I think here you just try to compensate the missing 'z' component in
OSM. I don't see any problem to have over two elements on the same
position if they have different "ele" or "layer" values.
Pieren
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
ht
There are some values of shop key that seem to be synonymous with other
tags and I want to confirm whatever it is true.
Unless mentioned otherwise all mentioned tags are values of key shop,
numeric values is occurrence count according to taginfo.
Before -> are values that IMHO should be replaced by
> Am 10/lug/2014 um 10:09 schrieb Pieren :
>
> I don't see any problem to have over two elements on the same
> position if they have different "ele" or "layer" values.
I think from a practical point of view these situations are problematic, both
for creation and selection of these nodes. Edit
> Am 10/lug/2014 um 11:00 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny :
>
> In cases of confirmed synonymity I will create feature request on JOSM
> bugtracker to add conversion rules into validator (currently no values from
> this list are handled).
> ___
I'd be careful with fishmonger vs sea
> Am 10/lug/2014 um 11:19 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
> I'd be careful with fishmonger vs seafood (is the latter OK for someone who
> only sells fresh water fish?)
also shop=fish might be used for pets (fish only)?
___
Tagging mailing list
Taggi
Thanks for your work Mateusz!
2014-07-10 10:21 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>> Am 10/lug/2014 um 11:19 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer :
>>
>> I'd be careful with fishmonger vs seafood (is the latter OK for someone who
>> only sells fresh water fish?)
>
> also shop=fish might be used for pets (fis
> Although since the rules are for josm validation so will be checked by
> a human, I guess that's low-risk right?
I thought about JOSM validator rule with fix button, so it would
not be safe to assume that it will be carefully checked (the same type
of rule as [natural=marsh] to [natural=wetland,
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 5:00 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> There are some values of shop key that seem to be synonymous with other tags
> and I want to confirm whatever it is true.
> Unless mentioned otherwise all mentioned tags are values of key shop,
> numeric values is occurrence count accordi
> Am 10/lug/2014 um 11:50 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny :
>
> According to Wikipedia "In North America, although not generally
> in the United Kingdom, the term "seafood" is extended to fresh water
> organisms eaten by humans, so all edible aquatic life may be referred
> to as seafood.".
we are
> A deli and a delicatessen are not the same thing. I'd say a
> delicatessen is a cuisine of restaurant, and a deli is a type of shop.
Is it really applying to objects with shop=delicatessen?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lis
I am thinking about marking tagging roads with separate carriageways. I
want to create map with oneway roads, but in OSM data roads with separate
carriageways that are not oneway are frequently represented as separate
ways, both tagged as oneway.
Adding tag that that would describe way as part of
On 10/07/2014 10:50, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
According to Wikipedia "In North America, although not generally
in the United Kingdom, the term "seafood" is extended to fresh water
organisms eaten by humans, so all edible aquatic life may be referred
to as seafood.".
We really, really, can't r
I did manage to do it (reasonably accurately) by algorithm for the UK, but
it was a bit of a pain.
Adding dual_carriageway=yes tags, particularly in urban areas, wouldn't
hurt.
Richard
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> I am thinking about marking tagging roads with
>
> I did manage to do it (reasonably accurately) by algorithm for the UK, but
> it was a bit of a pain.
>
Can you share it? Currently I have absolutely no idea how to solve case of
link type roads that are not really links ( cases like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/182138211 ).
__
I think I just ignored very short links, so I don't think it would help in
that case.
Very roughly, I calculated the bearing of each way, and matched up ones
that were within a few metres laterally and a few degrees of 180deg of each
other.
Richard
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Mateusz Koni
Hi Martin,
at a first glance I thought you're joking with this proposal.
Editor software often fuses nodes on the same coordinate, that's right
unfortunately, but it's not a problem of nodes being on the same spot,
but a bug in the editors.
The handling of relations in most cases is even more comp
I say go ahead and add it, though `highway=track` (with appropriate access tag)
might make more sense if vehicles drive along the beach.
Here in NJ, people have also been mapping the paths that lead down to the beach
from the boardwalks, but they generally aren’t connected. I’m a runner, so I
2014-07-10 12:52 GMT+02:00 Peter Wendorff :
> And: Why restrict to
> nodes? why not use a way relation as well for ways sharing the same spot
> (e.g. tram and highway, communication cables and water tubes, ...)
>
yes, there is also room for a way-relation, completely agree. Don't need it
current
Hi,
(I am sorry if this message appears twice - I wasn't yet subscribed to
this list with my Telenav account.)
I posted about destination= and destination:ref= a few days ago,
linking to my diary entry. I have since received a lot of useful
comments. I just wanted to bump this topic because all t
2014-07-10 12:20 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
> I am thinking about marking tagging roads with separate carriageways. I
> want to create map with oneway roads, but in OSM data roads with separate
> carriageways that are not oneway are frequently represented as separate
> ways, both tagged as onew
Hi!
2014-07-10 15:43 GMT+02:00 Martijn van Exel :
> Here at Telenav, we have now adopted destination= and destination:ref=
> for signpost information.
>
Great news! I just came back from my holidays where we used Skobbler (I
guess you know it ;-) ) for navigation and it was hell. Skobbler
desper
Hi Martin, and others,
I need to clarify that for the time being the Skobbler apps use a different
engine than the Scout U.S. apps. My work is focused mostly on the Scout U.S.
apps for now, and the improvements I am working on will only benefit Scout U.S.
for now.
That said, we are working on
Am 09.07.2014 23:49, schrieb Janko Mihelić:
> Should there be a relation with type=way? For when you need a way that
> is not an area over an existing way. Example would be a fence that is
> put on a wall.
There is already a proposal for type=multilinestring [1].
I use it occasionally to map barr
On 9 July 2014 20:44, Daniel Koć wrote:
> I have no preference which general map should be default - the "beauty" one
> or the "working" one - but two "beauty" maps and no "working" one makes no
> sense to me.
I remember having seem an adaptation of the Mapnik style, but with
extra tags added, ex
Am 10.07.2014 15:43, schrieb Martijn van Exel:
> Hi,
>
> (I am sorry if this message appears twice - I wasn't yet subscribed to
> this list with my Telenav account.)
>
> I posted about destination= and destination:ref= a few days ago,
> linking to my diary entry. I have since received a lot of us
Martijn, great to hear that Telenav will be using the destination keys.
Since this tagging will only be used for informational purposes to the
motorist (routing won't be affected) I recommend to tag all info on the
signposts, like the signs, and not only the destination and
destination:ref. Example
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jesse Crawford wrote:
>
> As a second but similar question, off-highway vehicles are a popular
> pasttime here and there are many tracks intended for ATVs or dirtbikes, not
> wide enough for SUVs. Is there a best practice for tagging these types of
> paths?
>
I ha
I am confused. You state that the road is divided into two carriageways, that
neither carriageway is one-way, and also that each carriageway is one-way. How
can a given carriageway be both one-way and not one-way at the same time?
On July 10, 2014 5:20:16 AM CDT, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> I
Road itself is not oneway as it has two one-way carriageways in opposite
directions. Carriageways are mapped in OSM as separate one-way ways.
2014-07-10 21:32 GMT+02:00 John F. Eldredge :
> I am confused. You state that the road is divided into two carriageways,
> that neither carriageway is one
An example situation is visible here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/34.05688/-106.89005
Both California St and the nearby I-25 are two-way streets made up of two
parallel one-way streets. This has the advantage of thorough data, but it
introduces two issues that I see:
1) Information on cr
On 09/07/2014 01:08, David Bannon wrote:
I don't really care exactly how it is done as long as we end up with a
clear model advising people whether or not they should attempt a
particular road. I have posted references to lost lives as a result of
bad decisions. Its easier to get people to take
On Jul 10, 2014, at 2:20 PM, Jesse Crawford wrote:
> An example situation is visible here:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/34.05688/-106.89005
>
> Both California St and the nearby I-25 are two-way streets made up of two
> parallel one-way streets. This has the advantage of thorough data
32 matches
Mail list logo
