Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 12:03 Uhr schrieb martianfreeloader < martianfreeloa...@posteo.net>: > So then what's the point of approving tags anyways? there is not much sense in the act of "approving", the meaningful part has happened before, the main benefit lies in the process, improving the po

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Historic

Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 16:19 Uhr schrieb Marc_marc : > On 12/10/2022 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > >> we do not need the historic key to be “approved”, > > you don't need please do not speak for others, it was a way if saying; "the history key canno

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 17:46 Uhr schrieb Evan Carroll : > Landuse has nothing to do with local authorities or zoning. +1 However, as-is unnamed > developed landuse is a function of the buildings inside. > not necessarily, it is about the whole land that has the tag, it could also be land

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 16:25 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel : > Part of the issue is that landuse should more or less follow property > lines, unless there is some reason why not. I would generally agree with this > a several-acre parcel with > a house and some trees is still landuse=residentia

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 17:43 Uhr schrieb Evan Carroll : > Some neighborhoods have signs with names, which is great > because you can add value with the name. use place=neighbourhood for these names if they are referring to something bigger than a contiguos property. When you add names to lan

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

Am Mi., 12. Okt. 2022 um 20:00 Uhr schrieb Evan Carroll : > > This is all 100% new to me. Where is it documented that a "shop" in a > detached house should be mapped as a detached house, and not a shop? > please do not try to create confusion bvy shortening things. There are 2 entities to be ma

Re: [Tagging] RFC: Two new extensions for the wiki: Log in via openstreetmap.org and vote via a GUI

Am Do., 13. Okt. 2022 um 10:52 Uhr schrieb Martin Fischer : > Hi everybody, > > I wrote two small MediaWiki extensions for wiki.openstreetmap.org: one > to let you log in via your OSM account and one to provide an easy to use > in-wiki GUI for proposal voting. > > I also set up a small demo wiki s

Re: [Tagging] RFC: Two new extensions for the wiki: Log in via openstreetmap.org and vote via a GUI

Am Do., 13. Okt. 2022 um 11:55 Uhr schrieb Martin Fischer : > Sidenote: I am curious how many subscribers the mailing lists each have. > I'd expect tagging@ to have more subscribers than talk@ but that's just > a hunch. I see the potential users less amongst those who already participate here,

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

sent from a phone > On 13 Oct 2022, at 18:25, Davidoskky via Tagging > wrote: > > It is an old fountain, maybe 100/200 years old, but I don't see how that > could be defined as historic since it has no historic importance, it's just > an old fountain. > maybe I am using the word historic

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

sent from a phone > On 13 Oct 2022, at 18:35, Davidoskky wrote: > > It is currently tagged as natural=spring, which it clearly is not since it is > not a natural formation and it is way too low altitude to be a spring anyway. ask the mapper who put it, maybe they have more information. If y

Re: [Tagging] Lyft and nameless sectioning in OSM

sent from a phone > On 13 Oct 2022, at 21:50, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Field is landuse=farmland - also when zoned as industrial area or scheduled > for > residential construction. interestingly not. I never found this particularly logical, but this situation is landuse

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

Am Fr., 14. Okt. 2022 um 10:22 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > On 14/10/22 06:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It seems we are seeing different things, I can’t help if you cannot > > recognize that the fountain is

Re: [Tagging] RFC - More sensible values for fountain=*

Am Fr., 14. Okt. 2022 um 12:10 Uhr schrieb Davidoskky via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > This other fountain doesn't have such wall, thus it is not decorative > and it cannot be tagged as amenity=fountain (assuming we disregard the > recreational utility mentioned in the wiki). > > https:

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

sent from a phone > On 15 Oct 2022, at 10:08, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The flow of water is downwards making them difficult to drink from without an > aid e.g. a cup. while it may be true, you have to acknowledge that there are many places in the world that are providing dri

Re: [Tagging] dinosaurs

Am So., 16. Okt. 2022 um 17:33 Uhr schrieb Anne-Karoline Distel < annekadis...@web.de>: > I've come across a few dinosaur footprints, but that is not archaeology, > because archaeology is about man made structures. Is there a way to > implement a warning into the editors not to combine > "archaeol

Re: [Tagging] dinosaurs

sent from a phone > On 16 Oct 2022, at 18:05, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Do you have a feeling how many "archeologic" sites in OSM are in reality > palaeontological? I fear this is a frequent error, but difficult to spot. It doesn’t seem a huge problem, but even if this was widespread my st

Re: [Tagging] dinosaurs

Am Mo., 17. Okt. 2022 um 10:09 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Oct 16, 2022, 17:30 by annekadis...@web.de:Is there a way to > > implement a warning into the editors not to combine > "archaeological_site" with dinosaurs? I will replace the few I found > wit

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

sent from a phone > On 17 Oct 2022, at 20:30, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > > Not in reply to this specific email, but I've done a bit of tidying > amonst keys and values the last three days, and I've documented some of > my findings which might give food for thought: > > https://www.openstr

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

today I noticed some minor historic ruins and wonder whether you would consider this an archaeological site? https://twitter.com/dieterdreist/status/1582130246769610753?s=46&t=pMmPcybaZu9zOoWBrbE_Eg Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstr

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of community mailboxes (cluster maiboxes)

sent from a phone > On 22 Oct 2022, at 14:16, Marc_marc wrote: > > it's also a real amenity=post_box ? as a tourist, I can find this box > on the postal operator's website and put my letter there? > or is it just a habit that people also put the outbound there ? if it works reliably, it co

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site

sent from a phone > On 22 Oct 2022, at 12:47, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > > Following the rejection of the crannog proposal with the concern about > the hierarchy above the proposed tag, I now propose to change the key > from site_type to archaeological_type such a retagging would be a wa

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of community mailboxes (cluster maiboxes)

sent from a phone > On 23 Oct 2022, at 02:03, wolfy1339 via Tagging > wrote: > > Here's a picture for reference, > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/CanadaPostCommunityMailboxes15.jpg for this kind, informal=yes should not be added, obviously This looks pretty official

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site

sent from a phone > On 23 Oct 2022, at 22:15, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > personally it seems to me that it has chance of being a good idea which one, deprecating site_type or ignoring the „rejection“ of the voting? Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

sent from a phone > On 26 Oct 2022, at 21:29, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Drinking fountains are switch or knob operated and shoot at an angle. these are assumptions based on your experiences that don’t hold true around here, most drinking fountains have continuous flow. By the way, I started to

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

sent from a phone > On 27 Oct 2022, at 08:33, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Water is usually scarce in Australia, all blubbers/drinking_fountains are > controlled. sure, I did understand this, that’s why we should not generalize, the situation is different in different places. The

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

sent from a phone > On 27 Oct 2022, at 18:50, Matija Nalis > wrote: > > instead of ad-hoc inventing > new undocumented key without discussion... there was a discussion about this, tap was seen as a distinguishing property that is yet missing. Handle is similar but not the same (handle is

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

sent from a phone > On 28 Oct 2022, at 09:58, Davidoskky via Tagging > wrote: > Actuator definitely provides more information and implicitly defines tap=yes. actuator was not proposed so far, handle was, and while it is documented, it doesn’t seem particularly helpful looking at the provide

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

sent from a phone > On 28 Oct 2022, at 09:58, Davidoskky via Tagging > wrote: > > While I could be interested in whether the flow of a fountain might be > stopped or not, I'm not really interested in how I'd have to do that: I can > just go to the fountain and observe what I find. I could

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

sent from a phone > On 28 Oct 2022, at 10:46, Davidoskky via Tagging > wrote: > I do not like the aggressiveness in this comment of yours; I am sorry I wrote it like this, and agree it was not nice. Please accept my apologies. Cheers Martin __

Re: [Tagging] Apparently bubblers emitting jet of water on buton press are water taps

sent from a phone > On 29 Oct 2022, at 00:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Is the water in your "drinking fountains" chilled, or is it just the natural > temperature of the water coming out? there are a few “machines” that distribute chilled and carbon dioxide enriched water for a few pen

[Tagging] escaping semicolons in tag values

Is there already a proposal and or established method for escaping semicolons in tag values? Like \; or ;;? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

sent from a phone > On 3 Nov 2022, at 14:39, Sarah Hoffmann via Tagging > wrote: > > Random example: historic=manor. About 77% of objects tagged with > historic=manor have a building=* tag, which makes perfect sense. A manor > is a building after all. So it looks like historic=manor is more

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

sent from a phone > On 4 Nov 2022, at 08:21, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Using a tag for things other than the common meaning of that word (or word > group) is simply confusing and should be avoided. I may be misguided, but from reading dictionaries it seems to me that the terms

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

sent from a phone > On 4 Nov 2022, at 13:17, Marc_marc wrote: > > our "sister" project (wikipedia) has no problem defining what is an anecdote > and what is "relevance from a historic viewpoint", > I don't see why we should have any issue doing it. Mappers are working fundamentally differen

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Healthcare 1.1

sent from a phone > On 6 Nov 2022, at 01:13, Robin Burek wrote: > > And what do you say to the result of 41 : 9 ? That is not a "consensus"? Then > why is healtcare also considered approved? Ah well, maybe because it is an > approved proposal and therefore the "consensus" for OSM. We can jus

Re: [Tagging] Proposal process [was: healthcare]

sent from a phone > On 6 Nov 2022, at 12:34, m...@marcos-martinez.net wrote: > > Regarding standardization: First of all, I hope we all work on the basis that > we want to improve things. Can you move a ton of sand with a spoon? thing is, we don’t have just a heap of sand, we have hundreds o

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Street vendors

sent from a phone > On 7 Nov 2022, at 20:57, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > If we really don't have one already, it might be worth looking at how to map > stalls in general as I cudl see a lot of similarities. I mapped some of them with shop tags, e.g. shop=butcher shop=greengrocer shop=flori

Re: [Tagging] Possible merge of marine_rescue & lifeboat_station tags?

sent from a phone > On 8 Nov 2022, at 08:17, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > Having tag name that clearly excludes freshwater water rescue and changing it > in description is highly confusing and I would prefer to avoid it if at all > possible. exactly, it does not work and wou

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Street vendors

sent from a phone > On 8 Nov 2022, at 08:15, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > I mapped some of similar shop=greengrocer (assigned space on tables) with > shop=greengrocer street_vendor=yes > > Outside their operating hours you will just see empty tables with roofs over > them s

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Street vendors

old style: https://www.scattidigusto.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Yaluz-chiosco-mercato-Garbatella-Roma.jpg even older but different structure (single building): http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-J5az9ofXSIQ/UVgQRJwwenI/wu8/vFdrpK5JwC0/s1600/roma-farmers-market-testaccio.jpg new style radical c

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - archaeological_site

sent from a phone > On 7 Nov 2022, at 12:21, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > deprecating site_type has chance of being a good idea I don’t think so, it is defacto one of the tags used to further specify historic=archaeological_site and moving away from it is on the same level as

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

sent from a phone > On 10 Nov 2022, at 12:31, Yves via Tagging wrote: > > Site relations are often used to models thing that aren't spatially joined, > like windfarms, universities... > I can easily imagine it's reasonable to use them for campings in some corner > cases where a single area

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

sent from a phone > On 10 Nov 2022, at 21:21, Sven Geggus wrote: > All the sites in the above changeset would need one or more additional > redundant tags like restaurant=yes on the main node or way if a site > relation is no longer an option. so a restaurant is part of the camp site, but is

Re: [Tagging] Relations of type=site + tourism=camp_site

sent from a phone > On 10 Nov 2022, at 21:24, Sven Geggus wrote: > > Which is just plain wrong as they are not _only_. you could have the sports centre and the camp site overlap, this way it wouldn’t be _only_ A site relation doesn’t magically solve the uncertainty of exclusive vs. shared

Re: [Tagging] amentiy=donation_centre?

maybe these can be seen as amenity=social_facility? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

sent from a phone > On 18 Nov 2022, at 22:35, Mike Thompson wrote: > > In a nearby city to where I live, the city owned utility provides > electricity, water, sewer, and internet. yes, it is also common in areas I know to have a single provider for water, sewer, waste disposal and even

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Power utility office

sent from a phone > On 18 Nov 2022, at 22:56, Mike Thompson wrote: > >> Energy and power are used quite interchangeably and power is the better word >> for it. >> > > What evidence do you have that is the case? What is being provided is > energy, not power. maybe we can agree they provi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

sent from a phone > On 20 Nov 2022, at 02:27, Matija Nalis > wrote: > > Because, someone has to do that summarizing work for extra channels to make > sense, and it is IMHO only fair that would > be proposal author (expecting that EVERYBODY will do that SAME task is both > extremely wastefu

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation

Am Mo., 28. Nov. 2022 um 13:13 Uhr schrieb riiga : > With the approval of the crossing:markings=* proposal there is now a > satisfactory way of tagging whether a crossing is marked or not > regardless of the crossing being uncontrolled or having traffic signals. > For signals, there is crossing:si

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation

sent from a phone > On 28 Nov 2022, at 23:53, Minh Nguyen wrote: > > If we keep crossing=zebra around based on the argument [1] that it takes > fewer keystrokes or clicks than adding crossing_ref=zebra or > crossing:markings=zebra without using a preset, then this undermines the > arguments

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation

sent from a phone > On 29 Nov 2022, at 00:52, Minh Nguyen wrote: > > Even if it weren't for iD's long-gone preset, I don't think an ostensibly > global tag should be defined based on the narrow provisions of a specific > country's laws. I don’t think this is about a specific country, altho

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation

sent from a phone > On 29 Nov 2022, at 09:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > "no traffic signals" applies also only in some jurisdictions If there are traffic signals the crossing in OpenStreetMap gets tagged crossing=traffic_signals, this is regardless of jurisdiction AFAIK.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation

sent from a phone > On 29 Nov 2022, at 11:06, Minh Nguyen wrote: > > What was the problem with crossing_ref=zebra again? it’s applied to signal controlled crossings as well when they have zebra road markings. > > What you seem to be suggesting is that the definition of crossing=zebra >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation

Am Mi., 30. Nov. 2022 um 01:10 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > 29 lis 2022, 22:55 od dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > > sent from a phone > > On 29 Nov 2022, at 09:02, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > "no traffic signa

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Crossing cleanup and deprecation

sent from a phone > On 30 Nov 2022, at 18:53, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3586404853 > (and not tagged with anything directly indicating that) fix it :)___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetma

Re: [Tagging] Door tag

sent from a phone > On 3 Dec 2022, at 02:50, Kyle Hensel wrote: > > Can we change the wiki so that it says “An entrance tag” instead of “The > entrance=* tag”? > > > ok, or maybe “door” could simply mean “the type of a door”? Do we even need this qualifier with “entrance” at all? Cheer

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

sent from a phone > On 4 Dec 2022, at 10:57, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > "This key can be used on every observable feature that has a historical > meaning, regardless of ... interest to the OSM community." I believe this is in reply to some unilaterally writing on the key:historic page of th

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - historic

sent from a phone > On 4 Dec 2022, at 11:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > only for features that are considered of historical significance. intended to say, “of extraordinary historical significance” on the one end, and the opposing direction is more like “generally somehow r

Re: [Tagging] scope of emergency=dry_riser_inlet

sent from a phone > On 10 Dec 2022, at 10:35, Kyle Hensel wrote: > > However the wiki says “fire department connection” is a synonym of the tag. it is probably not always a synonym, it is if the riser is dry. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openst

Re: [Tagging] scope of emergency=dry_riser_inlet

Am So., 11. Dez. 2022 um 04:25 Uhr schrieb Kyle Hensel < k.y@outlook.co.nz>: > I think we need a new tag then. In New Zealand dry risers are not allowed > for new buildings, since charged systems are safer... > > > > François’s suggestion of emergency=riser_inlet + a sub tag seems like a > goo

[Tagging] building=entrance

Following a JOSM discussion I wanted to ask here, if someone else is using building=entrance to tag entrance buildings. It is a term that seems well introduced and understandable, so there is not much hindering people from using it, just that there was the bad practice to use the same tag on nodes

Re: [Tagging] building=entrance

sorry, missed the link https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/22570 any comments on the tag? Someone else using it for buildings? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=entrance

sent from a phone > On 12 Dec 2022, at 22:13, Marc_marc wrote: > > i dislike the idea to have tag with several meaning depending > if it's on a node or a closed way One could say the distinction is in the meaning, not in the object type, there is a tag that was used in the past on nodes

[Tagging] de facto -Status not working?

It seems that for some reason "de facto" is not recognized as value in the templates any more? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Foot / sidewalk access tagging

sent from a phone > On 22 Dec 2022, at 20:56, Raphael wrote: > > (i.e. whether the > pavement has to be used or not - although i normally don't see any > reason not to use an existing pavement) and when there are specific reasons why the sidewalk cannot be used, the legislation (in some cou

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a point-of-interest sign

sent from a phone > On 29 Dec 2022, at 20:47, Jez Nicholson wrote: > > Did you go for tourism:information_board? Personally I would expect it to be > a form of road sign rather than an information board, which is on the spot > itself and not normally aimed at drivers. I agree with Jez tha

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - yarn shops

Am Mo., 2. Jan. 2023 um 18:17 Uhr schrieb Nate Wessel : > Howdy y'all, > > I am proposing to make official a tag that is already in use to some > degree, *shop=yarn*, for shops that primarily sell yarn and other > knitting/crochet supplies. Currently the wiki has these falling under > shop=sewing.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - yarn shops

Am Do., 5. Jan. 2023 um 11:52 Uhr schrieb Sebastian Martin Dicke < li...@post.sebastian-dicke.de>: > As far as I know yarn to knit socks and other textiles to be washed > often are made nowadays usually from a mixture of wool and polyester (or > other synthetic materials) while there are sold many

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Announce proposals on the community forum

sent from a phone > On 7 Jan 2023, at 18:48, Cartographer10 via Tagging > wrote: > > There are people who feel discouraged to make a proposal because of the ML > requirements. I just want to give those also a change to participate. what actually is required are basic wiki editing skills (o

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Announce proposals on the community forum

sent from a phone > On 7 Jan 2023, at 21:20, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > > So it sounds like there is very little fragmentation -- more than 90% of the > activity is in the forum site and only a small amount of activity is left on > the mailing list. > > It seems like the issue is that yo

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Proposed features/emergency=air rescue service

sent from a phone > On 9 Jan 2023, at 01:20, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Have now raised a proposal for emergency air-rescue services, further broken > down into search and rescue, and aeromedical (Air Ambulance) services. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/emergency

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

sent from a phone > On 9 Jan 2023, at 17:53, António Madeira wrote: > > when the covering is not a man-made structure that would allow layer > differentiation." > > I would like to know what the community thinks about elaborate that line a > bit more, to include emergency storage tanks so t

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Utilities facility

sent from a phone > On 12 Jan 2023, at 19:44, François Lacombe wrote: > > man_made=water_works isn't the only possible value, there is > man_made=pumping_station, man_made=covered_reservoir... > utility=water is way simpler and cover them all. If I got it right, utility=water is for all kin

Re: [Tagging] Best practices for creating a categorical key=value

sent from a phone > On 18 Jan 2023, at 16:28, Daniel Bégin wrote: > > For example, the mapping of a company that produces and installs precast > concrete could be tagged as… > > > > office=construction_company > > construction_company=precast_concrete > > > > but I have my doubts on

Re: [Tagging] Best practices for creating a categorical key=value

sent from a phone > On 18 Jan 2023, at 19:25, Daniel Bégin wrote: > > I just wrote: “I used office=construction_company because it's the only > related tag in the wiki (Key:office).” +1, sorry hadn’t seen the rest of the conversation, for offices “office”. The landuse would be commercial

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

Am Mi., 18. Jan. 2023 um 19:43 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes < p...@trigpoint.me.uk>: > I am using local knowledge here, > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soulton_Long_Barrow > > It has been featured on Country File so known outside The Shire. > architectural style: "neoneolithic", ok, a fake neolit

Re: [Tagging] barrows and tumuli

sent from a phone > On 19 Jan 2023, at 10:25, Philip Barnes wrote: > > The one I mentioned is a bit unique. It's not fake or a folly, it is an > active place for burials. it may not be “fake” in the sense of pretending to be something different, but it mimics neolithic construction princi

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

sent from a phone > On 30 Jan 2023, at 14:58, Illia Marchenko wrote: > > Hello everyone, > I suggest deprecating sport=cricket_nets on the wiki and recommend > leisure=practice_pitch & sport=cricket as a replacement, since sport=* > generally refers to a sport, not a physical infrastructure.

Re: [Tagging] leisure=practice_pitch a bad idea because too overspecific for a main tag ?

Am Di., 31. Jan. 2023 um 10:19 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > Soccer pitches have defined dimensions.. but there are smaller soccer > pitches for children to play soccer on, I'd not call those practice > pitches. > we can very easily see the pitch size from the data, but you typica

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate sport=cricket_nets

Am Di., 31. Jan. 2023 um 11:16 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes < p...@trigpoint.me.uk>: > I am with Dave on this one. > > The tag is clear, concise and intuitive. > > It says exactly what a map user would expect to find > > Changing to practice_pitch with sport=cricket loses the descriptive nature > of

Re: [Tagging] tagging the diameter of a mini-roundabout

sent from a phone > On 2 Feb 2023, at 04:34, Matija Nalis > wrote: > > If the actual issue is that HGV cannot pass some road, why not simply mark it > as > `hgv=no`? because hgv=no means forbidden to hgv (vehicles which may weight more than 2.8t). There are a lot of different sizes for

Re: [Tagging] key covered=* applied to storage tanks

sent from a phone > On 2 Feb 2023, at 16:04, Marc_marc wrote: > > I thought there were only open-top tanks there are but they are called basin or reservoir, we also have landuse=reservoir as its own tag (although that’s landuse tagging, not countable features, effectively the tag is usuall

Re: [Tagging] dry swamps

sent from a phone > On 11 Feb 2023, at 12:06, Jez Nicholson wrote: > > They aren't wetlands as they aren't wet all the time. for wetlands is isn’t a requirement they be wet all the time, the first sentence in the OpenStreetMap definition is: “ A wetland is a land area that is saturated with

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=trailhead

Am Do., 23. Feb. 2023 um 11:24 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson < pelder...@gmail.com>: > I would like to change the status of this established tag to approved. I > have altered the previous proposal > to > match the established practice.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=trailhead

Am Fr., 24. Feb. 2023 um 10:49 Uhr schrieb Peter Elderson < pelder...@gmail.com>: > Sorry, I wasn't clear. The current status of the tag is de facto (was: in > use, but someone, not me, amended that). The proposal intends to alter > that from de facto to approved, by voting. > > Fr gr Peter Elder

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=trailhead

I believe setting up voting to approve a tag with "de-facto"-status is a waste of time, particularly if you do not intend to refine the definition, and an approval will only "downgrade" the tag from "de-facto" to "approved". People have already voted on the tag by using it thousands of times. _

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Proposed automatic replacements of multiple surface=* and shop=* values (review welcomed!)

I'm moving this to tagging. Am Sa., 25. Feb. 2023 um 22:04 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via talk < t...@openstreetmap.org>: > Shops selling pierogi are definitely not shop=pasta > compare these pictures, pierogi: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierogi_z_cebulk%C4%85.jpg pasta: https:

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Proposed automatic replacements of multiple surface=* and shop=* values (review welcomed!)

Am Sa., 25. Feb. 2023 um 23:50 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > I guess that you can argue that fresh pasta is subtype of dumpling > ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpling ) or that dumplings are subtype > of fresh pasta. > > yes, I'd say the latter >

Re: [Tagging] Wall gardens as ways?

sent from a phone > On 1 Mar 2023, at 07:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > However https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type says that it > can't be used for ways though? this doesn’t mean it can’t be used on ways it means it typically isn’t. You can use it on walls nonetheless__

Re: [Tagging] Rail replacement bus service

Am Fr., 10. März 2023 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > Drives like a bus, uses roads like a bus .. it is a bus. There are a few > permanent ones in my State run by the railways people (usually > contracted to a local firm) and I'd map them as a bus route. > I agree, these

Re: [Tagging] Slate roof tiles

sent from a phone > On 13 Mar 2023, at 21:03, Timothy Noname wrote: > > Every source I've seen indicates that slate is a type of roof tile and that > roof tiles don't need to interlock to be roof tiles. yes, it depends on the tiles whether they interlock, old types often don’t, like https:

Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - landcover proposal V2

landcover=mud? Can you explain where this is expected to be a permanent condition? Maybe wasteland with soil pollution that prevents things from growing? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] incubator for the birth of chicks

sent from a phone > On 20 Mar 2023, at 17:26, Allan Mustard wrote: > landuse=farmyard > farmyard=poultry > commodity=chicks there is already some use of animal_breeding=poultry which seems a suitable tag: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/animal_breeding=poultry commodity is not in use

Re: [Tagging] Tagging type of ownership of a road

sent from a phone > On 13 Apr 2023, at 09:04, Jens Glad Balchen via Tagging > wrote: > > I couldn't find an official way to capture this information in OSM. > Is there one? you could use the operator tag (although it doesn’t relate to ownership, it is about the entity in charge of maintena

Re: [Tagging] Tagging type of ownership of a road

We're ocassionally using "operator" around here to mark who is comissioned with the maintenance of parts of roads, it is different from ownership I agree (generally it depends on the country how and on whom public property is registered, and which kind of property is registered how (buildings vs. r

Re: [Tagging] Disambiguation between statue and sculptural group

sent from a phone > On 9 Apr 2023, at 10:46, Daniel Capilla wrote: > > I propose to update the documentation to differentiate between > "artwork_type=statue" (sculpture of one person/animal) and > "artwork_type=sculptural_group" (sculpture of group representing two or more > people/animals

Re: [Tagging] Difference between graffiti and mural

typically a graffiti could also be considered a mural, but there are exceptions like scratched artwork, e.g. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=graffiti+scratching&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.op

Re: [Tagging] Difference between graffiti and mural

nobody has yet responded to the question about scratchings, similarly here is an article about a monumental and recognized artwork created by cleaning: https://publicdelivery.org/william-kentridge-rome/ The article calls it a "mural" in the title, in osm it wouldn't currently be, because our defini

Re: [Tagging] Difference between graffiti and mural

Am So., 16. Apr. 2023 um 17:29 Uhr schrieb Daniel Capilla < dcapil...@gmail.com>: > On 4/16/23 at 16:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > nobody has yet responded to the question about scratchings > > The wiki says that "A mural is any piece of artwork painted or ap

Re: [Tagging] Tagging type of ownership of a road

sent from a phone > On 16 Apr 2023, at 23:28, Jens Glad Balchen via Tagging > wrote: > > If the operator tag is missing and the owner tag is present, isn't it the > general assumption that the owner is also the operator -- i.e. that the owner > information is a relevant substitute for the o

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >