Do we have any tagging for areas where e.g. open alcohol containers are
prohibited, where firearms are specially prohibited* or disallows
possession of a recording device or camera? A separate 'specific item
banned' tag is starting to sound like it would avoid further muddying the
transport mode t
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Customer_service
Feedback, complaints, edits to the page (especially concerning grammar, typos
and clarity)
are highly welcomed
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.o
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 02:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No. The material the guidepost is made from is of lesser importance to
> the fact that it is a 'guidepost'.
>
That is one viewpoint. It is something indicating the path of a route.
Collect them all under one tag because they
Wouldn't most, if not all, cases where this would be used already be
covered by the corresponding (and likely already in use) shop=* value?
Am 23.07.2020 um 12:49 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging:
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Customer_service
>
> Feedback, compl
On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 14:06 +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
> Wouldn't most, if not all, cases where this would be used already
> be covered by the corresponding (and likely already in use)
> shop=*
> value?
>
>
>
It is also a confusing term to have chosen as prior to reading y
Could you perhaps use existing tags instead of this?
office=company + access=customers
vs.
office=company + access=private
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:44 PM Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 14:06 +0200, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> Wouldn't most, if not all, cases where this would be used al
Yes, and in such cases shop should be used.
But in some cases where office=* is used
there is no known to me tagging scheme
covering this, such as car of energy
company customer service location.
It is place where you may handle overdue
bill payment plans or attaching new property
to power netw
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 13:09, Simon Poole wrote:
> Wouldn't most, if not all, cases where this would be used already be
> covered by the corresponding (and likely already in use) shop=* value?
>
One use that comes to mind, where shop is inappropriate, is my county
council. It has small (one- or
On 22/07/2020 19.05, bkil wrote:
But also consider that it wouldn't make sense to tag a motorway as
foot=no + bicycle=dismount (+ moped=dismount + mofa=dismount +
auto_rickshaw=no + agricultural=no), because the combination of tags would
create a completely new meaning, and that is not a preferre
You are trying to address a reaIly (numerically) big problem.
I would have thought anything with office=* may need an indication of the
presence or less of customer service.
Most likely anything that is shop=* would implicitly offer customer service.
So for the 700k office=* we need to retrofit an
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:39 PM Volker Schmidt wrote:
> So it would have to be customer_service=yes|no at least.
> That would also permit to check which offices have been evaluated by
> mappers for the presence or less of customer_service.
>
>
access=customers/private would also solve this withou
... and if the fingers are nailed on a shed, a common practice in the
mountains around here?
No post? Or the building is the post?
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 14:07, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 02:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> No. The material the guidepost is made
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:31 AM Alan Mackie wrote:
>
> Do we have any tagging for areas where e.g. open alcohol containers are
prohibited, where firearms are specially prohibited* or disallows
possession of a recording device or camera? A separate 'specific item
banned' tag is starting to sound l
Careful with "access".
access=customers on an office building would imply you can drive into this
building with any means of transport, provided you are a customer.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 15:46, bkil wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:39 PM Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
>> So it would have to be cust
On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 09:35 -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 22/07/2020 19.05, bkil wrote:
> > But also consider that it wouldn't make sense to tag a motorway as
> > foot=no + bicycle=dismount (+ moped=dismount + mofa=dismount +
> > auto_rickshaw=no + agricultural=no), because the combination of
> > I.e., bicycle=dismount means that you can proceed after you dismount,
> > however if a certain combination of other tags are also present
> (foot=no),
> > a data user would need to ignore this, making this more confusing than
> > necessary (bicycle=no).
>
> I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a
Within the way drawn for the office building, you should place a separate
node for the office POI. This node should be one having the given access=*
tag. Although, I think if I can visit a public office, that usually implies
that I have access to the given building as well, we usually do not add
ac
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 15:01, bkil wrote:
>
>> I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a road/path/whatever that you are
>> allowed to walk on *iff* you are pushing a bicycle (or moped or...). Do
>> you know of any examples?
>>
>>
> I don't quite understand what you are trying to get at with the ques
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 14:51, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> ... and if the fingers are nailed on a shed, a common practice in the
> mountains around here?
> No post? Or the building is the post?
>
Good question. But it more closely resembles a guidepost than a blaze.
Whereas the things being shoe-hor
Thank you, I do have a degree related to mathematics and I do understand
what *iff* means. However, that message didn't make sense with this
interpretation, this is why I've clarified my answer and I hope I've
cleared up any misunderstanding.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 4:17 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> O
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 15:27, bkil wrote:
> Thank you, I do have a degree related to mathematics
>
That's something I didn't know.
and I do understand what *iff* means.
>
I would hope so.
However, that message didn't make sense with this interpretation,
>
It didn't make much sense to me with
On 23/07/2020 09.59, Philip Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 09:35 -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
I'm trying (and failing) to imagine a road/path/whatever that you
are allowed to walk on *iff* you are pushing a bicycle (or moped
or...). Do you know of any examples?
I cannot think of many ro
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 16:35, Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
Well off-topic now.
(OT: Airline transponders may be IFF — note the capitalization —
> although I wonder about that because I always think of IFF as more a
> military thing. I'm not sure if civilian transponders are really meant
> to *identify
Hello everyone
As you may or may not know, my microgrant proposal "Map maintenance with
StreetComplete" [1] was selected to be funded by the OSMF. So, I am
happy to have the oppurtunity to invest the time extending the app,
hoping that it will help to keep the map up-to-date and unburden people
a
Alright, I didn't know you were only asking for the entertainment
value, but then I accept your challenge.
Actually I could indeed think of a place where you are only allowed to
be present in case you are pushing a bicycle. Imagine a bicycle
adventure park that only contains bicycle roads. Let's s
This should be more applicable in case the person walked by the said
object in person: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:survey:date
Also, I'd like to stay neutral in this question as of now, but I think
it would be possible to implement heuristic algorithms to reconstruct
the history of a w
On 23/07/2020 12.09, bkil wrote:
Alright, I didn't know you were only asking for the entertainment
value, but then I accept your challenge.
I wasn't asking for entertainment. I was asking because, while
*logically* it seems like such a combination doesn't make sense, the
refrain around here s
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:23 AM Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Good question. But it more closely resembles a guidepost than a blaze.
> Whereas the things being shoe-horned into guidepost in this thread more
> closely resemble blazes. Elaborate blazes with text. Not that I'm
> arguing we should abuse
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 17:34, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 10:23 AM Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Sometimes 'expectations' turn out, on examination, to be 'cultural
> assumptions'. I tend to prefer, where possible, to interpret tags _sensu
> lato,_ because otherwise there's a tagging qua
On 23.07.20 18:57, Paul Allen wrote:
Here's an example I used to travel past regularly. But that was years ago,
and the last time I saw it was a couple of years before I started mapping.
https://goo.gl/maps/fWvzsKneyMtSAFuW6 I remember roughly where it was,
but not well enough to map it, so I h
I'm trying to tag a whole bunch of side-of-road parking, and I have two
questions.
First, what is the correct way to tag marked parking spaces? There is
parking:lane:*=marked which would seem to apply, but then it isn't clear
how to indicate the direction (parallel vs. diagonal vs. perpendicul
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 19:43, Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
> I'm trying to tag a whole bunch of side-of-road parking, and I have two
> questions.
>
> First, what is the correct way to tag marked parking spaces? There is
> parking:lane:*=marked which would seem to apply, but then it isn't clear
> how to
On 22/07/2020 20.49, Warin wrote:
You asked for 'better' without defining what better means to you.
To me it is 'better' to know where these things are (requires more work
by the mapper) rather than that they are somewhere inside some area
(requires less work by the mapper).
Disabled parking
On 7/22/2020 12:05 PM, bkil wrote:
My guess is that the adoption of a dismounted_bicycle=* tag or similar
would require significantly *less* work than re-examining all current
bicycle=no ways.
Yes, I think that would be workable.
Nonetheless, I completely agree with you, =no s
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:59 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> Different cultural expectations. You're looking for information about a
> trail and don't care what form it takes.
>
I suppose that you therefore consider that the principal tag for these
objects, `tourism=information` is somewhat misleading,
On 23/07/2020 15.20, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 19:43, Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
I'm trying to tag a whole bunch of side-of-road parking, and I have two
questions.
First, what is the correct way to tag marked parking spaces? There is
parking:lane:*=marked which would seem to apply,
On 23/07/2020 15.34, Jmapb wrote:
As I see it, having bicycle=no imply permission to push a dismounted
bicycle violates the principle of least surprise because it's
inconsistent with other *=no access tags. I wouldn't presume I could
push my car along a motor_vehicle=no way,
While I would gener
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:36 PM Jmapb wrote:
> As I see it, having bicycle=no imply permission to push a dismounted
bicycle violates the principle of least surprise because it's inconsistent
with other *=no access tags. I wouldn't presume I could push my car along a
motor_vehicle=no way, or dismou
On 23/07/2020 16.16, Mike Thompson wrote:
Perhaps it is unfortunate that for modes of transportation we picked
nouns rather than verbs (e.g. foot vs. walking), but that is what it
is by long tradition. A similar thing applies to horse=no. There
are roads (some of the US Interstates) where you c
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 21:00, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:59 PM Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> Different cultural expectations. You're looking for information about a
>> trail and don't care what form it takes.
>>
>
> I suppose that you therefore consider that the principal tag for
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 21:00, Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
>
> Interesting. By that criteria, I would think that
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/826561593 has on-street parking,
Tough call. In isolation it looks like a parking lane, but it has markings
for car parking. On-street parking (at lea
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:34 PM Matthew Woehlke
wrote:
>
>
> ...but then your horse is a passenger in a vehicle. Otherwise that would
> be like saying a human can't ride in a vehicle if foot=no.
Exactly, foot=no doesn't mean that feet are not allowed, it means that
using a mode of transportation
bicycle=leave
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op do 23 jul. 2020 om 23:32 schreef Mike Thompson :
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:34 PM Matthew Woehlke
> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > ...but then your horse is a passenger in a vehicle. Otherwise that would
> > be like saying a human can't ride in a vehicle if foo
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 21:18, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:36 PM Jmapb wrote:
> > As I see it, having bicycle=no imply permission to push a dismounted
> bicycle violates the principle of least surprise because it's inconsistent
> with other *=no access tags. I wouldn't pr
On 23/07/2020 17.26, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 21:00, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Interesting. By that criteria, I would think that
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/826561593 has on-street parking,
Tough call. In isolation it looks like a parking lane, but it has markings
for car p
On 23/07/2020 17.30, Mike Thompson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:34 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote:
...but then your horse is a passenger in a vehicle. Otherwise that would
be like saying a human can't ride in a vehicle if foot=no.
Exactly, foot=no doesn't mean that feet are not allowed, it means
/OFF-topic
> I wouldn't presume I could push my car along a motor_vehicle=no way, or
> dismount my horse and lead it along a horse=no way.
>
I think the last few messages are pointing us in the right direction,
but let me share some entertaining insights to answer your question.
Under our juri
sent from a phone
> On 23. Jul 2020, at 21:36, Jmapb wrote:
>
> As I see it, having bicycle=no imply permission to push a dismounted bicycle
> violates the principle of least surprise because it's inconsistent with other
> *=no access tags. I wouldn't presume I could push my car along a
> m
On 22/7/20 12:53 am, Michael Montani wrote:
Dear all,
I wanted to check with you which is the best way to map farmlands
subject to rotation of crops. An example could be of a farmland used
for general crop in one part of the year and left it at rest for the
remaining part of the year, being a
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 01:27, Tod Fitch wrote:
>
> We are still left with the situation where an ephemeral waterway fans out
> over the desert and disappears. We need some sort of tagging to indicate
> this is not a mistake and I’ve not seen a tag or value come up in this
> discussion that has an
sent from a phone
> On 23. Jul 2020, at 21:31, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>
> ...and what if we're mapping spaces? I'm not sure I'm on board with dividing
> things which are logically "one parking lot"
if there is no name, what makes a parking space logically one lot?
Cheers Martin
_
51 matches
Mail list logo
