Re: [Tagging] Ferry frequency

Am 04.10.2013 21:47, schrieb Richard Fairhurst: > John F. Eldredge wrote: >> That brings up an issue for routing in general, not >> just cycle-routing. The routing algorithm needs >> to take into account the day of the week, and what >> time it will be when you reach a point with time- >> depen

[Tagging] your advice please about corrections to tagging instructions

Hello 2, Not sure what's going on out there. I received a reject from both lists for 40KB and 80KB excess but it seems that the post to talk-be went through anyway. Well, I put the second part of the e-mail here and I'm resending fingers crossed an

[Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

Hi all, One of the things I noticed at SOTM was that the Aston campus has two little wind turbines, perched on top of some of the buildings. They're quite small, yet the standard OSM style shows them even at zoom level 15, as if they're significant landmarks:

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

> Am 07/ott/2013 um 14:16 schrieb Dan S : > > it > doesn't know if the turbine is 5 feet high or 50 feet high. (This > implies that tagging the height could be a solution... might be a bit > tricky to get correct height data though...) yes, tagging the height could be a solution. I'm generally

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

2013/10/7 Dan S > > (This > implies that tagging the height could be a solution... might be a bit > tricky to get correct height data though...) > What if the wind turbine is on the roof of a building? That would still be high (because we

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

On 10/7/13 9:12 AM, Janko Mihelic' wrote: > > What if the wind turbine is on the roof of a building > ? That would > still be high (because we tag height from the ground, not just the > height of the wind turbine). Actually, all small wind tu

Re: [Tagging] Pre-proposal: gambling

> IMHO we should distinguish between "real casinos" and those called for instance "Automaten Casino" in Germany [...] I agree this distinction also makes sense in the Netherlands. I think I haven't seen comments from outside of Europe. Would for example Americans consider this distinction meaningf

[Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

Hey I wonder if it is useful to tag bicycle=dismount on ways. At least in Germany there is no official traffic sign despite of the existence of some. You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus ways with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Either you are allowed to ride (bicyc

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

Yes, certainly in the UK at least there is a difference: there are routes I have seen where bikes are not allowed, *even if* dismounted and pushed. There are routes where bikes are explicitly allowed only if dismounted. bicycle=dismount is used over 23,000 times, and I believe routers like cyclestr

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

2013/10/7 fly > You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus ways > with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Either you are allowed to ride > (bicycle=yes/designated) or not (bicycle=no or vehicle=no) > I agree that bicycle=dismount seems useless, at least as long as you only

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

On 07.10.2013 15:12, Janko Mihelić wrote: > 2013/10/7 Dan S mailto:danstowell+...@gmail.com>> > > > (This > implies that tagging the height could be a solution... might be a bit > tricky to get correct height data though...) > > > > What if the wind turbine is on the roof of a buil

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

I have started using bicycle dismount mainly on nodes like pedestrian crossings (where by law you have to dismount) and bicycle barriers (to indicate that the obstacle forces you to dismount, unless you are an acrobat). Occasionally I have used it on ways where bicyckles need to be pushed, like ve

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On 10/7/13 12:18 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2013/10/7 fly > > > You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus > ways > with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Either you are allowed to ride > (bicycle=yes/designated) or n

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

2013/10/7 fly > Please note, we have ele=* for elevation (ground level) and height=* > (height of the object). So tagging a turbine on the roof you would have > ele="elevation of building + height of building" and height would be > little more than the diametre I guess. > Well, this is not comp

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

2013/10/7 Richard Welty > it has implications for routing of bicycles. bicycle=no will mean that > it will never be used on a bicycle route. bicycle=dismount would indicate > that inclusion of the way on a bicycle route is reasonable. > bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On 07.10.2013 18:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2013/10/7 Richard Welty > > > it has implications for routing of bicycles. bicycle=no will mean that > it will never be used on a bicycle route. bicycle=dismount would > indicate > that inclusion o

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On 10/7/2013 12:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there. If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you. There are wilderness trails where no wheels are allow

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

fly wrote: > Hey > > I wonder if it is useful to tag bicycle=dismount on ways. > > At least in Germany there is no official traffic sign despite of the > existence of some. > > You are allowed to push your bike on every footway/pedestrian plus > ways > with vehicle=no. E.g. it is useless. Eithe

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote: > On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs > indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So, I think that it is useful > as a way of telling someone planning a cycle route "you will have to > move at walking speed on this

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On 10/07/2013 11:59 AM, fly wrote: On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote: On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So, I think that it is useful as a way of telling someone planning a cycle route "you will have to

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On 10/7/13 1:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > Well, it may vary by jurisdiction, but I would not be surprised if it > were legally enforced in cases where riding the bicycle could be a > safety hazard to pedestrians, and in some cases to the cyclist as > well. I remember seeing such a "cyclists mu

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On 07.10.2013 19:08, John F. Eldredge wrote: > On 10/07/2013 11:59 AM, fly wrote: >> On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote: >> >> >>> On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs >>> indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So, I think that it is useful >>> as a w

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On Oct 7, 2013 7:00 PM, "fly" wrote: > On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote: > > On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs > > indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So, I think that it is useful > > as a way of telling someone planning a cycle route "you w

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik fly< lowfligh...@googlemail.com> je napisao: > On 07.10.2013 15:12, Janko Mihelić wrote: >> 2013/10/7 Dan S > >> >> >> (This >> implies that tagging the height could be a solution... might be a bit >> tricky to get correct height data thoug

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On 07.10.2013 19:33, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > On Oct 7, 2013 7:00 PM, "fly" > wrote: >> On 07.10.2013 18:48, John F. Eldredge wrote: >> > On some bridges that have a relatively narrow footway, I have seen signs >> > indicating that bicyclists must dismount. So,

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

On 10/07/2013 12:33 PM, Janko Mihelic' wrote: Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik flymailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com>> je napisao: > On 07.10.2013 15:12, Janko Mihelic' wrote: >> 2013/10/7 Dan S

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik John F. Eldredge< j...@jfeldredge.com> je napisao: > > As far as I know, we don't have a standard method for tagging the height of an object mounted on top of another object, as distinct from the combined heights of the objects above ground, or the ele

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

dieterdreist wrote: > bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there. > If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not > riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you. That may not be the case in the UK. The law allows walkers and their "usual ac

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

This ele / height discussion might show we need a simple tagging scheme to distinguish wind turbines that can be seen as a landmark. Yves "Janko Mihelić" a écrit : >Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik John F. Eldredge< >j...@jfeldredge.com> je napisao: >> >> As far as I know, we don'

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

On 07.10.2013 21:13, Janko Mihelić wrote: > Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik John F. > Eldredgemailto:j...@jfeldredge.com>> je napisao: >> >> As far as I know, we don't have a standard method for tagging the > height of an object mounted on top of another object, as distinct from > th

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

2013/10/7 Yves > This ele / height discussion might show we need a simple tagging scheme to > distinguish wind turbines that can be seen as a landmark. we "have" this: landmark=yes cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org h

[Tagging] Mapping a region/landscape

I would like to map some areas like Wiehengebirge and Teutoburgerwald. At the moment the Tagging is attached on areas which represent forest. http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/search?polygon=1&q=Wiehengebirge Can somebody help me to find the right tags? There was some weeks ago a discussion abo

Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes

Thank you Tobias (sorry for the late answer), that is very useful feedback and pretty much exactly in line with our thinking on all the cases which is great. For B, we are actually also using plaster as one of the values as the values are recorded by looking at the building 'from the streets'. For

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > As far as I know, we don't have a standard method for tagging the height > of an object mounted on top of another object, as distinct from the > combined heights of the objects above ground, or the elevation above sea > level of the base o

Re: [Tagging] Power tower and pole usefulness

Hi, Please note the update of the power transmission proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement 1. Removing the man_made=pole / man_made=tower introduction - Deeper work should be done both in power and telecommunication fields to find a proper way

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik fly< lowfligh...@googlemail.com> je napisao: > No, if it is mounted on top I would say height=3 for the object. > > min_height is only used for building:part but not for explicit tagged > objects on top of another object. Please use ele=* to specify th

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On 07/10/2013 21:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote: dieterdreist wrote: bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there. If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no effect on you. That may not be the case in the UK.

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

On 07/10/2013 22:40, Clifford Snow wrote: It seems that small and large are too granular for the complexities of wind turbines. Wikipedia has numerous sizes of wind turbines. There is a classification for small, 100kw or less wind turbines, but it is not related to physical size, just power outp

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

2013/10/7 Ole Nielsen > Maybe we shouldn't tag such small wind turbines as power=generator as they > hardly count as power infrastructure. My suggestion is > man_made=small_generator or something like that for (could also apply to > rooftop solar panels). > Don't agree. The power generation mod

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

2013/10/7 Ole Nielsen > Maybe we shouldn't tag such small wind turbines as power=generator as they > hardly count as power infrastructure. -1, it is already done like this (also for solar power) and there is no reason why they shouldn't count as power infrastructure. cheers, Martin __

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

2013/10/7 Matthijs Melissen > Just to be clear: do you mean that you always have to dismount on > footpaths, even without the sign, or do you mean that you don't need to > dismount, despite the presence of the sign? you will always have to dismount, so the sign has no further indication as wha

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

2013/10/7 Ole Nielsen > At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no and > bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with no > bicycle pushing. In other words you may not bring your bicycle here. Thus > you need bicycle=no in its strict interpretati

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

>Martin Koppenhoefer: >Btw.: What about monocycles? Are you alled to carry a monocycle in these >streets? What would the traffic ticket claim as the offence? FWIW, our law has a clause that on a footway a pedestrian may not push a bike, moped, kicksled, ski or skate or carry a big load if it ca

Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes

2013/8/23 Vivien Deparday > Case C: > For building usage, > building= > building:use= > I am not sure what is the best between these two or do they have different > goal/usage? building= seem to be a mix of usage, amenity type, structure > type. > building:use is for the current use of the buil

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

2013/10/7 Kytömaa Lauri > FWIW, our law has a clause that on a footway a pedestrian may not push a > bike, moped, kicksled, ski or skate or carry a big load if it can cause > considerable hindrance to others. This list doesn't contain babystrollers, does the situation change when you have a sm

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

On 07.10.2013 23:06, Ole Nielsen wrote: > On 07/10/2013 21:42, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> dieterdreist wrote: >>> bicycle=no indicates that you cannot (legally) ride your bicycle there. >>> If you dismount and push you become a pedestrian, so you are not >>> riding a bicycle and bicycle=no has no

Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes

On 07.10.2013 22:39, Vivien Deparday wrote: > Thank you Tobias (sorry for the late answer), that is very useful > feedback and pretty much exactly in line with our thinking on all the > cases which is great. For B, we are actually also using plaster as one > of the values as the values are recorded

Re: [Tagging] Wind turbines: big and small

On 07.10.2013 22:53, Janko Mihelić wrote: > Dana ponedjeljak, 7. listopada 2013., korisnik > flymailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com>> je > napisao: >> No, if it is mounted on top I would say height=3 for the object. >> >> min_height is only used for building:part but not for explicit tagged >> object

Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes

> Am 08/ott/2013 um 00:48 schrieb fly : > > Think your values would fit with > simple operator=* and if you want to separate the operator of the > building from the operator of the amenity I think operator:amenity would > be better you should not use amenity and building on the same object, ev

Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes

I don't see the use of multipolygon relations in this manor in the wiki. Nor have I noticed it in use in the areas that I have edited. Nor do I recall answers suggesting using multiple multipoloygons on the help site. Is this a common technique that I have somehow missed? Thanks! Tod -- Sent

Re: [Tagging] Consolidating tags for building attributes

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: you should not use amenity and building on the same object Er, what? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element Cheers, Andy ___ Tag

Re: [Tagging] Usefulness of bicycle=dismount on ways

> At least in the Netherlands you have to distinguish between bicycle=no and bicycle=dismount. Some pedestrian streets are explicitly signed with no bicycle pushing. I never heard of that, what sign do you mean? In which contexts is out used? Do you have a picture by any chance? -- Matthijs _