Re: [Tagging] Proposed: landuse=civic_admin - looking for comments.

> On Mar 9, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > > > In any case, that is one example were police and court house buildings are in > the same complex as other civic buildings, so it can happen. > > For what it is worth, there is no landuse polygon around the Civic Center but > if landuse=civ

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps

On 9/03/2015 5:45 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: I'm not sure how steps vanish if you have the same number of them. Both upper and lower ways slope at the same rate in the same direction .. So same number at sides .. but in order for the treads to remain level the steps must vanish on the upper

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for an event space / function hall?

On 9/03/2015 5:08 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Bryce Nesbitt > wrote But the whole thing is a bit problematic. It's hard to draw a line between places that dedicated for events, and places that may do a few events per year.

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

As the comments period is over and no comments have been received lately I would like to move the proposal shop=storage to stage voting. I have done some final editing to cover the received feedback. Instructions for vot

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for an event space / function hall?

Maybe it would be possible to map the event areas (if known) with area/point tags like event_space=1 and a name or ref, and then basic info (surface, capacity, covered,) and then, um, relate them to the main landuse/amenity object like the garden or event hall ( i dont' know relations). If it is

Re: [Tagging] route=foot

> On Mar 9, 2015, at 6:35 AM, Tod Fitch wrote: > On Mar 8, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> US Scouts might hyperbolize intentionally to "Rattan Death March" for >> extreme distances over rugged terrain. > > Off Topic: I was under the impression that it would be called a "Bataan Deat

Re: [Tagging] domestic fuel transport delivery мазут

> Am 09.03.2015 um 01:13 schrieb André Pirard : > > It's not amenity=fuel (not a gas station). +1 > It's not shop=fuel (people don't come with jerry-cans). what about shop=fuel_delivery? There are also shops that deliver gas in bottles, but the ones I know are doing this as an extra ser

Re: [Tagging] domestic fuel transport delivery мазут

2015-03-09 10:45 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > what about shop=fuel_delivery? > To me "shop" means a place where I can buy things. If I'm looking for a service, I would go to an "office". The description of the key service also starts with "A place predominantly selling services.". Sounds go

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps

2015-03-06 12:15 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson : > Martin, could we get an example of what you're proposing at Pioneer > Courthouse Square ? Portland's central transit > hub and main square seems like it would be a suitably complex use scenario > that would make all other example

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps

2015-03-09 0:45 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić : > Here's an example: > > http://i.imgur.com/a4C7fyR.png > this looks very complicated to render, because you have to synchronize to flights of steps so that they become one, I guess this will be much easier if you mapped 2 steps instead of this very comp

Re: [Tagging] domestic fuel transport delivery мазут

2015-03-09 11:50 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald : > To me "shop" means a place where I can buy things. If I'm looking for a > service, I would go to an "office". The description of the key service > also starts with "A place predominantly selling services.". Sounds good to > me. How about office=fuel_d

Re: [Tagging] domestic fuel transport delivery мазут

2015-03-09 12:28 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > 2015-03-09 11:50 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald : > >> The description of the key service also ... >> > I meant the key "office" and not "service", sorry for that. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetma

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps

2015-03-09 11:57 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > this looks very complicated to render, because you have to synchronize to > flights of steps so that they become one, I guess this will be much easier > if you mapped 2 steps instead of this very complex object (doesn't look so > complex in your

Re: [Tagging] Proposed: landuse=civic_admin - looking for comments.

2015-03-09 6:55 GMT+01:00 johnw : > current draft definition: > > A new landuse =* value > for civil government buildings & complexes where citizens or services for > citizens are managed. This includes legislative and executive centers, as > well as

[Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard rendering. According to the wiki r

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

Hi ael, Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael: > I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused > on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render > bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance > to tall vehicles and boats, so really should sh

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

Am 09.03.2015 um 15:27 schrieb Michael Reichert: > Hi ael, > > Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael: >> I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused >> on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render >> bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of r

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

Michael Reichert wrote on 2015-03-09 15:27: Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael: I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance to tall vehicles a

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

W dniu 09.03.2015 15:32, fly napisał(a): Still miss support for man_made=bridge which leads to mapping for the renderer as user add highway=* + area=yes to the area to get it rendered. The ticket is not closed, but I don't know the final decision or what may be obstacles, however there was n

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On 09/03/2015, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > +1, please tag what is on the ground, > and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here: > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 As for the discussion on rendering standalone bridges : https://github.com/gravitystorm

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On 09/03/2015 14:22, ael wrote: I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard re

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:27:17PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote: > Hi ael, > > Am 2015-03-09 um 15:22 schrieb ael: > > I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused > > on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render > > bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

2015-03-09 16:06 GMT+01:00 ael : > > I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group > including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering > using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned > railways in the area (related to mining) and I think that

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael wrote: > I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group > including Councillors who are impressed with OSM and considering > using it for Council purposes. There are many historical abandoned > railways in the area (related to mining) and I think tha

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

Hi, Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael: > Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on > ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey > and edits. So I am not corrupting other people's data. Wrong! You have corrupted data because you have chang

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On 09/03/2015 15:16, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael wrote: So is there a bug tracker that I have missed for the stylesheet? Yes, it was pointed out to you already: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetma

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On 9 March 2015 at 15:15, Janko Mihelić wrote: > Using the default OSM-Carto layer for a project isn't very professional. The > job of the default layer isn't to make a map for everyone to use in their > projects, its main job is to help mappers see what they have mapped, and to > guide mappers in

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

An example using a local uk map is http://binged.it/1x8GAHx Phil (trigpoint ) On Mon Mar 9 15:16:54 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael wrote: > > I have just been asked to give a talk about OSM to a local group > > including Councillors who are impressed with OSM

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 15:29 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: > An example using a local uk map is http://binged.it/1x8GAHx Try again http://binged.it/1x8Hhki Phil (trigpoint ) > > On Mon Mar 9 15:16:54 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > > On 9 March 2015 at 15:06, ael wrote: > > > I have ju

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse wrote: > To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue > and it was summarily closed: > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641 That was not a pull request, but a bug report, and it happened to be a dupli

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On Mon Mar 9 15:49:01 2015 GMT, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > On 9 March 2015 at 15:26, SomeoneElse wrote: > > To be fair, someone did submit a pull request to resolve exactly this issue > > and it was summarily closed: > > > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/641 > > That

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:14:58PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote: > Hi, > > Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael: > > Well, I have only changed the tag on the bridges themselves, and only on > > ways for which I did the original (and usually any subsequent) survey > > and edits. So I am not corrupti

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:35:19PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > +1, please tag what is on the ground, > and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here: > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. Obviously I support

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

You should show them RichardF's cycle.travel site as a different way of rendering OSM, and it shows old railways. Phil (trigpoint ) On Mon Mar 9 16:18:39 2015 GMT, ael wrote: > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:14:58PM +0100, Michael Reichert wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Am 2015-03-09 um 16:06 schrieb ael:

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

2015-03-09 16:18 GMT+00:00 ael : >> The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism. > > That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM. I did the surveys. Very > carefully. I tagged corectly as far as I knew at the time. >[...] > Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of sol

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

"case made there very clearly for (just) rendering the bridges" That is handled in a separate issue: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320 Before commenting in this issue please carefully read existing comments, especially the first two. "I don't like tagging for the re

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:18 AM, ael wrote: > Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work > to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contribute. > Please ignore these types of comments. While we all generally agree that tagging for the renderer isn't appropriate

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On 09/03/2015 18:07, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: That is handled in a separate issue: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1320 Before commenting in this issue please carefully read existing comments, especially the first two. I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would ma

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for an event space / function hall?

What *use* can a map *reader* make of event hall data? Personally I would find the existence of a event rental space interesting, but always defer to the official website for any sense of capacity/size/hours. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

The core problem is: *railway=abandoned* Refers to railway service, and does not describe what's on the ground. What's on the ground could range from a bit of residual lead arsenate herbicide, up through a highly visible gravel trackbed with bridges and culverts and bits of railway artifact scatter

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On 09/03/2015 20:03, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The core problem is: *railway=abandoned* Refers to railway service, and does not describe what's on the ground. No. "railway=abandoned" has been used from almost year 0 in OSM to indicate "where the rails have been removed but the route is still visib

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

If the bridges are still present, the map should render them even if the rails and railbeds on either side of the bridge have been removed. After all, we are supposed to map the ground truth, and if the bridge is still present, that is the ground truth. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.c

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:37 PM, SomeoneElse wrote: > "railway=abandoned" has been used from almost year 0 in OSM to indicate > "where the rails have been removed but the route is still visible in some > way". See http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dabandoned . > > And yes, if it's a "highway=

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for an event space / function hall?

That's true about referring to a website rather than OSM - but couldn't OSM, particularly in larger venues, at least show the rental spaces when searched? If properly tagged, then all the different event venues in your area would come up, which would be much better than trying to go site by site

[Tagging] Survey points

The Wiki is very clear (in several languages) as what a survey point is, but is there some other meaning that mappers understand this term to mean? The reason I ask is that I often come across man_made=survey_point tags that have been added to other objects. Not infrequently this tag replaces a

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On 3/9/15 4:58 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > The broader point is intact. > > When making sense of abandoned bridges and oddly rounded buildings in > various places, it is super helpful > to see the context of the prior railroad grade. It helps in mapping > from the air and on the ground. > > A giv

[Tagging] Bird hides

I'd like us to improve out tagging of bird/ wildlife hides and screens or blinds): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dbird_hide http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bird_hide (voting opened in 2009!) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dwildlife

Re: [Tagging] Survey points

On 10/03/2015 8:02 AM, Malcolm Herring wrote: The Wiki is very clear (in several languages) as what a survey point is, but is there some other meaning that mappers understand this term to mean? The reason I ask is that I often come across man_made=survey_point tags that have been added to other

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On 10/03/2015 1:22 AM, ael wrote: I have resorted to changing railway=abandoned to railway=disused on several occasions just to get mapnik and friends to render bridges. Bridges over roads and rivers are major features of relevance to tall vehicles and boats, so really should show up on standard

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On Mon, 2015-03-09 at 16:18 +, ael wrote: > > > The edits you did can be described as (semi-)vandalism. > > That sort of comment is unworthy of OSM. Indeed. > Your sort of comment to someone who has contributed years of solid work > to OSM is enough to make me consider ceasing to contr

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

How does it "help mappers see what they have mapped" to not show a large structure which has been mapped and which is physically present? -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." D

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

2015-03-09 23:06 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge : > > How does it "help mappers see what they have mapped" to not show a large > structure which has been mapped and which is physically present? > I didn't say the bridge shouldn't be rendered. I just said it's not default layers job to render everythi

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > > ...wworthwhile to consider OpenHistoricalMap as a resource for > recording information about spatial entities that no longer exist in the > modern > world. this relieves us of the argument about representing them in OSM. > Somehow I come d

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On 09/03/2015, ael wrote: > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:35:19PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >> +1, please tag what is on the ground, >> and railway=abandoned is not rendered on carto by decision, read here: >> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/542 > > Thanks for the link. Inter

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On 09/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Ah thanks, I stand corrected. railway=razed would be the tag to discuss. > > The broader point is intact. > While there is a pretty strong consensus that osm describes the present (leaving openhistoricalmap for the past), it seems that some railway contributo

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On 09/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Somehow I come down on the side that railways have enough footprint on the > current world that > they belong in OSM proper, unlike say old buildings or former shops. > > A abandoned railway slowly evolves from a mappable way, to a series of > other things, be

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On 09/03/2015, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Possible work around? > > Use the tag man_made=bridge to tag the bridge area? > > Keeps the railway correctly tagged. And places the bridge correctly. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dbridge > > Try that and see if it works.

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

Greetings This is an RFC for my proposal, which can be found at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Haul_Channel Thanks Sam ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

Hallo Sam, It's not clear to me which object you are tagging: the highway (osm-way) or an area or a node where the frequency is mentioned on a sign or ... regards m On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Sam Dyck wrote: > Greetings > > This is an RFC for my proposal, which can be found at > https:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

On 10/03/2015 3:21 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: Hallo Sam, It's not clear to me which object you are tagging: the highway (osm-way) or an area or a node where the frequency is mentioned on a sign or ... The proposal says tagging a way .. so along the road. regards m Here in Australia .. the f

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's not clear to me which object you are tagging: the highway (osm-way) > or an area or a node where the frequency is mentioned on a sign or ... > > > The proposal says tagging a way .. so along the road. > > missed that, sor