Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

24 May 2019, 02:24 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:07 PM marc marc wrote: > >> following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better >> yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use, >> if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look >> >

Re: [Tagging] Navaid relation?

sent from a phone > On 22. May 2019, at 12:42, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > If navigation is simply doing nearest road point on matching then it requires > change to both > - properly use footway data > - use your proposed relation > > I see no reason for preferring second solution. check

Re: [Tagging] Navaid relation?

sent from a phone > On 22. May 2019, at 12:49, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > You need to have a way to EXPLICITLY define a location > where to navigate to. this is “entrance”/barrier=gate, or not? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@opens

Re: [Tagging] Navaid relation?

Am Mi., 22. Mai 2019 um 13:12 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > How can i select the entrance on OSRM/openstreetmap website, MAPS.ME, > > OsmAND the entrance? You cant. > > Why would you want to manually select entrance? > because you might want to in order to state whe

Re: [Tagging] Opening hours syntax for non Gregorian calendar

Ah, and about the Chinese calendar leap month I mentioned a while ago, it seems like some algorithm nowadays would tweet those leap month as negative values, for instance if it is the 8th month that get leaped, then it could be computationally represented as Lunar month -8. 在 2019年5月24日週五 14:57，Co

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Am 24.05.2019 um 00:59 schrieb Nick Bolten: > > The talk ML might be a better spot for this, this topic has already > strayed quite far from the original topic. (And maybe start the topic > on a more positive prospect instead of with a rant ;-) > > So far as I can tell, the topic on this mailing l

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 01:00 Uhr schrieb Nick Bolten : > So far as I can tell, the topic on this mailing list (as it often is) is > to gripe about how the iD editor isn't listening to this mailing list (and > sometimes on Github issues). > iD is not a general topic here, but with the tendency o

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > In general, our project isn't a top-down strictly managed project > > with a controlled decision-making process. This means that many > > things have to be discussed over and over, and the community > > generally doesn't speak with one voice. But this a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

sent from a phone > On 23. May 2019, at 19:05, marc marc wrote: > > following that, building=yes building:use=yes is better > yes can be improved when you'll known that's the current use, > if it not the same as what is excepted for this building look +1, seems to reflect the amount of knowl

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

sent from a phone On 24. May 2019, at 01:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> the tag could still be much more simple, e.g. >> camping=pitch > > That looses a lot of information for simplicity. > > A compromise? > > camp:part=pitch ??? there is no information in this that isn’t ther

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Hola Nick, On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 03:59:17PM -0700, Nick Bolten wrote: > So far as I can tell, the topic on this mailing list (as it often is) is to > gripe about how the iD editor isn't listening to this mailing list (and You can broaden that up - All tools around OSM. Same applies hier to all

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On 5/24/19 6:04 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: This is evidently something that is becoming more and more important as OSM grows as a project and it becomes increasingly difficult for a single person to be knowledgable about every aspect of it. In the din of voices here, how does one assess who i

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 09:56, Simon Poole wrote: > > I think if you investigate, you will find that invariably such complaints > (including the predictably, invariably going to be used,"toxic"), originate > with people that didn't get their way, or associates of them ("didn't get > their way" as

Re: [Tagging] Opening hours syntax for non Gregorian calendar

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 01:45, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > 'easter' suffices for the entirety of the Christian calendar[1]. Really? So the Catholic (Western) and Orthodox (Eastern) churches have reconciled their calendrical differences? Admittedly, if you know which religious definition of Easter a

Re: [Tagging] Opening hours syntax for non Gregorian calendar

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 07:57, Colin Smale wrote: > Is the Jewish calendar in active use? > By followers of Judaism. A lot of their holy days are based upon luni-solar calculations. As is Easter (and other movable Christian feasts). The Islamic calendar has a lot in common with the Judaic cale

[Tagging] Orthodox Christianity exists | Re: Opening hours syntax for non Gregorian calendar

On 24/05/2019 02:44, Kevin Kenny wrote: 'easter' suffices for the entirety of the Christian calendar Nope! 1,000 years ago the Christian church(s) had the "East West Schism", resulting in Orthodox Christianty in the east, and Catholic/Prodestant Christianity in the west. The 2 sides often disa

[Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

On 23/05/2019 20:58, Nick Bolten wrote (in the "solving iD conflict" thread: OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of these mailing lists. Ones that people will actually use and that have a reasonable, community-oriented code of conduct. I have talked to 10X more pe

Re: [Tagging] Orthodox Christianity exists | Re: Opening hours syntax for non Gregorian calendar

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:16 AM Rory McCann wrote: > On 24/05/2019 02:44, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > 'easter' suffices for the entirety of the Christian calendar > > Nope! 1,000 years ago the Christian church(s) had the "East West > Schism", resulting in Orthodox Christianty in the east, and > Catholi

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

24 May 2019, 13:32 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > I continue listening carefully to this mailing list, toping to glean useful > information from it. IT SIMPLY NEVER HAPPENS. > Well, for me for example https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-March/043350.html

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On 5/24/19 6:04 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > This is evidently something that is becoming more and more > > important as OSM grows as a project and it becomes increasingly > > difficult for a single person to be knowledgable about every aspect > > of

[Tagging] Approved Proposal: Key:golf_cart

The access key "golf_cart" has been approved unanimously, with 18 votes. I have changed the proposal page status and updated the wiki page to include the new status, as well as the access wiki page. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

[Tagging] TagHistory (Was Re: solving iD conflict)

>> In the absence of a central authority, tools such as taginfo are actually >> the most reliable source. Yes, it's _argumentum ad populum_, but truly, >> what else is there? >> > taginfo is useful tool but only one of many. Examples of some of taginfo > limitations: ... > - vulnerable to mass edit

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

24 May 2019, 14:48 by o...@imagico.de: > OSMF endorses > this as the default way of editing OSM online via the website giving it > an unfair advantage over any competing system of presets and > validation. > Is there some editor capable of working in-browser that can be considered as better th

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:49 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: > You should not assume just because people articulate all kinds of > strange views and opinions on these channels that are evidently flawed > that the discourse on a whole is pointless. I'm not asserting that it is pointless - I'm still he

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

I personally like the definition by the European Sports Charter (article 2, paragraph 1a): "Sport" means all forms of physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtain

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On Friday 24 May 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Is there some editor capable of working in-browser that can be > considered as better than iD that was refused without a good reason? > There is Potlatch 2, but relying on Flash immediately makes it worse > (even assuming that interface and design

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

24 May 2019, 15:47 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > That's human nature too, really. Those who agree with the consensus > have little incentive to speak up, and those who disagree will be > highly motivated to seize the opportunity to argue for their ideas. > Nevertheless, that's why a forum that

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Unless you intend to produce further evidence (to which I would > listen), I consider the insinuation that the iD developers have a > financial conflict of interest to be highly inappropriate. [...] Please don't put words into my mouth here - i have sa

[Tagging] Wiki for documentation, ML for discussion | Re: solving iD conflict

On 24/05/2019 15:47, Kevin Kenny wrote: I'm asserting that it provides little useful information about _current_ practice, since it chiefly devotes its attention to _future_ practice: it discusses an ideal world, rather than the real world that we inhabit. > ... documented on the WIki, and appa

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 15:46 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny < matkoni...@tutanota.com>: > 24 May 2019, 14:48 by o...@imagico.de: > > OSMF endorses > this as the default way of editing OSM online via the website giving it > an unfair advantage over any competing system of presets and > validation.

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 9:55 AM Markus wrote: > I personally like the definition by the European Sports Charter > (article 2, paragraph 1a): > >"Sport" means all forms of physical activity which, through casual > or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical > fitness and

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 15:55 Uhr schrieb Markus : > I personally like the definition by the European Sports Charter > (article 2, paragraph 1a): > >"Sport" means all forms of physical activity which, through casual > or organised participation, aim at expressing or improving physical > fitnes

Re: [Tagging] Wiki for documentation, ML for discussion | Re: solving iD conflict

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:20 AM Rory McCann wrote: > Isn't this a case of using the wrong t̶o̶o̶l̶ community for the task? > The mailing list are for discussion. We have help.openstreetmap.org for > Q&A, and the wiki for documentation. "The ML makes a poor documentation" > well yes of course it d

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On 5/24/2019 11:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Seriously, we do not need to define what "sport" is, we will be voting with our feet. All accepted values are here: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/sport#values (plus what is missing) certainly frequent tags should be preferred over those

Re: [Tagging] Wiki for documentation, ML for discussion | Re: solving iD conflict

When I came to OSM I started mapping my house number. Then I don't participated for 3 years until I came back and I hadn't had any problems of whom to ask. I edited something and then iD lead me to the "OSM_de" group on Telegram. Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Wiki for docu

Re: [Tagging] Wiki for documentation, ML for discussion | Re: solving iD conflict

24 May 2019, 17:22 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > iD's > recommendations should reflect broadly accepted current practice, and > this mailing list is not a good place to discover what that is. > It may not be the best place to start such search but it is one of possible tools. It should not be ign

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 17:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > what about shooting or chess? Chess clearly isn't a physical activity, while > for shooting there may be discussion. I play chess myself, but wouldn't call it sports. > The council of Europe also cites snooker along with chess as spor

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

Am Do., 23. Mai 2019 um 10:52 Uhr schrieb Valor Naram : > I have changed the description for the proposal at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table as > suggested. current description reads: "Provides the infrastructure for changing the nappy/diaper of babies or

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

24 May 2019, 17:20 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 15:55 Uhr schrieb Markus <> selfishseaho...@gmail.com > > >: > >> I personally like the definition by the European Sports Charter >> (article 2, paragraph 1a): >> >>    "Sport" mea

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On 5/24/19 11:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 15:55 Uhr schrieb Markus > mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>>: > > I personally like the definition by the European Sports Charter > (article 2, paragraph 1a): > >    "Sport" means all forms of physical ac

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a site with "Luxury Lodges"

I would also not classify them mainly according to the way they are constructed. There are all ranges of quality with buildings that are manufactored, from really cheap to really expensive. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.or

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> I think if you investigate, you will find that invariably such complaints (including the predictably, invariably going to be used,"toxic"), originate with people that didn't get their way, or associates of them ("didn't get their way" as in: there was a substantial body of opinions that disagreed

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:10 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > For example any definition that limits "sport" to competitions or only > psychical activity is not > fitting OSM use. I think you meant, 'physical' activity, although it would be interesting to see an event like competitive soothsaying!

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> iD is not a general topic here, but with the tendency of introducing new tags via presets, sometimes even where there are established alternative tags (...) Sorry, I misstated my meaning. Instead of "the topic of this mailing list" it should say, "the topic of this thread". > I guess sooner or

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 17:02, Markus wrote: > What about competitive binge drinking, it is a physical activity, may > be organized and aiming at expressing physical fitness. > It involves physical activity. I'm not sure that it enhances fitness. It may or may not be competitive. But if you'r

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On 5/24/2019 12:44 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: I think you meant, 'physical' activity, although it would be interesting to see an event like competitive soothsaying! If you ask 100 different psychics to identify a Zener card, some will almost certainly get it right! You'll probably have a champion a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

Ok. Changed itSee https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing descriptionFrom: Martin Koppenhoefer To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: Am Do.,

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

You make good points. Creating tools for editing OSM is a bit of a nightmare already (we've had many students try and fail) before having to grapple with tag decisions. Here's what you have to do when figuring out how to implement most tags beyond the few "easy" ones like highway=primary: - Visit

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

This is a pretty good example of some of that unhelpful behavior I mentioned... There is a toxic habit that's far too common on this mailing list to speculate about bad intentions and then state them as if they are fact. It serves no purpose other than to divide and denigrate and has no place in a

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

I could try to investigate and I am neutral because I don't have an opinion on that topic yet. You have just to say it and I will prepare an investigation like pointing out my role in this process and some other things that needs to be done beforehand.Great wishes bySören alias Valor Naram

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:04, Nick Bolten wrote: > This is a pretty good example of some of that unhelpful behavior I > mentioned... > Projection much? There is a toxic habit that's far too common on this mailing list to > speculate about bad intentions and then state them as if they are fact.

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

24 May 2019, 18:56 by nbol...@gmail.com: > Each of these steps could be improved by having better systems in place for > communication and specification. For example: have wiki editing action items > at the end of most discussions  > What you mean by that? Edit wiki once it is useful, link back

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

24 May 2019, 18:44 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:10 PM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> For example any definition that limits "sport" to competitions or only >> psychical activity is not >> fitting OSM use. >> > > I think you meant, 'physical' activity, although it

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched. I'm not going to participate in that, aside to clarify that the quote regarding use cases of crossings and their relevance to pedestrian safety and people with disabilities was in response to both a personal accusation ("obsessive") and se

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> What you mean by that? Edit wiki once it is useful, link back it at mailing list, update if there is something wrong with it? Yes, exactly! And sometimes the thing that's "wrong with it" is just that it's vague, does not adequately address exceptions, or doesn't have enough examples for people i

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > > Unless you intend to produce further evidence (to which I would > > listen), I consider the insinuation that the iD developers have a > > financial conflict of interest to be highly inappr

Re: [Tagging] iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Hi I don't wish for another thread to go off on a tangent so may I ask you to read this one for my views on the hi-jacked 'platform' tag & the numerous current PT schemas and ask you to contribute there: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/2019-April/002052.html But to qui

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On 24/05/2019 18:29, Nick Bolten wrote: Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched. But Nick, /you/ made it personal. I haven't seen any of the behaviour you claim. You probably need to grow some thicker skin. If you're looking for sycophantic agreement with any point you mak

[Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

Hi everyone! I have two proposals out regarding the crossing tag and how it is not orthogonal, leading to all kinds of issues in mapping crossings and later interpreting that data. As currently written, if both proposals were accepted, crossing=traffic_signals/uncontrolled/unmarked would become tw

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

> But Nick, /you/ made it personal. No, I didn't. I named nobody. I kept it fairly vague. I made no references to any threads. I've actually explicitly avoided making it personal. And yet, this thread is devolving into personal attacks. I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of my point

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On 24/05/2019 18:56, Nick Bolten wrote: But Nick, /you/ made it personal. No, I didn't. I named nobody. Nick, making it personal also means making it about yourself. You've been self referential numerous times: "My experience with this mailing list" And yet, this thread is devolving into

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

> Nick, making it personal also means making it about yourself. You've been self referential numerous times: "My experience with this mailing list" It doesn't, actually. "Making it personal" means unduly making it about someone else, personally. Making them have a personal stake. But even if it d

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

Not sure about the context of this message but Andy's reasoning seems sound. On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 2:26 PM Andy Townsend wrote: > On 23/05/2019 20:58, Nick Bolten wrote (in the "solving iD conflict" > thread: > > OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of > > these m

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:30, Nick Bolten wrote: > Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched. > Yes. I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people. I noticed when you called me condescending. claims about how mapping these things don't matter, despite the use cases I

Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

I can see what maintenance burden this notation could bring, but I would need more information to see what we could gain from it. landuse=* seemed appropriate for most use cases I have encountered. Why do we need to tag this on a building resolution? What data consumers did you have in mind? Wha

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

> I don't doubt your last sentence at all - but these people are all (in some sense) people like you. They're people that you know personally well enough to meet personally or exchange emails with, or from a geographically-centred community (Slack) that you have both joined. Of course. Though the

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:43, Nick Bolten wrote: > It's a two-pronged recipe for disaster: make it very difficult to > independently know what to do, then have an often toxic environment for > those who suss out the semi-official, non-obvious place to ask questions. > A toxic environment, eh? D

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> Yes. I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people. 1) I referred to people with low vision. That is not the same as blind. 2) I didn't say you hated anyone. 3) The question was rhetorical: the premise is that you don't actually believe that. The hope was that those making these claims w

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

How do you propose visitors of the mailing list address responses like this, Andy? I'm not being sassy: I honestly want to know. Should it be ignored, becoming implicitly acceptable to the community? Should it be called out, creating a long-running petty thread? I've tried both. Maybe there's a

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

This is not in line with hat others have suggested, and invalidating 2.5 million existing crossing=* tags (everything with a value different from yes/no) is a complete no go. As you said, what others suggested, and what would be a welcome addition, is to leave the existing tag untouched (it

[Tagging] Investigation between iD developers and OSM community

Hi guys, I can do the investigation process ( https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pi permail/tagging/2019-May/045523.html ). It may be helpful when you concentrate on the purpose for which the thread "iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transports_platform ways and relations" ( https://lis

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:57, Nick Bolten wrote: > > Yes. I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people. > > 1) I referred to people with low vision. That is not the same as blind. > Legally, it is. "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual impairment: The *legal* definit

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 20:06, wrote: > > > As you said, what others suggested, and what would be a welcome addition, > is to leave the existing tag untouched (it seems to work fine for most > people except you), and tag the special exception where a > crossing=traffic_signals doesn’t have road ma

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

24 May 2019, 21:52 by pla16...@gmail.com: > Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes?  > This is a very popular situation in Poland. > Motorists have right of way if their signal is green; pedestrians have > absolute > right of way just by stepping on the crossing irrespecti

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 20:01, Nick Bolten wrote: > How do you propose visitors of the mailing list address responses like > this, Andy? I'm not being sassy: I honestly want to know. > > Should it be ignored, becoming implicitly acceptable to the community? > > Should it be called out, creating a

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

The way I see it: crossing=no – crossing here is not legal/possible crossing=unmarked – there are no road markings (or traffic signals) that indicate this is a designated crossing, but based on other factors, it’s a location where pedestrians common cross, e.g. because of lowered kerbs, o

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:00, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 24 May 2019, 21:52 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? > > This is a very popular situation in Poland. > I knew there'd be at least one. :) Motorists have right of way if their signal

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:09 PM wrote: > The way I see it: > crossing=no – crossing here is not legal/possible > crossing=unmarked – there are no road markings (or traffic signals) that > indicate this is a designated crossing, but based on other factors, it’s a > location where pedestrians co

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:09, wrote: > The way I see it: > > > > crossing=no – crossing here is not legal/possible > Yep. > > crossing=unmarked – there are no road markings (or traffic signals) that > indicate this is a designated crossing, but based on other factors, it’s a > location where p

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

24 May 2019, 22:10 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:00, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > >> >> 24 May 2019, 21:52 by >> pla16...@gmail.com >> : >> >>> Motorists have right of way if their si

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:15, Kevin Kenny wrote: Does any of this change in a jurisdiction where there is an implied > crossing at every intersection unless posted otherwise? > In the UK you can legally cross just about anywhere it's physically possible (with the exception of motorways). Howeve

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

24 May 2019, 22:16 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:09, <> osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au > > > wrote: > >> >> crossing=traffic_signals – there are explicit traffic signals that tell >> pedestrians when to stop. There are very lik

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:11 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:00, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: >> 24 May 2019, 21:52 by pla16...@gmail.com: >> Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? >> This is a very popular situation in Poland. > I knew there'd be at least on

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> Does any of this change in a jurisdiction where there is an implied > crossing at every intersection unless posted otherwise? Such purely implied crossings would be crossing=unmarked, and under the "do not map local legislation" rule, I would only map them if they have a physical presence (e.g

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On 5/24/2019 4:10 PM, Paul Allen wrote: Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? This is a very popular situation in Poland. I knew there'd be at least one.  :) It's common in the USA too. OK, so let me ask this.  Do zebra stripes on their own have any lega

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

From: Paul Allen Sent: Saturday, 25 May 2019 06:17 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no crossing=uncontrolled – there are road markings indicating this is

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> This is not in line with hat others have suggested (...) I think it's in line with what Mateusz suggested, but sorry if I mischaracterized your ideas. Also, apologies to you both because I somehow managed to screw up both names. > and invalidating 2.5 million existing crossing=* tags (everythi

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 1:01 PM Paul Allen wrote: > > Have you tried running to the teacher? That's a third option you could > try. Tell the teacher that > poopy-head Paul called you a poopy-head and calling people a poopy-head is > bad and that's > why Paul is a poopy-head. > > Now you can cal

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> What can be done here is to basically define that the different crossing=* > values imply default values for various other tags (the same way as the wiki > currently already documents what e.g. crossing=zebra or crossing=pelican > implies). I'm interested in this, in theory, but doesn't

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:22 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:11 PM Paul Allen wrote: > > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:00, Mateusz Konieczny > > wrote: > >> 24 May 2019, 21:52 by pla16...@gmail.com: > >> Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? > >> This is a

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:19, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Can you have zebra stripes without lights or are they only ever present > with lights? > You can have zebra stripes with lights and without lights. > > If you can have zebra stripes without lights that mean something different > to zebra

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On 5/24/2019 4:28 PM, Jmapb wrote: On 5/24/2019 4:10 PM, Paul Allen wrote: Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? This is a very popular situation in Poland. I knew there'd be at least one.  :) It's common in the USA too. OK, so let me ask this.  Do zeb

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 5:02 PM Paul Allen wrote: > However, they still pose a problem for the blind. With macular degeneration > you might be > able to make out stripes but not see the signals. Which would mean that > without OSM > making a distinction they wouldn't know which type of crossin

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On May 24, 2019 4:08:45 PM CDT, Jmapb wrote: >On 5/24/2019 4:28 PM, Jmapb wrote: >> >> On 5/24/2019 4:10 PM, Paul Allen wrote: >> >>> Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? >>> >>> This is a very popular situation in Poland. >>> >>> >>> I knew there'd be at least

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 22:12, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Yeah, there really are combinations around here: > > does it have signs? > does it have traffic signals? > does it have specific pedestrian-facing traffic signals? (Some > intersections just have you cross at the same time as motor traffic in >

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> crossing=traffic_signals – there are explicit traffic signals that tell pedestrians when to stop. There are very likely road markings, but even if not, the absence of road markings, in the presence of actual traffic signals, is irrelevant for how this crossing operates. I think the other definit

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> What sort of feature gets tagged crossing=no? Does one draw a line or node to represent the footway that isn't there? Personally, I've tagged crossing=no on ways either when it's illegal (there's a sign saying no crossing) or when it appears to be very dangerous and it's already been tagged with

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> AFAIK once traffic lights are present markings are not changing anything (and crossing with traffic lights without markings are really rare, I suspect that almost always result of worn-out painting or recent surface reconstruction). Change anything for whom? Markings and their location/style imp

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> Such purely implied crossings would be crossing=unmarked, and under the "do not map local legislation" rule, I would only map them if they have a physical presence (e.g. lowered kerbs). If we only mapped marked crossings and/or ones implied from curb ramps, then most sidewalks would be disconnec

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> Nothing I said changes the meaning of any existing tags. It does, because the tags did not specify your exact meanings. You're adding them: that's a change. > You seem to be one of very few people that is incapable of understanding the existing tags, and you shouldn’t be projecting your seeming

  1   2   >