Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk

2011/3/22 Phil! Gold : > I would not support this proposal to the *exclusion* of mapping separate > ways.  Rather, I would support this proposal as the simplest way to add > sidewalk data with the understanding that if a mapper wishes to add > further detail to the sidewalks that they do it via the

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk

2011/3/21 David Paleino : > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 16:04:38 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote: >> [..] and I feel David wants something else entirely and >> is suffering from a bit of NIH syndrome, [..] > While I thought at the proposal entirely (almost, credits also go to #osm-it > folks) on my own, I se

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk

2011/3/22 Josh Doe : > Martin, > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:32 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> 2011/3/21 David Paleino : >>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:12:55 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>>> 2011/3/21 David Paleino : >>>> To not be misunderst

Re: [Tagging] propose/help to rename a key / about protected areas schemes

2011/3/22 crom : >> ... how would you deal with several protection "operators" / institutions > Because OSM (still) can´t use two keys for one object, I think, there are > two options?, I know > * values separated by semicolon and don't like this one, because it gets complicated if you have sever

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk

2011/3/22 Josh Doe : > Ah, I think I understand all the confusion now, as we have different > models entirely. In my (and I'm guessing David's) view of things, > sidewalks are NOT just another lane, but indeed a separate way. > Perhaps even our definitions of sidewalks are different. I think you >

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk

2011/3/22 Peter Wendorff : >> ...it is a tag that you use >> only on independent ways. The sidewalk is already comprised in the >> main road according to our data model, > > Where is this data model? I would say: nobody thought about sidewalks at > creating the data model - it's not defined. > If y

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk

2011/3/22 Peter Wendorff : > Am 22.03.2011 19:59, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: >> >> 2011/3/22 Peter Wendorff: >>>> >>>> ...it is a tag that you use >>>> only on independent ways. The sidewalk is already comprised in the >>>> main roa

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways

2011/3/25 Richard Fairhurst : > David Paleino wrote: > Potlatch 2 _already_ has excellent relation support. > However: >> My proposal doesn't use anything special to be implemented in editors. > That's not the point. Well, somehow it is. He has suggested to use the associatedStreet -type of relat

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways

2011/3/25 Josh Doe : > I agree, it is confusing. I've used the separate way method quite > extensively in a suburban (subdivision) area. Perhaps I could create > some illustrations, though since I'm not much of an artist it will > probably be just screenshots. In the meantime you can see my area >

Re: [Tagging] Nuclear Key

2011/3/27 Pierre-Alain Dorange : > Following recent international events, i start study nuclear site on > OSM. > > Nuclear power plant seems presents and use >       power=generator >        power_source=nuclear >        power_rating=2000 MW > but according to wiki, this was obsolete and needs : >

Re: [Tagging] Nuclear Key

2011/3/27 Gleb Smirnoff : > On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 12:01:28PM +0100, Andrew Ainsworth wrote: > A> Listing the type of reactor (PWR for example) seems like a reasonable idea > A> but we shouldn't get into tagging safety features such as core catcher. > A> There is a virtually endless list of safety

Re: [Tagging] Nuclear Key

2011/3/28 Anthony : > On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 11:04 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> 2011/3/27 Gleb Smirnoff : >>> We are making map, not encyclopedia. >> >> no, we are creating a geo database. > > Someone needs to update the site's name and its int

Re: [Tagging] Nuclear Key

2011/3/28 Anthony : >>> Someone needs to update the site's name and its introductory material >>> (e.g. "OpenStreetMap is a free editable map of the whole world") >> >> >> maybe "someone" already did, I read in the front page, first sentence: >> "Welcome to OpenStreetMap >> OpenStreetMap creates an

Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no

2011/3/29 Peter Gervai : > shouldn't care about specific parts of it, unless they're separate > objects (which I guess never being the case, at least I've never > observed a crop created by a dozen polygons describing corn, wheat and > marijuana separately :-)). In fact they should. I mean not ne

[Tagging] new Draft on detailed bike shops

Federico Cozzi has made a draft for detailed bicycle shop mapping. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop:bicycle Please comment in the propopal's talk page. I am announcing here because he is not signed up to tagging. cheers, Martin _

Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no

2011/3/29 Richard Welty : > On 3/29/11 8:09 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> 2 >> In fact they should. I mean not necessarily for different plants, but >> for different adjacent crops. Mapping single crops is enhancing the >> map with detail about the topological layout

Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no

2011/3/29 Richard Welty : > On 3/29/11 12:35 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > in the US, it's a distinct possibility that a farmer in Iowa might buy > a 200 acre field and plant it 1/2 corn, 1/2 soybeans and rotate > which half is which from year to year. so do you want to map

Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no

2011/3/30 Nathan Edgars II : > On 3/30/2011 9:20 AM, Pieren wrote: >> Perhaps on this particular proposal, we have some cultural >> misunderstanding . In many countries, you have illegal buildings, >> illegal garbage dumps, illegal access restrictions, etc. Even when they >> are convicted by court,

Re: [Tagging] Nuclear Key

2011/4/1 Ulf Lamping : > Am 27.03.2011 12:24, schrieb Pierre-Alain Dorange: >> >> Following recent international events, i start study nuclear site on >> OSM. >> >> Nuclear power plant seems presents and use >>        power=generator >>         power_source=nuclear >>         power_rating=2000 MW >

Re: [Tagging] Any support for a flow tag?

2011/3/31 Lennard > If the direction of the way is drawn in the same flow of the water, it > >> should always be drawn with an arrow. >> > > What if it's drawn the other way? > > mapping error. What if a coastline is drawn the other way? Rendering the flow of waterways in mapnik would help to fi

Re: [Tagging] Any support for a flow tag?

2011/4/1 Nathan Edgars II > On 4/1/2011 9:53 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> flow of waterways in mapnik would help to fix those errors, because more >> people would become aware. >> mapping error. What if a coastline is drawn the other way? Rendering the >&g

Re: [Tagging] Any support for a flow tag?

2011/4/1 Nathan Edgars II > On 4/1/2011 10:38 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> Yes of course. I set FIXME=please check flow direction if I am unsure >> (usually you can deduct the flow direction but there is rare cases where >> it is not possible). >> > Wi

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

2011/4/1 Ilya Zverev > what natural=water on an area means. Is this area a lake, a pond? We have > no means to determine that now. > > could you expand what a "pond" is? I get several translations for this, ranging from natural to artificial bodies of water. How do you suggest would a large foun

Re: [Tagging] Any support for a flow tag?

2011/4/1 Nathan Edgars II > On 4/1/2011 11:24 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> like an overfall). >> if I get this right (sounds >> > > No, it's the same canal, with water flowing the other direction. This is > the S-58 structure: http://www.open

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

2011/4/1 Ilya Zverev > > On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 17:35:37 +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > >> what natural=water on an area means. Is this area a lake, a pond? We > have > >> no means to determine that now. > > > > could you expand what a &

Re: [Tagging] Any support for a flow tag?

2011/4/1 > One example of a waterway with reversing flow would be the estuary of a > river. While the tide is rising, the flow in the estuary may slow, come to > a standstill, or even temporarily reverse directions (called a tidal bore). > > Yes, but they are not covered by current proposed wat

Re: [Tagging] RFC: Directional Flow

2011/4/2 Erik Johansson > There are lots of tags that are direction dependant: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Way_Direction_Dependent > > It does seem like josm handles many of those in a good way, not all by > far though. > > there is also highway=steps which I personally like to

Re: [Tagging] landuse: illegal and illegal:yes/no

2011/4/2 Dave F. > Tracktype is verifiable against a visual scale: > http://wiki.openstreetmcan't > givap.org/wiki/Tracktype > > but as it depends much on the climate and surface material / vegatation / ground it still has to be "adopted" to the loc

Re: [Tagging] RFC: Directional Flow

2011/4/3 Nathan Edgars II > > There you can use incline=* to be explicit. > > > Yes, I know, but when I started mapping back in 2/2008 there was no incline proposal, and later I found it sufficient to keep the implicit information. Nobody used to draw plans would draw steps downwards. It is out o

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Announcement: "Add-tags" a tool to connect OpenStreetMap & Wikipedia

2011/4/9 Kolossos : > Hello, > there is a new tool to bring more Wikipedia-Tags inside OSM-database and > connect so both projects more and more. It can be found here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/RemoteControl/Add-tags Tim, this is great news! Hopefully this additions will b

Re: [Tagging] etymology of street names

2011/4/8 Simone Saviolo : > Good idea, but not with "etymology" as the name. This is not the etymology; > that would be the philological origins of the word. +1 > Here we are talking > about a description of the person the place is named after, and especially > the reason why he deserved the ho

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux)

2011/4/10 Flaimo : > since there haven't been any new comments over the last couple of days > i would like to start the voting for the proposal next weekend. here's > the link again in case you haven't read it yet: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking I am not sure if it

Re: [Tagging] types of surveillance cameras

2011/4/11 Martijn van Exel : Maybe it could also be interesting to describe where the camera is mounted (pole / wall / etc.). Recently I found this strange camera in Heidelberg on top of the roof of the church mounted _up_wards (I guess it could be a webcam / weathercam for tourists or sth. simil

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux)

2011/4/11 Flaimo : > On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 01:15, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> I am not sure if it is a good idea to put all these new tags into the >> amenity namespace. Amenities are "general" features (e.g. mapnik tries >> to render all of them) and th

[Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses

Recently I found this sign which I interpret as "access forbidden to touristic busses": http://www.23hq.com/dieterdreist/photo/6610385 It is at a driveway to the local cemetery, near a very popular monument (unesco world heritage). Do we have to invent another access tag, or is there already some

Re: [Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses

2011/4/12 John Smith : >> My first idea was "tourist_bus=no" > > Why not use access:*=* ? Usually we tag foot=no instead of access:foot=no, and I don't see why I should change this standard here. My question was: which key is used for "tourist busses". I couldn't find them on the access-page: h

Re: [Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses

2011/4/12 John Smith : >>> Why not use access:*=* ? >> >> >> Usually we tag foot=no instead of access:foot=no, and I don't see why >> I should change this standard here. > > There is a lot of access:*=* for vehicles, so you would be going against > things. Where? I can't find them: http://taginf

Re: [Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses

2011/4/12 John Smith : > On 12 April 2011 20:36, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> Where? I can't find them: > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dbdouble Wikipage modified 13 times, in the database 0 (zero) occurrences ;-) http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de:800

Re: [Tagging] access forbidden for tourist busses

2011/4/13 David Murn : >> Usually we tag foot=no instead of access:foot=no, and I don't see why >> I should change this standard here. > > To be fair, using that schema, we also tag ski, horse, vehicle, > bicycle, motorcycle, moped, motorcar, goods, hgv, psv, bus, taxi > snowmobile, emergency, hazm

Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided

2011/4/13 Paul Johnson : > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4CneWT4ymM nice vid, looks as if the infrastructure planners were focusing on cars and not on bikes ;-) > (also, this video of the bridge crossing makes me wonder...how do you > tag two bike lanes in the same direction? lanes=2, onewa

Re: [Tagging] Tags for neighborhoods / subdivisions

2011/4/14 SomeoneElse : > "neighbourhood" sounds pretty similar to "locality" - a couple of examples > on the place=locality page could count (e.g. Seacroft in Leeds, if it's > considered too small to be a suburb). > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Locality > > Whoever wrote "does not have any

Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided

2011/4/14 Paul Johnson : >> lanes=2, oneway=yes >> it's the same as for cars. Otherwise it would be lanes=2, oneway=no > > Is lanes=* overall number of lanes (in which the example where there's > two bicycle lanes would be a total of four lanes) or is it lanes open to > all traffic (which would be

[Tagging] steel worker and smaller concrete structures on site

Hi, some questions from a non-native (to the British, US, AU and other natives): 1. What is a steel worker? Is it someone who works in a steel mill http://growthexpertblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/SteelWorkerGentex_l1.jpg or is it someone who builds structural steel work (aka the men (and

Re: [Tagging] steel worker and smaller concrete structures on site

2011/4/15 Josh Doe : > I feel so confused... of course you aren't talking about mapping people ?? Let's say I am tagging people offering services. I am less interested in the man working in the steel mill, I am interested in the word for constructing supporting/structural steel buildings. ch

Re: [Tagging] steel worker and smaller concrete structures on site

2011/4/15 Brad Neuhauser : > I think Josh's joke does get to a serious answer to your question: I don't > think you should use the word that describes the worker, but the word that > describes the work.  However, I see that in the craft=* space (is this where > you're heading with this Martin?) mos

Re: [Tagging] steel worker and smaller concrete structures on site

2011/4/15 Peter Wendorff : > On the other hand we in Germany - probably in the German speaking countries > in general (but I'm not sure) do not consequently distinguish between making > cuffins and making furniture - although there are words for either historic > meaning - Tischler (where Tisch is

Re: [Tagging] steel worker and smaller concrete structures on site

2011/4/15 Brad Neuhauser : >  In searching, I also came across the term "ironworker" which applies to > larger buildings, bridges, etc. thank you, this is the term I was looking for. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org ht

Re: [Tagging] steel worker and smaller concrete structures on site

2011/4/16 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : > 2011/4/15 Brad Neuhauser : >>  In searching, I also came across the term "ironworker" which applies to >> larger buildings, bridges, etc. ironworkers can (wikipedia, please correct me if I got it wrong) be divided into the follow

[Tagging] RFC key shop:bicycle

I am announcing an RFC on behalf of Federico Cozzi for the key shop:bicycle: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop:bicycle cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tag

Re: [Tagging] Nuclear Key

2011/4/17 Andreas Hubel : > the plant site is a way with >        • barrier: fence >        • name: Kernkraftwerk Gundremmingen >        • power: generator >        • power_source: nuclear > Additional there would be a ton of additional options by using relations ;-) I suggest not to mix linear a

Re: [Tagging] Nuclear Key

2011/4/17 Pierre-Alain Dorange : > I thougth tagging each reactor has "power=generator" is a mistake. The > site must be tagged 'power=generator' and perhaps can we have another > tag dedicated to indivudual reactor. OK, I see this would be consistent. >> C) remove all power tags from the way,

Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*

2011/4/16 crom : > Hi Ilya, > very nice! > About the keys: funny is reflecting pool: instead "reflecting pool" I would > suggest something like "land_art", because "water" is used primary as an > architectural- or design feature and - the reflection is not always and for > everyone obvious? -1 re

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - parking (redux)

2011/4/17 Flaimo : > since no new input came in over the last week after my second RFC > mail, i started the voting phase for > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking OK, this looks almost nice now ;-) Stil some definitions could be cleaner: 1. Why do you not want all entr

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - parking (redux)

2011/4/18 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : > 2. Relation to amenity=parking > I think this is not hitting the point. You still are implying that > parkings should better be mapped with this proposal in case hires > photos are available, you are still reinventing the wheel for parkings > r

Re: [Tagging] difference between cycletrack and cycleway

2011/4/18 Andre Engels : > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Sander Deryckere wrote: > >> The problem with this tagging method is that the tag "highway=cycleway" is >> now used for two completely different features. A cycle track next to a road >> is something completely different from a cycleway w

Re: [Tagging] difference between cycletrack and cycleway

2011/4/18 Sander Deryckere : to complete the picture: you can also use highway=path bicycle=designated (some are even using official) instead of highway=cycleway. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstre

Re: [Tagging] difference between cycletrack and cycleway

2011/4/18 Nathan Edgars II : > On 4/18/2011 10:25 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> It has different implications in some jurisdictions. E.g. in Germany >> or Italy you have to use a cycleway if it goes along a road, you can't >> use the road by bike any more, un

Re: [Tagging] difference between cycletrack and cycleway

2011/4/18 Nathan Edgars II : > On 4/18/2011 1:22 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> 2011/4/18 Nathan Edgars II: >>> In that case, where one legally has to use the sidepath, the main roadway >>> should be tagged bicycle=no or bicycle=local. >> >> no. >&g

Re: [Tagging] difference between cycletrack and cycleway

2011/4/18 Ben Laenen : > A router should detect the highway=cycleway parallel to the road and make use > of it (probably easier said than done). Yes, I guess this is impossible. You might be able to get a good guess, but you would need a 3D highly detailed map to be sure in all cases (could be se

Re: [Tagging] difference between cycletrack and cycleway

2011/4/19 Paul Johnson : >> It has different implications in some jurisdictions. E.g. in Germany >> or Italy you have to use a cycleway if it goes along a road, you can't >> use the road by bike any more, unless the cycleway is blocked, or for >> other reasons in unusable conditions or goes to wher

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - daycare

2011/4/21 Flaimo : > created a proposal for amenity=daycare: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/daycare I agree that this is a feature we want to have, but I don't think there should be rendering suggestions in the feature description, and I can't agree that this belongs to

Re: [Tagging] Transportation center that serves both buses and trains?

2011/4/22 Nathan Edgars II : > Using both railway=station and amenity=bus_station gives two labels in > Mapnik. I reported this as a bug but apparently it's not fixable: > http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3478 What should be done? are the busses using the rails and the trains the streets? Oth

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - RFC - automated tasks

2011/4/24 Flaimo : > i have started a proposal for simple automated tasks. i will leave it > in the RFC state until someone, who knows how to create a bot, can > provide a prototype for a small imited bbox, so we can see if this one > is actually doable (performance and security wise). > > http://w

Re: [Tagging] convention for multiple maxspeed values

2011/4/25 David Murn : > The signs I saw applied to > trucks and buses though, more than just hgv/goods.  As Tobias said, your > suggestion is suitable, Id add the suggestion of maxspeed:bus also. "bus" in OSM is defined as a bus performing public transport service [1]. I recently added "tourist_

Re: [Tagging] branch=* tag to specify the particular branch of a chain of stores/amenities

2011/4/27 Nathan Edgars II : > On 4/27/2011 1:27 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> What do guys think of using branch=* to specify the particular branch >> or outlet of a chain of stores/amenities? > > I think the standard is brand=*. yes, this is also used for gas stations. che

Re: [Tagging] What to map a site of historical significants...

2011/4/28 David Murn : > That doesnt detract from the original question, of what to map a site of > historic significance. historic=event and event=? or historic:event=yes/ ? the ever useful, never descriptive tourism=attraction could also be used. cheers, Martin __

Re: [Tagging] branch=* tag to specify the particular branch of a chain of stores/amenities

2011/4/28 David Murn : > On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 07:34 +0800, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: >> According to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:brand >> >>     "The brand=* is a larger entity that a place advertises itself as part >> of" >> >> Which means that you put "Burger King" or "Barclay's" or

Re: [Tagging] What to map a site of historical significants...

2011/4/28 Simone Saviolo : > phase maps. For example, I've mapped memorial sites related to battles of > the Italian Risorgimento, but not the place where the battles themselves > took place. Also, I've mapped many plates dedicated to kings, soldiers and > patriots, because they're things that are

Re: [Tagging] parking spaces limited to cars (no busses, trucks, etc.)

2011/4/29 Stefan Bethke : > It appears that people have been using "car" as a key for this purpose.   > Should I use that, and add an appropriate entry below motorcar=*? -1 IMHO motorcar should be defined as automobile/car, and not be used as a generic term including busses, hgv, goods and other.

<    5   6   7   8   9   10