Re: [Tagging] Intermittent highways?

I believe there was a recent discussion on showgrounds and temporal events. "temporal" as opposed to "temporary" as in "happens regularly every week/month/year for a set period of time at the same location". Up until recently, OSM has been strongly against temporal objects, but German Christmas mar

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

According to the document you shared, bare soil is mentioned in: Primarily non-vegetated > Terrestrial > Bare areas And within Bare areas, Bare soil is an available category, being distinguished by Bare rock whether the terrain is consolid

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 04:57, Yves wrote: > Le 15 juillet 2020 23:10:52 GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > >Generally I would agree with Paul, maxstay of a few minutes isn’t > actually a „parking“ > > I doesn't agree. > I agree with you that a short maxstay

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

natural=bare_soil sounds good to me, maybe it should be useful to set a maximum vegetation percentage (30% ?) If not, someone could say "Hey, there are two bushes in that area, it's not bare soil" <#m_-8688031786923632378_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

On 15/07/2020 17.10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 15. Jul 2020, at 16:17, Matthew Woehlke wrote: Do you mean having that on both the relation and the areas? > yes, you should have it only on the relation If I remove it from the areas, however, at least iD no longer thinks they are parking

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

My idea was only trying to avoid to invent tag values for OSM without consulting what other, technically more competent bodies, have done before. Looks as the FAO classification could have served as template for OSM tagging approach years back. But we now are only after tag value for bare soil, no

[Tagging] How to tag minor commercial roads?

I'm wondering what, if anything, I should do with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351516889. It doesn't seem to meet the definition of a highway=residential, but I'm not convinced it is a lowly highway=service, either, but I also can't easily demonstrate it is highway=tertiary. How should I

Re: [Tagging] How to tag minor commercial roads?

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:17 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > I'm wondering what, if anything, I should do with > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351516889. It doesn't seem to meet the > definition of a highway=residential, but I'm not convinced it is a lowly > highway=service, either, but I also c

Re: [Tagging] How to tag minor commercial roads?

On 7/16/2020 1:17 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: I'm wondering what, if anything, I should do with https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351516889. It doesn't seem to meet the definition of a highway=residential, but I'm not convinced it is a lowly highway=service, either, but I also can't easily demonst

[Tagging] Finger- or guide-post text

I am mapping a fingerpost, aka guidepost: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dguidepost I would like to add the inscription, for each of the three fingers, with their compass points. I note: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination is similar but "destination:

Re: [Tagging] Finger- or guide-post text

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 19:26, Andy Mabbett wrote: I propose something like: > >destination:NNW=foo > > or, using degrees: > >destination:337.5:=foo > > If this would cloud the use of "destination", we could use, say: > >inscription:337.5:=foo > > What do folk think? > We need someth

Re: [Tagging] Finger- or guide-post text

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 07:24:25PM +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote: > I am mapping a fingerpost, aka guidepost: > >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:information%3Dguidepost > > I would like to add the inscription, for each of the three fingers, > with their compass points. I note: > >htt

Re: [Tagging] How to tag minor commercial roads?

> On Jul 16, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:17 PM Matthew Woehlke > wrote: > I'm wondering what, if anything, I should do with > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351516889 > .

Re: [Tagging] site relations for city walls?

sent from a phone > On 16. Jul 2020, at 16:29, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > If I remove it from the areas, however, at least iD no longer thinks they are > parking lots. I am not sure about iD because I use it rarely, but some years ago it did manage to make sense of multipolygon relations,