Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

There are lots of tags in OSM that have fuzzy borders with respect to size or importance. Some that I can think of are waterway=river/stream and place=island/islet. Although the island/islet tag does have a hard boundary at least in the JOSM validator and an approximate boundary in the OSM wiki ("a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reservoirs, lakes, and ponds

Thanks, Brian, for taking the lead on this. I generally agree with the overall direction of the proposal. There's a lot of details on the proposal page but I guess we can discuss them on the wiki talk page. On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 10:58 PM Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > A proposal[1] to clarify t

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

Wikidata already has the GVP property: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1886 So it's just a matter of ensuring that all volcanoes tracked by the GVP is present in Wikidata and has the correct P1886 value. On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 4:20 AM Clifford Snow wrote: > > > Sent from my Android pho

Re: [Tagging] Active volcanoes

FWIW, here is a query results map showing all volcanoes (805 of them) in Wikidata that already have the GVP ID: https://query.wikidata.org/embed.html#%23defaultView%3AMap%0ASELECT%20DISTINCT%20%3Fvolcano%20%3FvolcanoLabel%20%3FGVPID%20%3Fcoords%20WHERE%20%7B%0A%20%20SERVICE%20wikibase%3Alabel%20%7B

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

As a person from the Philippines who uses these "motorcycle taxis" (we call them tricycles here and they are basically motorcycles with an attached sidecar for passengers), I am in favor of having a new top-level tag for these "taxi" stations. The reason why we used "taxi" here is that this was the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 8:28 PM Martin Koppenhoefer, wrote: > > > Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar < > sea...@gmail.com>: > >> The only difference is one is human-powered while the other is >> engine-powered. >> > > &g

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 8:32 PM Joseph Eisenberg, wrote: > > I think using "motorcycle_taxi" as a tag value would be confusing. > > Unfortunately, the English language terminology for these things is > not very established, since they are not used in Britain or North > America (except for the touri

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:13 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Oh, here in Indonesia you can find motorcycle taxis (ojek) everywhere, > including in all the towns where bicycle rickshaws / pedicabs operate. > > For example, all of the markets in my town have a pangkalan ojek > (motorcycle taxi stand)

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > > > We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a type=boundary > relation to store information about claimed, "de facto", and "

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:44 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 26. Nov. 2018 um 10:34 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar < > sea...@gmail.com>: > >> can you give a definition for de jure? >> >>> Which law applies? >>> >> >> Maybe th

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

On Thu, Dec 6, 2018, 11:58 PM Eugene Podshivalov But in Belarus for example we call our settlements "город" (can be city or > town), "городской посёлок" (can be town or village), > "посёлок"/"деревня"/"хутор" (can be village or hamlet or isolated_dwelling). > When people use the maps created form

Re: [Tagging] Building names, historical/original owner?

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:36 PM Adam Franco wrote: > What are folks thoughts about these historical-owner building names when > they aren't well-known? Should they go in a `description= > ` tag, `alt_name= >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:35 PM Phake Nick wrote: > I believe many time the boundary of a peninsula are politically defined, > for instance most would often see the Iberia peninsula end at where Spain > meet France > So is Andorra within or outside the Iberian peninsula?

Re: [Tagging] Imagery variations/misalignments in iD - which to use?

On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 8:26 AM John Willis wrote: > The issue I am facing is that, even after some adjustment of the angle of > bing imagery, there seems to be some distortion. things don’t line up well > between the Bing and ortho maps in some places, and are much closer in > others. a *lot* o

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Side discussion: On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 6:31 AM Paul Allen wrote: > One could argue that place=island should be natural=island. > And then we go into the discussion that not all islands are natural, like the artificial islands in Dubai. Then again, not all things currently tagged natural=water

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

On Sun, Jan 20, 2019, 9:50 PM Tobias Zwick Region| likely zero-based | likely one-based > --|---|- > Washington, Philadelphia, NY | 3 |2 > Silicon valley, Los Angeles | 4

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 2:38 AM Tobias Zwick 2. no calculating forth- and back between level "indices" and real names >for the levels (for neither the software nor the mapper) because this >effectively eliminates the concept of indices > I use level=* for the machine-readable zero-based lev

Re: [Tagging] The actual use of the level tag

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 4:11 PM Simon Poole wrote: > [...] addr tags are for postal addresses I don't think using them as a > level name/ref makes very much sense outside of that very narrow > application. > I rechecked the two main OSM Wiki pages[1][2] on addr:*=* tags and addresses in general

Re: [Tagging] start_date variants

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:28 AM Richard wrote: > It would also be interesting to be able to tag the start of construction - >> often construction starts many years before the building is finshed: >> Airport BER in Berlin, Germany or La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain >> are famous examples. H

Re: [Tagging] Subtag for place=locality?

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:00 PM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > I added some comments to the talk page of your "type=group" relation > proposal. > > I would recommend simplifying the proposal to just be for groups of > nodes, because there are already relations for multipo

Re: [Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 10:20 PM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please take a minute to review the new page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status > Overall, this looks pretty good! I am in favor of documenting the status of tags and this wiki page is a goo

Re: [Tagging] Tagging request: unnecessary admin_level tags

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:41 AM, André Pirard wrote: > Hi all, > > Please all, take a very attentive look at this. > Please note the subject change: unnecessary. > Please note the disambiguation boundary vs borderline. > > The problem with admin_level tags is that numbers need to exist to *be **

Re: [Tagging] Coastal beach definition for mapping.

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > the coastline should represent the limit of the sea, in case of a river > flowing in, people look at the level of salt in the water and whether the > level of the river is influenced by tides (afaik) > It seems some mappers go to the e

Re: [Tagging] brand=* necessary?

This whole discussion reminds me of the following passage from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass: The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks' Eyes.’” > > “Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to feel > interested. > > “No, you don't understand,” the Knight said, lookin

Re: [Tagging] New GitHub tagging repo "osmlab/osm-tagging" - was: emergency=lifeguard

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:20 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Frederik Ramm > wrote: > > Others have qualms about signing up to an American social network platform >> just >> > to participate in OSM discussions (remember - if the product is free, you >> are the > > produ

Re: [Tagging] place nodes for continents?

On Tuesday, August 7, 2018, Javier Sánchez Portero wrote: > The same applies to other place nodes like oceans, seas, natural bays, straits, etc. At the risk of forking this discussion to another topic, I'd like to point out that at least for oceans and major seas, bays, and straits, the Internati

Re: [Tagging] addr:street=* combined with place=square, name=*

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 3:45 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I know in the US there are distance based housenumbers, and also in Rome > there is one single street which has distance based numbering, still the > vast majority of distance based address indications around here are _not_ > housenumbe

Re: [Tagging] Topographic Prominence for Peaks

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018, 9:29 AM Bill Ricker, wrote: > Is the OSM primary DB the right repository for this? > Have we accepted being the repository for everything that anyone wants to > map? > (I don't remember hearing a change from "no".) > If people are already mapping whether an amenity=fuel is

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a building constructed for a gastronomic purposes?

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018, 7:52 AM Martin Koppenhoefer, wrote: > I’ve recently used building=fast_food_restaurant > but it is not used very often yet. > Can you care to explain why building=retail is not enough detail? I would think that a combination of building=retail + amenity=fast_food (whether o

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

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:13 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > for instance the Canary Islands are explicitly referring to the islands, > but I would expect the name to apply to the sea between them as well (or > according to the interpretation / context they might be included or not at > the same t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:27 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > In OSM I would expect the term government not to be a foreign government > but a resident one. > Uniquely, Italy hosts its own embassy to the Holy See (aka Vatican City). So technically, you could use "government" for that si

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

office=government On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 2:53 AM Paul Allen wrote: > If you can come up with a better value than "diplomatic" then do so. If > you don't like it being under > the office key, maybe have diplomatic=* as the primary key rather than a > secondary key under > office (although that m

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:32 AM Daniel Koć wrote: > W dniu 26.10.2018 o 22:08, Eugene Alvin Villar pisze: > > > On the other hand. diplomatic offices and services encompass a range that > is much too narrow such that I don't think having diplomatic=* as a primary > key see

Re: [Tagging] Standardizing Mapillary tags and keys

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:34 AM Christopher Beddow < christop...@mapillary.com> wrote: > Is there any critique of these ideas? > I think these tags are only appropriate as changeset tags and never as tags on actual map objects (nodes, ways, relations).

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 12:52 PM Allan Mustard wrote: > If my sense of growing consensus is correct, I suggest that diplomatic=* > would include only [embassy, consulate, non-diplomatic]. > Tagging something as office=diplomatic then diplomatic=non-diplomatic sounds silly and oxymoronic. Why not

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 11:14 AM Allan Mustard wrote: > * shift to office=diplomatic and use the existing diplomatic=* additional > (secondary) tag to specify whether embassy, consulate, or other, then use > embassy, consulate and other as additional (tertiary) tags to specify > further the type o

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 3:12 AM Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 11:14 AM Allan Mustard wrote: > >> * shift to office=diplomatic and use the existing diplomatic=* additional >> (secondary) tag to specify whether embassy, consulate, or other, then use >>

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

On Nov 7, 2018 11:22 PM, "Allan Mustard" wrote: I like constituency_office. +1 FWIW, Wikidata has settled on the term "constituency" for this political concept (aka parliamentary seat, electoral district, legislative district, etc.): https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q192611 __

Re: [Tagging] visa offices tags

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:29 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 7, 2018, at 7:12 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 1) this is a commercial firm - not a government > authority/branch/department/etc > 2) it 'assist' people to obtain a visa > 3) it is not at an airport/seaport

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)-->(office=diplomatic)

Just a suggestion. Under the "Additional tags routinely used would include" section, name=* and country=* are listed. I think the target=* tag (for the receiving country) should also be included since it is already documented in the amenity=embassy page. (I am not sure if "target" is a good term fo

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 9:23 PM Noémie Lehuby wrote: > Should we consider the dispusted=yes tag on boundary ways as a *de facto* > standard and uniformize a few borders ? Should we create a proposal about > this tag ? > > The borders data do not fit the doc and the statement from the Foundation >

Re: [Tagging] Using multipolygons to map bays in Alaska

I have been following this discussion with interest since I would also like to have bays and straits represented by some sort of polygon/area instead of just nodes. However, I also agree that having overlapping relations containing hundreds to thousands of natural=coastline ways would tax many data

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:30 PM SelfishSeahorse wrote: > 1. 'inner' roles (and thus 'outer' roles too) are still needed in case a > country has enclaves. > Even if a country has exclaves and/or has enclaves within it, you still don't need to have "inner" and "outer" roles at all in order to make

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 12:45 AM Allan Mustard wrote: > Well, a central bank is a bank, after all, whether it is owned by the > government or is a "private" parastatal organization. I would tag it as > amenity=bank since it is a bank. Not all banks offer consumer services, so > the fact that an

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Gambling

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:58 PM, fly wrote: > I wonder if we should not use leisure in general and try to avoid > amenity. At least for new tags and tags with low numbers leisure=* > should be used. > +1 To spur the discussion on which key to use here are some numbers from Taginfo for the value

Re: [Tagging] admin_boundary with multiple levels / county free citys / Kreisfreie Staedte

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Duplicating the relation seems easiest and is what I'd probably do, > but of course it is not 100% correct as there aren't two different > admin boundaries (or, in the case of Hamburg, and Berlin, three - here > admin_levels 4,6,8 are folded

Re: [Tagging] Related: Antarctic territories

There's some related discussion on the Talk:Tag:boundary=adminstrative wiki page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:boundary=administrative#Disputed_borders A suggestion is to replace the 'inner' and 'outer' relation roles (which is trivial to determine) with roles that specify the claim

Re: [Tagging] Related: Antarctic territories

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Fernando Trebien < fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Makes sense. But is this practice (of using "dejure" and "defacto" roles) > already being adopted widely? If so, isn't it breaking compatibility with > many apps (for instance, Mapnik, but probably others too)

Re: [Tagging] wikidata instead of wikipedia

This was discussed here on this mailing list almost a year ago: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-February/013077.html Here's the proposed tag in discussion: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Wikidata I guess there's no new information to be added to the di

Re: [Tagging] leisure=events

When I think of leisure=events, I think of facilities (that are not convention centers) where you can hold social and corporate events such as company parties, wedding receptions, small musical concerts, product launchings and the like. Here in my country there are plenty of such facilities and I'm

Re: [Tagging] Landuse=civic_admin

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > They all sound much like offices (landuse=commercial) to me. Ownership > has nothing to do with land use. In this case, the city council happen to > be the users of the property, but if they need to downsize for whatever > reason and a parti

Re: [Tagging] Landuse=civic_admin

n". When/to whom is this classification significant? > > Colin > > > > > On 2014-03-16 19:49, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > >> They all sound much like offices (landuse=commercial) to me. Ownershi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Coastline-River transit placement

The Rio de la Plata example on the wiki page is pretty weird. At lower zoom levels, Buenos Aires and Montevideo become "landlocked". Now this may just be a rendering issue, but if these two capitals are considered coastal cities, then they should be next to the coastline instead of the coastline m

Re: [Tagging] Issues relating to URIs and tagging

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > The model used there fails with Wikipedia links, > expressed as "en:Example", because the equivalent URL is > . Any suggestions for dealing > with that? > > [...] ambiguous keys ("ref=1234" - ref in whose

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > I commend this proposal to the list: > >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Wikidata > I support wikidata=* itself. I'm not so sure about operator:wikidata=* (or wikidata:operator=* as suggested on the wiki talk page) an

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Wikidata

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > 2014-04-02 0:46 GMT+02:00 Eugene Alvin Villar : > > >> I'm not so sure about operator:wikidata=* (or wikidata:operator=* as >> suggested on the wiki talk page) and the other similar tags like that. I >> thi

Re: [Tagging] admin_level on nodes: wiki vs practice

I think an explicit tagging scheme that specifies the correspondence between place=* tags and admin_level=* tags is a good thing. On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Fernando Trebien < fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > We're having a little discussion in the Brazilian communi

Re: [Tagging] Subsequent wikipedia links

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:48 AM, yvecai wrote: > I would find more logical to make links between databases with queries > rather by adding external references in one or the other. The later looks > like the poor man job (oversimplifying, I don't want to put down the great > job done at Wikidata).

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Pieren wrote: > I'm surprised about this discussion. Think that > amenity=place_of_worship has to be treated like amenity=school. Nobody > is asking to create a landuse=school because it is rendered properly > on the main osm style. The problem is that amenity=pla

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > I'm not sure "church grounds" is a place of worship. People don't usually > worship God in an organized manner besides the church. > There are actually a lot of churches where I am where the Catholic 14 Stations of the Cross are spread thro

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse?

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Brad Neuhauser wrote: > Besides, I don't think we need to be quite literal with "place_of_worship" >> only being tagged for the actual specific object where one does worshiping. >> > > I hear what you're saying, but with a tag that's used 600K times (on 226K > way

Re: [Tagging] British English Spelling shop=jewelry

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Jesse B. Crawford wrote: > Something I've noticed as an American that works with many foreign > nationals is that the majority of people who learn English in a foreign > country seem to learn British English - my sample may be biased since I > work with a lot of

Re: [Tagging] Multistory medical office building

Is this a building completely separate from a hospital? I encounter these buildings as part of a hospital complex and so include them in an area tagged with amenity=hospital. On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Hans De Kryger wrote: > Wondering how to tag a 2 story medical office building. It has

Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > What should we sue to link to Wikimedia commons categories like: > >https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:St_Paul,_Birmingham > > I've previously used Wikimedia_Commons=, but that's verbose; and I > seem to be alone in doing so. >

Re: [Tagging] minus or underscore in attribute values?

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > Hi, > > another mapper metnioned to me that it is unusual to have > attribute values with a minus, like > bridge:structure=cable-stayed > > On the other hand, it is an apporved proposal - what are the > opinions on that? > Based on previous

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > Thus the comparison with [amenity=school], that can be easily expanded to > the > whole campus, fails for [amenity=place_of_worship]. > > To conclude, [amenity=place_of_worship] should not be expanded to the > full campus, and [landuse=religi

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

t;> [...] >> >> Thus "amenity=place_of_worship" is perfectly tailored to this >> particular >> building and its meaning should not be expanded to something it was >> not >> defined for initially. Keep in mind it is already used 611000

Re: [Tagging] University accommodation (was Re: Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory)

On 9/20/14, Dan S wrote: > 2014-09-19 15:52 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr : > I still prefer (d) though if building=dormitory becomes widely > accepted then I guess I shall have to swallow that loss for British > english! Wouldn't be the first time if ever: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3

Re: [Tagging] University accommodation (was Re: Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory)

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 7:09 AM, wrote: > Dormitories are rooms with multiple beds, usually bunk beds and associated > with youth hostels, certainly not suitable for student accommodation where > there is typically one student in a room, maybe two but they are certainly > not dormitories. > Wha

Re: [Tagging] Various alt_name values?

+1 I agree with alt_name=name1;name2 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:20 AM, Lukas Sommer wrote: > Some time ago, there was a discussion on the “talk” mailing list about how > to deal with the situation of more than one alt_name: > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2014-September/070838

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > > In the UK "designation=" is in wide usage for this. > +1 I think designation=* fits perfectly with what is intended by the OP's proposal. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - leisure=fitness_centre

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: > The only other tag that would work is amenity=fitness_centre. Taginfo > would indicate that amenity is the most used. > > Taginfo results > > leisure=fitness_centre (and other spelling variations) = 452 > (leisure=fitness_centre is used 440

Re: [Tagging] waterway=wadi problem

Given the current discussion, I wonder if roads that are usually flooded during heavy rainfall should be also be tagged as waterway=river/stream and intermittent=yes. ;-) On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:27 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > I would recommend expanding the definition of "intermittent stream

[Tagging] Tagging a corner address with addr:street:corner=*

Hello, In my country (Philippines), many corner addresses are specified with the intersecting street instead of (or in addition to) the house or building number. This actually makes sense because the house numbers are not immediately obvious when looking at a map, but intersections are quite easy

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a corner address with addr:street:corner=*

Hi Friedrich, On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > Here in Austria, we sometimes use corner addresses informally, when > verbally > (e.g. on the phone) arranging an appointment, or when describing how to > find > a certain shop. But these discriptions are not considered a

Re: [Tagging] patron saints

On 1/26/15, Lukas Sommer wrote: > I think this can be a useful new tag. > > And I think it makes sense to define explicitly some things in the > documentation. Things like > – use always (or use never) “Saint”: “Saint Paul” vs “Paul”. > – write the name of the dedication always in the local langua

Re: [Tagging] Paintball

Isn't shooting just aiming at non-living targets like what is seen in the Olympics? If so, then paintball is definitely different. On 4/12/15, Andreas Goss wrote: > There is still the question if it's sport=shooting + shooting=paintball > or sport=paintball. > > They are both used to s similar am

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - admin_title=*

I prefer designation=* since it it already a widely used tag that fits the intended purpose of the proposed admin_title=* tag. The question on whether the value should be human-readable or machine-readable can be solved by using correspondence tables to link the two. Barring such a table, I don't s

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - admin_title=*

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 10.05.2015 10:38, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > I prefer designation=* since it it already a widely used tag that fits > the > > intended purpose of the proposed admin_title=* tag. The question on > whether &g

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating wikipedia Tag

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 5:18 AM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > Speaking of stable ids, how does wikidata handle renames, merges and > splits on the wikipedia side ? Even in the best-case scenario, it > seems that an OSM wikidata tag can drift off-target following > reorganisations that are correct f

Re: [Tagging] Wiki: Key:level: proposed rewrite

I, too, object. level=* is meant to be the numeric stacking order of floors/levels in a building. One redundant tag to level=* is addr:floor=*. This tag currently has the same definition as level=* (with the same numbering convention). I propose that we use addr:floor=* instead for your string lev

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 7:22 AM, pmailkeey . wrote: > > In the US where there are mailboxes with the little flags on them it seems > correct to put the address on the node for that box. Common sense really. Mike, you keep on insisting that addresses should always be put on an area and never on a

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess (was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue)

On Jun 3, 2015 8:06 AM, "pmailkeey ." wrote: > OSM's k=v design is completely a serious and unnecessary flaw. [...] OSM is 90% argument, 5% dead-end discussions and 5% progress. The whole is not a marketable product; it's not fit to be rated as 'beta'. Is this a significant cause of ex-mappers ? I

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] OSM is a right mess (was: Craigslist OpenStreetMap Rendering Issue)

On 6/3/15, Steve Coast wrote: > >> On Jun 2, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: >> On Jun 3, 2015 8:06 AM, "pmailkeey ." > <mailto:pmailk...@googlemail.com>> wrote: >> > OSM's k=v design is completely a serious and unnecessar

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (US:DMV)

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > that's why I suggested to use a multi tag approach. One tag to say it is a > government office, one to say at which level (admin level) and then tags > for the stuff you can do there (property list) or about the general > classification

Re: [Tagging] Disputed area

My idea is to replace the use of 'inner', 'outer' (and the deprecated 'exclave', and 'enclave') roles in a type=boundary relation with 'defacto' and 'dejure' (or 'claimed') roles. The 'inner' and 'outer' roles are very trivial to compute (assuming a relation is properly constructed) and are actuall

Re: [Tagging] Disputed area

es > > Am 21.07.2015 um 16:12 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar: >> My idea is to replace the use of 'inner', 'outer' (and the deprecated >> 'exclave', and 'enclave') roles in a type=boundary relation with >> 'defacto' and 'dejure

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Chris Hill wrote: > To leave a tag that describes it as a pub (when it is not) then add > another tag that says it is not a pub is plain daft. > +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openst

Re: [Tagging] Adding floor location information

On 9/29/15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> b) indicating floor level in the mall is useful, and looking at the wiki >> shows that the tag addr:floor=* is suggested - but it only has 158 uses - >> which is amazingly small. is this the right key to indicate what floor a >> shop is on? > > addr:floor

Re: [Tagging] Adding floor location information

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29/09/2015 9:10 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > >> On 9/29/15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >>> b) indicating floor level in the mall is useful, and looking at the wiki >>>>

Re: [Tagging] Adding floor location information

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 5:40 AM, John Willis wrote: > Isn't addr:* for its postal / legal location definition? > > What if the floor level is not part of its address? I think most > business/dwellings don't have floor in their address, which is why its > usage (152 for points) is so low. Most bui

Re: [Tagging] Adding floor location information

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 5:40 AM, John Willis wrote: > I think most business/dwellings don't have floor in their address, which > is why its usage (152 for points) is so low. > Actually, Taginfo says that addr:floor is used 4314 times (3162 on nodes): http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr:fl

Re: [Tagging] Named junctions

This has been discussed somewhat last year: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-July/018517.html https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-September/019338.html See also this tagging proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tagging_for_complex

Re: [Tagging] Lights other than highway=street_lamp

Try the following proposed light source tagging scheme: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:light_source The scheme's primary key, light_source=*, is currently used 2854 times: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/light_source On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Mike Thompson

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] If a school is a shelter when a disaster happens...

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > besides the precise tagging (social facility or emergency), I just want to > point out that you can have 2 main tags for the same area (overlapping), > just not on the same object. > You could for instance have a way tagged as school a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging tourist offices

On 1/2/16, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > So my question is, would it make sense to propose a different tagging > for tourist offices, for example tourism=tourist_office or > office=tourism? Or should we stay with the current tagging? I'm myself > quite ambivalent on this issue, and I'd like to hear y

Re: [Tagging] Jewelry/jewellery shops

I disagree. As mentioned, there seems to be little improvement given the rather large effort required. I prefer we spend the effort doing other more impactful changes. And unlike other inconsistent cases of tagging, I don't think there is any confusion on what shop=jewelry means. As I understand

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

On 3/22/16, Janko Mihelić wrote: > ned, 20. ožu 2016. 04:55 John Willis je napisao: > >> >> This entire subject about mountains is the most infuriating topic I have >> ever dealt with as an OSM mapper. >> > > You actually already have all the data you need, and it's on Wikidata. Just > look at th

Re: [Tagging] Artworks inside the Louvre

My initial reaction, and one that you've mentioned, is to add indoor=yes. But then, you need to make some specific rules on which objects tagged indoor=yes get hidden in rendering (like artworks?) and those that still probably deserve to be rendered (like cinemas inside shopping malls?). On Sun, J

Re: [Tagging] Coworking space: amenity vs. office ?

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > Arguably, if the coworking space intened to accomodate professional > carpenters who worked for different companies, maybe that would be > coworking. But really coworking is about something that feels like an > office with coworkers and suppor

  1   2   >