[Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

Here is a 360° picture of a square in Dakar: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/jYNQFMwHiNEZRCnpi71heA - larger than a street (it occupies a whole city block), used as a multipurpose common area (pickup soccer games are a staple but parking or lounging around also occur, and the occasional popula

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

29, 2020 at 1:41 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: Apr 29, 2020, 21:37 by skqu...@rushpost.com <mailto:skqu...@rushpost.com>: On 4/29/20 14:34, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: Here is a 360° picture of a square i

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

On 4/30/20 3:13 AM, Warin wrote: It may look like sports are played there to you and me. It may resemble a park to others. However none of those may be the case! Or it may not be the primary use. Simply viewing it without local knowledge may well cause errors! The local mapper should say what

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

On 4/30/20 12:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: if these are significant open areas that are used for recreation and to meet each other, it seems improbable that they do not have names. Can you back your claim with real world examples? Go wander around Dakar and Bamako !

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

On 4/30/20 2:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Do., 30. Apr. 2020 um 14:07 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>: How about "leisure=common"? +1, I would prefer leisure=common over landuse, as these seem to be "features" (countable, etc.) leisure=common is an especi

[Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

Consider a wetland that contains a water body. I'm used to map that as natural=water inside natural=wetland - no multipolygon fanciness, just one on top of the other. JOSM validator complains about it, which irks me, so I opened a ticket at https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/19171 - where mdk

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

On 5/1/20 2:25 PM, John Willis via Tagging wrote: lots of urban areas have commons around buildings that are not mere landscaping - are those parks? landuse=grass? highway=ped? Indeed, in France I have seen such mapped as highway=pedestrian - but that emphasizes their role as thoroughfare rath

Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland

On 5/1/20 12:12 PM, John Willis via Tagging wrote: There is often overlap where I am where a wetland lives permanently in the bottom of a basin, and the surrounding area is a park or sports field. When there is a storm the basin fills up and wetland, pitch, and parking lot end up under 3m of wa

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-ml] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

tretch the legal defininition of UK. When the tag is used in UK, I would understand that the UK contributors want to follow a certain rule particular to their country. But I dont agree to deprecate the the leisure=common tag for Africa. Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 15 h 34 min 57 s UTC−4, Jean-

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-sn] [Talk-ml] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

Indeed I have misread. Let's leave the debate open for a little while more - this is no time for implementation yet. Oui, j'ai mal lu, trop rapidement. Laissons donc la discussion continuer - ce n'est pas encore le moment d'agir. On 5/3/20 5:54 PM, Pierre Béland wrote: Fr Oups un instant J

Re: [Tagging] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

On 5/3/20 7:36 PM, Marc M. wrote: Le 03.05.20 à 18:13, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : it is true that this tag (leisure=common)is ambiguous because it is being used for totally different purposes in different countries. I think this argument is crucial. if more than one meaning exists for a tag, h

[Tagging] Quality and the Openstreetmap value chain

On 5/12/20 11:42 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: I love the fact that we are now 50 messages into discussing, for the second time, a change that would be made ostensibly for the benefit of data consumers, and yet no one has asked any actual data consumers. Yes. Users are the ultimate measure of qu

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-ml] [Talk-sn] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

min 40 s UTC−4, Jean-Marc Liotier a écrit : So, this discussion gravitates towards using landuse=common for those African urban freely accessible multipurpose open spaces, which I fully support. Implementing this change requires the following actions: - Editing the leisure=common wiki page

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-ml] With leisure=common deprecated, Senegal & Mali need a replacement

On 5/25/20 3:42 AM, Warin wrote: You will need to be very clear what a 'common' is and how it is different from other tags such as amenity=marketplace, leisure=park The defining characteristics are: being open to public, not designated for a specific purpose, not landscaped (or that would be

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that the JOSM style that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not show ways properly if oneway=yes isn't there, but that's probably a bug in the style more than an indictment

Re: [Tagging] Walking route on a beach

On Thu, December 20, 2018 1:04 am, Andrew Harvey wrote: > On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 10:27, Sergio Manzi wrote: >> Why don't you use trail_visibility=no on the sections of path which are >> invisible as they are just plain beach? Routing will not be affected (it >> will work...). > > I agree. I think

[Tagging] "satellit"

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna%3Atype#values mentions "parabolic_satellit" "parabolic_satellit_uplink" and "parabolic_satellite_uplink". I have two remarks about that... First, evidently, "satellit" is wrong and should be "satellite"... Or have I missed something ? Unless someone e

Re: [Tagging] "satellit"

On Mon, March 4, 2019 11:20 pm, Warin wrote: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/antenna:use This is a way to solve most of the problem, but it fails the "map it as I see it" test. man_made=antenna + antenna:reflector=dish does map the satellite communications antenna I just

[Tagging] leisure=common replacement for urban public areas in Africa

The openstreetmap-carto rendering of leisure=common was recently dropped (https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/commit/4df96c4e4927c3e029b31e34c0cf1be2dda6f637). In Mali and Senegal, I had found leisure=common to be an expedient way to describe explicitly designed publicly accessible

Re: [Tagging] "satellit"

On 3/6/19 3:31 AM, Sergio Manzi wrote: My friend, there are 88 persons who have mapped 520 antennas (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/antenna). Compare it to the billions of antennas out there and I think we are far below the "/noise level/" and that all energy "invested" in trying to r

Re: [Tagging] "satellit"

On 3/6/19 6:00 AM, Warin wrote: So .. what is the best way to map them? My proposal would be a straightforward main tags chain to describe the physical landmark features - and then all the extra sauce specialists might want, but in a way that won't complicate the basics. So... man_made=ante

Re: [Tagging] "satellit"

On Wed, March 6, 2019 2:37 pm, Sergio Manzi wrote: > > I still fail to see _who could benefit_ from that fragmentary, sparse, > information of unknown quality: I surely would not I do not know either - but I'll let those who do have their fun and make sure that it does not interfere with the commo

Re: [Tagging] shop=clothes vs shop=fashion

On Wed, March 6, 2019 3:42 pm, dktue wrote: > > I currently found out that shops that sell clothes are either tagged with > shop=clothes or with shop=fashion > but I can't find out when to use which. shop=clothes only sell unfashionable clothes. But seriously, shop=clothes is factual whereas shop

Re: [Tagging] shop=clothes vs shop=fashion

On Wed, March 6, 2019 3:58 pm, Enock Seth Nyamador wrote: > Jean-Marc I agree with about shop=boutique much used in West Africa. The > reason being that the shops have boutique attached to their names. Indeed. In Dakar and Bamako, when you need to buy a Fanta, tu vas à la boutique... So I can't re

Re: [Tagging] shop=clothes vs shop=fashion

On Wed, March 6, 2019 4:23 pm, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > - convenience: small supermarket that is usually too small to have > shopping carts but still also sells things of daily need (shampoo, toilet > paper, milk, cornflakes, bread and spread,...). The typical 7-Eleven store > (doesn't exist in Germ

Re: [Tagging] shop=clothes vs shop=fashion

On Wed, March 6, 2019 4:28 pm, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > > Enock's razor sums it up nicely: > - stand outside to buy goods -> shop=convenience > - you can enter the shop -> shop=kiosk Aargl. I inverted it - gross mistake, sorry... So, again but in the correct ord

Re: [Tagging] shop=clothes vs shop=fashion

On Wed, March 6, 2019 4:33 pm, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Yes, shop is not becoming shop=kiosk just becomes you are unable to enter > inside. Apologies - unsaid assumption was that we were talking about shops carrying the typical convenience supplies, for which the distinction between shop=conveni

Re: [Tagging] shop=clothes vs shop=fashion

On 3/6/19 8:51 PM, Markus wrote: What you describe is a shop=newsagent [1]. I wasn't aware of this tag until four days ago when someone mentioned [2] on the Swiss mailing list that some newsagents (k kiosk brand) are wrongly tagged as shop=kiosk instead of shop=newsagent. Unfortunately, the word

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

On 3/10/19 9:11 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Mar 9, 2019, 11:16 PM by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: I'm in favour of deprecating shop=fashion because of its unclear meaning Based on discussion(s) it seems that there is no benefit from keeping this tag. I would support editors proposing to

Re: [Tagging] shop=clothes vs shop=fashion

On 3/10/19 10:33 AM, severin.menard via Tagging wrote: Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 23:16:58 +0100 From: Markus selfishseaho...@gmail.com I'm in favour of deprecating shop=fashion because of its unclear meaning, but i prefer to keep shop=boutique for (and only for) small shops selling high-priced clot

Re: [Tagging] shop=clothes vs shop=fashion

On 3/10/19 1:30 PM, Markus wrote: On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 10:35, severin.menard via Tagging wrote: shop=boutique is also one of the most confusing tags for French speaking people, especially in Africa as boutique is used there for another type of shops (the most common one: small shops selling

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

On Tue, March 12, 2019 5:23 am, Marc Gemis wrote: > Before deprecating the shop=fashion tag, shouldn't we reach out to the > mappers that use shop=fashion ? > > Maybe they have a lot more domain knowledge than the people on this > mailing list There is of course value in sourcing outside of our gr

[Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

In the Sahelian Openstreetmap I enjoy tagging mosques because they are prominent features, nice for navigation and easy to spot on orbital imagery - for me it has definitely turned into a "gotta catch'em all" game... And I'm not even Muslim ! The tagging scheme I had settled upon was amenity=p

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

On 3/23/19 5:28 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: Jean-Marc Liotier writes: So, no landuse=religious anymore at all and no building=mosque for the I don't understand why you think landuse=religious shouldn't be present. It seems that all land used for religious purposes should have that tag

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

On 3/23/19 4:55 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 23.03.2019 15:12, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: The wikipedia article has some insight in the process, however it also mentions that a mosque can be a building. So, if the mosque is a building, tagging building=mosque would be fine. Yes, the case of a

Re: [Tagging] I have been tagging mosques wrong all along

On 3/23/19 6:04 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: I find the implicit rules really problematic, as we don't have a machine-readable repository of them that can be used to processs tags as they are to the full logical set of what they mean. So, should the amenity=place_of_worship complex have landuse=relig

Re: [Tagging] unused tags and properties

I agree. The wiki is a point of entry for inexperienced contributors and should therefore document established practices rather than serve as a way to make marginal ideas appear established. That said, the subjectivity of what constitutes "established practices" guarantees controversy... On

Re: [Tagging] Specific tag for Satellite Dishes

On Mon, July 29, 2019 7:03 am, Enock Seth Nyamador wrote: > I am looking for specific tags for Satellite Dish [1]. I haven't found > anything near so far. May be am missing something, else it doesn't exist > and might be useful to propose and come handy in some cases. Prior discussion about that:

[Tagging] Car pound, tow pound etc.

When the police impounds a wrongly parked vehicle, it takes it to a managed parking facility where they keep it until the infraction is resolved. How should we tag that place ? There are single digit numbers of amenity=pound, amenity=car_pound and amenity=tow_pound - that seems very little conside

Re: [Tagging] Power=cable for low voltage lines?

On Mon, October 15, 2018 2:28 pm, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Is there any limit to what can be mapped power=cable ? > Can micromappers use this tag for wires connecting their > house to a garage ? voltage=* is a clear importance filter that offers a simple practical solution to fears of excessive d

Re: [Tagging] Power=cable for low voltage lines?

On 10/21/18 11:23 AM, François Lacombe wrote: Le dim. 21 oct. 2018 à 09:21, Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> a écrit : no, the argument is that this is a basic distinction which anyone can make, without knowing about transmission, distribution or voltage. Line i

Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops

On 11/27/2013 02:59 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > I was hoping for a general tag that would indicate that something is > more online than offline. But I guess that kind of generalization is > not really needed and is hardly accurate. > > office=e-commerce sounds good. I'll start putting those on the n

Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops

On 11/27/2013 09:33 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > I think we need solutions to high density office mapping, though - and > OSM as it is today is not a great fit. Does OSM want to be a directory ? A shop is a discrete entity - quite the consensual POI. A single tenant building ? Same. But what abo

Re: [Tagging] leisure=garden

On 06/12/2013 02:05, Masi Master wrote: I think we don't should tag something at a private (really private) ground in a residential (except the house, entrance and way to it). IMO we don't need any private things like swimmingpools, ways, trees, sandboxes or playgrounds at the backyard in the O

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability

On 15/01/2014 15:44, Gerald Weber wrote: [..] A tag called traffic_issue which would take free text as value (similar to note) traffic_issue='Road maintained by local 4WD club, passes over sandy inlet that floods at high tide, four inch rocks placed by club restrict access to high clearance

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability

On 15/01/2014 15:44, Gerald Weber wrote: "RS-630 is not passable during the rain season (May to September)" For other tags such as opening times, periods are encoded - which is superior in any case to free text. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@op

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability

On 15/01/2014 18:14, Gerald Weber wrote: I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Why is the problem in passing along a few words of helpful and perhaps life-saving advice in free-text? Especially considering that it may not be possible to convey the exact meaning by a list of pre-established tag-val

Re: [Tagging] one-directinal bicycle dismount on oneway road ?

On 01/19/2014 07:23 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > On 2014-01-19 18:32, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> 2014/1/19 Colin Smale > > >> >> The standard sign for "no vehicles" (red ring on white >> background) does not apply to bicycles being pushed by hand, >> but as

Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops

On 22/01/2014 15:33, Janko Mihelic' wrote: 2014/1/22 bulwersator mailto:bulwersa...@zoho.com>> We are NOT mapping online-only activity. Attempting to place things like this on map is pointless and should be reverted as fast as possible to keep this from spreading. How is an office

Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin and Online shops

On 22/01/2014 17:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014/1/22 Jean-Marc Liotier mailto:j...@liotier.org>> Don't confuse an actual office with one that serves as a mere mailbox or even just as a geospamdexing address. don't confuse a mailbox with a geospamdexing addres

Re: [Tagging] Optical telecomunication cable tagging

On 03/03/2014 22:13, François Lacombe wrote: I've found a dozen of markers in the country around my home, like this : http://www.infos-reseaux.com/photos/image/217-identification-telecom-trn It identifies terrestrial optical fibre cables going underground between cities in France. How should

Re: [Tagging] Optical telecomunication cable tagging

On 04/03/2014 14:05, François Lacombe wrote: Just consider we are talking about pipelines here, "optical pipelines" which are going out of any urban area most of the time. Along railways, motorways, high-voltage lines, riverbeds, roads, sewers, tunnels... Pretty much every type of right-of-way

Re: [Tagging] Optical telecomunication cable tagging

On 04/03/2014 17:15, François Lacombe wrote: 2014-03-04 16:35 GMT+01:00 Jean-Marc Liotier <mailto:j...@liotier.org>>: Along railways, motorways, high-voltage lines, riverbeds, roads, sewers, tunnels... Pretty much every type of right-of-way is used and the telecom link i

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

On 20/03/2014 11:40, David Bannon wrote: We both agree it would be a bad thing to redefine existing widely used tags. WRT your answer to Fernando, again, Martin, I suggest, with the greatest of respect, that you may not have experienced just how bad some roads can be. A few months ago, I spent

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] boules=petanque vs. type=petanque

Well... Private messages tell me that boules might be popular outside of France, so here is a translation for a more international debate... According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:sport%3Dboules a petanque pitch (leisure=pitch) is: sport=boules boules=petanque (375 nodes, 75 ways

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] boules=petanque vs. type=petanque

On 15/05/2014 14:43, nounours77 wrote: bowls=bowls | petanque | bocce | whatever One could argue that locale=c would lead us toward using 'bowls' but on the other hand even the English-language Wikipedia article for bocce mentions that it "is a ball sport belonging to the boules sport family"

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] boules=petanque vs. type=petanque

On 15/05/2014 17:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: but I wouldn't add boules=bowls to this list because it seems quite different (e.g. the pitch is grass and not sand or gravel). Instead sport=bowls is perfectly valid and used twice as much as all kinds of boules together. Sound reasonable to me

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] boules=petanque vs. type=petanque

On 15/05/2014 18:22, fly wrote: Pretty much everyone has agreed that the type=* is being abused and that chaining sport=boules;boules=petanque is cleaner so I'm going to correct the 718 occurrences of sport=boules;type=petanque into sport=boules;boules=petanque. This would be an

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] boules=petanque vs. type=petanque

On 05/15/2014 06:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2014-05-15 18:30 GMT+02:00 fly >: > > Wikipedia makes a difference between boccia and bocce, even if it is > just the italian name. > > > the Italian wikipedia states that "Boccia" is Bocce for disabl

Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin ATM (amenity=atm | currency:XBT=yes)

On 09/06/2014 22:12, nounours77 wrote: Go out and ask hundred people on the street what a ATM is - and everybody will answer you the same thing. [..] ATM = Automatic Teller Machine... "An electronic telecommunications device that enables the customers of a financial institution to perform fin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tagging for complex junctions or traffic signals that are named

On 08/25/2014 11:09 PM, Lukas Sommer wrote: In Ivory Coast, you have addresses like “in front of the XYZ crossroad” or “from XYZ crossroad 50 m towards the big fueling station”. Rather a sort of instructions for getting somewhere than an address in the european sense. Obviously “from XYZ crossr

Re: [Tagging] aeroway=taxiway as area

On 08/29/2014 10:38 PM, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: Why the value description table of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dtaxiway states that aeroway=taxiway should not be used on areas? Is there a valid point for this ? If you are going to perform airport routing (now that woul

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Street cabinet - Voting

On 17/11/2014 13:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: man_made=street_cabinet is implicitly rejecting 'countryside cabinet' or cabinets in motorways, parks, fields, train stations, airports and so on. IMHO it is not. Don't read this "overliterally". Indeed - like 'Openstreetmap' which,

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Street cabinet - Voting

On 17/11/2014 15:14, althio forum wrote: Martin, Jean-Marc, I appreciate the feedback. You are voicing some good elements. I am not totally convinced yet about generic vs specific. Fairly generic tag like 'man_made=cabinet' sounds very sensible as first level. Furthermore I do feel other proposal

Re: [Tagging] Date of survey

On 12/22/2014 08:28 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: I always use the tag combination source=survey ; survey:date=year-month-day as described on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:survey:date Whether on the changeset or on the object - whichever is most appropriate, automatically adding the current

Re: [Tagging] Date of survey

On 12/23/2014 05:16 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier <mailto:j...@liotier.org>> wrote: On 12/22/2014 08:28 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: I always use the tag combination source=survey ; survey:date=year-month-day as describe

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Quay

(This discussion originated on talk - crossposted to tagging on Malcolm's suggestion) On 26/01/2015 21:16, Malcolm Herring wrote: On 26/01/2015 19:23, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Harbour#Quay mentions that "a quay will normally be

Re: [Tagging] Buildings blocks

On 11/03/2015 12:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-03-11 12:12 GMT+01:00 Severin Menard >: I would like to know if putting building blocks in OSM should be avoided in all cases. I am currently teaching GIS students in Dakar that have ben required

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks

On 11/03/2015 13:25, althio wrote: I do not have the answer but I wanted to look towards place=* tagged as area. I like that approach - it will let us position this entity within the existing frame of concentric urban territorial subdivisions. place=block [taginfo ~1 200 as area] [no wiki]

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks

On 11/03/2015 17:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 11.03.2015 um 14:59 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier : I'd only use admin_level if this is really an administrative entity. place and admin are orthogonal. Yes, thanks for reminding that - let's keep admin_level out of the way of this

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-bf] Buildings blocks

On 11/03/2015 18:04, althio wrote: To Séverin, For your particular case with your students and considering your time frame I would say: IMO it is taggable, no need to avoid in OSM. Go ahead. My preference is either place=block or place=plot. Pick as you wish and set the trend. Why not us

Re: [Tagging] place=block vs. place=city_block (was: Buildings blocks)

Has anyone ever mentioned merging place=block and place=city_block ? I have found no mention of this question. Would the merging of those two tags for an apparently identical concept be beneficial ? Of course after extensive discussion (and I won't be the one advocating either of the two - as l

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

On 19/03/2015 15:42, Jan van Bekkum wrote: Proposal 7 - use a forum instead of 4 mailing lists and a wiki (was proposed earlier). Then you'll have 4 sub-forums and a wiki. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetma

Re: [Tagging] HOT: potential Helicopter landings leisure=common

On 05/11/2015 09:42 AM, Paweł Marynowski wrote: 2015-05-11 8:53 GMT+02:00 johnw mailto:jo...@mac.com>>: I’m not about to add a aeroway=helipad to the field because it could be used for emergency evacuations. In Poland we use emergency=landing_site for this. Check Overpass Turbo render

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

On 27/05/2015 09:07, Colin Smale wrote: What are the use cases for an "address"? Is it as a routing target? A "label" or "annotation" for a building? or a "property" in a looser sense? Is it for the benefit of the postman? Or what? As Christian Quest explained on talk-fr just minutes ago, an a

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

On 27/05/2015 09:47, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 27.05.2015 um 09:38 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier : Absent any information, tagging the plot is better than nothing. A building is better - and even better is the main entrance or an even finer scheme to separate entrance and postbox. By using

Re: [Tagging] housenumber on node and area

On 27/05/2015 09:57, Daniel Koć wrote: W dniu 27.05.2015 9:38, Jean-Marc Liotier napisał(a): Also, the address must be unique - it must not be present on more than one object, even if more than one POI exists at that address. So there are exceptions to this rule: I know at least one example

Re: [Tagging] SHAPE_Leng, SHAPE_Area, GIS_ACRES

On 04/06/2015 11:09, John Willis wrote: Is there anything wrong with correctly mapping the borders of the blobs of woods (and doubling the number of nodes) if its correct? Nothing wrong there - in Europe, people have been improving on CORINE Land Cover polygons since the dawn of time. __

Re: [Tagging] landcover=trees definition

On 03/08/2015 09:20, christian.pietz...@googlemail.com wrote: landcover=trees has it's origins in this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover The proposal wanted to seperate the phsyical landscape (landcover) from the cultural landscape (landuse). But the propos

[Tagging] Factory, works & other ways to describe industrial production sites and their products

With about 11k occurrences (http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/industrial#overview), [1]industrial=* is mostly used for oil infrastructure but also for other sorts of industrial activities. factory=* only occurs 569 times - with various values: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/factory#

[Tagging] Is a reference a name if it is actually used as a name on the ground ?

Hello from Senegal - talk...@openstreetmap.org has a question about which we would like tagging@openstreetmap.org's opinion before we settle it for good. For residential streets, we have a well-known and documented naming scheme as follows: - name=* bears the official name - loc_name=* bears

Re: [Tagging] Is a reference a name if it is actually used as a name on the ground ?

Thanks Martin, Tijmen & Shawn - I'm now feeding those opinions to our French-language discussion... I'll report back on our conclusions. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Wharf

TL;DR: man_made=quay unless objections are raised. So I have a few nice harbour wharves to map... I found landuse=wharf but it is only used 37 times: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=wharf man_made=pier is almost certainly not the solution, as http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/T

Re: [Tagging] Wharf

On 2016-02-16 15:46, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Wharf (US English) and Quay (British English) seem to be equivalent and > describe a fixed structure that has land on one side and water on the other, > but the French môle or brise-lames is different: it is a structure that > protrudes into the wate

Re: [Tagging] Wharf

On 2016-02-16 17:26, Malcolm Herring wrote: > On 16/02/2016 14:26, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > >> "môle" - which is a much better translation for "wharf" > > No it is not - a mole (also an english word) is a solid pier - it is > masonry/stone/concr

Re: [Tagging] Wharf

On 2016-02-17 15:18, Malcolm Herring wrote: > From the IHO Hydrographic dictionary: > > breakwater. A structure protecting a shore area, HARBOUR, ANCHORAGE, or BASIN > from WAVES. See also FLOATING BREAKWATER. > > jetty. In U.S. terminology, a structure, such as a WHARF or PIER, so located > a

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

On 03/19/2016 05:41 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: I'm looking for a consistent way to tag AirBnB locations. It's probably sufficient to tag them as tourism=guest_house tourism=guest_house guest_house=clandestine Beside all the arguments previously expressed here, many owners use AirBnB as undecla

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

On 03/16/2016 03:47 PM, joost schouppe wrote: Is it OK to map multiple buildings as one closed line with the building=yes tag ? Or does building=yes imply it is one single building ? building=yes is a single building. I have encountered this problem a lot in Senegal. I talked with local mappe

[Tagging] natural=river_terrace : open or closed way ? JOSM Validator and OSM wiki disagree

I have been tagging a big bunch of natural=river_terrace in eastern Senegal. The features that I have been tagging are ridges that follow the course of a river in rocky terrain - not quite a canyon, but more abrupt than a valley... I could have tagged them as natural=ridge but I stumbled upon natur

Re: [Tagging] surface earth vs ground vs dirt

On 04/12/2016 08:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: ground is a synonym for [..] without man made coating As I tag heavily with surface=ground, this is indeed my definition. I use that when I tag from orbital imagery, when I'm certain that there is no man-made coating but I can't distinguish w

[Tagging] health_facility:type vs. health_facility_type

health_facility:type : 7752 occurrences, mentioned in the Healthcare 2.0 proposal, worldwide presence by 1 022 different users... http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/health_facility%3Atype#overview health_facility_type : 629 occurrences, mostly in Central Africa by 66 different users... http://

Re: [Tagging] health_facility:type vs. health_facility_type

On 2016-09-28 13:56, Janko Mihelić wrote: > Maybe send an automatic message to those 66 users to see if they agree with > the edit, and if most agree, change them all Good idea... I don't know how to send a message to such a group of users - is there functionality provided for that ?

[Tagging] traffic_signals:direction=* vs. direction=*

traffic_signals:direction=* is used on 27278 highway=traffic_signals objects: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=traffic_signals#combinations highway=stop is combined with a direction tag on about 77000 objects (direction=backward, direction=forward and the literal direction=*) https:/

Re: [Tagging] traffic_signals:direction=* vs. direction=*

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:47:46 -0400 Kevin Kenny wrote: > > If there is a traffic signal at an intersection, the default is that > traffic from any direction will be facing a signal. Yes, but only in the case of tagging the traffic signals at the intersection node. If the traffic_signals tag is pl

Re: [Tagging] traffic_signals:direction=* vs. direction=*

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:46:17 +0100 LeTopographeFou wrote: > > I think that both stop, give way and traffic signals shall have a > consistent definition of direction and shall be consistent in which > key to encourage. As soon as direction=* is valid I would encourage > it as the primary method, w

Re: [Tagging] Spillways

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:56:49 +0700 Dave Swarthout wrote: > > You could also add emergency=yes to the above or create a new tag, > emergency=spillway waterway=spillway spillway=emergency https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/waterway=spillway#overview ___

Re: [Tagging] Spillways

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:12:02 +0100 Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:56:49 +0700 > Dave Swarthout wrote: > > > > You could also add emergency=yes to the above or create a new tag, > > emergency=spillway > > waterway=spillway &

Re: [Tagging] traffic_signals:direction=* vs. direction=*

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 00:57:44 +0100 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > generally it is unsafe to rely on a "direction" like forward or > backward as tag on a node. Nodes do not have directions, and there is > no relation from a node to a single way, the relation is from a way > to a node and many ways

Re: [Tagging] traffic_signals:direction=* vs. direction=*

So, summing up the ideas expressed so far, in the example case of a stop sign on a two-ways way (not an all-ways stop), we have: 1- highway=stop+direction=forward node on the way to an intersection - Advantages: simple, uses the well-known direction=* tag, easy for routers to interpret - Disadva

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign's relevant direction: direction=* vs. relation [Was: traffic_signals:direction=* vs. direction=*]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 16:31:47 +0100 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2017-03-23 15:47 GMT+01:00 Jean-Marc Liotier : > >> I'm not operating a routing system so maybe someone who is >> might offer his opinion on that point > > in another thread a few days ago there was

  1   2   >