* Richard Welty [2014-11-27 11:09 -0500]:
> actually, specifying the shield with a URL for an svg file was an older
> approach.
And, I should note, one that I consciously did not use. I believe it was
Richard Weait who pointed out that grabbing an arbitrary image, chosen by
someone else, off of
* johnw [2014-11-28 13:11 +0900]:
> > On Nov 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
> > the basic scheme doesn't require anything new or unusual in
> > route relation tagging, just care and consistency.
>
> I look forward to seeing his RFC page then ^_^
Well, the point is that you can rende
* Martin Koppenhoefer [2014-06-17 16:43 +0200]:
> you can find big roundabouts with traffic lights in most of the big
> European cities, another reason (besides the controlling the motorized
> traffic) is to let pedestrians (and sometimes cyclists) cross.
I know of a traffic circle (here: http://
* Friedrich Volkmann [2013-08-09 07:28 +0200]:
> I also dislike the suggested special member roles: The positioning
> of the label depends on the font size, the free space, the map
> section and zoom level etc. and should therefore be determined by
> the renderer.
I tend to think of label nodes a
* Steve Bennett [2013-04-20 00:25 +1000]:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> > a) If the trail meanders a little from side to side (where the old
> > railway would have just gone straight), I match the way to the trail
> > and trust that the se
* Mike N [2013-04-18 12:56 -0400]:
> However I have learned that the abandoned rail lines should not be
> removed - they magically regrow, so I allow them to remain as they go
> through hillsides which have long been bulldozed down and through blocks
> of buildings which have long since replaced t
* Steve Bennett [2013-04-19 01:22 +1000]:
> 1) A single way: "railway=abandoned | highway=cycleway | name=Blah Rail
> Trail | surface=unpaved" (usually with a cycle route relation as well)
This is basically how I tag them, with the following additions:
a) If the trail meanders a little from sid
* François Lacombe [2013-03-14 18:52
+0100]:
> Foremost, areas must reflect land occupation. If 2 different operators'
> plants are contiguous in reality then areas must be contiguous too.
>
> Do you have any example which can illustrate such situation in the wiki?
I know of a couple.
In Maryl
* Svavar Kjarrval [2012-11-25 00:08 +]:
> The RFC process has started for my proposal to tag the age groups
> schools offer education for. More information is on the wiki page.
>
> The proposal is at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/age_group .
I happen to think the ex
* Andrew Errington [2012-10-24 14:49 +0900]:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM, David ``Smith'' wrote:
> > using something like "ref:unsigned=OH 315C" to mean "this road is part of
> > Ohio state route 315C but the signs don't say so" sounds perfectly sane to
> > me.
>
> It doesn't sound sane to
* David ``Smith'' [2012-09-03 18:51 -0400]:
> In my part of the US, nearly every river is of the form "the X River" and I
> would expect to see it that way on maps, leaving out the "the" which is
> used in forming sentences but not generally considered part of the name.
> In Michigan there's the R
* SomeoneElse [2012-07-03 13:37 +0100]:
> Phil! Gold wrote:
> >As I understand it, NE2 was looking for a tagging scheme that
> >would allow for searches to find trails on a railway grade.
>
> That might not have the desired effect in all cases:
> http://www.openstreetma
* Steve Bennett [2012-07-03 17:22 +1000]:
> For the original question of how to tag a "rail with trail" (I've also
> heard the term "railside trail"), is it not sufficient to simply map
> the two ways separately? Example here:
> http://osm.org/go/uG4lkKxG?layers=C
As I understand it, NE2 was look
* Nathan Edgars II [2012-06-27 12:59 -0400]:
> But another popular kind of rail trail, a "rail with trail", cannot
> be found in this manner.
[snip]
> Does anyone have any ideas for tagging? The simplest would be
> something like rail_with_trail=yes or maybe railway=adjacent.
Either of those woul
* Martin Vonwald [2012-05-15 15:23 +0200]:
> I added highway=turning_loop to the last example and noted, that it is
> under discussion right now.
>
> It would really help a lot if the major renderers would support this,
> as well as junction=roundabout on a single node. Otherwise I'm afraid
> the
* Martin Vonwald [2012-05-15 14:11 +0200]:
> Now the only issue remaining is: how? Right now I see two solutions:
> 1) highway=turning_circle and turning_circle=island or traffic_calming=island
> 2) new tag like e.g. highway=turning_loop
[snip]
> I would really like to get more opinions from the p
* Martin Vonwald [2012-04-25 10:28 +0200]:
> I'm trying to view the OSMI layers in JOSM. The all-knowing,
> all-seeing trash heap pointed me to this (german) article:
> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=9315
>
> There it is recommended to use the following link in JOSM:
> http://too
* Richard Weait [2012-03-13 10:30 -0400]:
> adding a tag for banner=Alternate/Business/Truck is my least-favourite
> option of those above.
Why?
> increasing specificity on the network tag like network=US:US:Alt
> follows the original intent of the network tag. It also offers the
> least surpri
* Nathan Edgars II [2012-03-11 22:30 -0400]:
> It also makes the most sense to put it in the ref tag. Otherwise
> there's inconsistency between an alternate signed as US 1 Alternate
> and one signed as US 1A (with the suffix in the shield). In each
> case I'll also use the modifier tag (modifier=A
I'd like to solicit some thoughts on the tagging for special routes
(commonly known as bannered routes)[0]. In route relations, it's
customary to separate the network and the reference number. How do or
should special routes fit into that?
I'm torn between three views and I'm not sure which of t
* John F. Eldredge [2012-02-19 14:13 -0600]:
> I take it, then, that there are some watercourses tagged as streams, but
> named XXX River, and there are some watercourses tagged as rivers, but
> named XXX Stream or XXX Creek?
It's what I've done, based on my understanding of the tag documentation
* Nathan Edgars II [2011-08-31 08:50 -0400]:
> There's a third possibility - the unincorporated suburb or exurb
> that nevertheless has a defined boundary, since it's planned or
> controlled by one company. I think Columbia, Maryland is this way
It is. Additionally, Columbia could benefit a lot
* Martin Koppenhoefer [2011-08-31 14:33 +0200]:
> No, suburb is actually not necessarily outside the city (in OSM), it
> is used for central districts as well.
I've often been confused by the suburb tag and maybe someone can clear it
up for me.
The tags place=city, place=town, place=village, and
* Martin Koppenhoefer [2011-08-30 17:01 +0200]:
> Waiting for comments especially for the aspect, that you could apply
> this tag to all kind of settlement fractions including commercial and
> industrial (and of course mixed) areas. I guess the wording
> "neighbourhood" does suggest other.
The pr
* Josh Doe [2011-05-10 23:27 -0400]:
> Either way I think we need to allow for admin_level or something
> similar to permit nesting of neighborhoods.
I know, let's use relations! (Now I have two problems...)
But seriously, what about a very simple "contains" relation? A given
relation would ha
* Ed Hillsman [2011-04-02 22:26 -0400]:
> With regard to routing, sidewalks on college campuses, in parks, and
> in cemeteries may be interior to a large area bounded by streets,
> and as a result some may not have an associated street to use for a
> name.
I don't think those would qualify as "si
* M∡rtin Koppenhoefer [2011-03-21 18:03 +0100]:
> The main purpose of detailing sidewalks is IMHO to be able to add
> further details, which might be interesting for the users of the
> sidewalk.
I think that one very good reason for adding sidewalks is simply to allow
better routing for foot traf
* Steve Bennett [2011-01-19 15:17 +1100]:
> I suggest we investigate something like a general prominence=* tag,
> with values of 1-10.
I wouldn't be opposed to this, but I keep thinking a two-tiered system
like the Ranally City Rating System[0] might be a better approach. You'd
have one axis for
* Richard Welty [2010-10-19 15:25 -0400]:
> tiger seems to have spots where there are streets that developers planned
> but never built. i see them from time to time.
The problem there is that proposed roads have been recorded as actual
roads. If people want to record proposed roads as highway=p
* Richard Fairhurst [2010-10-14 10:47 -0700]:
> I think you could largely sum up his criticisms in two broad headings:
>
>1. US OSM contributors need to get their shit together
>2. European maps don't look like American ones
I'm trying to see what sort of consensus exists on some of the
* M∡rtin Koppenhoefer [2010-10-12 18:11 +0200]:
> Layer's range is from -5 to 5.
How true is that these days? It's still in the JOSM presets, but a) I
don't see any reason in principle that should be true, and my reading of
the Mapnik rendering rules seems to indicate that any number of
(integer
The railway portion of the US TIGER import seems to have used the owner of
the railroad for the name= tag. (And the owners appear to have been
collected over the course of decades, so the current data doesn't reflect
a lot of mergers and splits, but that's a separate issue.)
As I come across thes
* M∡rtin Koppenhoefer [2010-08-30 17:40 +0200]:
> 2010/8/30 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> >> - "these objects express the same thing as that object but in more
> >> detail" (eg, one line representing a pair or more of train lines)
>
> in this actual example you don't need relations but can do as with
>
When people use power=generator, which is more common: tagging just the
building where the generator is housed, or tagging the entire facility
(including coal pile, gas tanks, offices, rail yard, etc.)? Whichever one
you do, how do you mark the other one, if at all?
--
...computer contrarian of
* Anthony [2010-05-18 20:47 -0400]:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tyler Gunn wrote:
> > Almost all of these types of parking lots will have some kind of
> > notice that tow-away is enforced for unauthorized parking. So the general
> > idea is you're free to park there, ONLY if you're visit
* Erik Johansson [2010-05-14 18:29 +0200]:
> If you tag highway=footway with bike=yes then you don't make it
> exclusively for bikes. So if you tag a playground with baby=yes
> shouldn't that just mean that there are some baby specific toys there,
> and baby=no that there aren't any big structures
* Jonas Minnberg [2010-05-14 16:39 +0200]:
> What about bordering buildings - ie buldings sharing walls but having
> different addresses/uses ? Is it better to draw the as a single area or as
> separate but with shared nodes?
I feel that separate ways that share nodes along the joint wall makes t
* Alan Mintz [2010-05-04 09:47 -0700]:
> I generally regard fast_food as a place where you have to walk up to a
> counter and order your food. Even if they do bring it out to your table
> when ready, they will not generally come back to refill your drinks or
> bring additional courses. Tips are
38 matches
Mail list logo
