Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 02:43:03PM +0100, Peter Elderson wrote: > I like Sarah's proposal too, especially for walking routes. I'm not sure it > would work for complex PT routes, where routability is involved. > > One issue: a route relation can be a route on it's own AND part of a longer > route (

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

Hi, The idea is for sure to check the date of the imagery and map when new imagery are available and we can consider also the time step between the different satellite imagery. The fact that some contributor modify the data is not a problem because they will done adding new information and thi

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

For map display, I can see that. The ways are added to a higher level (if one exist) and the symbol is ignored. I am not sure about routing/navigating. especially network routing. I imagine a network router has to create an instant route, so it has to decide whether to use the segment or not. The

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Am Fr., 15. März 2019 um 17:48 Uhr schrieb marc marc < marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>: > Le 15.03.19 à 17:16, Jan S a écrit : > > I sense dissent here about the future use of amenity=police. Would it be > a possible solution to keep amenity=police for public-facing police > stations only, > > that's t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

sent from a phone > On 16. Mar 2019, at 13:11, Jan S wrote: > > All other police facilites, that may currently have been tagged erroneously > as amenity=police would be tagged only as police=*, The „problem“ with this approach is that maps who base the presence of objects in their renderin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Am Sa., 16. März 2019 um 15:09 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > On 16. Mar 2019, at 13:11, Jan S wrote: > > > > All other police facilites, that may currently have been tagged > erroneously as amenity=police would be tagged only as police=*, > > > The „problem“ with

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

sent from a phone > On 16. Mar 2019, at 15:53, Jan S wrote: > > So you basically can't rely on OSM to find a police station in case of an > emergency. let us not overemphasize the emergency in this context. In an urgent emergency you would expect the police to come to you rather than the

[Tagging] Proposal: add Tag:route=share_taxi and Tag:route=minibus for public transportation relationship

In Hong Kong, it is previously decided that, when tagging routes or access restriction of public service vehicles, a large-sized franchised bus can be represented with key/value or "bus", a green minibus can be represented with key/value of "minibus", while a red minibus can be represented with the

Re: [Tagging] Expand the key:opening_hours

Am 14.03.2019 um 23:18 schrieb Phake Nick: > > > 在 2019年3月14日週四 20:38，Simon Poole > 寫道： > > Some more comments: > > - the OH values are currently always evaluated in the local time zone > (or to go even a bit further in a local context as the location they >

Re: [Tagging] Expand the key:opening_hours

Of course such shop will also need to indicate the closing date in Gregorian calendar fashion, but as those date are not fixed, if you are typing that information in Gregorian calendar into OSM then you're effectively inputting one-off event into OSM that needs to be changed every year to match the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Top up v4

We have a use case in Hungary that you may consider to cover. Many people pay their bills at the post office through money transfer orders printed on small yellow printed paper slips (so called "Csekk" or "Sárga csekk"). It is commonly offered by energy companies, municipal fees (waste disposal, w

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Mar 16, 2019, 3:53 PM by grimpeu...@gmail.com: > Am Sa., 16. März 2019 um 15:09 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <> > dieterdre...@gmail.com > >: > >> > On 16. Mar 2019, at 13:11, Jan S <>> grimpeu...@gmail.com >> > >> > wrote: >> >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

Mar 16, 2019, 3:08 PM by dieterdre...@gmail.com: >> On 16. Mar 2019, at 13:11, Jan S <>> grimpeu...@gmail.com >> >> > wrote: >> >> All other police facilites, that may currently have been tagged erroneously >> as amenity=police would be tagged only as police=*, >> >

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 3:24 AM Charles MILLET wrote: > Taginfo shows it is not the preferred method 979<3562 > > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aleft%3Aoneway=-1 > > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aleft=opposite_lane > > *=opposite_lane is/was well understood

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

The key “police” is not currently on the list of features that import as a polygon in osm2pgsql, when mapped as a closed way. So renderers and other database users that rely on osm2pgsql will need to add the “police” key to the lua transformations list and reimport the database. This is easy for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Top up v4

The scheme seems a bit unnecessarily confusing by being unnecessarily specific. Like what tag should I use for a place that can top up my Alipay account directly? 在 2019年1月29日週二 23:06，Daniele Santini 寫道： > The first voting for the Top up proposal was rejected. I have changed the > proposal remo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

That's why the proposal state that we will keep the amenity=police tag on the public-facing object so that they will still be backward compatible at the moment. Thus, the "technical" problem doesn't exist, and if we drop the amenity tag in the end, it will be probably after (at least) a year - if w

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

On 15/3/19 9:30 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: these tags are stating different things though: How are they different? If I have a oneway=yes way: A--->B oneway:bicycle=no tells me that bicycles can pass along this way A->B and B->A exactly the same case if there is any of the tags: cycle

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

On 15/3/19 8:03 pm, Richard Fairhurst wrote: On topic: I don't have a great preference for either tagging scheme (they're both a bit ungainly, I've found them both a bit of a PITA to support in cycle.travel's tag parsing). cycleway=opposite_lane is concise but unclear. That's interesting to he

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

In general, I agree with Martin. Am 16.03.2019 um 23:43 schrieb Andrew Davidson: On 15/3/19 9:30 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: these tags are stating different things though: How are they different? If I have a oneway=yes way: A--->B oneway:bicycle=no tells me that bicycles can pass along

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

sent from a phone > On 16. Mar 2019, at 23:18, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > This shouldn’t be a problem for things like warehouses, non-public offices, > vehicle impound facilities etc. But it requires patience for police stations. those vehicle facilities are places you have to go to in

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

sent from a phone > On 16. Mar 2019, at 23:43, Andrew Davidson wrote: > > So in this case if that tag is accompanied by: > > cycleway:left=shared > > then there is no dedicated cycling infrastructure 49 out of 65000. There are some thousand of shared_lane though. I didn’t know this tag, h

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

On 17/03/19 03:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 16. Mar 2019, at 15:53, Jan S > wrote: So you basically can't rely on OSM to find a police station in case of an emergency. let us not overemphasize the emergency in this context. In an urgen

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 09:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > those vehicle facilities are places you have to go to in order to get your > vehicle back, so they are public facing > But only by prior arrangement, or on certain days eg when there's an auction of abandoned vehicles. At all other time

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

On 17/03/19 11:43, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 09:36, Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote: those vehicle facilities are places you have to go to in order to get your vehicle back, so they are public facing But only by prior arrangement, or

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 11:49, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Martin is thinking of vehicles towed away from parking illegally, not > abandoned vehicles. > They too may have hours of operation, but they are open frequently. > Depending on who's towed it, from where, why, that may also be

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

On 17/3/19 10:18 am, Hubert87 wrote: No, not exactly the same: cycleway:[left|right|both|none]:oneway=no implies oneway:bicycle=no, but no vice versa. cycleway:[left|right|both|none]:oneway=[-1] does not imply > oneway:bicycle=no (maybe oneway:bicycle=no -1) Nice straw man you've made there.

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

On 17/3/19 10:42 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 49 out of 65000. Not sure what I am supposed to do with this factoid. Maybe if I try and explain the problem in a form that you can't just look up on taginfo: Let's say we have two keys: key_a and key_b. key_a can have a number of values:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal Approved - boundary=aboriginal_lands

After a few months of discussion and refinement in the default OSM style sheet, and then a few more weeks of waiting for the styles to percolate to the rendering servers, we can now see aboriginal areas showing up on the map! Please take a moment to check the map in any parts of the world you're

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 at 13:21, Andrew Davidson wrote: > In Australia the only difference between cycleway=shared and > cycleway=shared_lane can be one of these signs: > Or even https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0766007,153.4447888,3a,20.7y,49.91h,89.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3dPlQ9YxNBm-7lRm4GOUPg!2