I agree with Mateusz that the wiki IS the project's standard document for
the meaning of tagging (from the perspective of data consumers) and how to
tag (from the perspective of mappers). Note that both perspectives are
important. But to address the specific point, there is no standard
document f
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 5:11 PM François Lacombe
wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> Thank you for your comments
>
> Le lun. 14 déc. 2020 à 00:40, Brian M. Sperlongano
> a écrit :
>
>> 1. The proposal states "It is proposed to discourage the use of
>> undocumented p
Hello,
I recently received late feedback on the hazards proposal. Based on the
feedback, I felt it was necessary to make small changes to this proposal.
I believe these changes are sufficiently minor that they do not invalidate
the voting which has occurred so far. Since this proposal has begun
Wouldn't it be more consistent to keep it in the same key, and call it
place=lake_group? Or even place=lakes?
Would this be used for something like the Great Lakes in USA/Canada or is
that too large of a feature?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020, 12:05 PM stevea wrote:
> +1. Joseph's suggestion is a fine
Thanks everyone for the discussion.
I believe there are two germane points being raised by Tomas that warrant
our consideration:
1. It is not clear from the original 2011 vote which created
water=reservoir (and other values) as to whether the community intended to
deprecate landuse=reservoir or w
-12-16, tr, 01:32 Brian M. Sperlongano rašė:
> > The iD editor preset appears to use water=reservoir while the JOSM
> > preset appears to use landuse=reservoir.
>
> Not entirely correct.
> * JOSM gives freedom to mappers and supports BOTH.
> * iD forces to use water=re
Tomas,
Since you are not willing to accept (1) an existing approved proposal, (2)
new proposal to correct flaws in the first one, or (3) the overwhelming
preference of the mapping community over the past four years[1], then I'm
sorry but we must curtly dismiss your arguments as a one-man crusade[2
The statistics reflect all areas, regardless of which editors were used to
create them. I stand by them, as numbers do not lie. There was a 3:1
preference for water=reservoir during 2017 and 2018, two years prior to the
change in iD preset. The data is open, and taginfo provides a very helpful
R
+1
IMHO these are complementary. waterway=rapids can be tagged from overhead
imagery, and the additional detail of the rapids can be added later by
people with subject matter expertise.
I see this as equivalent to sac_scale=* for hiking trails - it does not
replace the underlying highway=path, i
As the maintainer of the current hazard proposal - I don't really have
strong opinions about signed versus unsigned hazards, though I know others
do. However, signed hazards seem to be something that we all agree should
be tagged, and this proposal is attempting to approve the collection of
usages
EQMygAegQIARAu..i&docid=EcY5sJtmk2sheM&w=1200&h=1050&itg=1&q=california%20highway%201%20curves%20for%20next%2074%20miles&client=firefox-b-d&ved=2ahUKEwifs6ryz9PtAhUO16QKHZ2-AjEQMygAegQIARAu>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 23:13, Brian M. Sperlongano
&g
I knew them as sewage treatment ponds, but apparently there's a name for
them:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_stabilization_pond
I feel like this a separate class of object that deserves its own tag,
either within or separate from natural=water, or perhaps even subclassed as
water=basin+ba
hazard=yes is neither banned nor discouraged. It was simply not included
in the list of proposed approved tags due to objections raised during the
RFC. The goal was to approve the hazard tagging that everyone agreed on.
Since hazard=yes has some existing tagging (>600 uses), it would still be
app
With respect to basins, my understanding is that some of these have water
in them all of the time, some of them have water some of the time, and then
there are some that are almost always dry, but become wet only rarely when
they are needed (e.g. for stormwater handling)
Mappers have used BOTH lan
I understand pitch to mean "a playing field" (as "pitch" is not often used
in US English -- we would say "soccer field" for example.). I don't know
if a shooting range is a pitch or not, but it definitely isn't a playing
field.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 3:35 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec
I've seen these in the US also, but I never knew what they were called. I
understand that the purpose of them is simply to make noise when a car
drives over them, as they don't slow you down in any appreciable way like a
speed bump/hump.
We already have a tag for "a traffic calming device that ma
Perhaps simply leisure=range, as this would be generic to any type of
facility where one might fire projectiles or ordnance. You could then
extend that with something like range= to specify what is being fired,
and/or the existing sport= key if it's considered a shooting sport.
On Sat, Dec 19, 20
Historic or abandoned military features, or military ruins, are clearly not
what this proposal is describing.
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 5:44 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 at 02:00, St Niklaas wrote:
>
>>
>> Your text or proposal seems to be focused on modern times.
>>
>
> Ye
>
> is firing ordnance a leisure activity somewhere? Or a sport?
Hello, let me introduce to you the United States of America.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
These guys in Texas will let you drive their tank around and shoot things,
for a price:
https://www.oxhuntingranch.com/activities/hunting-shooting/machine-gun-shooting/
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 6:16 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 19. Dec 2020, at 23:59, Jeremy H
> "Hillock" is quite common in British English
To describe a traffic control device?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
A proposal[1] to clarify the tagging of reservoirs, lakes, and ponds is now
open for comments.
This proposal:
1. Deprecates landuse=reservoir
2. Provides definitions for:
a. water=reservoir
b. water=lake
c. water=pond
It is clear from various multiple discussions on this topic
Note that the shooting_range hazard is specifically about the zone in and
around a shooting range that you should avoid if you don't want to
accidentally encounter a stray bullet (the area of the hazard) rather than
as a tag for a shooting range itself.
On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 3:30 PM Jmapb wrote
> Yes, but all proposals suggest a rendering scheme.
>
The proposal process wiki page says "Not a part of the proposals process as
such, but hints for the renderer maintainer will help them out. maybe a
description of an icon (refer Map Icons), or an example mock-up. Usually
may be safely omitted
I agree with this interpretation. sport=* should always be secondary to
some physical feature that is a location in some way related to the sport
(where it is played, where you can get lessons, a shop, etc).
On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 6:32 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 8:01 AM Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Our current data model is not suitable for mapping fuzzy areas. We can
> only do "precise". Also, as you correctly pointed out, or basic tenet of
> verifiability doesn't work well with fuzzy data.
>
The current data model works just fine fo
Discussion on the current reservoir proposal[1] (which seeks to define the
distinction between reservoirs, lakes, and ponds) has brought up the
question of stream/plunge pools[2,3], and how they fit into the lake/pond
definitions.
I've come up with the following text:
"Occasionally a river or str
Would this work for addressing schemes that use a hyphenated prefix?
In Hawaii, addresses outside of the city of Honolulu use a two-digit prefix
in addresses to determine which sector of the island an address is
located. So an address might be something like "99-123 Kamehameha
Highway". Would th
> I think you need to expand a little on how to "conflate" a pool with a
> river. The
> disadvantage of doing so is that the pool then cannot have a name assigned.
>
Sorry, my words were not clear enough here. By "conflate" I mean that the
pool would simply be part of the river polygon. See thi
I could see value in tagging them separately. I.e. "I'd like to swim in a
small pool with a waterfall".
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020, 12:10 AM Andrew Harvey
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2020 at 10:26, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>>
>> Isn't that a plunge pool? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plunge_pool
>> I di
an
> automatically measure natural=water size where the way contains a waterfall
> node.
>
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2020, 4:14 pm Brian M. Sperlongano,
> wrote:
>
>> I could see value in tagging them separately. I.e. "I'd like to swim in
>> a small pool with a wate
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 9:00 AM Paul Allen All of which has drifted somewhat off topic, but until we have a
> reasonable understanding of how different legislations handle
> things we don't have a good model of how we ought to go
> about mapping them (or even if we should map them).
>
I'm not sur
A commenter on the reservoir proposal[1] pointed out the existence of
quarry lakes[2], which is a lake that is formed after a quarry has been dug
after a mining operation. It was suggested that such bodies of water
should be tagged separately from other lakes with a tag such as
water=quarry.
Shou
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 7:45 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> How about "water bubblers"? Are they also a tap?
>
Ah yes, the "bubbler".
For those that don't live in Rhode Island, or one specific part of
Wisconsin, "bubbler" is a word that we use for what's called a "water
fountain" in other parts
I appreciate the effort here, but I think it's too broad. I would rather
have a more focused look at individual keys that considers what the tagging
alternatives are to each, and to assess whether there is duplication and/or
debates surrounding them that are worth investigating. There is really n
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 10:18 AM Andy Allan wrote:
> Can I reiterate this please - of all the things in OpenStreetMap that
> OSMF gets involved in, tagging is perhaps the thing that OSMF gets
> involved in least of all. So I think this discussion is happening in
> quite the wrong mailing list.
>
The main issue I have with this proposal is that there is a longstanding
controversy regarding the historic key. Namely, the question of whether it
is used for things that are historic or merely old. I don't see how a
proposal centered around this key can move forward with that fundamental
debate
I think I understand the proposal from poking around on the links to the
different alternatives, but could you clarify, for objects currently tagged
man_made=drinking_fountain, what the range of alternative taggings would
be? I almost wish there was a flow chart that would let the mapper of a
part
I'll offer a well-known example from my country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Fabulous_Las_Vegas_sign
It's on the US National Register of Historic Places which should qualify it
as a historic sign. Although I suppose those in Europe would just consider
the sign to be a little old.
O
It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that there is a
consensus before moving to a vote, regardless of timelines. It seems to me
that there has been a recent plague of proposals where proposal writers are
tossing proposals into voting status without doing enough due diligence.
If you a
On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 5:55 PM Robin Burek wrote:
> What kind of reversal of guilt is that? If someone does not participate in
> the RFC. And it has been discussed both here and in the new forum. Even
> constructive support, which I have received and not a little.
> I have yet to talk to anyone w
On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 6:45 PM Robin Burek wrote:
> And if we now get to the point of just "throwing away" the consensus of 12
> years ago.
>
> do we still need the proposal process at all? Because the result from 12
> years ago is also completely ignored by you.
>
it was already decided to de
You should bookmark this site to keep track of proposals:
https://osm-proposals.push-f.com/
Ideally this should probably be linked to more places.
On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 7:31 AM ael via Tagging
wrote:
> A very general comment:-
>
> I very seldom consider voting on proposals, but I did want to
I support the idea that proposals be posted to both the mailing list and
the community forums. Over time we can assess whether one or the other is
better.
One thing I think is missing is that I would like to see proposals posted
to a dedicated space in the forums that can be subscribed to, that w
You're using the wrong metric. The standard for a proposal, which purports
to change tagging standards that affect *the entire community*, should be
to advertise it as widely as possible. With the new forums picking up
interest and activity, it is entirely appropriate to say to a proposer
"...and
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 2:49 AM Marc_marc wrote:
> We can see it with the osm-fr experience: the immature forum has split
> the community, far from federating
>
Thank you for clearly describing the root cause of your objection.
In my opinion, it is better to let people decide for themselves whe
It has come to my attention that the "historic" proposal has apparently
been re-opened for a vote without even a courtesy message to the tagging
mailing list. Thank you to user Mnalis to noticing this and alerting
several community members that have previously commented on the proposal.
https://w
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 6:22 AM Włodzimierz Bartczak <
wlodzimierz.bartc...@openstreetmap.pl> wrote:
> That's right it's an oversight. I was a bit hasty. First of all, I wanted
> to start a discussion. It would be worthwhile to sort out the use of this
> key. Everyone is complaining about this pro
Hello,
I am the author of a data consumer which generates a list of streets that
are accessible to walkers and joggers. The idea is that a user would have a
map of the streets in their town and can challenge themselves to walk/jog
down every street, and they can look at statistics on which streets
such a way.
> However i would tag foot=use_sidepath, which means the same as foot=no but
> also indicates the existence of a separate way usable for routing.
> And only if the highway is a streets centerline, not a cycleway or other.
>
> Cyton
> Am 18.12.22, 21:32 schrieb "
s that pedestrians have to use a
>> (usually car) road-accompanying sidewalk.
>>
>> Also, your project reminds me of wandrer.earth, where craig also
>> introduced a way for running to track ran ways, not only for cyclists.
>> Though i only use it for cycling.
sn't have
> a sidewalk?
> Only in a city environment or also in a non-city environment?
> Or in Texas if you're on foot you're going nowhere?
> Definitely not human!
>
>
> Il giorno dom 18 dic 2022 alle ore 22:31 Brian M. Sperlongano <
> zelonew...@gmail.com&g
"pedestrian-in-roadway" ordinances) and
> there is NO sidewalk. In this case there IS an "easement" (whether
> populated by utilities or not) where pedestrians are allowed, because
> pedestrians must be able to use the right-of-way of the road, too. Just
> not IN the
Hello,
On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 6:08 PM Jens Glad Balchen
wrote:
>
> There are instances that you wouldn't want to include in your router.
> E.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/658000911, which is similar
> except there is no sidewalk=separate. Walking on this "sidewalk" is
> probably prohibit
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 2:15 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> foot=use_sidepath was invented to mark "yes, on carriageway you cannot
> walk, but you can walk on separately mapped sidewalk"
>
This makes sense to me, but the wiki[1] is somewhat confusing about
One of the names might be the predominant name used locally.
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022, 2:19 PM Yves via Tagging
wrote:
> Remove the name of the way, put a name on each relations. Except if it
> makes sense to keep the name also on the way for whatever reason you see
> fit.
>
> Le 30 décembre 2022 18
A proposal[1] to recommend the tagging of oceanic seas as nodes rather than
areas is now open for comments.
This proposal follows a community forum discussion[2] regarding the
modeling of the Gulf of Mexico as a node rather than as a crude polygon.
This change was made in [3]. This proposal would
On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 1:00 PM Marc_marc wrote:
> that is what I call a fragmentation, that's what happend
> with the fragmentaiton of the fr community
I was curious about this comment and so I headed over to
openstreetmap.community to check out the list of community spaces in
France. I found
On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 3:57 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I have no idea about the situation in France, but there definitely is
> fragmentation in OpenStreetMap channels (slack, telegram, forum, ml, irc,
> facebook etc.) - it is not necessarily a problem.
It is not a problem, but, for the pur
I think the point was that the units are explicitly tagged in meters,
whereas in other cases (like ele), the unit assumed to be meters and you
can just put a number by itself.
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023, 3:14 PM stevea wrote:
> Using mm (millimeters) as a unit for this makes no sense. Meters are much
here?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:49 PM David Salmon
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the discussions and pointers. I’ve disabled the challenge
> for now and will re-evaluate with the team.
>
>
>
> Much appreciated,
>
> David
>
>
>
> *From:* Bri
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 4:23 AM Walker Kosmidou-Bradley <
walker.t.brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand that having tagging like this does not benefit you, but does
> it hurt you? If it doesn’t hurt you and it may help somebody else is there
> a problem?
>
Hi,
Let's make sure we're talking a
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:45 AM Marc_marc wrote:
> Le 03.02.23 à 15:32, Brian M. Sperlongano a écrit :
> > Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing
>
> what's the issue with tag if TomTom doesn't reply ?
> I suppose it's more for talk th
This is a change to longstanding tagging practices and is therefore dead on
arrival.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023, 11:33 AM Cartographer10 via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Tjuro and I started a proposal to formalize the usage of `landcover=*`.
> The proposal is now open for feedback
> ht
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 9:11 AM brecht devriese
wrote:
> The only reason this one person rejects the proposal is because the tag
> has never been used in OSM.
>
For the avoidance of doubt, the "no" vote was:
--> I oppose this proposal. It makes no sense to "approve" this tag - it
has never been
If I understand the OP correctly, the issue is people that vote "no"
without giving a reason. In which case, I would reply in-thread and ask
the no voter to state their reason, even if it is "I agree with the
position of Person X". After all, it is not particularly helpful to the
proposal author i
I am curious why you feel this requires a proposal at all.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 3:59 AM brecht devriese
wrote:
> For the moment the proposal is canceled, because some adjustments will be
> made to the proposal. So you can't vote right now...
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Virt
101 - 167 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
