Hello, there.
My question is simple: how do we tag such things? The
boundary=forest_compartment relation is not rendered, and what is rendered is
tagging as landuse=forest both the forest and its parcels, which leads to
rendering it twice, as you can see here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/rel
There may be a misunderstanding here: what I mean about forest parcels is a
piece of forest which is numbered and whose number is displayed on site, with a
plate or a painted text. Such data can be useful for orientation in a forest
and, until some years ago, these numbers were displayed on maps
Mateusz,
The first thing is that this tagging scheme is mainly used in Poland, so that
sounded like a local, not widely approved, tagging scheme.
The second thing, which is the real problem to me, is that I don't see how to
link these with the forest, as a parcel number is valid only in a given
Hello, there.
All is in the title: when hiking in a forest (I mean, an area considered as a
forest by authorities), I often encounter other landcovers, like scrubs in
recently teared down parcels, or scree in the mountains. These area, although,
clearly and morphologically, not a forest, are st
Paul,
Your landuse=forestry proposal seems good to me: it is clear enough, and the
transition process you describe here seems consistent with what I know about
such transitions which already happened. If I understand you, the main problem
for landuse=forestry is to include it in the standard st
Hello, there.
I mapped a forest made of several pieces of woodland, some contiguous and some
isolated, with differents leaf_types. I mapped this
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9393253) with a landuse=forest
multipolygon, with common tags such as name and operator on the relation, and
Hello, there.
I hope this will not start a flamewar: I noticed that, despite being widely
used, ref=* is not rendered for landuse=forest. I assumed this was used for
parcel (compartment) numbers, as this tag seems to fit the definition of a
parcel number; nevertheless, I saw on a Github issue
Hello, there.
I recently worked a bit on hiking routes, and noticed that some routes have
unordered members. That's particularly noticeable on waymarkedtrails.org, as it
makes the elevation graph rubbish and useless. I read the relation:route wiki
page, but there is only advice regarding stops
Hello, there.
Is highway=motorway_junction also applicable to non-motorway roads? There are
primary, secondary… roads where there are exits, but can these be tagged with
this one?
Awaiting your answers,
Regards.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@op
1
À : Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Objet : Re: [Tagging] highway=motorway_junction : what about primary, secondary
or tertiary ways?
It is commonly used on non-motorway grade separated junctions. So the answer is
yes.
Phil (trigpoint)
On 12 July 2018 07:34:06 BST, David Marchal wrote:
Hello, there.
All is in the title: when access to a road is restricted to military, as it is
running through a base, should I tag it access=private or access=military? The
first gives the right restriction, but the second is more precise, although not
documented (about 1.8k uses according to t
Hello, there.
I'm drafting a proposal concerning some waterways whose flow regularly changes
direction, which happens near some sinkholes named estavelles, which drain or
feed water according to the aquifer level. I would consequently propose a way
to map it, but it should be consistent with cur
Hello, there.
I wondered: when a waterstream is known to be, instead of a real, separated
waterstream, merely a resurgence of another one, how should the link between
them be modelled? Which tags should I use, and in which relation? Should I tag
the resurgence by itself?
Hoping you can help,
Reg
> map the underground stream if possible.
As I don't know where the intake from the first stream is, I think I can't map
it this way. Besides, wouldn't that make the link exclusive, i.e. tell that the
water only comes from one point and exits at another? If so, I can't either, as
no-one can be s
> Which is why mapping this is not really within the scope of OSM -
> natural underground waterflows are inherently non-verifiable.
Well, maybe I should let that down, then, or put the data in the description
field; this way, I won't mess with the OSM data, but they'll be there if
someone is
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive
out hate; only love can do that."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
On
September 9, 2015 1:56:27 AM David Marchal wrote:
Hello, there.
I wondered: when a
waterstream is known to be, instead of a real, separated w
> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:18:37 +0200
> From: ricoz@gmail.com
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Modelling the relation between a waterstream and one
> of its resurgence
> missing data should not prevent the mapping of known good data. If it has
> been established as
Hello, there.
I saw conflicting points of view regarding the difference between these two
ways for modelling aerial power lines: some say that it is the voltage which
matters, others say that it's the visibility difference that matters, others
say that it's the danger for planes that matters, an
Well, I thought underground lines was to be tagged as `power=line`; besides, I
thought like you at first, but I've been told on the help.openstreetmap.org
link that the distribution/transmission parting should not be taken into
primary consideration, maybe because the difference is not obvious f
Well, I would say: mainly on poles = minor_line, and mainly on towers = line;
this way, the difference is easy to see for mappers, even on Bing imagery, and,
as poles, AFAIK, are always smaller that towers, that would properly model the
landscape impact these power lines have. Besides, I know we
Do you mean that the landscape impact criteria is already the one used to
distinguish minor_line and line?
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:26:26 +0200
From: dieterdre...@gmail.com
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line
I agree that additional details like
Indeed, mappers aren't supposed to know everything, neither the recommended
modelling nor the technical details of power lines, but the landscape criteria
seems simple enough to allow them to understand it if they are informed about
it; besides, even if they are not aware of it, experienced mapp
Wow, I only asked about using the single line/minor_line distinction; if this
one isn't easy at all, what will it be by adding importance or usage, which
seems far less obvious than minor_line/line, itself not as obvious as I thought
at first? The current disctinction has the advantage it can be
even if some others, as the
distribution/transport distinction, isn't modelled.
Am I correct?
Regards.
> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:12:02 +0300
> From: lkyto...@gmail.com
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line
>
> Da
In fact, this problem leaded me to my question: I noticed some minor lines
tagged as power=line, cluttering the Mapnik rendering, so I searched the
correct way of modelling them, to see if it was a rendering or modelling issue,
and one thing leading to another…
Regarding the parting between mino
> From: g...@ir.bbn.com
> To: pene...@live.fr
> CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] power=* tag: minor_line vs. line
> Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 09:12:55 -0400
> I'm coming into this late, but I think key questions are:
>
> transmission vs distribution: in the US, this is a big div
Hello, there.
I'm trying to map some approach aid systems on a local airport, but I have
trouble choosing the correct tags: the wiki mentions aeroway=navigationaid, and
navigationaid=* to precise type, but this page has a banner telling to use
airmark=beacon, an almost empty page with no instru
___
>
> On 06/11/2015 10:24, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> Obviously in places where a road can have multiple equivalent
> references (such as the US) route relations perfect sense (as does
> figuring out which routes are actually signed on which bits of road)
> but in p
Hello, there.
I'm wondering how to map 2 things:
1) forest parcels: some people use a boundary relation with
boundary=forest_compartment, but this seems mainly used in Eastern Europe, so
geographically limited; others map each parcel with landuse=forest and then use
ref=* to give the parcel num
> From: g...@ir.bbn.com
> To: pene...@live.fr
> CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to
> map?
> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:05:01 -0500
>
>
> David Marchal writes:
>
>> 1) forest parcels:
> From: g...@ir.bbn.com
> To: pene...@live.fr
> CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Forest parcels and national/municipal forest: how to
> map?
> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:05:01 -0500
>
>
> David Marchal wri
Hello, there!
How should I model roads on which one traffic way has the priority over the
other one, like with the "Priority over/for oncoming traffic" signs the Vienna
convention registered
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Signs_and_Signals#Road_signs)?
The wiki says no
Hello, there.
I tagged some bogs today, and I wondered: why does the wiki restricts bogs to
"depressions that receive their water and nutrients from rainfall"? AFAIK, bogs
are not necessarily isolated from water streams or bodies. Wikipedia talls
about sloping bogs where running water is interc
> From: chris_horm...@gmx.de
> There are of course all kind of boundary cases but the typical bog as
> common in many parts of northern Europe is rain fed. In German we have
> the more specific term 'Regenmoor' which indicates this. Mires fed by
> groundwater or water inflow from the outside a
Hello, there.
I've got a tagging problem here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/48.34992/6.15965 A side stream of the
Madon river runs in a culvert under the private track, and that makes a glitch
by rendering the culvert over the `natural=water/water=river` polygon. I asked
on the renderi
Re-sent message, the first one being misformatted.
> From: chris_horm...@gmx.de
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 22:37:07 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] wetland=bog, why only "receive their water and
> nutrients from rainfall"?
>
> On
> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 15:59:24 +
> From: ajt1...@gmail.com
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org; tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] wetland=bog, why only "receive their water and
> nutrients from rainfall"?
>
> What does "fen" means to y
Damn Hotmail!
> From: chris_horm...@gmx.de
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 22:37:07 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] wetland=bog, why only "receive their water and
> nutrients from rainfall"?
>
> On
> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:06:22 +0100
> From: dieterdre...@gmail.com
> can you please post a link to the object you think is rendered wrong, not to
> the part of the map, e.g. like this:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/350320686
> This is a track, it should likely get a layer tag and a brid
> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:26:55 +0100
> From: matkoni...@gmail.com
> To: pene...@live.fr
> CC: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging problem for a river running in a culvert below
> a track / wiki votes enforcement
>
> I think that photo of this object would be useful to
Hello, there.
I wondered: I saw the' tributary' role on some waterway relations; while I
understand its usage — to represent the fact that a waterway flows into another
—, I would like to know if it is widespread or even widely accepted, if not
voted on wiki, as JOSM complains about not knowing
Hello, Abhishek.
Nice idea to synthesize all the available stuff regarding navigation data. Not
my main interest in OSM, as I've got enough work on my rural, mainly filled by
bots area, but still a good idea. Keep it up!
Regards.
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:33:45 +0530
From: saikia.abhi...@gmail.c
Hello, there.
I'm wondering: there are tons of natural features that have been modified or
organized by humans, like springs which emerge in man-made ponds. Is there a
tag used to model this organization, like organised=yes?
Awaiting your answers,
Regards.
Hello, there.
At least here, in France, there are numerous regions, whose unity is based
either on a common historical background, for example as a medieval county or
duchy like the Barrois, or on a uniform natural landscape, as the Bauges
mountains or the Mont Blanc massif. These regions are of
Hello, there.
I've been told in a JOSM ticket
(https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/12866#comment:2) that the wiki states
that disused:railway=* requires railway=disused, and, indeed, the wiki says
that (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:railway). I don't
understand why as, AFAIK
AFAIK, no maxspeed value means that the default maximum speed for this type of
road in this area applies, so I wouldn't add this tag when there is no sign;
that would also fulfill the "Map what's on the ground" principle. Beware that,
if there that was a maximum speed sign (hundreds of) kilomete
I would add that, according to the wiki
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dwadi), waterway=wadi has
been deprecated and should be replaced with waterway=stream or waterway=river,
anyway with intermittent=yes. Apart from that, I agree with 61sundowner: the
track and the waterway
Note that, although exceptional, some waterways can flow both ways, according
to tidal, floods, if a connected estavelle is absorbing or discharging water...
Even if it is unlikely, this tag could be of some use to highlight the fact
that the waterway is not subject to such stream variations.
F
> Le 25 févr. 2017 à 12:16, Dave F a écrit :
>
> Hi Dave
>
> Won't the first node of the named way that's most upstream indicate its start
> point by default?
>
> What advantages will adding a specific 'it starts here' tag bring?
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
I agree with Dave here: the first node in t
> Le 8 mars 2017 à 23:04, Michael Reichert a écrit :
>
> Please keep OSM simple. I don't want to add a power route relation on
> every tiny minor distribution line/cable (230 V).
>
Totally agree with that. I don’t understand the usage of a relation binding the
distribution network elements: th
Hello, there.
I’ve created a proposal for better tagging of sinkholes, as they can be of
multiple types, not currently acknowledged by mainstream tagging practices.
This proposal can be read here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sinkholes_refinement Any
comments should be
. 2017 à 17:25, David Marchal
mailto:pene...@live.fr>> a écrit :
Hello, there.
I’ve created a proposal for better tagging of sinkholes, as they can be of
multiple types, not currently acknowledged by mainstream tagging practices.
This proposal can be read here:
https://wiki.openstreetm
Hello.
A naive tagging would be natural=fault on a way drawn along the fault, but it’s
very naive, as I never mapped anything related.
Regards.
Le 11 sept. 2017 à 04:29, J.J.Iglesias
mailto:jjiglesi...@gmail.com>> a écrit :
I am unable to find how to tag geological Faults.
Any Idea?
Thanks
Hello, there.
As this proposal has been RFCed more than 2 weeks ago, and that comments have
been addressed, I’m now putting it on vote. Please go on the proposal page
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sinkholes_refinement) to
vote.
Awaiting your votes,
Regards.
__
Hello, there.
The normal voting duration passed, but there are not enough votes yet to
approve or reject the proposal, so I extend the voting period by two weeks to
allow latecomers to vote.
Awaiting your votes,
Reagrds.
Le 26 sept. 2017 à 20:26, David Marchal
mailto:pene...@live.fr>
Hello, there.
If a part of a forest has been razed and is now a scrub area, should I let this
natural=scrub area in the forest multipolygon? I thought so, as the scrub area
is still managed as a section of the whole forest, but another user updated it
to exclude the scrub areas from the forest
It’s a re-forestation area, but the trees have all been teared down, so it’s
now scrub, but temporarily.
> Le 12 oct. 2017 à 11:20, Volker Schmidt a écrit :
>
> Is it (permanently) scrub or is it re-forestation area that is temporarily
> without trees?
>
>
>
> __
Marchal mailto:pene...@live.fr>>
a écrit :
Hello, there.
The normal voting duration passed, but there are not enough votes yet to
approve or reject the proposal, so I extend the voting period by two weeks to
allow latecomers to vote.
Awaiting your votes,
Reagrds.
Le 26 sept. 2017 à 20:26,
=yes as the one to use, and
will create the wiki page accordingly. Thanks to all who voted; the proposal
process is now fully finished, apart from creating all the Wiki pages.
Regards.
Le 24 oct. 2017 à 19:16, David Marchal
mailto:pene...@live.fr>> a écrit :
Hello, there.
The vote period
e same concept but with a picture. I think it would be
better to list each variant with the picture right away.
Thanks!
On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 8:30 AM David Marchal
mailto:pene...@live.fr>> wrote:
Hello, there.
Almost 3 weeks passed and only 3 people told that they preferred karst=yes
Hello, there.
I'm wondering, there are destination signs which only apply to some kind of
vehicles: for HGV, for bicycles, for pedestrians, for vehicles below 12t… How
would I tag such destinations? The simple way would be to use, respectively,
destination:hgv=*, destination:bicycle=*, destinat
, without explicitly
forbidding them on the other roads.
--
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
Le vendredi 31 juillet 2020 15:59, Paul Johnson a écrit :
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:53 AM David Marchal via Tagging
> wrote:
>
>&g
using a
> destination_sign relation it's best to apply the mode as eg.
> bicycle=designated, eg
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11345354#map=18/-33.82573/151.21308
> for https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/VIq-OPTiw0BVI7gqdLR-iA
>
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 23:55, Davi
://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
Le vendredi 31 juillet 2020 15:53, David Marchal a
écrit :
> Hello, there.
>
> I'm wondering, there are destination signs which only apply to some kind of
> vehicles: for HGV, for bicycles, for pedestrians, for vehicl
l.com
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
Le samedi 1 août 2020 17:03, David Marchal a écrit :
> To Jan Michel (I did not have your mail, as I unsubscribed of the list mails
> to avoid cluttering my mailbox): the goal of my reques
65 matches
Mail list logo
