Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

Agree with the notion that building is implied. In France, public transit shelters are often included in the cadastral information, and they wind up being tagged as building=yes + wall=no (through the import) or as building=roof (after verification). https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wall=n

Re: [Tagging] Unresolved notes

Hi Graeme, Are you positive the notes were not there previously? Some of them are fairly old, and should’ve definitely been in the Notes layer of osm.org (which is optional). Notes can sometimes be placed by people thinking it’s a personal note only visible to themselves. They also won’t appear

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

most have 4 glass walls. The smaller type in the other picture is more recent. Not much shelter from the elements in those. I guess that one could be building=roof, but it wouldn't be much of a shelter without any roof at all, so I took that as implied. I have not seen many bus shelters mapped as

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

Hi Bryan, Am 17.06.2018 um 06:45 schrieb Bryan Housel: > Does `amenity=shelter` imply `building=yes`? > > The osm wiki page does not suggest `building=*` as a “tag to use in > combination” > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=shelter >

Re: [Tagging] Unresolved notes

Hi Graeme, Am 17.06.2018 um 08:24 schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick: > Sorry, copied mixed info > > This bit should show > > Others are showing as a note apparently at a location > https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1037676 but then it appears there's > nothing there to fix https://www.openstreetmap. >

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

On 17/06/18 18:36, Michael Reichert wrote: Hi Bryan, Am 17.06.2018 um 06:45 schrieb Bryan Housel: Does `amenity=shelter` imply `building=yes`? The osm wiki page does not suggest `building=*` as a “tag to use in combination” https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=shelter

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

Le 17. 06. 18 à 08:42, Shawn K. Quinn a écrit : > On 06/16/2018 11:45 PM, Bryan Housel wrote: >> Does `amenity=shelter` imply `building=yes`? > > If this is for bus stop/transit shelters, it would imply > building=roof at minimum. some bus shelters are limited to a plastic plate, it would be wro

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

Agreed with others that for things like bus shelters, they aren't really buildings, so don't think iD should automatically add building=*. I've been wondering how to tag a rock overhang in OSM, and just found it, amenity=shelter + shelter_type=rock_shelter, quite valuable if your out in the wilder

Re: [Tagging] Unresolved notes

Agreed, SEO spam and per the consensus in the talk-au thread at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2018-May/011839.html we should delete any OSM edits or notes which meet the criteria as spammers seemingly following the same recipe book without engaging with us. On 17 June 2018 at 1

Re: [Tagging] Unresolved notes

As I've said before, Notes was a good idea, poorly implemented. Users should be able to delete them. I've never quite understood the reluctance to allow that. New users are able to delete OSM data on they're first edit, but Notes have to be protected for some reason. I get bored of 'The party's

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

If the consensus is to change it to emergency=lifeguard + lifeguard=*, then I think this needs to be changed in: 1. The wiki 2. Put forward a proposal to do a mechanical edit to change the existing tags 3. Carry out that mechanical edit 4. Add the preset in iD I don't think it's far to the people

Re: [Tagging] Unresolved notes

On 17 June 2018 at 18:00, Anton Klim wrote: > Hi Graeme, > > Are you positive the notes were not there previously? Some of them are > fairly old, and should’ve definitely been in the Notes layer of osm.org > (which is optional). > Notes can sometimes be placed by people thinking it’s a personal n

Re: [Tagging] Unresolved notes

On 17 June 2018 at 18:39, Michael Reichert wrote: > Hi Graeme, > > Am 17.06.2018 um 08:24 schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick: > > > > Others are showing as a note apparently at a location > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1037676 but then it appears there's > > nothing there to fix https://www.opens

Re: [Tagging] Unresolved notes

On 18 June 2018 at 09:00, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Yep, agree that looks like spam. Googling the company name brings back > pretty well exactly that data & description, so it's one we could delete, > but the problem is finding it? > > The location on the map is in the middle of the oval at So

Re: [Tagging] Unresolved notes

On 18 June 2018 at 09:18, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > You can view notes on the OSM website, no need to go into the iD Editor. > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Notes#Viewing_notes under Map > Layers > Map Notes. > > I've closed that note last night so it might not show up, they show up > gr

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

On 17 June 2018 at 21:34, Andrew Harvey wrote: > If the consensus is to change it to emergency=lifeguard + lifeguard=*, > then I think this needs to be changed in: > > 1. The wiki > > > I don't think it's far to the people who put the effort in to do a great > job on the wiki documentation and th

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick Sent: Monday, 18 June 2018 16:01 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard while some show a shape in one image, but other's, possibly during the northern winter, show an empty deserted beach. I would consider l