Re: [Tagging] Deprecate ref=* on ways

On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 9:33 PM Dave Swarthout wrote: > Did this conversation arise from my post about a ref being applied to a > motorway_link exit ramp? > > If so, this string is missing the point. > It was tangential. > I don't think anybody is advocating deprecating the ref tag. > I am. r

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate ref=* on ways

On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 7:56 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 6:37 PM Rob Savoye via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> Many are more than a few hundred meters sometimes many kilometers >> > Based on my experience this is true, and, as Rob has said, the name and >

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate ref=* on ways

On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 6:48 PM Rob Savoye via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > On 6/2/25 4:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to start formally deprecating ref=* on > ways. Ref to describe routes on ways violates the "

[Tagging] Deprecate ref=* on ways

On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 7:07 AM Greg Troxel wrote: > António Madeira via Tagging writes: > > > What I meant is that even if that "ref=49" is wrongly associated to > > It does seem like someone is adding incorrect refs based on a > misunderstanding, and it would be good to have that resolved. Peo

Re: [Tagging] Destination tagging of motorway links

On Sun, Jun 1, 2025 at 11:00 AM Dave Swarthout wrote: > > The original mapper tagged the exit ramps, i.e., the ways > immediately after the exit node (correctly tagged with ref=49, > highway=motorway_junction) with: > destination:ref=NY 78 > destination=Depew;Lockport > highway=motorway_link > ju

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

So, landuse is a cadastre tag. Here's an example of a good landuse polygon. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/899022804 Neighborhood is more of an administrative thing. Here's a good example of that: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12223441 They are not normally interchangeable. On W

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Median strip

recisely what I'm trying to deprecate since medians aren't driving > lanes (notice that shoulders don't count towards `lanes=*` either). > > > > > > -Original-Nachricht- > Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Median strip > Datum: 2025-02-14T20:03:02+01

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Median strip

On Fri, Feb 14, 2025, 12:07 Manuel B. wrote: > To avoid any sort of confusion out there: I'm specifically talking about > *flush* medians (one which can easily be repurposed into a driving lane), > not just the tagging of *any* highway median. Some image reference: > https://commons.wikimedia.org

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes vs cycleway:lanes and for which access values was "access:lanes" designed in mind

I'm not sure I see the point of cycleway:lanes. Bicycle lanes are lanes and should be included with the rest of the lane tagging orthogonally. On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 6:11 AM manuel.bin...@t-online.de < manuel.bin...@t-online.de> wrote: > This came up because when I documented "cycleway:lanes"[1

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

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:31 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17/10/23 23:22, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote: >> &g

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

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Presently, it's common for route relations to have names that violate > "name is only the name" and "name is not ref" and "name i

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

Presently, it's common for route relations to have names that violate "name is only the name" and "name is not ref" and "name is not description" rules for name=* tags. On Sun, Oct 8, 2023, 10:24 Volker Schmidt wrote: > Could you give some more examples to illustrate what the problem is that > y

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 8:07 AM Davidoskky via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > On 13/10/22 10:15, Warin wrote: > > I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment .. 'we' need a > > solution first before even thinking of depreciation. > > I do agree and appreciate this approach

Re: [Tagging] Continuous shoulder rumble strips (CSRS)

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 4:00 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > The OSM wiki page Traffic_calming defines > >- traffic_calming=rumble_strip > > > as a structure that crosses the road. It also says explicitly: > " Do not confu

Re: [Tagging] Continuous shoulder rumble strips (CSRS)

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 10:27 AM Jeremy Harris wrote: > On 20/12/2020 16:07, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Is there a tagging scheme for these bicycle killers > > ? > > I have encountered them on freeways and other major roads that allow > > c

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Re: "If only we could be this nimble on long standing things like > sunsetting ref=* on ways in favor of routes" > > Handling ref on routes and ways at the same time requires some more > complicated processing

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 9:34 AM Tom Pfeifer wrote: > Both tagging and wiki develop, hopefully forward. In this case, > Key:destination:ref redirects > onto an old 2012 proposal, I'm probably going to resolve that soon with > describing the current practice. > Thank you! If only we could be this

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 7:20 AM Skyler Hawthorne wrote: > Note the last sentence. If the destination:ref must be the same as the ref > it is going to, then this would be I 787, or else all the ways along the > entire I 787 route should have their ref tags changed to indicate direction > as well.

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:04 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 12. Dec 2020, at 23:43, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > So what? How are we going to improve if we're not willing to correct > choices that are objectively bad in r

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 4:37 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Dec 12, 2020, 18:27 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 11:22 AM Jan Michel wrote: > > On 12.12.20 17:47, Paul Johnson wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 11:22 AM Jan Michel wrote: > On 12.12.20 17:47, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:46 AM Jan Michel > > > <mailto:j...@mueschelsoft.de>> wrote: > > > > On 12.12.20 17:25, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > >

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:46 AM Jan Michel wrote: > On 12.12.20 17:25, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > Sure, if you manually torque tag it to match the incorrect > > documentation. As soon as you open the lane editor, it rightly corrects > > it to lanes=5, since you have 2 l

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jan Michel wrote: > On 12.12.20 14:25, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:25 AM Jan Michel > > > <mailto:j...@mueschelsoft.de>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > where do you see a problem here? The curren

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:25 AM Jan Michel wrote: > Hi, > where do you see a problem here? The current situation might not be > perfect, but it is usable as it is. The only thing to keep in mind is > that the number of "lanes" does not need to match the number of entries > in the "XY:lanes" tags.

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:09 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Mapper in Poland run into a tricky case and asked for help. > > I am forwarding this a bit weird case. > > Photo is at > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krak%C3%B3w_Brodzi%C5%84skiego_(5).j

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 6:16 AM ael via Tagging wrote: > Let's encourage people to use the source tag properly rather than cause > further decay. Or come up with a better solution, which is definitely > not a changeset comment. > source=* by itself on a way, relation or node is not useful. sourc

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 6:40 AM Supaplex wrote: > Hey all, > > I would like to invite you to discuss a proposal for "parking = > street_side" for areas suitable or designated for parking, which are > directly adjacent to the carriageway of a road and can be reached directly > from the roadway wit

Re: [Tagging] highway=services on bicycle routes?

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:38 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 9 paź 2020, 15:33 od ba...@ursamundi.org: > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:06 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > For me it sounds sort-of similar (the same definition, just swap "motor > vehicle" with

Re: [Tagging] highway=services on bicycle routes?

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:06 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > For me it sounds sort-of similar (the same definition, just swap "motor > vehicle" with "bicycle", > or use "vehicle" to cover both ) but with drastically different > functionality. > > Similarly lik

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 11:58 AM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > The previous responses are focusing on the benefit of adding explicit tags > in situations where the current tagging is ambiguous. > > Certainly there is a benefit of adding "oneway=no" on all two-way roads >

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:20 PM François Lacombe wrote: > Is that completely wrong or mappers could eventually add implied tags if > they want to? > The proposal currently states they are optional and it won't raise an > error if mappers add them beside mandatory tags. > No, it's not wrong to ad

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Hands Off !, respect my (our) space

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:50 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > In ID, on your profile page is, Other nearby users, and the home location, > map > > the point is other locals based on my (our) edits know where we (I) live, > but come on > > don’t edit the building

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] VANDALISM !

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:36 PM Clay Smalley wrote: > For those who aren't following, the DWG recently decided on a two-day ban > for the person who posted this, for the exact behavior they're exhibiting > right now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3850 > > jdd 3, please take a break. Y

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 6:13 AM Jan Michel wrote: > On 07.08.20 23:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> On 7. Aug 2020, at 19:12, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> I feel like a data consumer unable to deal with access tagging is > already broken in advance. > > although w

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Aug 7, 2020, 18:05 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:27 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > amenity=parking + vehicle=no + electric_scooter=

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:27 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > amenity=parking + vehicle=no + electric_scooter=yes > seems like a terrible idea to me > Why? That's actually pretty good. amenity=parking is for motor vehicle parking, electric scooters are a par

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:56 AM Simon Poole wrote: > This is why access=yes is useless on highway objects as it is not clear if > it overrides implicit access restrictions or not. > I don't see what's not clear about access=* overriding *all* access not explicitly set. ___

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:45 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > Hello, > > If: > access=no > foot=yes > > Does this mean that all access except foot travel is prohibited, or is it > an error? > Correct, only pedestrians are allowed. > If: > access=yes > bicycle=no > > Does this mean that all access exce

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 15:29 Jmapb wrote: > > ...Regardless, if this general approach is considered valid and > workable, then I'd like to propose the following answer to my original > question: > > * Q) How should `addr:street` be tagged for an address along an > unnamed way which is part of a n

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020 at 1:52 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > CW: Politics, rightfully being denied the world because where I live is an > idiot. > > Clarification: I'm Cherokee, Choctaw and Scottish, and I'm barred from > entering Choctaw and Scottish territory due to COVID19, and even without

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

). On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 1:37 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 9:21 PM Clifford Snow > wrote: > >> If you look at eastern Oklahoma, about 90%, Paul - correct me if I'm >> wrong, is boundary=aboriginal_lands. Tulsa is pretty much com

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 9:21 PM Clifford Snow wrote: > If you look at eastern Oklahoma, about 90%, Paul - correct me if I'm > wrong, is boundary=aboriginal_lands. Tulsa is pretty much completely inside > of two different reservations. > Three, actually. I live in the Muscogee Nation, now. Last

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 8:09 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 5:29 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:09 PM Clay Smalley >> wrote: >> >>> Chiming in as another settler. I really wish we had more Natives active >>&

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:09 PM Clay Smalley wrote: > Chiming in as another settler. I really wish we had more Natives active on > OSM contributing their cultural knowledge. What could we be doing different > in the future to welcome and engage them in our community? > Outreach to tribal GIS offi

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 12:19 AM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 7/31/20 14:29, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Name is only the name. Names are not refs. For the above example, > > ref=NY 214, noname=yes would be the right way. > > How about the stretch of FM 1960 from I-45 or so g

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

h it be nice to get them > all added. > > Clifford > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:17 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:59 PM Clifford Snow >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:54 AM Kevin

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:59 PM Clifford Snow wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:54 AM Kevin Kenny > wrote: > >> >> >> The nearest problem case to me is Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of >> the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy that straddles >> the US-Canadian border, and wh

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:53 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > > > > On Jul 31, 2020, at 12:45 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > So keep State Highway 214 in addr:street=* values, but that doesn't stop > noname=yes and ref=NY 214 being the correct values for the way itsel

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:16 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > The reductio-ad-absurdum would be to argue that 42nd Street in Manhattan > should be `noname=yes ref=???` and participate in a route relation with > `network=US:NY:New York:Street ref=42`. I'm sure that would please strict > taxonomists, but mo

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

So keep State Highway 214 in addr:street=* values, but that doesn't stop noname=yes and ref=NY 214 being the correct values for the way itself. On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:40 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 31. Jul 2020, at 21:31, Paul Johns

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

Given that it's not customary or advisable to reproduce ref in the name field, kinda think that's not the worst policy for old_ref=* situations that have no name, as well by extension, but that's a bit more of a grey area still. On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:14 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I agree.

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:00 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 31. Jul 2020, at 18:25, Jmapb wrote: > > > > But most of the ways in the route have no valid name. Segments were > > imported from TIGER with name=State Highway 214 but that's been removed > > in favor of

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:24 AM Jmapb wrote: > Is it best to simply tag addr:street=NY 214, matching the ref tag of the > segment and the name tag of the route? This isn't consistent with the > wiki, which specifically says addr:street should match the *name* of a > nearby *way*. I'd go with t

Re: [Tagging] Conditional destinations (hgv, bicycle, maxweight…)

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:53 AM David Marchal via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hello, there. > > I'm wondering, there are destination signs which only apply to some kind > of vehicles: for HGV, for bicycles, for pedestrians, for vehicles below > 12t… How would I tag such destinati

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 5:52 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Di., 28. Juli 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > >> >> I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the property as >> residential (eventually as service) and the

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:56 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > On 7/27/20 1:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but maybe still correct > >> if it is leading to only vacation huts) > >> these would be highway=service not track. > > I assume if the highway has

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:21 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > Personally though, what the USFS uses to determine that difference > doesn't seem consistent, and over many years, the road conditions change > drastically due to erosion. I prefer to go there in a high-clearance > vehicle or UTV and decide a

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

I'd go with highway=track and tracktype=*, surface=* and smoothness=* tags as necessary. Given how inconsistent the 3 and especially 4 digit US forest service roads tend to be, I'd expect tracktype and smoothness are underutilized despite their relative importance on those roads. A big hint: The

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:18 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Date: Jul 27, 2020, 15:54 > From: ba...@ursamundi.org > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:37 AM Rob Sav

Re: [Tagging] narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:37 AM Rob Savoye wrote: > The question is how to tag the change in the road. Usually it becomes > "smoothness=very_bad", etc... The question is since it's now more of a > track used by jeeps, should it be narrow=yes, still lanes=1, or should I > use width=2m ? To me, l

Re: [Tagging] How to tag minor commercial roads?

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:17 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > I'm wondering what, if anything, I should do with > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351516889. It doesn't seem to meet the > definition of a highway=residential, but I'm not convinced it is a lowly > highway=service, either, but I also c

Re: [Tagging] Intermittent highways?

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:23 AM John Sturdy wrote: > I've been adding some detail to a site that is used annually for a > festival (not happening this year because of Covid-19), where there are > paths in the same place year after year, but the paths are not there when > the festival is not happ

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

What is a recreational route and how's it got anything to do with talking about modality? On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:25 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > Nederland, Germany and Belgium also have walking routes, horse routes, > inline-skating routes, canoe routes, motorboat routes. Also a myriad of > nod

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

I thought we were talking about bicycle routes, not recreational routes. On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:22 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > I can't see how that applies to recreational route networks in Europe. > > Mvg Peter Elderson > > Op 13 jul. 2020 om 15:33 heeft Paul Joh

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 7:00 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 4:18 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > Disambiguation. US:FS:Hood and US:FS:Ozark are two different national > forest service networks with entirely different numbering schemes. Plus >

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:04 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > Sounds to me that the scheme is creating a problem rather than solving > it... requiring a lot of prior knowledge and tables to code, and expert > knowledge and tables to decode. > It's the same scheme already used for highways. ___

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

Disambiguation. US:FS:Hood and US:FS:Ozark are two different national forest service networks with entirely different numbering schemes. Plus network=CA by itself would be Canada, not California, which is US:CA... On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 5:07 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > Well, recreational route

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:48 AM Robert Skedgell wrote: > On 12/07/2020 15:48, Mike Thompson wrote: > > Hello, > > > > According to the wiki[0], it seems that the network tag has different > > meanings and possible values based upon if it is applied to a route > > relation where route=road vs. ro

Re: [Tagging] How to tag correct number of lanes for freeway on/off ramps?

On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 3:19 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Consider https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/42.85888/-73.77169. As I > write this, I-87 is annotated as having 3 lanes south of the on/off > ramps (south of 146). However, the off ramp starts all the way back at > the Sitterly Road overpa

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:03 PM Jack Armstrong wrote: > Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways in addition to the > street connecting nodes. In effect, a single pedestrian crossing is tagged > twice. To me, this would seem contrary not only to the OSM wiki page, > “Tag:highway=cro

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:34 PM Steve Doerr wrote: > I would think that oneway=yes or oneway=-1 was required on motorways in > order to identify the direction of one-way travel. For roundabouts, it must > be easier provided data consumers know the national rules. > Seems pretty easy to tag it an

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 3:22 AM Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that the JOSM style >> that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not show ways >> properly if onewa

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

On Sun, May 24, 2020, 18:51 Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 5/24/20 15:26, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the oneway > > tag between the wiki pages key:oneway > > and motorway > >

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Steve Doerr wrote: > On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb wrote: > >> Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are >> single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good mapping practice >> -- what would b

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:43 AM Jmapb wrote: > On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC. It's time to stop > treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata. If tools *still* can't > deal with thi

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:23 AM brad wrote: > It isn't part of a route, it's the whole route. I think that's a difference without a distinction in this case. Data consumers still need to know the route is there. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@open

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:06 AM Jmapb wrote: > On 5/12/2020 10:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad wrote: > >> OK, but it seems redundant to me. A trail/path get tagged as a path. >> There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad wrote: > OK, but it seems redundant to me. A trail/path get tagged as a path. > There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name. Why does > it need to be a route also? > Same reason all 0.11 miles of I 95 in Washington DC is part of a route.

Re: [Tagging] contact:google_plus status discardable ?

I think that's a distinction without a difference right now. Given that I can check my Google+ right now (yes, mine still works) but it's *now* as dead as people used to claim it was before. On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 5:49 PM Phake Nick wrote: > Google Plus for Corporate is still functional. > > 在

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:10 AM Andrew Harvey wrote: > My view based on current usage, reading of the wiki and general opinion is > that highway=cycleway is meant for any path that is either > designed/intended for bicycles or specifically designated (signposted) for > bicycles, irrespective of if

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:45 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:57 PM Richard Fairhurst > wrote: > > > Sure. NCN 4 is called "NCN 4" in the same sense that the M4 is called the > > "M4". That's fine - plenty of people refer to it that way. But OSM > > convention, dating back 15ish

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:29 PM Peter Neale via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Like Dave, I am not sure that I see a huge issue with a name and a > reference duplicating each other (or at least overlapping). > > Names and References are essentially doing the same job; they identify

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 3:39 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > > Richard Fairhurst:: > >> If you need somewhere for a mapper-facing route description (and I can >> see that you need that for “part United Kingdom 5”), then I guess the >> obvious place to put that is the note= tag. But let’s keep it out o

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 2:30 PM Andrew Hain wrote: > Proposal for QA tools: flag anything with the same number in the name and > ref. > So much this. I see this a lot and had to fix a bit of that when I was doing I 405 work. "Interstate 405" is *not* a name and shouldn't be there... _

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 1:18 PM Richard Fairhurst wrote: > A modest proposal: let’s use the name= tag in route relations for route > names. Let’s use the ref= tag for route numbers. If it doesn’t have a name, > it shouldn’t have a name= tag. Same as we do everywhere else. > I'm OK with this. ___

Re: [Tagging] How to match multiple destinations and destination:ref?

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:07 AM António Madeira via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hi there. > > I've stumbled with a problem for which I couldn't find a satisfactory > answer. > Say I have a destination sign in a motorway junction exit with 4 > destinations, but only the second one

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?&In-Reply-To=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:41 AM Marc Gemis wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux < > florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, Andreas

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?&In-Reply-To=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux < florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, AndreasTUHU a écrit : > >> I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54 percent >> of the mixed foot-cycle-ways misses this tag. >> Additionally, the 20 p

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:15 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:50 PM Richard Fairhurst > wrote: > > Honestly, there is, and it's as Paul and I have described - you put the > ref > > in the ref tag and leave the name tag blank. This is how it has been in > OSM > > since pretty muc

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:38 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > No, no. I'm not proposing addr:street on ways at all, only on things > that actually have an address. What I am saying is that noname=yes should > be a trigge

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:46 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:09 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > addr:street= should be tagged anyway, and that's where you can put your > "County Route 34". Attempting to infer this based off the nearest street > s

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

Route' rather > >> than 'Road' for these), to the extent that `addr:street=*` will show > >> that for the name, then `name=*` gets that name. (Yes I know that > >> there are mappers who would prefer `noname=yes` in that situation, but > >> address va

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:09 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:51 AM Jarek Piórkowski > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 09:38, Rob Savoye wrote: > > > On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > > > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to >

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 8:38 AM Rob Savoye wrote: > On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > > You asked this back in August and the answers still apply: > > That was as slightly different question about multiple names, and yes, > still applies. > > > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is no

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 5:02 PM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 1/29/20 16:17, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:07 PM Joseph Eisenberg > > mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > In my hometown, the main road was California highway 96, so “ref=C

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:07 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > should 'ref' be 'CR 12', and then "name='County Road 12'" > > Sure, if local addresses say “123 County Road 12” and local people say “I > live on County Road 12”. > > If the name is “Old County Road 12”, that would clearly be a name, not

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:29 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > I was wondering about tagging roads properly. Previously it was > mentioned to use 'ref' for county roads, ie... "ref='CR 12'", but as the > road sign says "County Road 12", I was wondering about the proper way to > tag this. Should 'CR' be exp

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:08 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:55, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wr

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets > wrote: > >> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common > practice. > >&

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets wrote: > That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common practice. > I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber > foot traffic, `highway=footway` where foot traffic significantly outnumbers > bikes, `hig

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >