[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)

I have just posted version 1.6 of my proposal on mapping disputed boundaries. It tightens the definition of the "controlled by" tag in an effort to improve verifiability. *Changelog* - *Version 1.6* - Defining terms for "controlled_by" tag to improve verifiability. - *Version 1.5.1*

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Wouldn't it make sense to add the trail head (node) to a route relation with role=trail_head? Am 01.01.2019 um 12:54 schrieb Peter Elderson: At this point, I settle for just requiring that it's a named location visibly designated as access point for one ore more recreational routes. So just a

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 02:19, Allan Mustard wrote: > Very interesting. In the Turkmen case, the classifications are defined in > law and involve both size (though population data are secret) and type of > governance structure (for full details please see > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turk

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually represents the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it is part of the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a trailhead node represents a named cluster of helpful facilities/amenities in the vicinit

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

sent from a phone > On 2. Jan 2019, at 01:11, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > but legal status is usually a rather > poor indication. in Italy we use the status to distinguish between town and village, and I believe in Germany and other places in Europe it is also done like this. Cheers, Martin __

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Peter: " Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way of more complex options. My idea: begin with the simplest common element which supports all the other options. " +1 On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If th

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

sent from a phone > On 2. Jan 2019, at 01:11, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I understand that the UK is an exception, because the status of > 'town', 'village', 'city' and so on relates to whether a given > settlement has a church, a market, and similar facilities, and > therefore does reflect somewh

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

sent from a phone On 2. Jan 2019, at 01:18, Kevin Kenny wrote: >> I have never understood why people wanted to add place tags to >> administrative territorial entities like countries, states or >> municipalities. Aren’t these thoroughly defined with boundary=administrative >> and the relate

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

At the danger of throwing a spanner in the works (or better sabots :-)): there is an ongoing discussion on place mapping. Mainly taking place here https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/2816 Essentially  the relationship between administrative divisions and places/settlements is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

Axelos wrote: > Hello, I propose a concept for contributing cycling route. Many thanks for looking at this - the current state of bike route hierarchies is a mess, and trying to parse the many different tagging practices so that cycle.travel can display them properly has been a nightmare. It would

Re: [Tagging] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:39 AM Simon Poole wrote: > In any case, on your original question, I would tend towards a national > consensus that doesn't deviate too much from the population guidelines in the > wiki, if at all reasonable. The US-Hamlet usage is an oddity that, IMHO, > should not se

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Please don't add public transport stops to hiking route relations. That would be really confusing. Polyglot On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:39 PM Dave Swarthout wrote: > Peter: " Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way > of more complex options. My idea: begin with the simple

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Hierarchies route=bicycle)

The existing scheme for tagging cycle routes is robust. The problem I see when 'reusing' it in a hierarchy of routes, is that we would need a role to indicate that the sub route is traversed in reverse for a particular "super" route. It would also help to have an indicator in JOSM to indicate conti

[Tagging] Surface on turning circles

I am implementing a map rendering that differentiates roads based the type of surface. A number of these roads have turning circles which I would like to render too and I’d like to base the rendering on the surface. Looking at the wiki page for turning_circle [1] and at taginfo [2] it appears t

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:13 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > Sometimes it would, sometimes it would not. If the node actually represents > the start of the trail, it is already in the relation because it is part of > the way that belongs to the route. In the situation that a trailhead node > represen

Re: [Tagging] Surface on turning circles

My understanding is that surface=* can be used to describe any type of surface of a way/node, so yes it is ok to use it for turning_circle even if the Wiki might not explicitely suggest it (feel free to edit it). LeTopographeFou Le 02/01/2019 à 19:23, Tod Fitch a écrit : I am implementing a

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

I agree. That is not suggested. Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 19:05 schreef Jo : > Please don't add public transport stops to hiking route relations. That > would be really confusing. > > Polyglot > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:39 PM Dave Swarthout > wrote: > >> Peter: " Mapping a trailhead node as I sugge

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Copying from an earlier response: Designated starting point for multiple routes into a nature area. There is a designed marking pole or stele, information boards, seats or benches, free parking space nearby. This one is in a small village: https://www.google.nl/maps/@52.4336993,6.834158,3a,75y,191

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)

Amazing effort thanks, John! Theoretical question please. Would you use this to map the Korean DMZ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone I'd assume claimed_by=NK;SK (may be the wrong country codes?) controlled_by=nobody (or would that also be =NK;SK?) Thanks Graeme _

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Am 02.01.2019 um 19:42 Kevin Kenny wrote: At the risk of repeating myself: I think I'd need more concrete examples before I'd support such a proposal. Yes, I second this request. If 'trailhead' degenerates into 'any intersection of a trail and a highway' (which is what it is in that Nationa

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:58 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > Designated starting point for multiple routes into a nature area. There is a > designed marking pole or stele, information boards, seats or benches, free > parking space nearby. > The operators are governmental bodies. They publish the lis

[Tagging] Proposal Request for Comments: New Key "Departures"

The new key "interval" for adding the departure times interval of a public transport route was recently approved after two weeks of voting. I have created a new wiki page to document this key: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:interval Full schedule information, however, is still impossible.

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Thanks for the comments. Please understand that the mentioned proposal is not my proposal. We just kept the idea of a trailhead node marking a place specifically and visibly designated to start one or more hiking routes, bicycle routes, canoe routes, horseriding routes. Just a crossing or the sta

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Small addition about this remark: "What I don't understand is why the highway tag is used to carry the information. The way you have mapped the trailheads Peter I would leave them under some subkey of information, e.g. tourism=information + information=board + board_type=trailhead." Some people s

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

I'm not granting tagging rights for trailheads if anyone thinks it's worth mapping a place as a trailhead, be my guest! I know that in the US lots of trailheads have been tagged, I can find many on lists, there are operators of these places keeping lists so others can find and select... so som

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)

Hi, Graeme, and thanks for the question. As I understand it (from reading the wikipedia article and others), each country controls its territory up to the cease-fire line. The zone is demilitarized, yes, but still policed. And if you cross the line, you'll be stopped by someone from the other side.

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 7:26 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > The minimum requirements here are: free parking space, some kind of landmark, > at least 2 bicycle routes and two walking routes, and an information board or > stand. And waymarks for route directions. None of the examples I posted meet all

[Tagging] A fool with a tool ... Vehicle service tags

Hi all, just realized there's a "great" new feature in ID editor, lots of senseless service tags in this format : https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=service%3Avehicle%3A Seems to be over a year ago that someone decided to avoid conflicts between the "street" and the "car" services : https

Re: [Tagging] A fool with a tool ... Vehicle service tags

We discussed it here on this list last year. You started the thread even, so you can’t pretend like you "just realized” it. I even asked people to update the wiki. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-May/036095.html

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

I think your definition is fine. If it's worth listing/searching/displaying the places, then map them, else do not. We have these official places called TOPs, the things I listed are necessary to be officially called a TOP (and funded & maintained). They are not requirements for mapping and are no