Re: [Tagging] Proposed automated edit of some barrier=kerb kerb=raised nodes (forum crosspost)

2023-04-19 Thread Marc_marc
Le 19.04.23 à 03:04, Matija Nalis a écrit : following the automated edit code of conduct? following it mean to use the correct place for that : the talk ml :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listin

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

2023-04-19 Thread Philip Barnes
On Wed, 2023-04-19 at 00:39 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > > > > Apr 19, 2023, 00:14 by mnalis-openstreetmapl...@voyager.hr: > > On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 17:08:39 +0200, Marc_marc > > wrote: > > > Le 18.04.23 à 16:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging a écrit : > > > > Is tagging of fuel:

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

2023-04-19 Thread Marc_marc
Le 19.04.23 à 11:57, Philip Barnes a écrit : if its octane 95 it will be E10 maybe fuel:octane_95:E10 = yes fuel:octane_99:E5 = yes the ":" between octane and E gives the impression that several combinations are possible. If you say that this is not the case, then it seems more logical to

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

2023-04-19 Thread Niels Elgaard Larsen
Matija Nalis: IMHO basically the main reason why multi-tag standard (e.g. fuel:octane_98=yes, fuel:diesel=yes, fuel:lpg=no) was invented is precisely because in multi-value system it would have been impossible to mark the difference between "this fuel is not present" and "it is unknown/unsurveye

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

2023-04-19 Thread Illia Marchenko
Niels Elgaard Larsen : > For example if you use the template for restaurants and fast_food (but not > cafes for > some reason) in JOSM, you get a combobox where you can select one or more > values for > "cuisine". I would not assume that if I select indian or sushi that it > excludes asian. > The

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

2023-04-19 Thread Matija Nalis
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:17:41 +0200, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > Matija Nalis: >> e.g. if "fuel=octane_98;diesel" was tagged, it would be ambiguous - does >> it mean that there there is no LPG, or that the mapper didn't care to survey >> that separated area of fuel station where LPG is being hel

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

2023-04-19 Thread Matija Nalis
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 13:17:41 +0200, Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote: > Matija Nalis: >> e.g. if "fuel=octane_98;diesel" was tagged, it would be ambiguous - does >> it mean that there there is no LPG, or that the mapper didn't care to survey >> that separated area of fuel station where LPG is being hel

Re: [Tagging] Proposed automated edit of some barrier=kerb kerb=raised nodes (forum crosspost)

2023-04-19 Thread Matija Nalis
On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:23:42 +0200, Marc_marc wrote: > Le 19.04.23 à 03:04, Matija Nalis a écrit : >> following the automated edit code of conduct? > following it mean to use the correct place for that : the talk ml :) Oops, sorry, wrong OSM ML starting with "ta". :) Now posted at correct place

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

2023-04-19 Thread Niels Elgaard Larsen
Matija Nalis: Hm, I do, but as it would be rather hard to prove (and such proof is not paramount here), lets us just agree that it is how certain amount of mappers use it (without trying to quantify it with subjective guesses). I think it depend a lot from key to key. I think that my point

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

2023-04-19 Thread Marc_marc
Le 19.04.23 à 14:19, Matija Nalis a écrit : I think that my point remains that: - one method is clear and unambiguous ("fuel:lpg=no") - one method is not clear / is ambiguous ("fuel=octane_98;diesel"). So the first one should be preferred. Does that make sense? - one is a nightmare for datause

[Tagging] unicode in direction_* for guildepost to describe what it is related to, e.g. hiking

2023-04-19 Thread Marc_marc
Hello, a specialist appearance contributor adds in unicode characters to visually represent the type of travel present on a guildepost is this really a good idea ? [1] if i want to find all the signs of line 3 inline_skates not only do I need to test 9 keys + a few more on ways, but I will have

Re: [Tagging] unicode in direction_* for guildepost to describe what it is related to, e.g. hiking

2023-04-19 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick
Is that actually on the sign? If not, it shouldn't be mapped. Thanks Graeme On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 at 08:59, Marc_marc wrote: > Hello, > > a specialist appearance contributor adds in unicode characters > to visually represent the type of travel present on a guildepost > > is this really a good

Re: [Tagging] unicode in direction_* for guildepost to describe what it is related to, e.g. hiking

2023-04-19 Thread Illia Marchenko
Presumably, sign contains symbols (hiker, bicycle and skate) and text. Graeme Fitzpatrick : > Is that actually on the sign? > > If not, it shouldn't be mapped. > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo

Re: [Tagging] unicode in direction_* for guildepost to describe what it is related to, e.g. hiking

2023-04-19 Thread Marc_marc
Le 20.04.23 à 01:04, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit : Is that actually on the sign? yes it contains also symbols of bicycle hiking and inline_skates ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is tagging of fuel: assumed to be exhaustive?

2023-04-19 Thread Matija Nalis
On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 00:47:21 +0200, Marc_marc wrote: > Le 19.04.23 à 14:19, Matija Nalis a écrit : >> I think that my point remains that: >> - one method is clear and unambiguous ("fuel:lpg=no") >> - one method is not clear / is ambiguous ("fuel=octane_98;diesel"). >> >> So the first one should b