2011/1/21 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> 2011/1/21 Lennard :
>
>> And what about the Seat of Government. Do we record that anywhere? This
>> isn't always located in the country capital either.
If you come up with a solution it would be nice to have a possibility
to record this
2011/1/21 Peter Wendorff :
> Hi.
> As long as the DDR existed, Berlin was the capital of Germany, but not the
> seat of government.
> The government moved to Bonn meanwhile due to practical reasons (hard to
> move to and from Western Berlin across the DDR etc.).
yes, Berlin wasn't even part of th
2011/1/23 Steve Bennett :
> So, this suggestion:
>
> capital=4
>
> ...is good. And a role relation for the city to its province/state/country
> would be handy, too.
I see it the same way and started to tag Italy with this scheme. For
the whole centre and south I added capital=4 and capital=6 to t
2011/1/26 Johan Jönsson :
> This is an old proposal, that have been discussed before. It lead to a
> rewriting
> and instead of natural=rock it is proposed natural=bare_rock.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock
>
> It is supposed to be a tag for land cover.
> /Johan
2011/1/26 Johan Jönsson :
> If you don´t mind I will edit the landcover-proposal and change landcover=rock
> to landcover=bare_rock.
Fine for me, go ahead, bare_rock (or rock) is indeed missing.
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstre
2011/1/27 Johan Jönsson :
> My opinion is that natural=bare_rock should be used for solid rock and not for
> fields of stone/stony ground. The visible bedrock, even if it could be
> splintered and jagged.
there is already the well established feature for loose rocks (natural=scree)
cheers,
Marti
2011/1/27 Stephen Hope :
> On 28 January 2011 07:43, wrote:
>> Scree, however, usually refers to a sloping pile of loose rock at the base
>> of a cliff, rather than being a general term for loose rocks.
>
> It's a little bit more general than that - a sloping hillside covered
> with loose rock i
2011/1/28 Andrew Harvey :
> Sorry for diverting the thread if this is getting too off topic, feel
> free to reply using a different subject-- I saw scree on the wiki,
> your explanation helps. The kind of rocks I'm thinking about are on
> the coastline, not on a slope, and are not really at the bas
2011/1/29 John Smith :
> On 28 January 2011 21:35, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Yes, IMHO (I'm not an English native) this is not scree. I would tag them
>> landcover=bare_rock (or depending on the size landcover=pebbles)
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wave_R
2011/1/29 John Smith :
> and just like previous threads I'm still to be convinced we need
> landcover=*, I just don't see the point of introducing a 3rd type that
> only serves to confuse things.
basically the idea was that natural could be restricted to
geographical features. This is in line wit
2011/1/29 John Smith :
> That definition hasn't been true since use of surface=* was expanded
> beyond highways
can you point me to this decision? In my mapping I almost never see
surface used for something different than highways. If you look at
the actual values you can see that they are nearl
2011/1/29 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> 2011/1/29 John Smith :
>> That definition hasn't been true since use of surface=* was expanded
>> beyond highways
>
>
> can you point me to this decision? In my mapping I almost never see
> surface used for something different than
2011/1/29 John Smith :
> On 30 January 2011 00:32, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> can you point me to this decision? In my mapping I almost never see
>
> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2873
you are pointing me to an open ticket for which there might be good
reasons _not_ t
2011/1/29 John Smith :
> You are yet to show how landcover=* makes things better. All I see
> landcover=* doing is duplicating surface=* and confusing people.
It is mainly the meaning, surface refers to the surface while
landcover refers to the general coverage. I agree that sand is a good
value
2011/1/29 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> I could
> also support surface (there might be space for landcover as well).
> Actually surface=sand or bare_rock makes perfectly sense.
even though this creates some problems: if you tag a polygon with
natural=beach, surface=sand, doesn't th
2011/1/29 John Smith :
>>> On 30 January 2011 03:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
>>> wrote:
>>>> even though this creates some problems: if you tag a polygon with
>>>> natural=beach, surface=sand, doesn't this imply a the polygon is sand?
>>>
2011/1/29 Johan Jönsson :
> surface is probably to prefer over natural=bare_rock. But if there is no other
> good tag for the area then you can use the landcover tag of natural=bare_rock,
> instead of leaving it blank.
how would you map a peak that is not covered by vegetation? IMHO
natural is n
2011/1/30 John Smith :
> On 30 January 2011 21:05, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> broken by design...
>> There won't be an "invalid polygon", there would be 2 valid but
>> contradicting polygons.
>
> Which are sorted by smallest first usually so they rende
2011/1/30 John Smith :
> None of which is an issue, you can sort and display the information
> however you like,
all of them are issues. To recall: My statement was, that a polygon
tagged with "surface=xy" should have this surface. If there are parts
inside this polygon, that don't have this surf
2011/1/31 :
> You also have edge cases, such as a solid rock surface, some of which has
> broken up into loose rock.
Yes, in natural mountaneous settings you will almost always have solid
bare rock under the loose rock ;-)
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging
2011/1/31 Johan Jönsson :
> John Smith writes:
>
>> Not all rocky surfaces are natural, just like sand being used on golf
>> courses and beach volley ball courts, even if they are not within 100s
>> of km of an actual beach...
>
> That is true, instead of the proposal natural=bare_rock
> you can u
How do you tag single (historic) burial places? I am currently looking
for a tagging scheme to structure these kind of places, but am unsure
about the wording.
My suggestions would be
* historic=grave
or
* historic=tomb
for the main tag. Subtags would then be
grave=pyramid
grave=mausoleum
grave=
To tag obelisks I suggest
man_made=obelisk
an alternative could be
historic=obelisk
but some obelisks are actually not old, so historic might not yet be
an appropriate tag for them. In combination with historic:civilization
and historic:period they could still be clearly distinguished.
http://e
2011/2/1 Chris Hill :
>> What do you say about the wording? Would tomb or grave be suited better?
>>
> A grave tends to be a hole dug in the ground to bury one or more bodies, a
> tomb is more of a structure, so they are not mutually exclusive.
> I would group pyramid, mausoleum, tumulus, dolmen an
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett :
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:48 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> My (admittedly shallow) understanding was that there was some debate
> about whether all tumuluses and dolmens were in fact tombs. This is an
> instance where I think a flatter structure might be safer:
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett :
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:17 AM, Craig Wallace wrote:
> Oh...and I just discovered obelisk is already mentioned here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landmark
>
> Taginfo has a grand total of 5 landmark=obelisk
Yes, I saw this as well. This page is not represe
2011/2/1 Craig Wallace :
> As that Wikipedia article says, its just a particular style/shape of
> monument or memorial.
> So I think it would be best tagged as historic=monument or
> historic=memorial, plus a subtag for obelisk.
> Maybe something like monument:style=obelisk ?
This could be a way,
2011/2/1 Steve Bennett :
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> To tag obelisks I suggest
>> man_made=obelisk
>> an alternative could be
>> historic=obelisk
>
> Definitely historic=obelisk, I think. It doesn't really matte
2011/2/1 Chris Hill :
> On 01/02/11 12:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> 2011/2/1 Chris Hill:
> Many tumuli do have multiple graves in them. Sometimes these are small
> stone-lined burials known as cists (kists) sometimes simply a pot containing
> cremated remains an
2011/2/1 Craig Wallace :
> their primary purpose. That purpose is to provide a place of worship. I
> think a tower can be a monument (and tagged as such), if that is why it was
> built
> I think both monument and memorial are (usually) for structures in memory of
> something.
think about the
2011/2/1 Lennard :
> Fortunately, for capital, we only use yes and not the other 2 variants in
> the main mapnik map. It's not logical to add these at this point. We already
> have to normalise true and 1 to yes for bridges and tunnels, and if those
> variants would disappear from the database and
you deleted one of the more important parts of this relation IMHO: the
label-node which would serve as a suggested label placement. I made
some of these relations and I was never sure, which objects I should
put into the relation (as for instance the spatial configuration
already says that everythi
2011/2/2 Daniel Sabo :
> In this specific case it seems safe to convert capital=true -> capital=yes,
> but the other values I'm less sure what they were intending.
I checked all of them manually with Josm and Wikipedia. They were all
capitals of Philippine Provinces, so capital=yes would have be
2011/2/1 Johan Jönsson :
> M∡rtin Koppenhoefer writes:
> No key is really spot-on, well maybe landmark but that is used on seamaps to
> mark prominent features on the horizon.
IMHO man_made is, it is used for towers and windmills, and I see
obelisks somehow in this range of things.
&g
2011/2/2 Steve Bennett :
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:35 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> This could be a way, but I am not yet convinced. Churches, temples and
>> towers are also monuments, but we don't tag them currently as subtypes
>> of monument. Indeed the
2011/2/2 :
> Obelisks are also fairly common as grave markers, although you would probably
> tag those differently than obelisks raised to commemorate some event.
We should propose to tag the height as well. There are not so many
ancient egyptian obelisks in the world (actually most of them are
2011/2/3 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> 2011/2/2 :
>> Obelisks are also fairly common as grave markers, although you would
>> probably tag those differently than obelisks raised to commemorate some
>> event.
>
>
> We should propose to tag the height as well. There are
2011/2/2 Tobias Knerr :
> It might be useful in some cases, but it shouldn't be overused. If the
> site is adequately described by a polygon, it can and imo should be
> mapped as an area with the appropriate tags.
+1
> For example, a school that occupies one site with some buildings, sport
> fac
2011/2/3 Johan Jönsson :
> It would be great if there where an english term that could encompass
> obelisks, high freestanding columns and other stelae that is clos in
> resemblance.
Hm, not sure if we need this. I would in fact like to have a distinct
tag for columns as well.
> Maybe tourism,
2011/2/4 Nick Whitelegg :
>>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level
> If they aren't counted as national capitals surely it should be 3 anyway, as
> surely England, Wales and Scotland are the *immediate* next level down from
> the UK.
I don't know, this is best discussed on talk:uk I gue
2011/2/5 Eugene Alvin Villar :
> San Fernando should be capital=3 since it is the admin center for a
> region (which is admin_level = 3).
can you set this?
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.or
2011/2/5 Eugene Alvin Villar :
> I've modified this to capital=3;4 since it is also the provincial capital.
I'd only set the highest admin_level (lowest number) on the node.
Otherwise you would probably have to tag most nodes with
capital=3;4;6;8;10 or something like that. I'd use relations for m
2011/2/5 Elizabeth Dodd :
> I'm tracing a big open cast mine which has
>
> pit; tailings dump; ore dump; processing plant to concentrate
> ore; water supply; container loading facility for concentrate (goes in
> smallish containers by road to a rail siding)
>
> I've got a major shortage of tags and
2011/2/5 Eugene Alvin Villar :
> I think this is OK. Below admin_level=4, there are no coterminous capitals.
you should be aware that admin_level=3;4 will not be evaluated by most
of our applications, that's why the semicolon should be avoided if
possible (IMHO).
I think that capital=6 (it is in
2011/2/5 "Petr Morávek [Xificurk]" :
> Personally, I think of capital=* as a quick and dirty way to mark the
> capitals mainly of countries (and states). -)
I agree with the quick and dirty hack part, but I don't see why this
should be limited to national capitals. I am using these tags in Italy
2011/2/6 Pieren :
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 6:02 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> I agree with the quick and dirty hack part,
>>
>
> Yes, you are enforcing a tag just because it's working with osm2pgsql where
> the better "admin_centre" role in the r
I invite everybody to participate in a discussion about refining the
place values. IMHO they are currently not sufficient even for basic
use (e.g. mapnik proves this by using external data for cities on low
zooms). I modified the page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/new_place_
2011/2/11 y...@o2.pl :
> Hi, I want to ask about two types of barrier:
>
> 1. noise barrier
> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ekran-Akustyczny.jpg) - kind
> of wall near road, mostly motorway/trunk, sometimes transparent
>
> 2. crash barrier
> (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CrashBa
2011/2/11 Nathan Edgars II :
> I think a guard rail is one specific type of crash barrier. barrier=crash
> might be better.
most barriers are mapped quite specifically, if you have other types
of crash barriers (wall for instance) I'd use another specific tag for
this. guard_rails are a very comm
2011/2/13 Nathan Edgars II :
> According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mountain_pass "passes
> only make sense on ways". But it's possible to have a pass with no way
> crossing it (not even an informal footpath) or with multiple ways crossing
> (a dual carriageway, or parallel highway a
2011/2/14 Nathan Edgars II :
> http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=36.76925,-82.20018&z=16&t=T If this isn't
> mountain_pass=yes, what should it be mapped as?
IMHO natural=pass would be the most logical way to do it. Natural
describes in it's vast majority geographical features as which I would
see a pas
2011/2/14 Steve Bennett :
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Ulf Lamping
> wrote:
>> That was the start of the discussion in 2007, but was changed due to the
>> changes (around the same time) of highway=tunnel / highway=bridge to
>> tunnel=yes / bridge=yes - so using the same logic for passes see
2011/2/14 Tom Chance :
> Hello,
>
> Please read and comment on my draft proposal to improve our tagging of
> vegetarian and vegan food:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Vegetarian
>
> I want to use something more sophisticated than "cuisine=vegetarian" for
> restaurants, caf
2011/2/14 Ulf Lamping :
> Because I would like to see the elevation in the label - at least in higher
> zoomlevels.
> Basically the same behaviour as natural=peak would be my favourite.
+1
> If we have a specific tag for a specific feature we shouldn't add more
> generic stuff to it IMHO. Makes
I know that this has been discussed various times, but as there was no
outcome besides generic ideas (number of flights, international
flights, number, length and surface of the runway and other intense
preprocessing or external (=currently not available) detail requiring
stuff) I raise again the q
2011/2/16 Nathan Edgars II :
>> -1,
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer
our wiki is becoming something like the bible: you can find a page for
every opinion ;-)
I don't have a big problem with layer=0 being considered "ground
level", but bef
2011/2/16 Steve Bennett :
>
> Numbers.
I proposed "rank" for places and it could be used for other stuff as
well (I actually already mentioned airports and rivers in the
proposal). The scale I proposed sets 0 as most prominent and could
initially augment in steps of 10 (so 10 would be next, then
2011/2/16 Simone Saviolo :
> Also, if a relation was defined that groups all the ways for that highway,
> you could select all the members of the relation - even beetter, you could
> move common tags (possibly name, ref, even highway) to the relation itself.
generally it is considered not to move
2011/2/17 David Murn :
> For example, a seaplane landing area or a hospital with a helipad could
> have an aerodrome area around it, since aircraft dont use it as a base,
> but can use it as a place to leave/enter the air.
well, "ordinary" airplanes can't, that's why there is aeroway=helipad.
For
2011/2/17 Simone Saviolo :
> 2011/2/17 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
>> > A slight OT: is there some agreed decision on how to solve conflicts in
>> > tags between a relation and its elements?
>>
>> Yes, correct the wrong one with local knowledge ;-).
>
> Ja, denn di
2011/2/18 David Murn :
> Because the use of (min_)levels,height is in use by 3D renderers and
IMHO this min_level-part of the advanced building proposal is not
working (is using wrong semantics), at least for the illustration you
can find in the wiki. building_levels should be the amount of build
2011/2/18 Peter Wendorff :
Hi Peter,
thank you for this explanatory words.
> Is not working and "is using wrong semantics" is not the same.
It is IMHO not consistent with current tagging (that's why I said it
is not working), because building:levels was there long before
min_level. Building le
2011/2/18 Peter Wendorff :
>> In my opinion, the better choice would be to invent a new tag for
>> building parts, and map the entire building's outline as building=yes in
>> addition to the individual parts.
+0.8
I would also like to see building parts, but I think that another
option instead of
2011/2/19 Paul Johnson :
> On 02/15/2011 07:02 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> Have a look here:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.16&lon=-88.536&zoom=10&layers=M
>> could you tell which are the more important ones? Not at first glance I
&g
2011/2/24 McGuire, Matthew :
> More could be done with metro areas. For example, OSM Mapnik renders the
> Saint Paul label at a 'higher' level than Minneapolis. Is there some way to
> identify Minneapolis as the largest city of the metro area
do you mean large by population or large by extensio
2011/2/24 Zhijie Shen :
> I'm student who is currently working on using OpenStreetMap to facilitate
> our project. Now I want to retrieve Wikipedia entry from OpenStreetMap to
> fertilize the data source for our project. To do this, I crawled OSM data,
> and found there are few wikipedia tags in my
2011/2/25 Zhijie Shen :
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:16 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> display them as an overlay. We cannot (AFAIK) import those coordinates
>> into OSM because we believe that they were mainly created from
>> Googlemaps hence constitute a derived data
2011/2/25 Tyler Gunn :
> Example One:
> - "place=suburb" node central to neighborhood:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1168219909
is the approximative way to place a label and is rendered by mapnik
> - Boundary relation with the the "place" node marked as a label:
> http://www.ope
2011/2/26 Josh Doe :
> I'm not proposing to create a new tag that becomes standard. If I have
> to I'll just use my_namespace=pipestem, but I'd rather use something
> that could possibly be reused by someone else.
if it becomes reused by someone else (which would be good IMHO) it is
kind of "stan
2011/2/26 Zhijie Shen :
> If you can remember, I've exchange emails with you to discuss the wiki tag
> of OpenStreetMap two days ago. Now I have my quick solution, a Wikipedia
> entry crawler, to get more Wikipedia entries automatically.
This sounds very interesting. Maybe we could (instead of re
2011/2/26 Elizabeth Dodd :
> I'm not sure why you need to differentiate between this and a driveway,
> but I think the driveway is mistagged if marked highway=service.
It is quite common to do so (currently there are 171710 ways tagged
with service=driveway, which is a quarter of all values for t
2011/2/27 Josh Doe :
> Again, I'm fine with not creating another tag (like
> driveway=pipestem), but the next best thing I can think of is to do
> something like "operator=123-129 Suburb Street" (as that's what's
> shown on signs, ugly for parsing), or perhaps I could create a
> "pipestem" relation
2011/2/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer :
> tag driveway=pipeway.
sorry, of course this should read "pipestem" ;-)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
2011/3/1 Richard Mann :
> 24000 uses so far, so I guess it's time to put it to a vote:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation
The RFC is from 2009, IMHO there is an established alternative for this:
foot=designated
bicycle=designated
horse=designated
You count 24000
2011/3/1 Alex Mauer :
> For better or worse, in Germany it looks like they’re one and the same
> thing: a route’s official classification is basically “officially designated
> for [xxx] traffic”. There’s nothing like the UK’s “Restricted Byway”
> classification.
There is tracks for instance, wh
2011/3/1 Richard Mann :
> You'all are welcome to:
>
> 1) Make another proposal
> 2) Vote yes or no to the proposal as it stands
>
> It's not appropriate to fine-tune the proposal during the voting stage
> - you either approve or oppose it as it stands.
Comments were requested 2009-06-10. It took
2011/3/2 Markus Lindholm :
> My proposal is simply to use an other key, and once a better name for
> the key is agreed upon to change the existing tags to use the new key
it might also help to use namespaces for the values, like
"uk:public_bridleway"
instead of "public_bridleway"
cheers,
Martin
2011/3/2 Richard Fairhurst :
> M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> it might also help to use namespaces for the values, like
>> "uk:public_bridleway"
>> instead of "public_bridleway"
>
> So I presume you're planning to do that for other tags whos
2011/3/4 Andreas Perstinger :
> Hi,
>
> I live near an underground natural gas field and thus there are also some
> gas wells scattered around in the fields. In the Wiki I've found
> man_made=petroleum_well but there is no further description of it :-(.
>
> Should gas wells be included in this tag
2011/3/4 Andreas Perstinger :
> So I should propose a new tag man_made=gas_well?
First I'd have a look at this, maybe it serves your needs?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pumping_rig
Otherwise I'd wait a day or two if someone pops up who has already
used a tag for this, hav
2011/3/9 Steve Bennett :
> illegal=squatted_property -> landuse=residential, owner=squatters
squatters are rarely the owner.
> illegal=graveyard -> landuse=graveyard, informal=yes
+1
> illegal=barrier -> barrier=fence, informal=yes
no, this is IMHO not an informal barrier, but an illegal on
2011/3/10 Steve Bennett :
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:44 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>>> illegal=barrier -> barrier=fence, informal=yes
>>
>> no, this is IMHO not an informal barrier, but an illegal one.
>
> I don't really get what an "illegal b
2011/3/10 Steve Bennett :
> Thanks. Maybe a word like "disputed" could be used? I'm very wary of
> "illegal" because it's very black and white, and it could be quite
> hard to verify the exact legal status. The locals might insist it's
> legitimate.
>
> Perhaps an even more indirect way could be "o
2011/3/11 Nathan Edgars II :
> If you have a highway=cycleway railway=abandoned, what does the start_date
> tag refer to?
> *start of rail operations?
> *abandonment of the railway?
> *opening of the cycleway?
IMHO the last one:
*opening of the cycleway
cheers,
Martin
___
2011/3/13 Paul Norman :
> While looking into some issues around a bad import, I ran across
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenSeaMap/Lights_Data_Model but was
> unable to find a page with voting or discussion. Although the tag voting
> process has many flaws, this doesn’t say it was added bec
The point of having a separate way is to indicate that it is not
possible to cross from one to the other (if you see the sidewalk like
a lane), if you take the kerb as an barrier, mapping them separate
might have a certain sense (although a kerb is not a serious obstacle
for the biggest user group
2011/3/17 :
> You also have the fact that it may be physically possible to cross from a
> sidewalk on one side of the street to the other, due to a lack of barriers,
> and yet be inadvisable to do so at certain points (in the middle of a blind
> curve, for instance, or on a road that has heavy
2011/3/18 Flaimo :
> since i wasn't the only one wondering on how to map individual parking
> spaces, i took the chance to write my first proposal. it's ready for
> comments and can be found here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking
While I agree that mapping singular p
2011/3/18 :
> What I was visualizing was not so much real-time traffic mapping, but rather
> that certain roads are almost guaranteed to be uncrossable on foot at certain
> times of day, such as at rush hour. If you are trying to cross them at times
> when the traffic is light, it is possible
2011/3/18 Flaimo :
> i think you misread the proposal. you don't tag any capacity tags on a
> single parking space. and all common properties can also be defined in
> the relation,
IMHO no need for a relation, as the amenity=parking around it already
gives you this information. You would "need" t
2011/3/18 Flaimo :
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 13:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>> 2011/3/18 Flaimo :
> i don't agree with that, because only the physical areas where, for
> example a car, can park is a parking space/area, but not for example
> the street itself.
Yes
2011/3/18 Flaimo :
> ok, i see what you mean now. use amenity=parking for the whole
> facility, and the new tags for defining the elements inside.
+1
> that only
> works without a relation as long as you only have one logical parking
> lot that's not split up in different areas. but parking lot
2011/3/18 Flaimo :
> just relying on a surrounding amenity=parking area without a relation
> also has another flaw: underground parking. basically nobody maps
> underground parking facilities as areas with layer=-1. all of those i
> have seen so far in OSM are mapped as nodes at the entrances. and
2011/3/19 geowas :
> What is the best/recommended/suitable way to map border watch towers (used
> by border police/soldiers)
you could use man_made=tower and look for a suitable tower:type. There
is observation
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tower:type=observation but the
definition says
2011/3/21 Serge Wroclawski :
> As per the discussion last week about Sidewalks, I'm re-opening the
> sidewalk proposal as per:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk
basically your are suggesting cycleway=track for sidewalks. This works
up to some extend, but is not sui
2011/3/21 Peter Wendorff :
> He said, they prefer the sidewalk:left|right:*-tagging scheme at the
> street's ways.
> When I asked how they would like to model crossings - like I asked here, too
> - he did not have an answer.
yes, and even if you mapped them perfectly jsut using parameters: as
lon
sorry for joining late into this discussion.
By looking again at the proposal I think that besides the re-naming of
protect_id to protect_class we could also think about other issues.
If you look at 97 and 98: "protected by continental agreements. They
often cover sites already protected by natio
2011/3/21 David Paleino :
> To tag a sidewalk:
> highway=footway
> footway=sidewalk
>
>> I disagree. As mentioned in the Sidewalk tag, we already have
>> highway=footway, which is what David's proposal would largely change,
>
> Change? My proposal would not change footway's meaning, since, to defin
2011/3/21 David Paleino :
>> I agree with Serge: you would change the meaning of highway=footway
>> (because to interpret it right after your amendment, you would have to
>> look at the footway-key as well).
>
> Why?
> Sidewalks are just a particular case of highway=footway. A router that doesn't
2011/3/21 David Paleino :
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> 2011/3/21 David Paleino :
>>
>> >> I agree with Serge: you would change the meaning of highway=footway
>> >> (because to interpret it right after your amen
801 - 900 of 969 matches
Mail list logo
