[Tagging] leisure=recreation_ground discouraged?

Hi It appears there's an attempt to discourage/deprecate leisure=recreation_ground. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Drecreation_ground https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Drecreation_ground I've done a history search of this forum & can find no discussions on th

Re: [Tagging] leisure=recreation_ground discouraged?

Last time I looked it was a preprogrammed option in all the 3 main editors. On 05/12/2018 13:28, Philip Barnes wrote: We normally use landuse=recreation_ground, have never come across the leisure version. Phil (trigpoint) On 5 December 2018 12:24:05 GMT, Dave F wrote: Hi It

Re: [Tagging] Can OSM become a geospacial database?

Going off topic, but you /can/ tag it as "shop=salumeria", it will still be searchable & will be displayed on the standard map with its name & a dot. DaveF On 05/12/2018 21:26, Sergio Manzi wrote: But maybe I've misunderstood your question: if you where asking how I would like to tag a salum

Re: [Tagging] route role on cycle routes

and when it's not. If cycle routes are an exception, the exception must be evident. On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Dave F wrote: On 25/01/2018 20:06, Fernando Trebien wrote: The role is missing here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dbicycle#Members I'm unsure what you mea

Re: [Tagging] How to tag this area

I see a licensing problem. Why? As long as OSMDoudou is using a valid source to map, it doesn't matter how he refers the information to the rest of us. DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listin

[Tagging] 'Unknown' value.

Hi I recently seen a variety of keys being given the value of 'unknown'. I'm struggling to see its purpose. It confirms nothing & adds no value to the database. Am I missing something? DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://

[Tagging] 'Unknown' value.

Hi I recently seen a variety of keys being given the value of 'unknown'. I'm struggling to see its purpose. It confirms nothing & adds no value to the database. Am I missing something? DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

On 19/02/2018 09:00, Philip Barnes wrote: Hi Joost As a native English speaker I have never heard the term Hollow Way, however reading the description it seems that this proposal is describing what is called a Sunken Lane. I would avoid cutting as that implies something that has been cut d

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

On 19/02/2018 11:32, Colin Smale wrote: Why historic? It still is a sunken lane. If something is still in use then historic is the wrong tag. Everything, even the most recently open roads, have a history even if it's a short one. DaveF ___ Tag

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

On 19/02/2018 23:16, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: everything we tag is still what it is. A historic=archaeological_site is also “used” as archaeological site, or a historic=memorial. But not for its original purpose, as it is in this cae DaveF ___

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

...and water. As the On 20/02/2018 14:30, Philip Barnes wrote: In this case, they are old and have a history. They started as tracks and usually still are. Which is why they should be tagged as track/footway etc. They are sunken purely by the passage of time, wear from feet, hooves and

Re: [Tagging] reviving hollow way

On 20/02/2018 07:40, joost schouppe wrote: Some of the most used historical tags are for things that are just old, not necessarily disused or with another use than the original one. As I said, everything has a history. Wayside cross and shrine, monuments, memorials, castles etc. It just see

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

If Matthijs wishes to distinguish between boundaries at sea (a good idea, I believe) then a *unique* tag should be added to those ways. Duplicating data is not the way to indicate differences. How about boundary:administration=maritime (or something similar)? I've never understood why the high

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

n Saturday 10 March 2018, Dave F wrote: If Matthijs wishes to distinguish between boundaries at sea (a good idea, I believe) then a *unique* tag should be added to those ways. Note independent of the subject of this thread the tag maritime=yes - which is what is proposed to be used for determini

Re: [Tagging] aeroway=runway - wiki fiddling

They can now. They just can't be bothered. If a roundabout can be navigated, so can the boundary of an area. DaveF On 11/03/2018 22:45, Warin wrote: Eventually routers will have to deal with areas that are routable .. pedestrian areas , step areas as well as runways that are areas. __

Re: [Tagging] aeroway=runway - wiki fiddling

Something similar in concept to a river could be developed. A linear way for the the routing etc (waterway), and an area to indicate the outline of the runway/taxiways (riverbank). I always map them as closed polygons because: * It's more accurate * Runways aren't necessarily rectangular, S

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On 10/03/2018 22:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: But as pointed out this will not be complete (though more complete than for land boundaries) I would much prefer to complete the addition of the unique tag 'maritime' than the duplicating 'admin_level' and it would not distinguish between the ou

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

On 11/03/2018 09:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: * tagging the ways in addition to the relation is ok but not required. I agree with all your points except this. I think duplication is prone to error & should be discouraged. DaveF. ___ Tagging maili

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

ave one. DaveF. On 12/03/2018 00:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Monday 12 March 2018, Dave F wrote: and it would not distinguish between the outer boundaries (towards the high seas) and the boundaries between two countries. Unsure what you mean. Could you elaborate, Example? Sure: https:/

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

Yes, but again, irrelevant to this thread. On 12/03/2018 13:44, Jo wrote: Except of course, when the boundary is disputed, then there might be overlap and possibly even holes of no man's land? Polyglot 2018-03-12 13:41 GMT+01:00 Dave F <mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>>

Re: [Tagging] Campaniles tagging

Shouldn't these be tagged as a subset of bell_tower? On 12/03/2018 06:54, Tomasz Wójcik wrote: Currently there are 2 tags for campaniles, which has no difference between each other: * man_made=tower + tower:type=campanile * man_made=campanile I think we should move "man_made=campanile" to "

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: missing admin_level tags

If an enclave then it will share borders so would have to be in a relation. If an island it's highly likely to have other admin_levels or even be an exclave. - I'd recommend * adding maritime=yes to all required ways that don't have them. * adding boundary=administrative relation

[Tagging] Historic building usage

Hi I've a building to tag which used to be a train_station but currently has a different use. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic This page recommends historic=building, but I don't see how that's beneficial. It can't be tagged to describe it's historic use. Building=* should b

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

On 28/03/2018 23:02, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 28.03.2018 23:20, Dave F wrote: Hi I've a building to tag which used to be a train_station but currently has a different use. The building=train_station tag remains, since it describes the building type, independent of the current usage.

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

On 29/03/2018 09:05, Johnparis wrote: Interesting. Musée d'Orsay in Paris offers another possibility: building=disused:train_station But that doesn't account for what it currently is. DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

On 29/03/2018 10:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 29. Mar 2018, at 10:05, Johnparis > wrote: Interesting. Musée d'Orsay in Paris offers another possibility: building=disused:train_station usually the disused prefix is used on the key, but

Re: [Tagging] Historic building usage

On 29/03/2018 15:38, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 29.03.2018 15:38, Dave F wrote: The building=train_station tag remains, since it describes the building type, independent of the current usage. No. The building tag is for current usage. OSM maps the present with its primary tags. If contributors

Re: [Tagging] Slipway vs boat ramp

Yes. A sub-tag should be used to distinguish. Something like 'rails'? --- I'm more concerned at the lack of water into which a vessel could be launched. Is the reservoir accurate? Does the level fluctuate? DaveF. On 03/05/2018 19:16, Malcolm Herring wrote: On 03/05/2018 17:14, Mike H w

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

On 06/05/2018 13:28, Philip Barnes wrote: For unsigned references we use official_ref and prow_ref which will not appear on the standard map but can be rendered on more specialised maps. Back in May'15 on Talk-GB there was a discussion about this [1]. Highway_authority_ref was proposed as it

Re: [Tagging] tagging arbiters (gone OT)

On 13/05/2018 22:34, Kevin Kenny wrote: I've long said that the final arbiters of tagging should be... the people who implement the routers, renderers, navigation systems,. search engines, and so on No. We already have the case where Carto-OSM are requesting duplicated tags on ways that are

Re: [Tagging] tagging arbiters (gone OT)

rto-OSM: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/yXx<http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/wWg> Read the discussion here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3102#issuecomment-372455636 DaveF On 19/05/2018 03:12, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Dave F <mailto:davefoxfa...

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - scenic

Every few years a new proposal to describe how pleasant the view is on a journey. It never really catches on as it's so subjective. Some might preferring traveling past disused steel works rather than though Tyrolean mountains. DaveF. On 31/05/2018 22:50, Andreas Meier wrote: Hi there, I w

Re: [Tagging] about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 06/06/2018 13:37, Andy Townsend wrote: On 06/06/2018 11:48, Peter Elderson wrote: This issue has a long history... seems to me tagging awaits rendering, and rendering awaits tagging. In such cases, you need a commitment from both sides, with enough support to fuel trust. Then things can g

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

On 06/06/2018 12:48, Paul Allen wrote: Actually, there is a difference. If grass is grown for a purpose (be it grazing or mere decoration) it's landuse.  If it's there naturally and not used (by man) for any purpose (or incidental to man's purposes) then it's landcover.  At least, that's h

Re: [Tagging] British term for municipal greenery?

On 06/06/2018 14:14, marc marc wrote: Le 06. 06. 18 à 15:02, Dave F a écrit : municipal_maintained=yes Yes, as an additional tag. DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 06/06/2018 16:17, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Wednesday 06 June 2018, Andy Townsend wrote: Anyway what i am absolutely certain of is that rendering different tags identically in a map has never encouraged mappers to consistently differentiate between them. :-) The "long tail" of different

Re: [Tagging] Unresolved notes

As I've said before, Notes was a good idea, poorly implemented. Users should be able to delete them. I've never quite understood the reluctance to allow that. New users are able to delete OSM data on they're first edit, but Notes have to be protected for some reason. I get bored of 'The party's

Re: [Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

On 19/07/2018 12:21, Peter Elderson wrote: All of those are survey goals. A proposal like this comes along every few years & never really gets off the ground. "Long hiking & cycling routes" by their nature of being long are rarely traversed completely; people hop on-off of them in short sect

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport v3 — starting RFC

Hi In the UK the are forty relations as site=railway_station with the role of 'stop'. Am I correct in think these are redundant in relation to the current PT schema? I asked what stop_areas are for on the OSM forum. Could you clarify? The wiki states what they are, but not their usage. Are t

Re: [Tagging] Dangerous waterways tagging

Hi This is another one of those discussion which comes up every year or so. The perception of danger is subjective; which never fits well within OSM. Waterways are not dangerous in themselves. They are inanimate objects. They don't jump out & attack you as you walk by. It's the naive way peop

Re: [Tagging] Documentation issues of PT tagging schemes

On 25/07/2018 05:58, Roland Olbricht wrote: Hi, This would not be the bells and whistles method, but the bread and water method. The basics that would have the routing working and the map displaying things. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbus_stop I see fundamental

Re: [Tagging] healthcare : nurse <> nursing_home <> nursing

Could you clarity: Are you interested in the noun - 'a nurse' or verb - 'to nurse'? There are many varieties of nurses & many establishments where people are nursed: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility DaveF On 04/08/201

[Tagging] mobile phone repair only

Hi I've a shop which only repairs mobile phones. I've tagged it as shop=mobile_phone mobile_phone:repair=yes sales=no Seems a bit contradictory. Is there a more direct tag? Cheers DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lis

Re: [Tagging] healthcare : nurse <> nursing_home <> nursing

room where a nurse work. those 2 url doesn't help, healthcare key on wiki doesn't have the word nurse on it. social_facility is wrong for this case. Le 05. 08. 18 à 17:56, Dave F a écrit : Could you clarity: Are you interested in the noun - 'a nurse' or verb - 

Re: [Tagging] delivery areas?

If you mean things like fast food deliveries etc, then tag the website, which should have such details. How horrendously confusing would the database be with every delivery service was mapped? DaveF On 23/08/2018 16:34, seirra wrote: hello, i was wondering if there was any established way to r

Re: [Tagging] delivery areas?

Still a minefield, still add websites imo.. Cheers DaveF On 23/08/2018 16:57, seirra wrote: I was thinking more to the tune of specific things like charity shops or smaller stores where it may not be standard On 08/23/18 16:42, Dave F wrote: If you mean things like fast food deliveries etc

Re: [Tagging] Is waterway=riverbank an 'Old scheme' ?

Hi I would say yes, it is. It fits in with all other bodies of water mapped as polygons. It makes it easier for renderers to do a general render for all water features or be more specific for each type. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water I swapped over when it was pointed out to m

Re: [Tagging] Is waterway=riverbank an 'Old scheme' ?

Clarifying: natural=water, water=river fits in with all other bodies of water mapped as polygons. Cheers DaveF ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Is waterway=riverbank an 'Old scheme' ?

n outer ways. I plan on writing about it soon. DaveF On 07/09/2018 23:00, Andrew Hain wrote: Would you favour a campaign like the one to update old style multipolygons then? -- Andrew ---- *From:* Dave F *Sent:* 06 Septembe

Re: [Tagging] Topographic Prominence for Peaks

Wouldn't those who need this information be using a contours overlay? Cheers DaveF On 23/09/2018 01:00, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: I've been tagging peaks (natural=peak) with the key prominence= Prominence is a natural feature... ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] My "weirdly unnatural aversion to relations"

Hi Please be aware OSM is geospatially aware. Your example should have a boundary from which any amenity within can be determined. I've noticed an increase in the unnecessary use relations in the belief they're the only way to 'collect things together'. The 'site' type is just one example. I

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

Hi I hope you're open to rescinding this proposal. This data is too transient to be of benefit within the OSM database. The poor implemented & negligibly maintenance of opening hours is a good example as to why it shouldn't be added. The numerous Public Transport schemas are a mess. Their pr

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

Hi On 02/11/2018 01:43, Allan Mustard wrote: I don't see a problem with duplicating a tag in both the relation and sections of the object.  In my case I have been mapping the national highway network of Turkmenistan the last few months.  I have created relations so that all segments belong t

Re: [Tagging] New rag to draw node name with rotate angle

Every tag is for the renderer, otherwise all maps would be black lines & dots. As your link clearly states: /"Don't deliberately enter data *incorrectly* for the renderer" / The tag 'layer' is purely to aid renderings. Cheers DaveF On 09/11/2018 18:04, OSMDoudou wrote: Looks like encourag

Re: [Tagging] New rag to draw node name with rotate angle

On 10/11/2018 14:46, Greg Troxel wrote: Dave F writes: Every tag is for the renderer, otherwise all maps would be black lines & dots. As your link clearly states: /"Don't deliberately enter data *incorrectly* for the renderer" / The tag 'layer' is purely to aid

Re: [Tagging] New rag to draw node name with rotate angle

On 10/11/2018 15:08, Greg Troxel wrote: Dave F writes: On 10/11/2018 14:46, Greg Troxel wrote: Dave F writes: Every tag is for the renderer, otherwise all maps would be black lines & dots. As your link clearly states: /"Don't deliberately enter data *incorrectly* fo

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - bicycle=use_cycleway

Pee Wee A couple of questions. How does this improve mapping/routing over using bicycle=no? How does your proposal distinguish the exceptions to the rule that you gave as an example below? Cheers Dave F. On 12/11/2013 18:16, Pee Wee wrote: Legallythese 2 roads are not the same. For

[Tagging] Canal banks

=water & water=canal. Is there a specific reason for this? Does it correct any problems or give any advantages for rendering etc? Regards Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. ht

Re: [Tagging] Canal banks

Thanks for that (& to Christoph). So, is waterway=riverbank is being deprecated as well? Dave F. On 03/02/2014 14:13, Janko Mihelic' wrote: 2014-02-03 Dave F. <mailto:dave...@madasafish.com>>: A user has recently amended them all to natural=water & water=cana

[Tagging] Help me locate this tag checking website.

ese icons were user selectable from a pull down list. Anybody recognise it & Is it still in existence? Cheers Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Help me locate this tag checking website.

On 21/02/2014 20:10, sabas88 wrote: 2014-02-21 20:43 GMT+01:00 Dave F. <mailto:dave...@madasafish.com>>: Hi I'm unable to remember the name or find the location of a tag checking web page. It was a slippy map of mapnik rendering that had a single line

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On 14/03/2014 15:57, Pieren wrote: You don't see the point where adding one "layer=-1" is easier than adding 10 "layer=1" ? Not when you could have other entities passing under the bridges. I see it as lazy & less accurate. Making OSM more accurate is a primary consideration when editing

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On 02/04/2014 17:14, Richard Z. wrote: as explained in the rationale the dimensions of the bridge/culvert are frequently only a fraction of the achievable precision. Think of a track crossing a small creek in a forest valley int the mountains. The GPS precision will be 10 meters if you are luck

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

Mike We should be mapping as accurately as we can within the limitations (gps accuracy, aerial imagery etc) that we have. Data can always be upgraded when more accurate information becomes available. This proposal is a step backwards towards inaccuracy. On 02/04/2014 18:29, Mike Thompson wr

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

? Are you sure you're not just making this up? Show us where or I'm calling you a fibber. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing li

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On 03/04/2014 22:05, John F. Eldredge wrote: Yes, one reason to reject this is that it involves a neologism, coined by the proposal author, that few people will recognize and use. I think he's getting confused with I.K. Brunel ;-) Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and ma

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On 03/04/2014 22:58, Richard Z. wrote: On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:27:57PM -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: That is my main objection as well. This proposal is to deliberately reduce the accuracy of the data in the name of saving a few seconds of mapping time. nonsense. This proposal is here to

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On 03/04/2014 23:06, Richard Z. wrote: On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:49:56PM +0100, Dave F. wrote: On 03/04/2014 22:04, Richard Z. wrote: A brunnel is a crossbreed of a bridge with a tunnel. It has been used somewhere to describe constructions where it is not easy to decide whether a grade

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

f incorrect tagging & therefore should be fixed. However, on saying that, it doesn't mean that it will automatically be rendered as such. As has been said many times previously it is just a *guide* for the renderer, who, as with Mapnik, will ignore the layer=* tags in that example & let

Re: [Tagging] highway=track access

htly off topic, I notice the UK listing is missing byway, a recognised highway classification. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailin

Re: [Tagging] highway=track access

On 21/05/2014 23:28, Rob Nickerson wrote: > >Going slightly off topic, I notice the UK listing is missing byway, a >recognised highway classification. > >Dave F. Hi Dave, The highway=byway tag is deprcated: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbyway The legal stat

Re: [Tagging] "byway" vs "track" ( was: highway=track access )

On 20/05/2014 16:17, SomeoneElse wrote: Dave F. wrote: Going slightly off topic, I notice the UK listing is missing byway, a recognised highway classification. Dave F. Is there a notable physical difference between a "byway" in England and Wales and a "track"? "

[Tagging] Change in rendering in Mapnik of Nature Reserves.

. Now, on its own, it looks bereft of clarity with just a faint dashed border line. What was the reasoning? Regards Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Change in rendering in Mapnik of Nature Reserves.

don't expect a mass of discussion before every change. Best Dan 2014-07-23 22:59 GMT+01:00 Dave F. : Hi Change in rendering of Mapnik Nature Reserves. I probably missed the discussion for the above. Personally I like the previous incarnation with NR letters displaying. It was enough on its

Re: [Tagging] Change in rendering in Mapnik of Nature Reserves.

Thanks for pointing that out to me. As I said, I personally had no problem with 'NR' but I'd be OK with it's removal is there was some king of infill. ATM there is none & it looks virtually invisible. Cheers Dave F. On 23/07/2014 23:52, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 2

Re: [Tagging] Internet Café = Café ?!?

t;Internet cafés are primarily cafés" would be more accurate if 'are primary' was replaced with 'include'. Dave F. On 06/08/2014 07:24, Andreas Goss wrote: Key:internet_access - "Internet cafes are primarily cafes" Can anybody explain how you came to that

[Tagging] Using highway=footway as an area

) to represent the same type of object is confusing, as is using the same tag (footway) to represent two different types of object. Any idea why these values have been changed? Cheers Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http:/

Re: [Tagging] RENDER

On 20/08/2014 13:33, André Pirard wrote: I summarize the answers below. An example for using RENDER is this: * landuse=recreation_ground* a sort of holiday/family event site inside which you have a quite visible *leisure=pitch sport=tennis* and two perfectly invisible polygon features (officia

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

Hi I think there are a few reasons, but let's start with the basics: For two things so similar it's confusing to have two separate key values: natural & landuse. IMO both should use natural (which trees are of course). Any description of their management/harvesting should be put into sub ta

Re: [Tagging] default value for "oneway"

I wish people in OSM would stop making things up, believing it makes their point of view stronger. On 28/08/2014 13:20, Xavier Noria wrote: In the European cities and towns I know the majority of streets are one-way. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus p

Re: [Tagging] leisure=common

I believe it was withdrawn as it vague. You logic is stated on one of the pages you posted. Dave F. On 28/08/2014 16:01, Pieren wrote: I find a bit harsh that leisure=common has been completely withdrawn from the wiki "map features" in the middle of the summer. If it's a

Re: [Tagging] leisure=common

ith the area. Again, I'm really surprised by the number of landuse= tags. Was there a mass edit? Dave F. On 28/08/2014 16:31, Pieren wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Dave F. wrote: I believe it was withdrawn as it vague. You logic is stated on one of the pages you posted. It wa

Re: [Tagging] leisure=common

On 28/08/2014 16:49, Dave F. wrote: It needs a separate tag to able to map the leisure activities with the area. Scrub that bit. Separate tags aren't needed of course. My mistake. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is a

[Tagging] Route relations - Forward & Backward

728200 This is incorrect usage, isn't it? Cheers Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstre

Re: [Tagging] Route relations - Forward & Backward

directional. They can go both ways along a way the same as walkers/cyclists. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list T

Re: [Tagging] Route relations - Forward & Backward

ginal question! Jo: Where are the new rules for bus route listed? Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

[Tagging] What's the difference in these tags?

lease. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse=grass => natural=grass

? 1. I thought the general consensus was to start using landcover for this type of object. 2. Some diversity in tags is required, otherwise, if boiled down, all objects would either be natural or man_made. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

On 15/12/2014 12:31, Tom Pfeifer wrote: I don't see a need for a new key here. The properties can be easily modelled with sub-tagging of playground: +1 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com __

Re: [Tagging] Date of survey

Is it not available in other editors? One advantageous thing would be to click on a GPX trace that's loaded in an editor to find out when it was added & by whom. Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. h

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

s are mapped as religious that, as well a church building, include the likes of car parks, cemeteries, community halls etc. Maybe mapnik needs to show landuse=religious to compensate. Cheers Dave F. On 02/01/2015 15:17, Matthijs Melissen wrote: Dear all, In particular, areas tagged with amenity=p

[Tagging] Boundary Relations. What's a subarea used for?

hematics & the admin_level tag can be used to determine if one polygon is inside another. They seem to be purely extra baggage Am I missing something or can these nested relations be removed? Cheers Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. h

Re: [Tagging] Boundary Relations. What's a subarea used for?

On 08/01/2015 09:35, Steve Doerr wrote: On 08/01/2015 01:21, Dave F. wrote: Are they relevant? If so, what are they for? The wiki suggests they're superseded: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary#Relation_members No it doesn't, it says they're 'opt

Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?

n religion. Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging & Notes feature question

On 01/01/2015 00:39, Tom Hughes wrote: On 01/01/15 00:36, Dave F. wrote: I'm struggling to comprehend how a button to turn off the notes layer, that's separate (& hidden!) from the only obvious button to turn the layer on can be described as 'logical' to an experienced

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging & Notes feature question

Apologies & Thanks. On 09/01/2015 12:17, Dan S wrote: This appears to be nothing to do with "tagging" - you've presumably sent to this list by mistake... 2015-01-09 12:12 GMT+00:00 Dave F. : On 01/01/2015 00:39, Tom Hughes wrote: On 01/01/15 00:36, Dave F. wrote:

[Tagging] Electronic or 'e' cigarettes?

arettes over e-cigarettes. To me, electronic_cigarettes is clearer & should be used, but I thought it best to discuss first. I don't smoke, are all these power based? Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus softwa

Re: [Tagging] Electronic or 'e' cigarettes?

Ah, As normal cigarettes are sold in multiples I didn't think of searching for the singular, but I guess people only buy one of these electronic types. Dave F. On 22/01/2015 14:16, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 22 January 2015 at 14:02, Dave F. wrote: A shop that solely sells elect

[Tagging] bridge=movable?

swing gives bridge=swing If there is a genuine reason, then surely there should be the equivalent: bridge=static bridge:static=* Cheers Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging m

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

dy's* data. Regards Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >