[Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

Hi! I just stumbled upon the wiki article regarding maxwidth:physical. From reading it - and the articles about maxwidth and width - I don't really understand when to use each key. My understanding so far: * width: this is the actual width of a feature * maxwidth: this is a legal limitation; noth

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

2015-02-16 10:42 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald : > Hi! > > I just stumbled upon the wiki article regarding maxwidth:physical. From > reading it - and the articles about maxwidth and width - I don't really > understand when to use each key. > > My understanding so far: > * width: this is the actual widt

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

Hi! 2015-02-16 10:58 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > * maxwidth:physical: according to the wiki page: a physical limit >> > > > IIRR there were users of latin american countries telling that their > bridges sometimes had 2 height informations signposted: maxheight and > maxheight:physical and t

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

In the UK frequent use is made of "legal" weight and width limits, often to keep heavy traffic out of residential areas or away from country lanes. In this case the road sign usually has a qualifier "except for access." An emergency vehicle can ignore these legal limits of course, but they would

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

Martin Vonwald wrote: >My understanding so far: >* width: this is the actual width of a feature >* maxwidth: this is a legal limitation; nothing wider than the given value may >use the feature >* maxwidth:physical: according to the wiki page: a physical limit The width of the vehicle that could u

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

2015-02-16 11:12 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald : > if there was something tagged like (example made up): >> barrier=bollard >> width=0.2m >> maxwidth=1.2m >> > > What about maxwidth:physical in this example? > Like I wrote above: I'd expect the width to be the width of the bollard and maxwidth the (

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

Maybe it's for special cargo. If you are a regular truck, you have to use maxwidth. But if you are a truck that has oversize load[1] you use maxwidth:physical. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversize_load Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openst

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

Hi! 2015-02-16 11:16 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri : > The width of the vehicle that could use the way can be wider than the way > itself, even if it depends on the conditions whether they're allowed to. > For an example, a way in a park might be, say, 2 meters wide, but if > there's just grass around

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

2015-02-16 11:18 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić : > Maybe > If you read a documentation and afterwards you "maybe" know what it means, the documentation might need some kind of improvement. ;-) I think we got enough good examples in this thread. Anyone willing to update the wiki? Best regards,

Re: [Tagging] high mobile masts on man_made=mast

2015-02-16 4:25 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout : > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > I've been taught that a mast is usually not self supporting, ie. has >> guy wires while a tower is self supporting. > > > +1 > > Also, the wiki definition nee

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

2015-02-15 13:44 GMT+01:00 John Willis : > Landuse=religious is a generic version of churchyard. > I agree that a churchyard could have a dedicated tag like amenity=churchyard (similar to amenity=graveyard) or historic=churchyard. IMHO "landuse" shouldn't define a feature, but be used as an att

Re: [Tagging] Bus route relations. Forward/backward tag

There are still cases where forward/backward are useful with P2-routes. E.g. a route with a loop and some members used twice but different directions. Personally, I still use forward/backward on any member of a route which is only used in one direction and for all P2-routes as it makes it much eas

Re: [Tagging] building=yes on nodes?

Am 14.02.2015 um 23:06 schrieb Tobias Knerr: > On 14.02.2015 22:11, SomeoneElse wrote: >> ... it also says that it shouldn't be used on relations, which would >> exclude perfectly valid multipolygons, such as this one: > > Multipolygons are a means to map areas. So they are covered by the area > i

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

Am 16.02.2015 um 11:56 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > 2015-02-15 13:44 GMT+01:00 John Willis : > >> Landuse=religious is a generic version of churchyard. >> > I agree that a churchyard could have a dedicated tag like > amenity=churchyard (similar to amenity=graveyard) or historic=churchyard. > IMH

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

2015-02-08 23:15 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-) > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features_key%3Drubbish > > At present there as a number of 'waste' values under the amenity key. > sorry for commenting a bit late on

Re: [Tagging] high mobile masts on man_made=mast

Am 16.02.2015 um 11:32 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > 2015-02-16 4:25 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout : > >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < >> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I've been taught that a mast is usually not self supporting, ie. has >>> guy wires while a tower is

Re: [Tagging] high mobile masts on man_made=mast

Am 16.02.2015 um 13:33 schrieb fly: > Am 16.02.2015 um 11:32 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: >> 2015-02-16 4:25 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout : >> >>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < >>> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > I've been taught that a mast is usually not self support

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

Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 16, 2015, at 7:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > 2015-02-15 13:44 GMT+01:00 John Willis : >> Landuse=religious is a generic version of churchyard. > > > > I agree that a churchyard could have a dedicated tag like amenity=churchyard > (similar to ameni

Re: [Tagging] Bus route relations. Forward/backward tag

Yes, I'm reconsidering my POV. It will probably make sorting the members automatically a lot easier than it is atm. /me is off to go and convert some route relations... :-) (Helped by a script ofc, doing it manually is a chore. So I'll adapt the script and let you know when it's ready to be used.)

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

2015-02-16 14:20 GMT+01:00 John Willis : > So far I have not experienced a problem with adding "religion" and > "denomination" tags to features operated by a religious community and have > continued to use the same landuse I'd use otherwise on the same kind of > feature (if any). What would I gain

Re: [Tagging] Bus route relations. Forward/backward tag

2015-02-16 13:03 GMT+01:00 fly : > There are still cases where forward/backward are useful with P2-routes. > E.g. a route with a loop and some members used twice but different > directions. > Shouldn't one just duplicate the stop_positions in the relation, and add ways twice in order, without rol

Re: [Tagging] building=yes on nodes?

I would like to return to the original question: 1.) I think it is confusing to have building=cowshed allowed on nodes, but building=cabin not allowed. We should unify this. Either _all_ building=* keys can be used on nodes, or _none_. 2.) If we agree on 1.), would we opt to allow nodes or to dis

Re: [Tagging] building=yes on nodes?

All building=* on nodes is fine. As others have pointed out, it is often necessary in HOT aerial mapping when we have low-resolution imagery to work from. Also, for humanitarian purposes there are serious uses for node-only buildings, for estimating the population or the population distribution in

Re: [Tagging] Bus route relations. Forward/backward tag

Loops and spoons are still quite common, even when each variation gets its own route relation to describe which ways are used from beginning to end. What is better in v2 is that the way to describe each of the variations, is completely unambiguous. To me they are easier to fix when they get broken

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:02 PM, David Bannon wrote: > > To summarise discussion, structures like - > > amenity=campsite > campsite=waste_disposal > waste=chemical_toilet > > is a bit clumsy given how many tags are needed and how often it _should_ > be tagged. Further, many "sites" be they mining,

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

Please comment the proposal to add the value *intermittent *to the key* power_supply.* Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl _

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

Intermittent is an attribute, not a top level value. For example, it should be possible to tag a NEMA 5-15 as intermittent. 2015-02-16 11:47 GMT-08:00 Jan van Bekkum : > Please comment the proposal > to > add the v

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

Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 17, 2015, at 1:50 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > 2015-02-16 14:20 GMT+01:00 John Willis : >>> So far I have not experienced a problem with adding "religion" and >>> "denomination" tags to features operated by a religious community and have >>> continued

Re: [Tagging] high mobile masts on man_made=mast

2015-02-16 13:33 GMT+01:00 fly : > Thought antenna vs mast might be a problem but not mast vs tower. > antenna and mast are orthogonal concepts, a mast is defining the shape, an antenna the function, that's easy ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On 17/02/2015 6:45 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:02 PM, David Bannon mailto:dban...@internode.on.net>> wrote: > > To summarise discussion, structures like - > > amenity=campsite > campsite=waste_disposal > waste=chemical_toilet > > is a bit clumsy given how many tags are nee

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

On 17/02/2015 6:47 AM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: Please comment the proposal to add the value /intermittent /to the key/power_supply./ Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, /Jan van Bekkum/ www.DeEinderVoorbij.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On 16/02/2015 11:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-02-08 23:15 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com >: A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-) https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features_key%3Drubbish At present there

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

On 17/02/2015 6:50 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Intermittent is an attribute, not a top level value. For example, it should be possible to tag a NEMA 5-15 as intermittent. so a tag sequence of power_supply=nema_5_15 power_supply:intermittent=yes ? And then for my previous comments become; pow

Re: [Tagging] high mobile masts on man_made=mast

On 16/02/2015 11:33 PM, fly wrote: Be careful some mast as support for wind generators might be entered. Thought antenna vs mast might be a problem but not mast vs tower. Cheers fly An antenna is not a mast nor a tower, just as a wind generator is not a mast nor a tower. They may be mount

Re: [Tagging] building=yes on nodes?

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:30 AM, Dan S wrote: > All building=* on nodes is fine. As others have pointed out, it is > often necessary in HOT aerial mapping when we have low-resolution > imagery to work from. > Agree. As for the Wiki editing, I too hope it doesn't lead to a storm. -- Dave Swart

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

How in hell did the term pitlatrine get in there 1500 times? A weird construction of a multi-word term IMO. If anything it should be pit_latrine. As far as that goes, the tag toilet:disposal seems, to this reader at least, to indicate a place to discard toilets and be limited to the values yes or n

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Waste colleting is wider than just camping sites. And that is the point of > consdering it as a new high level tag. The porposal may have come out of > consderation of camp sites .. but it has much wider use and so should not

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 20:47 +0100, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > Please comment the proposal to add the value intermittent to the key > power_supply. > Jan, good move, just wondering what you mean by 'intermittent' ? Two cases may need to be enlarged on - 1. Where I live, power goes off, typically due

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > While toilet & drinking water tagging is reasonably stable, there are > several camping waste related tags that are not. > For example: a commonly needed and commonly mapped feature is an RV dump > station, for emptying > sewage holding tank

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:46 +1100, Warin wrote: ... > though it has no page as yet.. > True, and given the lack of support, I don't think it is likely to need one ! Lets drop this proposal. This particular proposal started when Dave S complained about multi tags needed but even he is distan

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt ..For example: a commonly needed and commonly mapped feature is an RV dump station, for emptying sewage holding tanks. > On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:39 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: > .. > discussion are resisting it as a top level tag (a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:07 PM, David Bannon wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt > ..For example: a commonly needed and commonly mapped feature is an > RV dump station, for emptying sewage holding tanks. > > > On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:39 +0700, Dave Swarthout wro

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

The proposal comes from experience while traveling through Africa. Electricity failing three times per year probably isn't very valuable information to campers. We ran into three situations I would like to cover: - The community supply is not reliable and fails at random moments - The campin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

- The community supply is not reliable and fails at random moments *during the day...* On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 7:09:33 AM Jan van Bekkum wrote: > The proposal comes from experience while traveling through Africa. > Electricity failing three times per year probably isn't very valuable > info