Re: [Tagging] Tagging private property

On 2/01/2015 6:03 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 05:00:24 + From: Megha Shrestha To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: [Tagging] Tagging private property Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I came ac

Re: [Tagging] hrmpf.

2015-01-02 8:55 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald : > all 13 nodes have been checked and edited by me manually (not using >> search-and-replace). since this case is not covered in the mechanical >> edit policy, IMHO this policy does not apply. >> > > In my opinion this does not qualify as mechanical edit.

Re: [Tagging] Tagging private property

2015-01-02 10:25 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > Landuse=residential ? +1, but it wouldn't have connotations about the structure (one plot or several plots or only part of a plot), only on the type of landuse. > Normally a village/town/city is marked this way. -1, villages, tow

Re: [Tagging] Tagging private property

Thanks for the suggestion. I think I got the answer. The unused land is the land scheduled for construction purpose. Is this suitable to use landuse = residential for such property?? Megha Shrestha Geomatics Engineer Intern Kathmandu Living Labs On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer

Re: [Tagging] question: best practices for micromapping ped areas and footpaths?

2014-12-30 11:50 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis : > make the entire area highway=pedestrian and have the building=roof are on >> a layer above it? >> >> > I would go for this option. > +1, I'd normally use a multipolygon relation to represent the roof if it has the same extent as the pedestrian area below

Re: [Tagging] Tagging private property

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Megha Shrestha wrote: > Thanks for the suggestion. I think I got the answer. The unused land is > the land scheduled for construction purpose. Is this suitable to use > landuse = residential for such property?? > then the landuse is either brownfield (there were

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

2014-12-30 21:33 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan : > I agree. > > Voting page: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting > > Thanks everyone for the in-depth consideration. > now, that this has fortunately become something more simple (e.g. not implying that the water

Re: [Tagging] hrmpf.

On 01/01/2015 23:34, Rainer Fügenstein wrote: pipeline mapping is the field of a small minority of mappers. considering this logic, established tags in fields of "minority interests" can never be changed, unless it becomes the interest of the majority. You might be surprised. As well as peopl

Re: [Tagging] hrmpf.

andy, thank your for joining this list. S> You might be surprised. that's nice to hear. finally, all the work may not have been in vain, after all ;-) S> To be clear, I don't think that anyone's criticising the change itself, S> just the notification of it. [...] but it would still have been n

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

Hi Martin and all, It seems to me we can discuss it in great detail and agree on something, but the users will understand—and use—the proposed (or even non-existing) tags it in their own way. They will not have followed this discussion and many will not even read the corresponding wiki-page. There

Re: [Tagging] Tagging private property

Thank you all for your suggestions. Was a great help! :) On Jan 2, 2015 3:44 PM, "Marc Gemis" wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Megha Shrestha > wrote: > >> Thanks for the suggestion. I think I got the answer. The unused land is >> the land scheduled for construction purpose. Is this

[Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

Dear all, In the next version of the openstreetmap-carto style sheet (the default rendering used on openstreetmap.org) there will be some changes that might highlight current tagging errors. In particular, areas tagged with amenity=place_of_worship or aeroway=terminal that do not have a building

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > In the next version of the openstreetmap-carto style sheet (the > default rendering used on openstreetmap.org) there will be some > changes that might highlight current tagging errors. > > Is it possible to create a Maproulette challenge

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

Whoa! There are about 44,000 wats (temples) in Thailand. Of the few thousand that are mapped most of those are mapped only as nodes. Are you saying those will all disappear on the OSM slippy maps? On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > Dear all, > > In the next version of th

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

I don't agree that place_of_worship requires a building. E.g. the Lourdes grotto or perhaps modern versions of Stonehenge or ... In Christian religion there are several places with many small shrines, but the whole is a place of worship (sorry don't know the English word). The wiki page [1] states

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

Query to find aeroway=terminal without building tag: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/6Ne For place_of_worship it is more complicated, as some really are not buildings. 2015-01-02 16:17 GMT+01:00 Matthijs Melissen : > Dear all, > > In the next version of the openstreetmap-carto style sheet (the > defa

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

Ooops, I just re-read your post. I think I understand now. On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Matthijs Melissen < > i...@matthijsmelissen.nl> wrote: > >> In the next version of the openstreetmap-carto style sheet (the >> default rendering us

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

"I don't agree that place_of_worship requires a building." Yes. But buildings that are PoW require a building tag. See"to all buildings tagged with" in the first post. 2015-01-02 16:42 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis : > I don't agree that place_of_worship requires a building. > E.g. the Lourdes grotto or

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

+1, I made the same mistake On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > Ooops, I just re-read your post. I think I understand now. > > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Clifford Snow > wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Matthijs Melissen < >> i...@matthijsmelissen.nl> wr

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

On 2 January 2015 at 15:42, Marc Gemis wrote: > I don't agree that place_of_worship requires a building. > E.g. the Lourdes grotto or perhaps modern versions of Stonehenge or ... > In Christian religion there are several places with many small shrines, but > the whole is a place of worship (sorry

Re: [Tagging] correct access tagging for tourist attraction

Happy new year Am 31.12.2014 um 19:05 schrieb Greg Troxel: > > johnw writes: > >> perhaps use the =destination tag instead of =private on the road you are >> supposed to use. >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access >> Please, no. > I

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

Same query for amenity=place_of_worship: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/6Nj Note that this contains false positives. Nodes have been excluded from this query. -- Matthijs On 2 January 2015 at 15:43, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Query to find aeroway=terminal without building tag: > http://overpass-tu

Re: [Tagging] Shared foot- and cycletracks

Do not see any advantage compared to highway=path with proper access-tags. Am 28.12.2014 um 19:54 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > Please, stop proposing tags conflicting with widely used ones. > > Also, your example with Poland is incorrect (pedestrians have priority > over cyclists). +1 Same in G

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

Matthijs, it looks that we will have a problem in Italy. I just ran your query on a 90kmx100km area around Padova and obtained about 1000 potential problems. Some of them are definitively churches. I have put the problem on the Italian mailing list. What's the time schedule for this new version o

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

According to OSM-talk message it will be rolled out "soon". 2015-01-02 18:19 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt : > Matthijs, > > it looks that we will have a problem in Italy. I just ran your query on a > 90kmx100km area around Padova and obtained about 1000 potential problems. > Some of them are definiti

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

I had a look in Padova, and I noticed that most polygons tagged amenity=place_of_worship in that area are not actually buildings. They include the gardens, parking areas, and in some cases even tennis and soccer pitches that apparently are part of the church. In such cases, a building=yes tag is of

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

"parking areas, and in some cases even tennis and soccer pitches" In this cases also amenity=place_of_worship probably is not necessary. It sounds like operator=*, owner=* and maybe landuse=religious would be a better solution. I am pretty sure that parkings are not used as place of worship. 2

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

Le 2 janv. 2015 19:03, "Matthijs Melissen" a écrit : > [...] In such cases, > a building=yes tag is of course not necessary, and I think it would > also be an improvement if such areas are not rendered as buildings. > I would rather suggestions building=church (or chapel) on appropriate polygons.

Re: [Tagging] shop=provisions (Import Norway)

Am 28.12.2014 um 00:12 schrieb Andreas Goss: > Found this tag when cleaning up shop=*. I guess you can buy food and/or > equipment there? Guess that is the problem. > Looks like it's all from a import from Norway for tourist huts. > > * > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/N50_i

Re: [Tagging] key:support, man_made=surveillance

The cleanest solution is always a proposal but for values it is sometimes not demanded on. I think it is much better to describe all values on the page of the key possibly in different paragraphs or on an own page. You can still list appropriate values on the page of the primary tag and link to "

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

> On Jan 3, 2015, at 3:18 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > "parking areas, and in some cases even tennis and soccer pitches" > > In this cases also amenity=place_of_worship probably is not necessary. > It sounds like operator=*, owner=* and maybe landuse=religious would be > a better solution.

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=electronic_parts

Hi there. I am writing to propose a new, hopefully more precise and self-describing tag for shops that sell electronic parts. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Delectronic_parts Wishing you a mappy new year :) Michał ___ Tag

Re: [Tagging] correct access tagging for tourist attraction

I always thought access=destination meant you can go through a road with a car, if your destination is that road. You can't use that road to go to a different road. 2015-01-02 17:01 GMT+01:00 fly : > Happy new year > > Am 31.12.2014 um 19:05 schrieb Greg Troxel: > > > > johnw writes: > > > >> pe

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 64, Issue 2

Am 02.01.2015 um 00:00 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 22:09:49 +0100 > From: 715371 > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [Tagging] Sidewalk tagged on highway=cycleway > Message-ID: <54a5b79d.1020...@gmx.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; chars

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=electronic_parts

On Fri, 2015-01-02 at 23:17 +0100, Michał Brzozowski wrote: > I am writing to propose a new, hopefully more precise and > self-describing tag for shops that sell electronic parts. Good move. David > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Delectronic_parts > __

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

On 2/01/2015 11:00 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 11:31:36 +0100 From: Martin Koppenhoefer To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset

Re: [Tagging] correct access tagging for tourist attraction

Am 02.01.2015 um 23:25 schrieb Janko Mihelić: > I always thought access=destination meant you can go through a road with > a car, if your destination is that road. You can't use that road to go > to a different road. First of all, you will get a problem in OSM if you count each way with highway=*

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

landuse=religious Which still nobody knows what it is supposed to be used for... I'm supposed to tag this around every church? Well, have fun with those landuse multipolygons... __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎ _

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 64, Issue 10

Meaning of verbs Am 02.01.2015 um 23:44 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org: >> >> "It is also possible to use {{Tag|sidewalk|right}}/*=left [on >> highway=cycleway] to indicate which side of the segregated path >> pedestrians should walk on (where right/left is relative to the way's >> dir

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=tree_shrine

I started this tag back in Aug. 2012 to have a more detailed tag for tree shrines which I often saw and still see on commercial maps. This is my second time I start this RFC since I ran out of free time to care about it the first time and it got stuck. There already was wayside_shrine and wayside

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

Why multipolygons? Typical area with various church thingies (church, vicarage etc) is not requiring multypolygon - it is usually may be represented by a simple closed way. 2015-01-03 4:45 GMT+01:00 Andreas Goss : > landuse=religious >> > > Which still nobody knows what it is supposed to be used