[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - amenity=lounger

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lounger An object for people to lie down. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

Sounds like candidates for: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/floodplain https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:flood_prone https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=basin Depending if natural or man made. The floodplain proposal definitely needs more work,

Re: [Tagging] access with permit (gone double OT)

19. May 2018 06:17 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com : > On the one hand, I have cases like the (still unsolved) "public land, permit > required to enter", which I wish to distinguish and render differently on my > maps from both "public land, open without prio

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

sent from a phone > On 19. May 2018, at 00:19, marc marc wrote: > > but the same passengers waiting at the same place for the same driver > with a bus is a valid public_transport=platform > the same apply to the route where a relation type=route route=foot > and all other PTv2 tag look like go

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

sent from a phone > On 18. May 2018, at 09:03, > wrote: > > With emergency and disabled as part of access restrictions, they central > question becomes, are these access tag values (like yes, no, private, > destination, delivery, customers, ...) or transport modes (like foot, > bicycle, m

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

> > With emergency and disabled as part of access restrictions, they > central question becomes, are these access tag values (like yes, no, > private, destination, delivery, customers, ...) or transport modes > (like foot, bicycle, motor_vehicle, ...) > > this is already documented on the access p

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

Le 19. 05. 18 à 15:54, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : >> On 19. May 2018, at 00:19, marc marc wrote: >> >> but the same passengers waiting at the same place for the same driver >> with a bus is a valid public_transport=platform >> the same apply to the route where a relation type=route route=foot >

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

sent from a phone > On 19. May 2018, at 16:44, > wrote: > > Now suppose I have a gate (intended for foot traffic). The gate has a sign > "Emergency Personnel Only". access=private > > emergency=yes is obviously wrong. That would imply that an ambulance can > drive through there. > >

Re: [Tagging] access=disabled

sent from a phone > On 19. May 2018, at 16:44, > wrote: > > > But I can see cases where emergency and disabled makes sense as access values > instead. I can also see this, but it is a different meaning, and I’m not even sure if using the exact same term would be helpful for people to un

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

sent from a phone > On 19. May 2018, at 16:56, marc marc wrote: > > access limited to a certain audience ? some are, others are not. If it isn’t transportation for the general public I would not map it as public transport. Cheers, Martin ___ Tag

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

OTOH mapping the routes as route=foot/hiking/walking also doesn't fit, as such route relations don't have the concept of 'stops' with a time table. Polyglot 2018-05-19 18:44 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > sent from a phone > > > On 19. May 2018, at 16:56, marc marc wrote: > > > > access

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

On 19.05.2018 16:56, marc marc wrote: if an operator decided to replace a diesel engine with a bicycle crankset for each passenger, would that stop being a PT? Yes - the operator would have to serve beer, and we'd have to tag them tourism=attraction + highway=obstacle. https://luxeadventuretra

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

sent from a phone > On 19. May 2018, at 19:04, Jo wrote: > > OTOH mapping the routes as route=foot/hiking/walking also doesn't fit, as > such route relations don't have the concept of 'stops' with a time table. route=walking_bus? that’s duck tagging, simple and concise, and is easy to under

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

yes, that sounds fine. 2018-05-19 21:20 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > sent from a phone > > > On 19. May 2018, at 19:04, Jo wrote: > > > > OTOH mapping the routes as route=foot/hiking/walking also doesn't fit, > as such route relations don't have the concept of 'stops' with a time table.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

Le 19. 05. 18 à 21:20, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : >> On 19. May 2018, at 19:04, Jo wrote: >> >> OTOH mapping the routes as route=foot/hiking/walking also doesn't fit, as >> such route relations don't have the concept of 'stops' with a time table. > > > route=walking_bus? > that’s duck taggin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 9:06 PM, marc marc wrote: > > node public_transport=plateform for the waiting area > + > relation type=route route=walking_bus > yes duck tagging... it is a PTv2 :) > So if it walks like a bus, looks like a bus and quacks like a bus then it's a duck? -- Paul ___

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Walkingbus_stop

obviously Quack, quack 2018-05-19 22:15 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen : > On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 9:06 PM, marc marc > wrote: > >> >> node public_transport=plateform for the waiting area >> + >> relation type=route route=walking_bus >> yes duck tagging... it is a PTv2 :) >> > > So if it walks like a bus

Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

On 19/05/18 13:25, Tod Fitch wrote: On May 18, 2018, at 7:33 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, I seek comments and thoughts on - Seasonal: The seasonal tag in well established. I don't think there is much confusion with it. --- Intermittent: The inter

Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

For remote mappers seasonal can be ambiguous, the only thing that is known is that a channel or lake didn't have water when the image was taken. In the tropics the notion of summer doesn't make sense, it's a foreign concept. intermittent=yes is a fine tag On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Warin <61

Re: [Tagging] Seasonal, intermittent, and ephemeral water tags

A remote mapper cannot determine if something will have water in it if the imagery shows no water. Nor could they determine if a water way (that has water in it in the imagery) is seasonal or intermittent. If a mapper cannot see it or has no knowledge of it .. don't map it! I have seen remote