Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Just a reminder: in a few days voting will start (if I can figure out how to do that...). I would like to invite any one who still has comments or doubts which might cause a no or abstain vote, to comment here or on the talk page. If anything serious arises, I would rather postpone the vote and d

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

On 2020-06-01 08:14, Kovoschiz wrote: >> would instead be distinguished by additional tags e.g. > `boundary=administrative + administrative=police` > > New `boundary=*` relations (there are a lot of values > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/boundary#values) could be proposed > for these pur

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Jun 1, 2020, 10:03 by pelder...@gmail.com: > > Just a reminder: in a few days voting will start (if I can figure out how to > do that...). > See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting and a real example: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

On 2020-06-01 02:49, Kevin Kenny wrote: > I don't map special-purpose administrative districts, of which New > York has a whole menagerie. I don't object if others do, but don't try > to fit them into the boundary=administrative hierarchy. They don't > go. In New York, the admin_levels are as tab

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Recreational route relation roles

Thanks, I will have a go. Probably it's not that hard. Best, Peter Elderson Op ma 1 jun. 2020 om 11:49 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > > > Jun 1, 2020, 10:03 by pelder...@gmail.com: > > > Just a reminder: in a few days voting will start (if I can figure

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:49 AM Colin Smale wrote: > IIRC Indian Reservations can, and do, cross state boundaries, in which case > they don't fit in this hierarchy. Or am I wrong here? Some do. The only one of New York's that crosses the state line is Akwesasne, which is not recognized as a unifi

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

On 2020-06-01 15:05, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:49 AM Colin Smale wrote: > >> IIRC Indian Reservations can, and do, cross state boundaries, in which case >> they don't fit in this hierarchy. Or am I wrong here? > > Some do. The only one of New York's that crosses the state

Re: [Tagging] Meaning of "administrative" in boundary=administrative, in your country?

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 5:50 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I don't map special-purpose administrative districts, of which New > York has a whole menagerie. I don't object if others do, but don't try > to fit them into the boundary=administrative hierarchy. They don't > go. In New York, the admin_lev

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some pieces that have been completely erased, but of which we have documented knowledge of where they once were. The entire

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons

On 29/5/20 8:01 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: May 28, 2020, 23:54 by stevea...@softworkers.com: "treed farmland" or "heavily wooded residential" prove slightly problematic to OSM tagging. Map tree-covered area (landuse=forest) and map farmland (landuse=farmland) or resid

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道： > On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible > > objects plus objects which have left visible traces, and also some > > pieces that have been completely erased, but of which

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

On 2/6/20 11:52 am, Phake Nick wrote: 在 2020年6月2日週二 09:26，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > 寫道： On 30/5/20 12:48 am, Volker Schmidt wrote: > My main point is that out there are things that consist of visible > objects plus objects which have left visibl

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Should we map things that do not exist?

>From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>>If I am not certain of something I'll ask the author/flowing editors but where I know something is wrong I'll change it without consultation.Agreed. There is no need to consult with other users if something is clearly incorrect and needs to be changed. If a four

[Tagging] Covered walkways?

Doing some mapping around one of the local schools & wondering about the best way to map covered walkways? https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-28.06022/153.42615 A lot of skinny roofs, with highway=footway + covered=yes drawn under them, or simply just footway + covered, which would indica