building=livestock + livestock=* would be fine, especially if the
building doesn't look specifically designed for one type of animal
But for goats you might consider building=goat_barn or
building=goat_shed, depending on how large and solidly it is
constructed. In some climates goat's only need a
Dear Community,
thank you for your comments. I would like to try to summarise the
discussion so far:
- one group went of into a discussion on the different forms of stables
for pigs showing us the complexity of farm buildings and also the
complexity of wording
- commentators generally preferred
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:31:25 -0400
From: "Nita S."
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] New proposal draft to simplify the mapping of
farm buildings (stables)
Around here those are called poll-barns. They are usua
Around here those are called poll-barns. They are usually constructed with
utility poles ( or similar ) a roof truss system, and corrugated/galvanized
metal sheets. They cover farm equipment, feed storage, and sometimes
animals.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:02 AM Paul Allen wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 28
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 01:02, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> more happy pigs to be found here (supposedly)
>>> https://www.naturalpigfarming.com/low%20res%2060/IMG_1385.jpg
>>>
>>
>> And that is a pig pen. But, according to some, also a pig sty
On 29/08/19 09:45, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Re: > "The best I could come up with was landuse=farmland +
produce=live_animal + animal=chicken"
It's more common to use landuse=farmyard for poultry farms, and if you
use produce=* it's more common to specify eggs, meat or live_animal=*
depending on
Re: > "The best I could come up with was landuse=farmland +
produce=live_animal + animal=chicken"
It's more common to use landuse=farmyard for poultry farms, and if you
use produce=* it's more common to specify eggs, meat or live_animal=*
depending on what is sold.
To specify that the farmyard i
sent from a phone
> On 29. Aug 2019, at 00:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> The preferences range from free-range chickens
> https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&biw=1242&bih=603&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=dv1mXaqGAY6UvQSrmrHoBA&q=free+range+chicken+farm&oq=free+range+chicken&gs_l=img.3.1.0l10.74
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 01:02, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>
>> https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/pigs-are-seen-in-a-pigsty-at-a-farm-in-pluduno-western-france-on-2-picture-id465455096
>>
>
> As far as I can tell, that's classes as a piggery in British English. And
> since it's far more common
> than
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 15:37, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> With regard to pig sty referring to an outdoor enclosure: the dictionary
> says it can mean both, a small building or outside area where pigs are
> kept. This is similar to German where, AFAIK, the outdoor areas associated
> with an ani
sent from a phone
> On 28. Aug 2019, at 14:40, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> According to google translate, it's "pig flats," but I suspect it's being
> literal rather
> than giving the equivalent English term. I'd probably map it as
> building=piggery +
> levels=n.
maybe there isn’t an English
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 13:05, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Pig ark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb4wTc79jY8
>
I wish you hadn't said that. It forced me to do some googling.
Apparently, a pig sty isn't necessarily a building but is more usually an
enclosure.
Essentially it's a synonym for a pig
Pig ark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb4wTc79jY8
Nederland has "varkensflats" ie multi-storey "appartment buildings" for
pigs. Wouldn't know a proper term for that in English though. I've seen it
translated as "pig tower", but that term googles to
https://images.app.goo.gl/WMeG3kychr7kokw7A
W
sent from a phone
> On 28. Aug 2019, at 13:26, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> If he were to propose some other value (I can't think of one) for a generic
> livestock-holding
> building then I would have less reason to object to the proposal. But I
> probably would still
> object - we have 24,000 sta
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 08:29, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> > On 27. Aug 2019, at 23:00, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > Oh, and you say that a sty is for pigs (correct) and a sty is for cows
> (incorrect)
>
> probably just a copy +paste problem, and should have been cowshed
>
Yeah, that was my thou
sent from a phone
> On 27. Aug 2019, at 23:00, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Oh, and you say that a sty is for pigs (correct) and a sty is for cows
> (incorrect)
probably just a copy +paste problem, and should have been cowshed
>
> Introduce a new value for building that means "building for liv
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 21:39, mr.moehritz--- via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> I would like to propose a new tagging-scheme for stables that would be
> more flexible.
>
More confused? Yes. Less precise? Yes. More flexible? A little, but
not so flexible
as just mapping all far
I disagree with proposal to replace building=sty with
building=stable + animal=pig
building=sty tagging seems clearly preferable to me
And wildcard deprecations like
"Deprecate building=sty, building=sty and any therelike"
make me dislike this proposal even more.
27 Aug 2019, 22:37 by tagging@op
2015-09-13 23:38 GMT+02:00 Paul Norman :
> On 9/10/2015 5:20 AM, Joachim wrote:
>>
>> Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that oneway=* must
>> also be tagged for every motorway_link. If not tagged, the oneway=*
>> status of this way is undefined.
>
> Explicitly tagging oneway on links
2015-09-14 2:40 GMT+02:00 Richard Welty :
> quite. there are sections of motorway_link highways along the taconic
> parkway in NY which are two way and so lack oneway tags. now it's not that
> hard
> to go through and fix it, but i'm reasonably sure this is not the only place
> where
> this situa
Richard Welty writes:
> On 9/13/15 5:38 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>> On 9/10/2015 5:20 AM, Joachim wrote:
>>> Tools to help enforcing the obligatory usage:
>>> [...]
>>> - No routing over undefined oneways
>> The chances of anyone implementing this in their routing engine are
>> approximately zer
On 9/13/15 5:38 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
> On 9/10/2015 5:20 AM, Joachim wrote:
>
>> Tools to help enforcing the obligatory usage:
>> [...]
>> - No routing over undefined oneways
> The chances of anyone implementing this in their routing engine are
> approximately zero.
quite. there are sections of m
On 9/10/2015 5:20 AM, Joachim wrote:
Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that oneway=* must
also be tagged for every motorway_link. If not tagged, the oneway=*
status of this way is undefined.
Explicitly tagging oneway on links is preferable for obvious reasons,
but you need to be
Considering that most replies where not in favour of dropping routing
over "undefined oneway" I changed the sentence about routers:
"- For routing purposes no recommendation for ways with undefined
oneway is made. A provider should decide on it's own considering the
documentation history and curren
> Though I agree in principle with the idea of making tagging more
> explicit, how big of a practical concern is this? i.e. how many times in
> the real world is motorway_link a two-way road?
This is quite common in some parts parts of Europe. Here an Overpass
Turbo link which covers south-western
On 11/09/2015, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:41:36 +
> moltonel wrote:
>
>> Consumers (routers, renderers, whatever) will not be swayed by a wiki
>> page. They might look at stats and decide themselves what the absence
>> of a oneway tag means, but a wiki proposal is never
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:40:21 -0500
Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:41 AM, moltonel wrote:
>
> > > If not tagged, the oneway=*
> > >status of this way is undefined.
> >
> > You wont gain anything by de-defining the "oneway=no" default value.
> > Consumers (routers, renderers, wha
Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Documentation on wiki is one of main sources during development of
> map style.
You mean of the openstreetmap-carto style, which is just one of many.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/New-proposal-Obligatory-tagging-of-oneway-
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:41:36 +
moltonel wrote:
> Consumers (routers, renderers, whatever) will not be swayed by a wiki
> page. They might look at stats and decide themselves what the absence
> of a oneway tag means, but a wiki proposal is never going to
> influence that decision.
Documentati
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:41 AM, moltonel wrote:
> > If not tagged, the oneway=*
> >status of this way is undefined.
>
> You wont gain anything by de-defining the "oneway=no" default value.
> Consumers (routers, renderers, whatever) will not be swayed by a wiki page.
> They might look at stats an
On 10 September 2015 13:20:43 GMT+01:00, Joachim wrote:
>Proposal:
>Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that oneway=* must
>also be tagged for every motorway_link.
Sounds fair.
> If not tagged, the oneway=*
>status of this way is undefined.
You wont gain anything by de-defining t
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Kieron Thwaites
wrote:
> > Though I agree in principle with the idea of making tagging more
> > explicit, how big of a practical concern is this? i.e. how many times in
> > the real world is motorway_link a two-way road?
>
> While I agree such a case is rare, it i
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Shawn K. Quinn
wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 14:20 +0200, Joachim wrote:
> > I drafted up a proposal about oneway=* for highway=motorway_link.
> > Please comment.
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obligatory_oneway
> >
> > P
> Though I agree in principle with the idea of making tagging more
> explicit, how big of a practical concern is this? i.e. how many times in
> the real world is motorway_link a two-way road?
While I agree such a case is rare, it is possible.
See: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/68433570 -- whil
On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 14:20 +0200, Joachim wrote:
> I drafted up a proposal about oneway=* for highway=motorway_link.
> Please comment.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obligatory_oneway
>
> Proposal:
> Define on the wiki page of highway=motorway_link that onewa
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:20:43 +0200
Joachim wrote:
> I drafted up a proposal about oneway=* for highway=motorway_link.
> Please comment.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obligatory_oneway
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Motorway_link_obliga
In my experience, routers say "stay left" in such a circumstance.
News wrote:
> On 02/05/13 00:40, Dave F. wrote:
> > On 01/05/2013 18:26, Philip Barnes wrote:
> >>
> >> That is just one example, this problem does not only exist with
> grade
> >> separate roads. Take this example,http://osrm.at
On 02/05/13 17:34, Janko Mihelić wrote:
The first example should be resolved with tagging lanes, as seen in this
link:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Motorway
The second one could use this proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension
I'm not
The first example should be resolved with tagging lanes, as seen in this
link:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes#Motorway
The second one could use this proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension
I'm not sure if the two tagging schemes are compa
>this example, http://osrm.at/36D
>To stay on the A511 no instruction to turn is given,
That just looks like a bug in the osrm.
--
Alv
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 18:20 +0200, Georg Feddern wrote:
> Am 01.05.2013 12:53, schrieb Philip Barnes:
>
> > The slip roads are straight ahead, whilst the through route curves
> > to the right. The tag is need to tell the router that straight ahead
> > is not stay on the same road.
> >
> > Hope th
Am 01.05.2013 12:53, schrieb Philip Barnes:
The slip roads are straight ahead, whilst the through route curves to
the right. The tag is need to tell the router that straight ahead is
not stay on the same road.
Hope that explains it.
uhm, had you ever considered to tag both following ways
The slip roads are straight ahead, whilst the through route curves to the
right. The tag is need to tell the router that straight ahead is not stay on
the same road.
Hope that explains it.
Phil (trigpoint)
--
Sent from my Nokia N9
On 01/05/2013 11:00 Dave F. wrote:
On 29/04/2013 18:59, News
On 29/04/2013 18:59, News wrote:
I have created a proposal for a new tagging scheme at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_route
From the wiki Example:
"If you are heading north on the A56 and want to continue on the A56
then you need to turn off the main carriageway
On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 18:59 +0100, News wrote:
> I have created a proposal for a new tagging scheme at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/through_route
>
> Please review and comment as necessary. As this is the first proposal
> I've created please forgive me if I've jumped th
2011/4/16 crom :
> Hi Ilya,
> very nice!
> About the keys: funny is reflecting pool: instead "reflecting pool" I would
> suggest something like "land_art", because "water" is used primary as an
> architectural- or design feature and - the reflection is not always and for
> everyone obvious?
-1
re
Hi Nathan,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_art
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7j8Kpp3vYU
it might be helpfull, to map spots like that ;)
---
Yes, it might be better to use separate tags.
intermittent=yes
(but I don´t like these "yes"-values, like: its a chair:yes etc. )
It looks bet
On 4/16/2011 3:53 PM, crom wrote:
Hi Ilya,
very nice!
About the keys: funny is reflecting pool: instead "reflecting pool" I
would suggest something like "land_art", because "water" is used primary
as an architectural- or design feature and - the reflection is not
always and for everyone obvious?
Hi Ilya,
very nice!
About the keys: funny is reflecting pool: instead "reflecting pool" I
would suggest something like "land_art", because "water" is used primary
as an architectural- or design feature and - the reflection is not
always and for everyone obvious?
And what I´m still missing is
Hi!
Since there were no comments for the last week, I've initiated a voting on
the water=* proposal.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details
IZ
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.
Dave. F wrote:
>> But also in this proposal I point out that waterway=riverbank does not
>> differ much from natural=water, and suggest to map it with natural=water
+
>> water=river.
>This means you have multiple keys for river (water & waterway).
>It also means your using river to describe two d
On 01/04/2011 16:04, Ilya Zverev wrote:
It seems like I've messed up wording or just stated the purpose not
clearly
enough, since you are not the first to ask this question. Of course I'm
aware of river mapping scheme. I do not propose to alter
waterway=river/stream/anything. The main point of t
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:55:06 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> So looking at wikipedia also for lake I found that basically the main
> difference between the two is the size but also, how deep it is. If it
were
> only the size this tag would not be needed, because unless you draw lakes
> as sin
2011/4/1 Ilya Zverev
>
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:35:37 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
> >> what natural=water on an area means. Is this area a lake, a pond? We
> have
> >> no means to determine that now.
> >
> > could you expand what a "pond" is? I get several translations for this,
> > ran
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:35:37 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>> what natural=water on an area means. Is this area a lake, a pond? We
have
>> no means to determine that now.
>
> could you expand what a "pond" is? I get several translations for this,
> ranging from natural to artificial bodies o
On 4/1/2011 11:35 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
(not sure if "fountain" applies to the kind of
big flat water areas you can typically find in front of castles which
are positioned there to reflect the castle?)
Those are called reflecting pools.
___
2011/4/1 Ilya Zverev
> what natural=water on an area means. Is this area a lake, a pond? We have
> no means to determine that now.
>
>
could you expand what a "pond" is? I get several translations for this,
ranging from natural to artificial bodies of water. How do you suggest would
a large foun
Dave F. wrote:
> Aren't most of these in use already?
> "water=river A body of river, which is currently mapped as
> waterway=riverbank."
> You seem to be unaware of waterway=river. Please refer to his for a
> complete tagging guide:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dri
On 01/04/2011 05:30, Ilya Zverev wrote:
Hi.
At some point we've been fed up with fixing name=Pond and such, so I guess
it's time to be more specific about what natural=water is. I suggest a new
detail tag, water=*. It's pretty straightforward, but there are some
deprecations (which at this point
59 matches
Mail list logo
