Re: [Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value?

johnw wrote on 11.11.2014 06:38: > I’m not sure of other countries, but at least in the US, parking on > top of retail structures is exceedingly rare - usually there are > adjacent multi-story parking structures. It always seems that there > is some kind of code or cost savings preventing it, alwa

Re: [Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value?

2014-11-11 10:56 GMT+01:00 Holger Jeromin : > I would suggest two overlapping ways: > building=yes > amenity=parking > parking=multi-story > building:levels=5 > building:min_levels=2 > layer=1 > > and > building=retail > building:levels=2 > shop=department_store > Me similarily, but would propo

Re: [Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value?

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 11.11.2014 11:01: > 2014-11-11 10:56 GMT+01:00 Holger Jeromin > I would suggest two overlapping ways: > building=yes > amenity=parking > parking=multi-story > building:levels=5 > building:min_levels=2 > layer=1 > > and > building=r

Re: [Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value?

I was thinking of just.. Um.. drawing an area of the building, with levels=x, layer=1, then drawing the parking lot on top of it (it usually is a bit smaller and less than 100% of the top, elevators and AC and all), and then tagging the parking with Amenity=parking & parking=rooftop / layer=2 H

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Tagging for complex junctions

Just as a reminder: Voting is still open at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tagging_for_complex_junctions Lukas Lukas Sommer 2014-11-02 7:57 GMT+00:00 Lukas Sommer : > Hello. > > After commenting period, now is starting the voting for the junction > (only) tagging at > htt

Re: [Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value?

2014-11-11 11:09 GMT+01:00 Holger Jeromin : > > Me similarily, but would propose to use a multipolygon relation instead. > > That's why they are there, overlapping ways are hard to maintain and > > more difficult to spot. > > Instead? > > Adding a relation to the two overlapping ways seems not mak

Re: [Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value?

On 11.11.2014 06:38, johnw wrote: > I assume there is a need to create a new parking=rooftop or similar tag, > which can then be used to create more accurate renderers (perhaps by also > placing the parking=rooftop tag onto the service=parking isle service roads, > so they are similarly (translu

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Tagging for complex junctions

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:08:56AM +, Lukas Sommer wrote: > Just as a reminder: Voting is still open at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tagging_for_complex_junctions question - key:junction has many more possible values than just "yes" for the single point variant. Are

Re: [Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value?

2014-11-11 12:53 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr : > On 11.11.2014 06:38, johnw wrote: > > I assume there is a need to create a new parking=rooftop or similar tag, > which can then be used to create more accurate renderers (perhaps by also > placing the parking=rooftop tag onto the service=parking isle ser

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Tagging for complex junctions

The proposal is only about allow “junction=yes” on areas. All other stuff stays without changes. Lukas Sommer 2014-11-11 12:08 GMT+00:00 Richard Z. : > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 11:08:56AM +, Lukas Sommer wrote: > > Just as a reminder: Voting is still open at > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.o

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Tagging for complex junctions

2014-11-11 14:45 GMT+01:00 Lukas Sommer : > The proposal is only about allow “junction=yes” on areas. All other stuff > stays without changes. Would you mind explaining why you oppose more specific junction types in this proposal which apparently aims at mapping junctions in more detail? Before

Re: [Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value?

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 11.11.2014 13:36: > 2014-11-11 12:53 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr > On 11.11.2014 06:38, johnw wrote: > > I assume there is a need to create a new parking=rooftop or similar > tag, which can then be used to create more accurate renderers (perhaps by > also placing

Re: [Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value?

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 11.11.2014 12:21: > 2014-11-11 11:09 GMT+01:00 Holger Jeromin > > Me similarily, but would propose to use a multipolygon relation > instead. > > That's why they are there, overlapping ways are hard to maintain and > > more difficult to spot. > Inste

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Tagging for complex junctions

The most popular value for the key “junction” is “roundabout”, which can be used on closed ways, but it hasn’t the meaning of an area, but it is simply a closed way which is used together with “highway=*” and represents a road in form of a circle. So this would probably conflict with interpreting t

Re: [Tagging] Dispute with user over changing wiki page

Thanks Micheal I thought I just wait some days for other to reply but unfortunately no more then yours. The question we still have is : What can we do? I suppose the DWG will only block when harm is done to the OSM database and not on any wiki pages. Anyone else for a recommendation as to what we

Re: [Tagging] Dispute with user over changing wiki page

Hi Pee Wee, Am 2014-11-11 um 19:20 schrieb Pee Wee: > Thanks Micheal > > I thought I just wait some days for other to reply but unfortunately no > more then yours. The question we still have is : What can we do? I suppose > the DWG will only block when harm is done to the OSM database and not on

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap

Bryce, Thanks for your comments. Tagging "amenity=drinking_water + drinkable=no" makes, at least, the WeTap > Android application show a false source of drinkable water. > It renders on many maps indistinguishable from potable water. > As I already said in the previous email, I think the only so

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Tagging for complex junctions

> Am 11.11.2014 um 18:45 schrieb Lukas Sommer : > > but it is simply a closed way which is used together with “highway=*” and > represents a road in form of a circle. So this would probably conflict with > interpreting this as area. on the junction area you wouldn't put a highway tag. Ch

Re: [Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value?

> 2014-11-11 12:53 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr >: > Therefore, would prefer a generic tag that can be added to any feature, > e.g. location=rooftop. with > On Nov 11, 2014, at 9:36 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > what about the "surface" value, isn't rooftop (o

Re: [Tagging] Dispute with user over changing wiki page

Hi, * Pee Wee [14 19:20]: > I thought I just wait some days for other to reply but unfortunately no > more then yours. The question we still have is : What can we do? I suppose > the DWG will only block when harm is done to the OSM database and not on > any wiki pages. Anyone else for a reco

Re: [Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value?

On 12/11/2014 5:20 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:26:48 +0100 From: Holger Jeromin To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Martin Koppenhoef

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 62, Issue 31

On 12/11/2014 9:35 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: A "non-potable water" introduces two problems: 1) a mapper may not know if the water is potable or not; there may be no way to check it or he may not be able to do it; still adding a water source is useful; 2) I don't like creating t

Re: [Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value?

> > First Principle? > However in a multistory buliding .. what are people coming to the building > for? Should 'we' not map the purpose of the building The purpose of the building is indeed retail (almost always), but the purpose of the map is navigation. I wish to accurately tag and rende

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 62, Issue 31

No, unknown should be tagged as unknown. Even better - not tagged. 2014-11-12 0:09 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 12/11/2014 9:35 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > A "non-potable water" introduces two problems: > 1) a mapper may not know if the water is potable or n