01:47 Uhr schrieb Juan Pablo Tolosa Sanzana < jptolosanz...@outlook.cl>: > It has no sense to inflating classifications of every island in the word > for being the most important road in respective island. > > If a neighbor garage is more quieter than the mine is not a jus

Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags

Am Di., 30. Apr. 2024 um 10:54 Uhr schrieb Szem : > There was a similar conversation in the Hungarian community as well. I > would like to ask what you think about such (and similar) official bicycle > route signs: > > https://www.google.hu/maps/@47.4675022,18.8055463,3a,35.3y,85.25h,81.51t/data=!

Re: [Tagging] Difference between "yes" and "designated" in access tags

sent from a phone > On 30 Apr 2024, at 08:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > >> In fact, some bicycle trails are signed where >> cycling is illegal > > So does that then make it legal? no, in Germany it also happens from time to time that we discover signposted bicycle routes where cycling i

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

Am Mo., 29. Apr. 2024 um 16:25 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > (second note also may benefit from fix as the most important in > Vatican is not highway=trunk - though again, maybe it can be avoided > via "Vatican has no road network system"). > the Vatic

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

Am Mo., 29. Apr. 2024 um 16:06 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien < fernando.treb...@gmail.com>: > > why you think that place=hamlet are automatically entitled to > > highway=tertiary? > > The wiki emphasizes the highway classification should consider the > relative importance of roads within regional c

Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

Am Mo., 29. Apr. 2024 um 09:47 Uhr schrieb Jo : > I was wondering about that myself. They seem to be 'long' steps. So a > horse wouldn't have too much trouble with them. > there is this property which might be applying: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flat_steps

Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

Am So., 28. Apr. 2024 um 16:40 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend : > Assuming we're talking about something that's signed as a "Public > Bridleway" in England and Wales*, then at the most basic level there are > two tags to consider: > >- highway=steps >- designation=public_bridleway > > The first

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - works:type and works:process

sent from a phone > On 28 Apr 2024, at 19:58, Daniel Evans wrote: > I've seen "industry=" proposed/discussed before, with the big problem that > it's very close to the existing "industrial" tag, and it would likely be too > confusing if they had different meanings (one for land use, one for

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - works:type and works:process

sent from a phone > On 27 Apr 2024, at 10:55, Daniel Evans wrote: > > works:industry= is an option which is much clearer about exactly what the tag > means. Does that sound good to you? it is fine, maybe also just “industry”? There are a few hundred of them but not so much with works: http

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

apart from the usefulness in routing (as there aren’t alternatives it doesn’t matter for routing if a road on antarctica is unclassified or primary, and usual time estimates would generally not be useful in this particular context and also likely more depend on the vehicle than the “road”), the

Re: [Tagging] Direct reduced iron plants

sent from a phone > On 26 Apr 2024, at 14:34, Daniel Evans wrote: > > Thanks. I have been partly lost between some competing (but perhaps poorly > supported) proposals which suggested more focus on making the `industrial=` > tag more detailed. I'll give some thought to what a sequence of `wo

Re: [Tagging] Direct reduced iron plants

sent from a phone > On 26 Apr 2024, at 13:11, Daniel Evans wrote: > > It sounds like your feeling is that the tagging of industrial sites should be > closer to power=plant and the associated plant:x tags. I say it already is like this. The meaning of landuse=industrial is land used for in

Re: [Tagging] Direct reduced iron plants

sent from a phone > On 26 Apr 2024, at 09:30, Daniel Evans wrote: > > Differentiating with different `product=` values doesn't seem sensible - both > types of works "produce steel", and getting into specific types of steel > doesn't help. The two `landuse=industrial + industrial=x` tags do a

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

sent from a phone > On 25 Apr 2024, at 09:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > By established conventions of functional road tagging in OSM these would > almost all be service roads (no through-traffic to other destinations than > the ones the route ends at). this is also the case with some mo

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

to be more concrete, I think for an important link like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole_Traverse highway=primary would be appropriate. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

Am Mi., 24. Apr. 2024 um 16:33 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien < fernando.treb...@gmail.com>: > As Antarctica is international space,[1] I understand that, in > principle, the highway classification scheme of no particular country > applies there. Generally, highway classification is not done base

Re: [Tagging] traffic_signs: human readable values vs. ISO and law codes

Am Mo., 15. Apr. 2024 um 12:33 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > > It seems really obvious that normalized osm words and CC:codepoint are > different things and belong in different keys. > they are both ways to refer to a traffic sign, you do not have to know they are "CC:codepoint" values, you can ju

Re: [Tagging] traffic_signs: human readable values vs. ISO and law codes

sent from a phone > On 15 Apr 2024, at 07:37, yo paseopor wrote: > > It is not a big problem...except they are using the same key. it is not a problem, as long as the values describe a traffic sign. It means parsing doesn’t become even slightly more laborious, as a datauser you have to parse

Re: [Tagging] The reason to not use loc_name is far too subjective.

sent from a phone > On 27 Mar 2024, at 20:36, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > > what determines the cut off point for a name being too "slangy"? the “what” is harder to generalize, but the “who” is pretty clear: the local mapper decides this ___ Ta

Re: [Tagging] shops for display

sent from a phone > On 22 Nov 2023, at 18:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > I would consider it more as device than showroom can you provide a dictionary definition for “device” that could refer to a room? Because the ones I looked at wouldn’t fit. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] shops for display

Am Mi., 22. Nov. 2023 um 17:12 Uhr schrieb Anne- Karoline Distel : > > My case was where you can't enter the premises, it's really just displaying > goods or even (slightly different) displaying contact details for the > business which has moved to the outskirts of town. yes, your thread was so

Re: [Tagging] shops for display

sent from a phone > On 21 Nov 2023, at 21:42, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > > With more stuff being sold online, we will probably see more showrooms, > and I think we should have a way to tell users if they can buy anything > at a shop, or it is just a showroom yes, this is a good idea. The

Re: [Tagging] shops for display

sent from a phone > On 21 Nov 2023, at 12:47, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > The wiki for Tesla says that Tesla showrooms are tagged shop=car > A lot of shop=kitchen are really showrooms where you can order a > kitchen which will be installed in you kitchen. The shop do not actually > have kitch

Re: [Tagging] shops for display

sent from a phone > On 20 Nov 2023, at 20:59, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > > Hi, > > is there a way to tag shops that are not used for selling goods > directly, but are just used for display for the actual shop or even to > advertise something different? Here in Ireland, I think they are of

[Tagging] voting for highway=ladder has ended

Hi, just a short headsup that voting is ended now, the proposal was approved with 95% of votes: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Ladders I have created a page for the approved feature: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dladder Cheers, Martin __

[Tagging] Voting highway=ladder

Voting is now open for highway=ladder https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Ladders Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

sent from a phone > On 20 Oct 2023, at 10:23, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > maybe just removing this bad advise without proposal would be a good idea +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.or

[Tagging] RFC Ladders

Please comment on the proposal for highway=ladder https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Ladders ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Millstone

Am Mi., 27. Sept. 2023 um 10:32 Uhr schrieb Mitchel van Duuren < mitchelvanduu...@hotmail.com>: > This proposal suggests the addition of a new tag to represent historic or > decommissioned millstones found worldwide within the OpenStreetMap > database: historic=millstone. > I think it is genera

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:

sent from a phone > On 17 Sep 2023, at 20:25, Mark Wagner wrote: > > was it deliberately pulled over by a snowmobiler > (thus, "vandalized:") if you don’t know it you can remain on the save side and put “destroyed“ because this is what you see. It doesn’t mean there aren’t lots of other si

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:

sent from a phone > On 17 Sep 2023, at 14:12, Marc_marc wrote: > > If you're not there at the precise moment of the change of state, > the only thing you can see is that the bench is no longer there > or isn't in a working state anymore maybe, but there might be other ways to learn how it wa

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

sent from a phone > On 11 Sep 2023, at 08:39, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > foot:oneway=yes / oneway:foot=yes? as „oneway“ is defined for vehicles only, „oneway:foot“ doesn’t make a lot of sense. The wiki suggests „foot:backward“ or „foot:forward“ as alternatives that follow the generic wa

Re: [Tagging] cancelling proposal

Am Mi., 6. Sept. 2023 um 19:46 Uhr schrieb Anne-Karoline Distel < annekadis...@web.de>: > I've decided to cancel the proposal I started on August 22 in favour of > using the vending machine option in combination with fee=no instead. I am thinking about using natural=bay with water=no for some n

[Tagging] [RFC] Historic main tag for defensive works

forwarding by request. Begin forwarded message: > From: Casper Kersten via OpenStreetMap Community Forum > > Date: 20 July 2023 at 13:41:38 CEST > > Reply-To: OpenStreetMap Community Forum > > >  > Friendly_Ghost Casper Kersten > July 20 > Hello friends, > > I wrote a short proposa

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Wave Lounger

sent from a phone > On 3 Jul 2023, at 01:27, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Ah, but is that frame, material or surface? :-) frankly I believe this level of detail would be overdoing it. Feel free to develop any scheme you feel suits well. If I wanted to tag more detail, priority would be „mat

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Wave Lounger

https://i.etsystatic.com/26861520/r/il/09aa34/3144992841/il_1140xN.3144992841_ps9i.jpg___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Wave Lounger

sent from a phone > On 2 Jul 2023, at 20:19, Asa Hundert wrote: > > I'd have to propose to deprecate the uses on areas > that allows for such atrocities as "amenity=lounger; surface=grass". I don’t think this would be suitable tagging for a Liegewiese (habe recently seen such a sign in the

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

sent from a phone > On 26 Jun 2023, at 20:50, Minh Nguyen wrote: > > For what it's worth, the Sporting Goods Retailers subindustry in NAICS > includes "gun shops". what’s the category for multi role combat aircraft or heavy battletanks? ___ Tag

Re: [Tagging] Tag which restaurant or cafe allows bringing your own food or drink?

sent from a phone > On 25 Jun 2023, at 18:11, Timeo Gut wrote: > > Other than the obvious yes/no we should also have a value to indicate that a > place generally allows outside food but charges a fee for bringing particular > items. this is something typical also in Italy: people bring th

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

sent from a phone > On 24 Jun 2023, at 00:29, Minh Nguyen wrote: > > But if we focus too pedantically on legal status at the expense of common > sense, then we've reinvented designation=*, and mappers and data consumers > have to find yet another key to express what could've been in highway

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

sent from a phone > On 23 Jun 2023, at 16:13, Greg Troxel wrote: > > My point is that a tag defines a semantic concept and that we should strive > to have it mean that concept everywhere. That is the point, so that data > consumers can use it. agreed. The problems for example arise bec

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

Am Do., 22. Juni 2023 um 14:41 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > > Suppose in some other country, bakery is a term that means a shop that > primarly sells sausages. We wouldn't say that this should be > amenity=bakery. this is why we have agreed to use English words. A "bakery" in English is a place

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

Am Do., 22. Juni 2023 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano < zelonew...@gmail.com>: > > yes, but motorway is an exception because it is usually defined by signs >> rather than characteristics (e.g. if the signs are missing but it looks and >> feels like, we use motorroad=yes in some countries

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

sent from a phone > On 22 Jun 2023, at 00:43, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Generally, yes, I'd however not invoke the law at this point - I'd say a > shop=firearms is whatever locals would call a firearms shop, if that term is > used locally. agreed > > Generally speaking I object to an one

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

sent from a phone > On 21 Jun 2023, at 15:52, Greg Troxel wrote: > > It is absolutely the wrong thing to say that shop=firearms means "a shop > that sells whatever the local law means by firearms". This is a > general principle in OSM that we define something and then expect > mappers to use

Re: [Tagging] shop=gun shop=guns shop=weapons shop=firearms

sent from a phone > On 21 Jun 2023, at 13:10, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I note the absence of 'fire' in the above definitions. Explosions can be had > from compressed gas doesn’t seem to cover electromagnetic weapons, or does it? ___ T

Re: [Tagging] navigational aid relation

Am Sa., 17. Juni 2023 um 21:48 Uhr schrieb Minh Nguyen < m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>: > You're quite fortunate that the meaning of an address is unambiguous in > Italy. At least you can be sure that a pedestrian route will lead to the > main entrance, even if other modes aren't as well-served.

Re: [Tagging] What separator do you use for multiple value

sent from a phone > On 15 Jun 2023, at 09:41, Simon Poole wrote: > >  >> Am 14.06.2023 um 11:26 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: >> ...for housenumbers periods are an alternative to semicolons. > You probably wanted to write "commas", periods are not in use

Re: [Tagging] What separator do you use for multiple value

sent from a phone > On 14 Jun 2023, at 11:15, _ _ wrote: > > What separator do you use, and what advantage do they have over the others? the semicolon is standard for most cases, for multilingual names dashes and slashes are in use, for housenumbers periods are an alternative to semicolons

Re: [Tagging] road accident memorials

sent from a phone > On 10 Jun 2023, at 17:58, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > > I don't know if > wayside_cross is used for this in some instances, for example, which > IMHO it shouldn't be agreed. One tag I am aware of in this context is memorial=ghost_bike https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/t

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bbq without grill/grate ?

sent from a phone > On 10 Jun 2023, at 00:13, Matija Nalis > wrote: > > I think in such vandalized case it would be better tagged as > disused:amenity=bbq or abandoned:amenity=bbq there is also fireplace as tag ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@op

Re: [Tagging] Coach parking

sent from a phone > On 9 Jun 2023, at 12:56, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The difference between a coach and a bus? > > A 'coach' is intended for long distance transport - so more comfortable, > provision for luggage and possibly an on board toilet. yes, but this is a distincti

Re: [Tagging] Coach parking

sent from a phone > On 9 Jun 2023, at 12:04, Greg Troxel wrote: > > I can't find it either. I remembered that JOSM presets have a lot more > detail than the wiki. But I checked, and I don't see anything about > "coaches" (which I think is the word in EU for what we Yanks would call > "bus",

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Extended playground equipment

sent from a phone > On 27 May 2023, at 08:45, Alex wrote: > > As a group of mappers who regularly map playgrounds, we are proposing more > values to the list of documented playground equipment to better map typical > devices that had no documented value before. > > https://wiki.openstreetma

Re: [Tagging] Picnic_table with barbecue table extension.

sent from a phone > On 22 May 2023, at 20:06, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > > I've a leisure=picnic_table but has an extended table top made of metal to > accommodate disposable barbecues. > > Can anybody recommend a sub-tag that's more descriptive than barbecue=yes? for the avoidance of

Re: [Tagging] Tagging proposal On Wheels app 1 - toilets wheelchair extra tags

Am Di., 16. Mai 2023 um 13:33 Uhr schrieb : > Hi everyone, > > > > As promised I will make separate emails with our tagging questions and > proposals that we want to add to OSM for our app. > > With our On Wheels app we give more objective information to wheelchair > users about dimensions of the

Re: [Tagging] Tag government equals emergency defintion

sent from a phone > On 15 May 2023, at 09:18, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tag it with office=government + government=emergency. " > > > One of 'my' cases are "Fire Control Centres" where directions are given to > bush fire fighters in the field. > > Thoughts??? I think this woul

Re: [Tagging] Help with new tags about wheelchair

sent from a phone > On 8 May 2023, at 10:39, Sebastian Felix Zappe > wrote: > > For example, a door width or step count should be tagged on the node that > represents the entrance door, not the café PoI node inside the building (or > worse, the building polygon) but this requires to conne

Re: [Tagging] roof:shape=pitched imprecise value ?

sent from a phone > On 20 Apr 2023, at 22:04, Marc_marc wrote: > > is roof:shape=pitched an imprecise value ? as you ask about imprecise, what about “round” or “many”? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/roof:shape#values___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] roof:shape=pitched imprecise value ?

sent from a phone > On 24 Apr 2023, at 16:03, Timothy Noname wrote: > > Probably a tagging error by someone who doesn't know the correct tags like > skillion and gabled. it’s probably a skillion roof, single pitch, wouldn’t expect a gabled or hipped roof, but who knows. It isn’t an “error”

Re: [Tagging] shop=screenprinting

sent from a phone > On 21 Apr 2023, at 16:26, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > shop=printing_on_objects ? seems more clear than shop=screenprinting screenprinting is about the specific technique, in Polish I think it is Druk sitowy I think if the shop is specialized in this kin

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >