Hi folks,
A while ago I've made a proposal to deprecate some public_transport=* tags:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Drop_stop_positions_and_platforms
The discussion was very slow, and in general mappers seemed to accept the
change. I'd like to push this to voting in a fe
> Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:53:28 +0300
> From: "Ilya Zverev"
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
>
> Hi folks,
>
> A while ago I've made a proposal to deprecate some public_transport=* tags:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/P
I'm not very optimistic you'll manage to get that proposal to pass.
We'll probably keep double tagging everything for a long time to come. The
reason why I put public_transport=platform on bus stop nodes, is that JOSM
conveniently adds a platform role when they are added to relations. Also
because
-- Původní e-mail --
Od: "Christian Müller"
Komu: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Datum: 28. 3. 2018 16:22:41
Předmět: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
"> Sent: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 16:53:28 +0300
> From: "Ilya Zverev"
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/autodrome
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:shop%3Dshotball
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Le 28. 03. 18 à 17:51, Александр a écrit :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:shop%3Dshotball
it hould be better to rename the url to match the tag change.
perhaps also that it would have been useful to wait for at least one
reaction before voting
no one responded on the talk page
28.03.2018, 19:11, "marc marc" :
> Le 28. 03. 18 à 17:51, Александр a écrit :
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:shop%3Dshotball
>
> it hould be better to rename the url to match the tag change.
> perhaps also that it would have been use
I've tried to accomplish that many years ago already, it failed. The people
at the helm of the rendering stack consider the 'old' tags good enough and
the new scheme somehow not explicit enough, hence the double tagging.
Dropping the tags you call obsolete from the data, is not an option as far
as
-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Jo
Komu: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Datum: 28. 3. 2018 18:43:15
Předmět: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
"
I've tried to accomplish that many years ago already, it failed. The people
at the helm of the rendering
>
> Yes. I like it as well. But it still could be improved. E.g. I'm thinking
> about tool which - If you create four objects: two nodes on highway and two
> nodes/ways beside highway and select all of them - will automatically tag
> them as stop_position and platform and will create corresponding
Hi Christian,
Am 28.03.2018 um 16:21 schrieb "Christian Müller":
> In your proposal you complain about subjectively felt things like "history
> won't go away", but at the same time you are trying to revert a part of
> history itself - "the public_transport tags are seven years old now". Many
>
Hi
I've a building to tag which used to be a train_station but currently
has a different use.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic
This page recommends historic=building, but I don't see how that's
beneficial. It can't be tagged to describe it's historic use. Building=*
should b
My view, as a person adding things to the data base.
The public transport v2 documentation that I found is not good.
I had difficulty in deciding what to do and
used an iterative approach with the OA tools OSMinspector and JOSM validator to
come up with something that might work.
I'm yet to do
On 28.03.2018 23:20, Dave F wrote:
Hi
I've a building to tag which used to be a train_station but currently has a
different use.
The building=train_station tag remains, since it describes the building type, independent of the
current usage.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic
> Many people were involved creating those tags, they are well understood and
> discriminate the features they describe in a thoroughly documented and
> plausible way.
Apparently these tags aren't that well understood: I rarely encounter
a PTv2 route that doesn't have at least one tagging error
> In my opinion, PTv2 is too complicated, time-consuming and delicate, ...
Sorry, I've meant inefficient, not time-consuming.
On 29 March 2018 at 00:13, Selfish Seahorse wrote:
>> Many people were involved creating those tags, they are well understood and
>> discriminate the features they desc
on top of that documentation is not clear atleast when I was trying to
learn how to tag bus routes. The only way I understood was a google hangout
video on youtube(OSM US?) showing how they tagged it.
Add relations and direction of ways (forwards, backwards) and it's a very
time consuming task to
W dniu 28.03.2018 o 18:42, Jo pisze:
> I've tried to accomplish that many years ago already, it failed. The
> people at the helm of the rendering stack consider the 'old' tags good
> enough and the new scheme somehow not explicit enough, hence the
> double tagging.
I'm not sure who do you mean, bu
something like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcS8-g1EGfk
Agustín-
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 19:53:08 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marián Kyral
To: , Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms
Message-ID: <4}.yx5v.1gvso5zh
> Add relations and direction of ways (forwards, backwards) and it's a very
> time consuming task to upgrade v1 to v2, especially if bus routes change.
Do you mean 'forward' and 'backward' roles? They aren't needed because
there is one route relation per direction. Thus 'forward' and
'backward' r
20 matches
Mail list logo
