I was wondering about that myself. They seem to be 'long' steps. So a horse
wouldn't have too much trouble with them. Also parallel with it on the
other side of the small river there is a cycleway with no steps. That one
is on Mapillary.
Jo
Op ma 29 apr 2024 om 00:15 schreef Gra
's
obvious horses are galloping there on a regular basis, I know to stay away
from them. One because it's very tiresome to advance on them, but more
importantly it's dangerous for cyclist, horseback rider AND horse when a
collision happens at galloping speeds.
Jo
On Mon, Apr 29, 202
If you enabled expert mode, you can download from Overpass directly into
JOSM.
Polyglot
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020, 23:29 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Jun 14, 2020, 22:55 by vosc...@gmail.com:
>
> Is it not possible to get people who were involved in the or
In Antwerpen there is a bus that you can only take, as a cyclist, so
accompanied by a bicycle. It's a subsidised service of the harbour, free
for its users (commuters). The bus replaces a ferry and goes through a
tunnel, prohibited for cyclists riding a bicycle.
Polyglot
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 17:
You could add all. My solution would be to add no stop_position nodes to
the route relations. I would suffice with a single platform node that
represents platform and has all the relevant details.
That's not how train stops are mapped atm though, and some platforms are
divided in zones. In that ca
been just
12-14/1. It's unlikely a 1B, 2C or 3D will appear...
Jo
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 7:49 AM Thibault Molleman <
thibaultmolle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the old building at that location used to be split in 2 (thus the
> 2 housenumbers).
> So Kasteelstraat 12 does not
PT_assistant can split the roundabout for you if you use JOSM
Jo
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 19:20 Volker Schmidt wrote:
> That's the approach anyway for bicycle and bus route relations on
> roundabouts.
> Yes, it causes additional work, because you need to split the roundabout
> wa
Hi,
You probably meant 5, not 15. I think it's OK to repeat the address on that
entrance node.
Jo
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 6:53 PM Thibault Molleman <
thibaultmolle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Update on my example I gave. We changed it to
> addr:housename=Residentie Den Oude Post
&
fietsstraat / rue cyclable are really 'a thing' in Belgium. Usually the
whole street is redesigned, it's not just a traffic sign on both ends. Red
asphalt, giant flower pots. Car drivers don't seem to realise that they are
not allowed to overtake cyclists in most of them though. So that's a bit
dis
How would you feel about mapping it with a superroute relation?
The superroute would then contain 3 route relations.
1 for the first part by bicycle
1 for the middle part by train
1 for the last part by bicycle
If we give the train part a different role in the superroute, we can make
it such tha
route relation,
you would need role forward/backward in the route relation, which cannot be
combined with role transfer.
Jo
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 11:24 AM Francesco Ansanelli
wrote:
> Dear Polyglot,
>
> it sounds good to me. But what roles do you suggest for such superroute?
> Many
I uploaded my way to solve this:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11560387
Polyglot
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:03 PM Jo wrote:
> Hi Francesco,
>
> I will create the superroute and route relations as an example. If you
> don't like the solution, feel free to remove thos
e if I have the stamina for it. But anyone can do it, so if you feel
like it, go ahead.
Jo
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:39 PM Jo wrote:
> I uploaded my way to solve this:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11560387
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 12:03 PM Jo wr
Hi Francesco,
I started a proposal on the wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/More_complex_cycle_routes
It will probably need to be moved to the proposal name space, but we can
work on it over there before putting it up for a vote.
Jo
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 3:09 PM Francesco Ansanelli
I know that it's possible to look at the type of the child route relation,
but I don't think it hurts to be explicit about it in the role.
Regarding the 'complex' bicycle relations. I want to use superroutes for
other purposes as well.
Jo
On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 7:53 PM P
e=no|use_sidepath as members of a bicycle
route relation, which is what would happen in the case of the specialised
bus that takes bicycles through a tunnel.
The alternative is that we change the validator to disregard ways with the
role transport. Sure that would work as well.
Jo
On Mon, Aug
hours, or they don't function at
night. By using separate route relations, it becomes possible to add
opening hours and a frequency/period on them.
Jo
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 8:52 AM Peter Elderson wrote:
> 'transport' role, 'transportation' role ... is this in use a
House numbers are also exhaustively complete in The Netherlands.
Jo
On Sat, Sep 5, 2020, 22:46 Niels Elgaard Larsen wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer:
> >
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 5. Sep 2020, at 16:43, ben.ki...@mail.de wrote:
> >>
> &
Are they really people who see the tag man_made and go:
Oh, women didn't contribute to this! The tag says so...
Isn't it obvious that man in this case stands for its original meaning:
Mensch, ser humano, etc?
Changing it in the database is trivially easy. Letting everyone who uses
OSM data know
It would be best to first consider the consequences of such a change. Weigh
the benefits against what we lose in time (humanhours?) and
resources/energy. And then there is still the point that many objects will
get new timestamps for a change that's not really a change.
Anyway, artificial sounds l
Bridge=yes is used as a complementary tag on highway and railway objects.
I was thinking of construction=bridge, but that already has another meaning
in OSM context.
I really don't like artificial as a tag. Maybe constructed_by_people...
Can't say that I like that either.
Polyglot
On Tue, Oct 2
They do NOT mean the same thing. How they differ has already been mentioned
2 or 3 times in this thread.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020, 06:59 Robert Delmenico wrote:
> Essentially though, they mean the same thing:
> man_made=bridge is for areas
> bridge=yes is for ways
>
> Both refer to to say there is a
>
>
> +1, same here for wild boars. “animal path” does not provide sufficient
> information what kind of object it is, because these paths are quite
> different depending on the animals. The mentioned cow paths are probably
> always suitable for humans, while others may not.
>
> your feet may sink
I couldn't resist looking them up.
This is a very long one and there is even an operator in it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh0NxK6sslM
Most are the length of the escalators they are adjacent to.
Polyglot
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:19 PM Guillaume Chauvat
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My apologies if th
Maybe you can find middle ground in highway=tertiary? highway=service is a
possibility, but I'd usually use it in bus stations or on stretches that
are exclusively used by buses, that don't even have sidewalks for example.
Polyglot
On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 5:41 PM Jmapb wrote:
> On 12/9/2020 9:36
As far as I'm concerned junction=roundabout means that that OSM way is part
of a roundabout. That's how it behaves.
JOSM is perfectly capable of handling split or unsplit roundabouts, except
for ad hoc rendering of the routes. With unsplit roundabouts, they all have
'bulges'. Hence my preference t
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:57 PM Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (making this a new topic)
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:56:30AM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > I strongly prefer to have one relation for the main route, and separate
> relations for alternatives. Put those together in a relation
Peter, I think Martin's question comes from a misunderstanding. You
probably meant the route relations were broken by someone editing before
you. Martin seems to have understood that you have to check all those route
relations, after you edited them yourself.
Jo
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 9:
OK, I have fixed my fair share of route relations, both public transport
and bicycle and foot routes.
I find it easier to EDIT them, when they are sorted. To figure out there
are problems with them, when they are sorted. JOSM actually does a great
job with the sorting. For bicycle, foot and horse
Wonderful, thank you for your contribution to standardising, by doing your
own thing anyway. Really great.
Jo
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 3:46 PM Andrew Harvey
wrote:
> I'll still be using a range with a -. so 0-2 to mean from 0 to 2
> inclusive. I've used it all over my s
Indeed, but I don't think it makes sense to use them for each and every stop
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 10:11 marc marc wrote:
> Le 21.08.19 à 09:58, Markus a écrit :
> > Otherwise, we need a new relation (maybe type=stop_position?) to
> > connect the stop position to the waiting area
>
> imho that's
For what it's worth, I think your proposal makes sense.
Polyglot
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 6:28 PM Janko Mihelić wrote:
> Has no one any opinion on this? I have a feeling this is important for the
> future of the Openstreetmap - Wikidata relationship..
>
> Janko
>
> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019, 15:05 Jank
What about long_distance_bus, if you don't like coach? motorbus doesn't
really convey much information. All buses we are talking about have a
motor. The only exception I can think of is this Italian pedibus, which
isn't really a bus at all. (Accompanied children who take the same
itinerary on a dai
In my own city we have an electric train like bus that has a few stops and
is specifically meant for tourists. Not double decker with an open roof and
it's slow, but OK. It has an itinerary and dedicated hop on/hop off stops.
I would like to be able to map it.
I would also like to be able to map t
It's indeed a lot like that train in Tenerife.
Since it's solar powered (supposedly), it's called Zonnetrein.
Not a real train, no rails, more like a bus, but specifically targeted to
tourists or group events.
It's true we don't have a way to map this, so for now I would have been
inclined to us
Forgot the link: https://zonnetrein.be/en/
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 1:04 PM Jo wrote:
> It's indeed a lot like that train in Tenerife.
>
> Since it's solar powered (supposedly), it's called Zonnetrein.
>
> Not a real train, no rails, more like a bus, but specific
the confusion is that emergency may refer to rooms, but usually in
OpenStreetMap it refers to access for emergency vehicles.
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 8:58 AM Andrew Errington
wrote:
> We have a local hospital. It is tiny and has no emergency room.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 03/11/2019, Francesco Ansanelli
He means the URL of a dedicated page for a stop on the operator's website.
My preference would be to simply use URL for this purpose.
Polyglot
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 15:40 Janko Mihelić wrote:
> There is a mailing list for public transport, it's
> talk-tran...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.
I mean url, not URL
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 17:17 Jo wrote:
> He means the URL of a dedicated page for a stop on the operator's website.
>
> My preference would be to simply use URL for this purpose.
>
> Polyglot
>
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 15:40 Janko Mihelić wrote:
&g
Jesus would float, obviously, but what about his bicycle?
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 20:59 Peter Elderson wrote:
> We happily add ferry transfers to hiking routes. Nobody has been found
> trying to walk on the water. Nobody that we know of...
>
> Fr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op vr 13 dec. 2019 om 20:3
My take on this would be to create a separate route relation for the
funicular part and add that to the bicycle route relation. For validation
purposes that would be the simplest and clearest way of doing things.
Simply adding the rails would mean that you'd have to cycle on the rails,
or at least
If I remember well, there is also route=walking...
You are right that it doesn't make very much sense to make the distinction.
But now to get all mappers to choose for either hiking or foot will prove
to be an impossible task. As usual it will be status quo that wins, like
you saw in the result of
That stop_position nodes became optional is probably because of my
influence. In the beginning they were definitely part of how PTv2. I
disliked this very much because all of a sudden we were using 2 objects to
define a single stop, duplicating details, which seemed like a very bad
idea. And it was
And if we do that, then those nodes don't really need roles in the route
relations either,
The problem with PTv2 is that it was an attempt to streamline how buses
were mapped based on how railway was mapped, where it would have made more
sense to go in the other direction and map railway t
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 4:20 AM Jarek Piórkowski
wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2020 at 23:09, Joseph Eisenberg
> wrote:
> > > In inclement weather, passengers may well be found waiting in
> > the transit shelter 8 metres to west, and the tram will stop for them
> > if they are waiting in the shelter.
281532
This is about as simple as it can get, no duplication, but still contains
all the relevant information. That is the point.
Polyglot
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 9:11 AM Jo wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 4:20 AM Jarek Piórkowski
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Mar 2
Well, since I'm able to communicate in Esperanto, albeit not fluently
anymore, I would definitely like to keep name:eo, probably interlingua and
those as well.
I'm not expecting an invasion of Klingons or Elven, so those don't seem all
that useful.
Roman, you mean Latin? It existed, people commun
d consider
that one to be public transport.
Jo
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:33 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Am Di., 31. März 2020 um 04:22 Uhr schrieb Gegorian Hauser <
> grenhau...@mail.com>:
>
>> There are over 15000 aerialway stations in Europe and over 1000 are just
>&
It only makes sense if the teleférico can be used all year around and is
useful for the whole public. If it's only there to get skiers up a
mountain, I don't think it's part of the public transport network.
Jo
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 10:43 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb wrote:
> On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
> We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC. It's time to stop
> treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata. If tools *still* can't
> deal with this, this is on the tools and their developers
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:49 PM Steve Doerr
wrote:
> On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb wrote:
>
>> Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are
>> single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good map
If the fountains don't have identifiers that are suitable for ref, you may
be able to add them to wikidata (if they are 'notable' enough for that
project and you have permission to add them to a cc0 licensed project). You
can only do that for fountains that YOU have added yourself though, you
can't
Another possibility is to add the image to Mapillary and then use the
mapillary tag to refer to it.
On Tue, May 19, 2020, 14:05 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> May 19, 2020, 13:41 by europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com:
>
> >Is it possible to use an API to
s. On Wikimedia Commons a contributor may
consider your picture not noteworthy enough or violating Panorama Rights, I
forget the correct term.
Polyglot
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:30 PM European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jo and Paul,
>
> I am currently upl
In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?
Polyglot
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:53 PM Peter Elderson wrote:
> I am trying to improve on the name-tag mess in the many hiking/foot routes
> in Nederland. All kinds of information is packed in those names. I am not
> doing any cleaning (ye
passing through?
Jo
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 6:42 PM Peter Elderson wrote:
> Hold on to your hat In the name tag I will store...The Name Of The
> Route!
>
> Op za 23 mei 2020 om 18:18 schreef Jo :
>
>> In the end, what will be left in the name tag exactly?
>>
>&
I would say the route name goes on the routemaster relation. That way it's
possible to differentiate in the names of the route relations and make them
more specific. That's probably not what Peter is proposing though.
Jo
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 7:40 PM Tod Fitch wrote:
> I
oh, I'm mapping public transport too much. I actually did mean to write
superroute.
Jo
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 7:44 PM Yves wrote:
> While the original question was about a good tag to record the section
> number, whick look like a reference, I would be tempted to answer Jo tha
By the way, superroute relations in JOSM now show continuity correctly if
the last node of the last way is the same as the first node of the first
way in two sequential route relations. (It was a feature request I made and
someone developed it).
Jo
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 8:47 PM Kevin Kenny
I look forward to a new vote and will vote in favour of what you're
proposing now.
Polyglot
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 8:29 PM Nikulainen, Jukka K <
jukka.nikulai...@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> Hello Paul, and thank you for your input!
>
> You are indeed correct that my follow-up proposal would very radic
Please don't add public transport stops to hiking route relations. That
would be really confusing.
Polyglot
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 2:39 PM Dave Swarthout
wrote:
> Peter: " Mapping a trailhead node as I suggested does not stand in the way
> of more complex options. My idea: begin with the simple
The existing scheme for tagging cycle routes is robust. The problem I see
when 'reusing' it in a hierarchy of routes, is that we would need a role to
indicate that the sub route is traversed in reverse for a particular
"super" route. It would also help to have an indicator in JOSM to indicate
conti
The proposal was voted upon.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:54 PM Tijmen Stam wrote:
> On 31-10-18 00:54, Leif Rasmussen wrote:
> > Hello everyone!
> > I recently wrote up a proposal page for public transport schedule data.
> > This information would allow OpenStreetMap to store information about
> >
I also created a proposal, but I knew in advance it wouldn't be practical
to duplicate full GTFS functionality in OSM:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_timetables
I'm creating this proposal, which does have information about the operators
/ agencies, which we
I think most people will be against having variable roles in the route
relations.
Polyglot
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM santamariense wrote:
> > I also created a proposal, but I knew in advance it wouldn't be practical
> > to duplicate full GTFS functionality in OSM.
>
> Well, this is not a
Regarding the proposal, feel free to try and apply it on your bus routes.
And if you mapped say a hundred, you can even change the proposal's status
and bring it up for a vote. Be prepared for quite a bit of resistance
though, but for what it's worth, I'm likely to vote in favour. The main
point pe
I think we should move to subrelations for bus routes at some point.
Actually doing it is somewhat tricky. We'd definitely need editor support
to show that a route which consists of subroutes is continuous or not. The
biggest point of contention seems to be whether the stops should go into
the subr
I would definitely want routes to be composed of subroutes which are shared
with other routes, hence the reasoning of keeping the stop sequences in the
route relations.
Polyglot
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019, 15:41 Paul Allen On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 11:21, Tony Shield
> wrote:
>
> Am I right in thinking
Good analysis Seirra,
I would not "reuse" route=road in other route=* relations though.
route=bicycle might share segments with route=foot/walking/hiking, but I'd
keep everything related to bus/trolley_bus and coach together in terms of
sharing of subroutes not mix it with other route types.
For
When I start mapping a bus line, I have several route relations which
contain all the stops for each variation in itinerary.
When I add the ways, it would be nice to reuse subroute relations for the
parts where ways are shared between lines.
When I come back later and I want to compare whether th
If we're expanding the list of possible tags for buses, we shouild probably
also consider route=coach, for long distance travel on a regular schedule.
Polyglot
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:57 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> I admit I am not familiar with the situation on the ground, but your
> su
And I like to see all that prepended with the name of the operator...
Polyglot
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:32 PM Markus wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 18:16, Markus wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 13:50, Hufkratzer wrote:
> > >
> > > It would probably better to use description=* than fro
ries where this text changes midway, so that's
definitely not the name fo that specific itinerary either.
Jo
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 8:54 PM Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-05-11 at 19:09 +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 18:53, Mateusz Konieczny
> wrot
a platform, whether tagged as public_transport=platform, highway=platform
or railway=platform is always accessible and routeable for pedestrians. So
no need to explicitly tag them with highway=footway or foot=yes or
something of that nature.
Polyglot
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:28 PM Nick Bolten w
Indeed not a platform, just a bus stop with a bench and maybe a shelter,
not sure. If the kerb were a bit higher where the bus halts, I'd say
platform, but this is just a sidewalk.
That we map such a node with public_transport=platform/bus=yes doesn't make
it a platform. That's just convention sinc
Who's going to keep the tally? Maybe we need an actual tool to help with
this (I'm not proposing to write one or figure what could be used for doing
so). But what if the 4 proposals are reached? Or someone feels the need to
post 40 comments during a month? How do we stop the flood?
Polyglot
On Su
At some point diapers need to be changed...
Polyglot
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:44 PM Valor Naram wrote:
> Oh thanks. Corrected it
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:changing_table and I also
> notified all downstream users that this feature replaces Key:diaper
>
> On Wed, 2019-06-12 at 1
A bus stop, a place where a bus halts to pick up and drop off passengers is
both real and current. Tying it to a geographic object can be done in
various ways, as we've shown over the past years.
I read the wiki a few times over the past years and then I started looking
for something that works, b
duplicating information across multiple objects.
I found that what works best is to have nodes on the side of the road to
represent the stops. These nodes have positional information and can carry
all the tags for the details.
If there is an actual elevated platform, it can be represented by a wa
, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:41 AM Jo wrote:
> duplicating information across multiple objects.
>
> I found that what works best is to have nodes on the side of the road to
> represent the stops. These nodes have positional information and can carry
> all the tags for the details.
>
>
bus_bay = right | left | both ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/485293336
)
For me the object that represents the bus stop, is always a simple node. I
don't see a problem for doing that in bus stations as well.
If there are actual platforms, whether in a bus station or somewhere along
a way,
For platform numbers or letters I've seen local_ref being used succesfully.
For train platforms it is also possible they are divided into zones, where
one part of the train may have one destination, and the other another
destination. Such trains are split either in that station or a subsequent
one.
For a few years now, I've been considering to make a proposal for mapping
PT in a simpler way. I haven't done it because it's a lot of work and there
will always be quite a few mappers who prefer the status quo.
Anyway, I think we need 1 object which has all the properties of a stop as
tags and wh
> highway=platform and/or railway=platform are needed, because
>> public_transport=platform doesn't mean a platform, but a waiting area.
>> And a waiting areas doesn't need to be a platform: some waiting areas
>> are just poles or signs beside the road [1], others are located on the
>> sidewalk [2]
Use semicolons, for a range use 4;5;6. Be explicit and keep with the
standard value separator.
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 2:17 PM Andrew Harvey
wrote:
> It could be cultural but I've always understood that the hyphen (-), ie.
> 1-3 would mean it covers 1, 2 and 3, while if you say 1;3 or 1,3 then it
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019, 16:40 Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> it is just an excuse to insist on using pt=platform for things that aren’t
> platforms and justify it with saying it means waiting area.
> I don’t think we should define pt=platform for something different than a
> public transport platfor
I think it would be best to make the tools we use JOSM, Overpass API, iD,
etc. Unicode aware, so they can handle this correctly.
Polyglot
2018-01-26 16:50 GMT+01:00 Matej Lieskovský :
> @marc: I just realized - I'm not talking about breaking words between
> syllables but about breaking lines bet
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/holloway
2018-02-19 21:20 GMT+01:00 Steve Doerr :
> On 19/02/2018 09:00, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> 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 Sun
railway=platform unambiguously refers to an actual platform, mapped as a
way or as an area.
public_transport=platform + tram=yes (+railway=tram_stop) can be mapped on
an isolated node (so not part of the railway=* way).
It would be my preference to ONLY map it on (isolated) nodes. That's what I
d
the water is tunneling under the road, through a narrow passage. It's not
the road that goes through a tunnel.
2018-03-01 17:40 GMT+01:00 Vao Matua :
> Thank you all for the explanations.
> I think that my issue might have to do with UK English usage. I would
> never call a road tunnel a "culve
I added many borders in Uganda a few years ago, they are gray in your
rendering. Should I go and put admin_level tags on them now? For the
highest or the lowest admin_level they are part of?
Or a semicolon separated list...?
Seems like a step backward to me, but I guess, whatever works.
Polyglot
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 :
> OK, I understand what you're trying to highlight, but don't see it as
> relevant to this thread.
> But anyway, the "boundary betwe
I'm not very optimistic you'll manage to get that proposal to pass.
We'll probably keep double tagging everything for a long time to come. The
reason why I put public_transport=platform on bus stop nodes, is that JOSM
conveniently adds a platform role when they are added to relations. Also
because
I've tried to accomplish that many years ago already, it failed. The people
at the helm of the rendering stack consider the 'old' tags good enough and
the new scheme somehow not explicit enough, hence the double tagging.
Dropping the tags you call obsolete from the data, is not an option as far
as
ags to nodes is also
relatively simple to do.
Jo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
PT v2 says you CAN map stops using 2 objects. People reading that
understood that you MUST use both a stop_position node and a platform
way/node.
Then it was interpreted as: both of those HAVE TO be added to the route
relations.
To make things look consistent in the route relations, then some map
generic transit icon.)
> >>
> >> A third concern was double-rendering. If both a highway=bus_stop node
> and a
> >> public_transport=platform node exist, won't mappers want to remove the
> >> duplicate? I would hope so! Alternatively, if a stop area is ma
y render nicely, but it
may be exaggerated. They are not mapped for the purpose of adding them to
the route relations and there is clearly accommodations for the buses near
such stops. Most of them look like (narrower) sidewalks though.
Jo
2018-03-30 11:06 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse :
> > I
m node
> in addition?
>
> Why not tag that node public_transport=stop then? This would allow for
> a clear distinction between platform and stop.
>
>
> On 30 March 2018 at 11:52, Jo wrote:
> > When tagging platforms as ways, I wouldn't add details like name to
> them, a
the bus and tram stops, I stopped doing that.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/PT_Assistant/Mapping_Public_Transport_with_JOSM
Jo
2018-03-31 9:23 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse :
> Is public_transport=platform now about the structure or the function?
>
> If it is about the
1 - 100 of 394 matches
Mail list logo
