Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

sent from a phone > On 22. May 2020, at 03:10, Mike Thompson wrote: > > This seems to contradict what Mateusz said. "Way used solely to access a > private residence is always highway=service, service=driveway no matter > whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22 lane

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

May 22, 2020, 00:50 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >>> On 21. May 2020, at 23:17, Mike Thompson wrote: >>> >> A way that is used to access a private residence from a public road is >> highway=service, service=driveway (functional classification), unless it is >> too lon

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On 22/5/20 6:24 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 22. May 2020, at 03:10, Mike Thompson wrote: This seems to contradict what Mateusz said. "Way used solely to access a private residence is always highway=service, service=driveway no matter whatever it is short, long, pave

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

May 22, 2020, 03:09 by miketh...@gmail.com: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:52 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <> > dieterdre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > If the driveway is too rough, it maybe isn’t a driveway any more, it will > > depend on the other driveways in the area what is acceptable as a drivewa

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Ok, so I realize there will not really be any other way to distinguish an urban, paved path from a small forest path, other than by other attributes than highway=path itself. Path=mtb is nice for paths specifically created for MTB and nothing else. But I don't see an easily verifiable way of doing

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 20:54, Daniel Westergren wrote: > Ok, so I realize there will not really be any other way to distinguish an > urban, paved path from a small forest path, other than by other attributes > than highway=path itself. Path=mtb is nice for paths specifically created > for MTB and

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Yeah, I guess there's no way to force the user to add a surface tag when adding a highway=path. We could also use analyzing tools to look for recent edits with only highway=path and comment to users about the use of surface etc. And yeah, the MTB preset bundle for JOSM has one preset for singletra

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

For unpaved paths I would tag width of a path, not width of free space on sides of a path. Second may be tempting in dense forest where bushes and overgrowth may be important, but would result in weird cases where there is large amount of free space on sides. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikip

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

Now next step is to either get back to other mappers and explain why =dispensary would be likely confusing for others and just map using whatever tags seems best. Or go through a proposal process https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process if you want. I have seen some edits already, b

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 21:44, Daniel Westergren wrote: > Yeah, I guess there's no way to force the user to add a surface tag when > adding a highway=path. We could also use analyzing tools to look for recent > edits with only highway=path and comment to users about the use of surface > etc. > I

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> 22 maj 2020 kl. 12:52 skrev Daniel Westergren : > > […] Then there is width, which is only tagged on 3.5% of highway=path. I was > discussing width of paths in another forum. For a forest path, would you say > width is measured as the actual tread on the ground only? For a runner and > MTB

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

May 22, 2020, 13:55 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: > > > On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 21:44, Daniel Westergren <> wes...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Yeah, I guess there's no way to force the user to add a surface tag when >> adding a highway=path. We could also use analyzing tools to look for recent >>

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-ml] [Talk-sn] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

So, we are actually all in agreement, aren't we ? Nous sommes donc tous d'accord, non ? On 5/3/20 6:00 PM, severin.menard wrote: Oui désolé, en effet je me suis trompé sur la clé ! Yes sorry, my mistake regarding the right key! ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ Le dimanche 3 mai 2020 17:54,

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 22:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > May 22, 2020, 13:55 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com: > > > > On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 21:44, Daniel Westergren wrote: > > Yeah, I guess there's no way to force the user to add a surface tag when > ad

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Sounds like rendering for the mapper...don't know if that's as bad as the other way around Op vr 22 mei 2020 om 16:07 schreef Andrew Harvey : > > > On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 22:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> May 22, 2020, 13:55 by andrew.har

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> Agreed, though I think the biggest driver for the casual mapper would be > to close the feedback loop so they can actually see this change. ie. making > the default OSM style render width and surface. > Yeah, better improving editors than forcing people to tag something they may not be able to t

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/CARTOGRAPHY.md#general-purpose It is one of goals of this map style. May 22, 2020, 16:17 by pelder...@gmail.com: > Sounds like rendering for the mapper...don't know if that's as bad as the > other way around > > Op vr 22 mei 2

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

And there actually seems to be a pull request finally solving the paved/unpaved rendering that was opened 7 years ago?!? https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4137 If that makes it to the default map it will certainly help people to tag surface, because they will see that it mak

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

On 22/05/2020 15:55, Daniel Westergren wrote: And there actually seems to be a pull request finally solving the paved/unpaved rendering that was opened 7 years ago?!? https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4137 If that makes it to the default map it will certainly help people

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

Yeah, I think in terms of tagging we don't get further in this discussion. But it has been very valuable to me. I've done a couple of video tutorials about the basics of mapping trails in OSM and the next one will be about what tags to use and why. They are in Swedish, but I'm planning to do Engli

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

Hi Claire and all, @Claire I know this thread is about health posts and community care sites but I'm curious: which tag(s) are you willing to keep for your Centres de Santé? From your https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Congo-Kinshasa/Conventions/Sant%C3%A9 suggested is health_facility:type=healt

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

I’m going to throw this in rather randomly but the reason i don’t tag width and surface is that the footpaths I’m mapping vary widely. Getting wider and thinner and going from gravel to dirt to sections with many trees roots. Plus the surface tag is rather subjective. Sent from Jake Edmonds' i

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> going from gravel to dirt to sections with many trees roots. This can be tagged as surface=unpaved - 99.9% objective and verifiable. (If you have sections of half-crumbled, old asphalt or concrete, mixed in with gravel and dirt, it gets a little iffy, but that situation is rare in most places).

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

On 21/05/2020 14:28, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: The tag amenity=health_post has been mainly used in Nepal, with some use in Guinea (West Africa) and northern Ethiopia: in reality, I wish we could review the whole setting.  and have `amenity=healthcare` followed by `healthcare=*` to specify furthe

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> > In the short term, it's okay to tag an estimated, average width. If it's 1 > to 0.3 meters, use 0.5 - this still shows a difference from a path which is > 1.5 to 4 meters wide (which you might estimate as 2.5 meters?). > Perhaps it could be added to the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:

Re: [Tagging] Adding values healthcare=dispensary and healthcare=community_care?

good day Claire, On 21/05/2020 18:29, Claire Halleux wrote: Hi Mario, […] I'm just interpreting the information at http://www.minsa.gob.pa/cartera-salud/cartera-de-servicio-por-nivel-de-atencion and asking local people for help understanding what I'm reading. […] Are these like

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> 22 maj 2020 kl. 17:25 skrev Andy Townsend : > > I think that there's another problem with the standard style as well - aside > from surface rendering it's hugely biased towards urban centres. Looking at > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/53.9023/-0.8856 you can't see any paths > at al

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

> On May 22, 2020, at 5:24 AM, Ture Pålsson via Tagging > wrote: > > > >> 22 maj 2020 kl. 12:52 skrev Daniel Westergren > >: >> >> […] Then there is width, which is only tagged on 3.5% of highway=path. I was >> discussing width of paths in another forum. For a fores

[Tagging] Feature proposal - Lines management - Voting

Hi all, The RFC on Lines management proposal is now over and here starts the vote for 15 days. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lines_management As explained previously, it's the second stage of tower:type refinement project for power/utility supports. The point is to documen

[Tagging] How to tag parking area where it doesn't make sense to have a way go through it

There are certain residential areas where there are designated parking spots, either for individuals or guests, that are accessible from a road, but are not necessarily a "parking lot" where it would make sense to have a service road go through it. Here is an example: https://www.openstreetmap.

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Lines management - Voting

I've never really understood this section of the proposal. I was hoping this would be clarified since it still seemed to be under discussion: "Level composition matrix "As many situations exists in reality, it can be useful to combine (line_management=value1|value2) some values to reflect what ac

Re: [Tagging] How to tag parking area where it doesn't make sense to have a way go through it

On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 22:33, Skyler Hawthorne wrote: > There are certain residential areas where there are designated parking > spots, either for individuals or guests, that are accessible from a road, > but are not necessarily a "parking lot" where it would make sense to have a > service road g

Re: [Tagging] How to tag parking area where it doesn't make sense to have a way go through it

That looks correct. According to the aerial imagery these are private parking spaces which are directly accessible from the street. https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?#map=20/37.40423/-121.99958 So amenity=parking + access=private is a reasonable way to map this. – Joseph Eisenberg On Fri,

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Lines management - Voting

Le ven. 22 mai 2020 à 23:34, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > I've never really understood this section of the proposal. I was hoping > this would be clarified since it still seemed to be under discussion: > Answers are available on Talk https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Lin

Re: [Tagging] How to tag parking area where it doesn't make sense to have a way go through it

May 22, 2020, 23:31 by o...@dead10ck.com: > There arecertain residential areas where there are designated parking > spots,either for individuals or guests, that are accessible from a road, > butare not necessarily a "parking lot" where it would make sense to have > aservice road go through i

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 11:25, Andy Townsend wrote: > ... it's hugely biased towards urban centres. > Looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/53.9023/-0.8856 you > can't see any paths at all at that zoom level due to the "Central > European Graveyard problem" - compare with > https://map.a

Re: [Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

2020-05-23, št, 04:51 Jarek Piórkowski rašė: > See also: not rendering roads or hamlets in very sparsely populated > areas because we have one map style which needs to accommodate central > European densities. OSM-Carto is a very well done DATA VISUALISATION. It is not a cartography. What you're