Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 01:09, Nick Bolten wrote: > > I would not expect to see something like that, in any of its regional > variations (green walking person/red stationary person in much of Europe) > without related lights controlling traffic. > > So, in the case of a pedestrian warning beacon,

[Tagging] Tag for Cornices?

Another user asked about a tag for a snow cornice, a cliff-like or overhanging snow and ice feature that often forms along a ridge in winter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_cornice "There doesn't appear to be a way to tag cornices, which are essentially naturally ocurring seasonal snow cliffs.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - crossing=marked

sent from a phone > On 11. May 2019, at 01:42, Nick Bolten wrote: > > Having trouble finding a good picture (I'll keep looking), but there are > mid-block crossings where pedestrians can press an APS to turn on traffic > warning lights - usually yellow in the US. Some of these crossings do n

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - toll

sent from a phone > On 8. May 2019, at 19:07, wiki_openstreetmap_org.5.k...@spamgourmet.com wrote: > > In my opinion the mailing list is everything but well-aranged, has no easy to > use layout, no logic line-up of comments, etc. Because I HAVE to drop one, > I'll drop the mailing list. I c

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

sent from a phone > On 10. May 2019, at 23:07, Paul Allen wrote: > > I like the idea that the name of the bus, as shown on the map, is the same as > the name of the > bus, as shown on the bus. just because the bus shows the name of the destination it doesn’t mean this is the “name of the b

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

I agree with Martin. Often the bus itself has route maps, etc., inside the bus that have more information than can be displayed on the external sign. For bus routes, at least, there is an established convention for the name tag. I have mapped hundreds of such routes. It is definitely NOT a "misuse

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top_up (fifth revision)

Hello. 2019年5月11日(土) 5:30 bkil : > I've read in the previous rejection comments that many opposed to > putting brand details in keys. What do you think about this version: > prepaid_top_up:mobile=yes/. The reason is that around here, > you could top up your mobile phone either at the given carrie

Re: [Tagging] Marking temporary traffic organisation change

sent from a phone > On 8. May 2019, at 17:00, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > How one may mark that such change is temporary? how do you know it? For example the “Palast der Republik” in Berlin was closed for asbestos abatement roughly 20 years ago, but it never reopened. ;-) Generally, +1 to

Re: [Tagging] Marking temporary traffic organisation change

On 5/8/2019 2:17 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: opening_date works well for road under construction, it is not fitting for road that is not closed but some things like oneway status, lanes are modified The wiki for conditional restrictions gives the following examples:  - oneway:conditional=yes

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top_up (fifth revision)

On Sun, 2019-05-12 at 00:10 +0900, 石野貴之 wrote: > Hello. > > > 2019年5月11日(土) 5:30 bkil : > > I've read in the previous rejection comments that many opposed to > > > > putting brand details in keys. What do you think about this > > version: > > > > prepaid_top_up:mobile=yes/. The reason is that a

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 23:09, Paul Allen wrote: > > I like the idea that the name of the bus, as shown on the map, is the same as > the name of the > bus, as shown on the bus. It means I can look at the map and know what to > look for on an > approaching bus. Not having the two correspond is u

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 18:16, Markus wrote: > > On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 13:50, Hufkratzer wrote: > > > > It would probably better to use description=* than from=* and to=* > > because not all routes have a named starting point or destination point, > > like e.g. a roundtrip route around some villa

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

And I like to see all that prepended with the name of the operator... Polyglot On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:32 PM Markus wrote: > On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 18:16, Markus wrote: > > > > On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 13:50, Hufkratzer wrote: > > > > > > It would probably better to use description=* than fro

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top_up (fifth revision)

sent from a phone > On 11. May 2019, at 18:44, Philip Barnes wrote: > > I would assume that the key public_transport_cards will indicate that I can > top-up the local operators cards, here in The Shire I would expect it to mean > I can top up an Arriva bus card, I would expect a very glazed

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 17:05, Johnparis wrote: > > For bus routes, at least, there is an established convention for the name > tag. I have mapped hundreds of such routes. It is definitely NOT a "misuse". It seems quite popular, but it doesn't agree with how the name=* tag is usually used. Regar

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

11 May 2019, 19:47 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: > On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 17:05, Johnparis <> ok...@johnfreed.com > > > wrote: > >> >> For bus routes, at least, there is an established convention for the name >> tag. I have mapped hundreds of such routes. It is def

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

10 May 2019, 22:24 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: > On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 20:00, Paul Allen <> pla16...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > >> >> My natural inclination would be to put the name of the service, as displayed >> on the bus >> itself, in the name tag. But maybe t

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 19:35, Jo wrote: > > And I like to see all that prepended with the name of the operator... That's easily feasible. operator=*, route=* (= means of transportation), ref=*, name=*, from=*, via=*, to=* (and a possible course=* tag for rush hour, evening, weekend etc. courses)

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 18:53, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: The question is whatever it requires separate proposal to fix old proposal > or is invoking > general rule "name tag is for name, description tag is for description" > sufficient. > Sometimes, and not just for bus routes, the name and the d

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sat, 2019-05-11 at 19:09 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 18:53, Mateusz Konieczny < > matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The question is whatever it requires separate proposal to fix old > > proposal or is invoking > > general rule "name tag is for

Re: [Tagging] Tag for Cornices?

I think they definitely should not be tagged as cliff. Personally, I don't think they should be tagged, but maybe I could be convinced.    They are seasonal, and depending on the year they may exist or not, or be in a different place. They may be consistent in BC, but that isn't true worldw

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

OK, so I tested and I renamed one of the many bus routes I'm maintaining, moved from name to description. And you know what: both JOSM and the web interface now show the ref instead of the description, so until that gets resolved there is not very much chance people will want to move from the name

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 23:19, Jo wrote: > > For the people proposing t use what is on the 'film' on the front of the > bus: there are itineraries where this text changes midway, so that's > definitely not the name fo that specific itinerary either. > A to B via C and D. -- Paul ___

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

First of all, what Mateusz is proposing as the "name" of the route is properly referred to as the "headsign". And the notion that because Mateusz thinks the "description" tag is a better fit than the "name" tag is all well and good, and merits discussion, but it doesn't mean he's right (or wrong).

Re: [Tagging] Misuse of name tag for route description

On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 00:08, Johnparis wrote: > > I go by the rule "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." What is "broken" by > the existing setup? And in particular, what is "broken" that adding a > "headsign=*" tag wouldn't fix? > The fact that, when I'm waiting for a bus at a stop which has seve

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals

On 08/05/19 19:18, marc marc wrote: Le 08.05.19 à 10:30, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : „uncontrolled“, as it is a misnomer. indeed, but what could be a better value ? crossing=not_controlled_by_a_traffic_signal is a little long I have used 'uncontrolled' where there is no marking, no aids but

Re: [Tagging] Looking for Existing Proposal/Feature - Firearm Restrictions

On 11/05/19 08:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 12:46, Jane Smith mailto:internetfriendly...@gmail.com>> wrote: Good Evening, I am considering submitting a proposal for restrictions or allowances on carrying firearms in a particular location. I checked t

[Tagging] Apps of delivery

How to tag POIs that deliver by some specific apps? E.g., https://www.ifood.com.br/delivery/santa-maria-rs/cheiro-verde-rua-coronel-valenca/08b63811-671f-4da9-956b-da875e07abad Such apps work as social media, so I've thought that this case would fit in contacts, something like contact:=direct_web