Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 00:51 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > -1 to a site relation for an area with a defined outer boundary. > > Relation = boundary (and =multipolygon) works fine for defining an area, > and you can make holes to exclude at my “outparcels” or vill

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Jul 30, 2019, 9:54 AM by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 00:51 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <> > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com > >: > >> -1 to a site relation for an area with a defined outer boundary. >> > > >> >> Relation = boundary (and

Re: [Tagging] Charging stations: socket::output -- which format for the value?

All electric charging station that i have ever encounter are in "kW" not in watt (ex: 3 kW, 50 kW, 120 kW, 175 kW...). To me, it is the same as the maxspeed tag, we don't put it in m/h but in km/h -> we use the common unit as everyone use it. Thus we don't use the SI value everywhere and that seem

Re: [Tagging] Charging stations: socket::output -- which format for the value?

On 30/07/19 12:38, brad wrote: I don't have an opinion about kw or w, but if the value is only a number, then to prevent confusion and reduce mistagging the key should specify, output-kw=22 . OSM typically places unit after the value. For examples see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_F

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

A bus stop, a place where a bus halts to pick up and drop off passengers is both real and current. Tying it to a geographic object can be done in various ways, as we've shown over the past years. I read the wiki a few times over the past years and then I started looking for something that works, b

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

duplicating information across multiple objects. I found that what works best is to have nodes on the side of the road to represent the stops. These nodes have positional information and can carry all the tags for the details. If there is an actual elevated platform, it can be represented by a wa

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

By the way, I don't think the 'schism' of some people/countries mapping the stops as nodes of/on the highway and others nodes/ways next to the highway comes from an import in Switzerland. I think it came from habits in mapping of railway infrastructure. At one point, we had a single way for multipl

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 11:47 Uhr schrieb Jo : > By the way, I don't think the 'schism' of some people/countries mapping > the stops as nodes of/on the highway and others nodes/ways next to the > highway comes from an import in Switzerland. I think it came from habits in > mapping of railway infr

[Tagging] Connectivity relations - approved

Hi everyone, A few weeks ago, the new relation type "connectivity' was approved. I've updated the proposal, created a new page https://wiki.osm.org/Relation:connectivity , and updated relavent wiki pages to mention connectivity relations. Connectivity relations are a new relation type of relation

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

Please don't use lanes=0. That don't make sense! If there is a road marked or not there is one lane without oneway. lanes=0 is same as virtual road. Maritime road isn't marked and there is one lane in database (implicitly). This is a real word abstraction! Rules are etablished to work with this dat

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Jérôme Seigneuret < jerome.seigneu...@gmail.com>: > Please don't use lanes=0. That don't make sense! > if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes (as it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked lanes.

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

Comments on the Key:lanes page 1) Heading "Narrow roads" The pageit proposes: width=4 source:width=estimated This construct is used 5k times acording to TI. est_widh=x is used 40k times, and hence should be mentioned at least. Furthermore the esta

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 12:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes (as > it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked lanes. > That's logical but not particularly useful. Around here there are a lot of minor road

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes (as it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked lanes. No simply because 2 lanes = opposites 1 forward 1 backward marked or not. This a routing comportement. You can have 2 lanes but no mark on road. Thi

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

I, for one, consider not including bicycle lanes to be a harmful shortcoming. It tells you nothing about where, how many or what turn restrictions apply to the bicycle lanes, all because bicycle lanes don't count because reasons. It also means lane guidance where bicycle lanes exist will automati

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

30 Jul 2019, 15:04 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > This is something that desperately needs to change.  > Maybe, but please do not attempt to redefine "lanes" tag (all_lanes=*?). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetma

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 14:05 Uhr schrieb Jérôme Seigneuret < jerome.seigneu...@gmail.com>: > if lanes is about the total amount of marked "2-tracked-vehicle"-lanes (as > it is according to my understanding), then lanes=0 means no marked lanes. > > No simply because 2 lanes = opposites 1 forward

Re: [Tagging] Was public_transport=platform intended to always be combined with highway=bus_stop?

I got the information about the origin of the dispute about highway=bus_stop next to or on the way from this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop#Contradictions_in_the_wiki "In the early days of OSM, the bus stops were mapped beside the street simply because the p

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

@martin this is a problem on what is accepted as a 1 lane because if you are on a path there is also 1 lane but accepted size is less than what? highway type need have a base width to appreciate or range values If you have 1 or more lanes. This case is for normal gabarit what about motorcycle | ca

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

I don't see it as redefining lanes so much as fixing a bug that never should have been there in the first place. Like whoever came up with the current concept hates cyclists or something. An analogous situation would be of someone decided ground floors don't count. Of course we'd fix that. This

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

This topic again? We had this just a few weeks back and we actually reached to a conclusion that lanes=0 should NOT be used to denote that there are no marked lanes. I believe I also documented that conclusion on the wiki, prompting here for review. Tobias On July 30, 2019 1:19:32 PM GMT+02:

[Tagging] Someone in OSM hates cyclists? Shurely Shome Mistake! (was: lanes = 0 )

On 30/07/2019 15:26, Paul Johnson wrote: I don't see it as redefining lanes so much as fixing a bug that never should have been there in the first place.  Like whoever came up with the current concept hates cyclists or something. ... or perhaps they came from a country that _really loves cycli

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

Also, the mention of that lanes key (should) only be used to denote the number of MARKED lanes was added in 2017 after a short discussion in the German forum about the same topic. However, in this topic here on the ML, arguments were brought forth that made us get to a different conclusion (the

Re: [Tagging] Charging stations: socket::output -- which format for the value?

OSM typically places unit after the value. For examples see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units#Explicit_specifications In Some cases the unit is omitted and a default is assumed. Would this default be "kW" in this case? ___ Tag

Re: [Tagging] Charging stations: socket::output -- which format for the value?

The tag socket::output has been used 5000 times, so I think it's best to describe existing usage on the wiki. The current usage is to tag the units, which are almost always kW: socket:type2:output has been used 3663 times, and the majority (>70%) are tagged with 22kW, 22 kW, 43kW and 11 kW - they

Re: [Tagging] Charging stations: socket::output -- which format for the value?

On 7/30/19 2:59 AM, Warin wrote: On 30/07/19 12:38, brad wrote: I don't have an opinion about kw or w, but if the value is only a number, then to prevent confusion and reduce mistagging the key should specify, output-kw=22 . OSM typically places unit after the value. For examples see https:/

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

30 Jul 2019, 16:26 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > I don't see it as redefining lanes > It is not changing that it would redefine meaning of this tag. So it would require survey of all  places tagged with lanes tag so it is not going to happen.___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

Not really, no, you could easily Maproulette this for items tagged cycleway=lane. Besides, just because something is hard to fix doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 13:24 Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > 30 Jul 2019, 16:26 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > I don't see it as redefi

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 19:46, Paul Johnson wrote: Besides, just because something is hard to fix doesn't mean it shouldn't > be fixed. > Yes, but modal verbs are tricky. :) I agree it SHOULD be fixed, but that doesn't mean that it CAN be fixed. And even if it CAN be fixed, that doesn't mean i

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

Maybe quit fighting against a good idea just because it's hard? And since when have we ever been against incremental improvement over none at all except for this specific thing? On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 14:04 Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 19:46, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Besides, just

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 20:27, Paul Johnson wrote: Maybe quit fighting against a good idea just because it's hard? > I'm not fighting against a good idea. I agree that the current situation is broken. But I've been on this list long enough to understand that there are problems in changing the s

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

30 Jul 2019, 21:03 by pla16...@gmail.com: > However, if standard carto makes any rendering decisions based upon lanes=n > It is not used at all.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 23:33, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 30 Jul 2019, 21:03 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > However, if standard carto makes any rendering decisions based upon lanes=n > > It is not used at all. > That's one potential problem disposed of. How about routers? Although I'd expect them

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 5:50 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 23:33, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> 30 Jul 2019, 21:03 by pla16...@gmail.com: >> >> However, if standard carto makes any rendering decisions based upon >> lanes=n >> >> It is not used at all. >> > > That's one potentia

[Tagging] Keys to which new values can be added without a proposal: craft=, shop=, building=, office=, sport=?

Based on current practice, it seems that most people are ok with adding new values to certain keys that already have a long list of documented values in map features, as long as the tag is frequently used and well-documented? The relevant keys appear to be: craft= building= office= shop= sport=