Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - Cell Phone Reception

On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 6:39 PM Evan Carroll wrote: > > > While I don't disagree, that's not an argument for OSM. OSM's job isn't to > mitigate real world safety issues caused by technology. It's to map > generally useful geographically verifiable things. > I don't understand how cell coverage isn

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

One of the trails was https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593945914#map=19/37.99250/-122.50667 highway path horse n

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for the renderer : One-way "flow" bicycle tracks

On Fri, Sep 8, 2023, 3:21 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > So, no signage? > Incline and mtb-scale still don't say you can't hike there. > If I understand the OP you can hike there. Someone would have to make a router that is smart enough to know that despite being legal, hiking on a downhill mtb trail

Re: [Tagging] How to Tag Steps in a Bridleway

On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 4:58 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > 1) at least some people may be interested in places where cycling across > steps is legal (not fan of MTBing etc but at least some people like it? > not really sure here about whether it is actually

[Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that are more elegant (and diplomatic) can comment on: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/85034574 These ways exist only to provide recreation to those on foot, bicycle or horseback. One will occasionally see a park maintena

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

OnTue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:03 AM brad wrote: > > I think if it's wide enough for a normal motor vehicle and is open for that, even if only service & emergency, it should not be =path. track or service in an emergency, almost everything is open to some authority using vehicles of some sort. Even wi

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

need to still indicate it's usable by motor vehicle width= + smoothness=very_bad/bad/intermediate/good/excellent On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 00:32, Mike Thompson wrote: > >> I know we have had this discussion before, but perhaps some of you that >> are more elegant (and diplom

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:55 PM brad wrote: > > It already says this: > "Some highway=track are used for various leisure activities - hiking, cycling, or as jeep/ATV trails. " > on the track wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack Right, there is nothing that says that a track

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM brad wrote: > A track does have a different function, it can handle a 2 track vehicle, a > path can't. > Yes, a "track" has a different function, its function is for agriculture or forestry. A wide path on the other hand has the same function as a narrow path. >

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:13 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and their values to make a decision if a “path” or “footway” might be what I want to render. This is ridiculous. It is neither easy for the mapper nor the renderer. > > On the moto

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:26 AM António Madeira wrote: > If a motor vehicle can and uses the way, it's a track. When you say "can use" do you mean both legally and physically, or only physically?. If legally, do you mean just the general public? As someone pointed out, law enforcement has access

Re: [Tagging] Help explain the difference between path and track

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 5:53 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > here in Oz, "tracks" are almost always unpaved (grass or dirt / rock surface) & I think that is true in the US as well, but not everything that is wide enough, and otherwise suited, for a 2-track vehicle and is unpaved is a highway=tr

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:21 AM Adam Franco wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:40 AM Rob Savoye wrote: >> >> [...] While I do use parcel maps on fire calls, adding all these boundaries to OSM would be silly. I agree that mapping the outer boundary is all that's needed. > > > My main use of

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:40 AM Rob Savoye wrote: > > > The rural area I live in is full of old mining claims, which are > private property surrounded by public land. Interesting. I had always assumed that the land that a mining claim covered continued to be owned by the Federal Government, but

Re: [Tagging] How are protected_area (and national_park) boundaries determined?

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > when I write „protected area“, this often will have implications like you may not construct buildings, you may not walk off roads and paths, you may not pick plants (e.g. flowers) and mushrooms, log trees, hunt, light a fire, etc., whi

[Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

Hello, How would you recommend tagging a path or track that has many fallen trees across it? There are too many to map each one with a node tagged barrier=log. Foot travel is legal, but physically difficult. Horse and bicycle travel are legal but probably physically impossible. Motorized travel

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

Thanks for all of the great suggestions. I have used many of them. This is the way in question: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/819638979 Trees have been there sometime by the looks of them, and are unlikely to be cleared. To the FS this track no longer exists (they have blocked its only juncti

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:15 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > sent from a phone > > On 26. Jun 2020, at 15:59, Mike Thompson wrote: > > > > Trees have been there sometime by the looks of them, and are unlikely to > be cleared. To the FS this track no lon

[Tagging] network tag on route relations

Hello, According to the wiki[0], it seems that the network tag has different meanings and possible values based upon if it is applied to a route relation where route=road vs. route=bicycle/mtb/foot/etc. If I am understanding this correctly, when route=road, network= the specific network that the

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 9:53 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > Aren't Interstate and US evident from the geographic extent as well? > Yes, that is my point, or at least it is evident with the current mapping practice. Road routes are not tagged (at least not according to the wiki) with network=nrn/rrn/

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:49 AM Robert Skedgell wrote: > > The very short NCN route 425 in south-east London is network=ncn because > it's a Sustrans route. THe scope of the route is very local, but the > scope of the network is national. Without the network tag, how would a > renderer or router

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 4:53 PM Robert Skedgell wrote: > > > Starting with UK presents another problem for consistency, as it's not > an ISO 3166-1-alpha-2 country code, just the abbreviated name of the > country. My mistake, should have been "GB" ___ T

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 4:08 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > > Well, recreational routes and networks simply are not that organized, and jurisdiction or authority doesn't apply to most of them. I guess that is why the values are more generic. In the US a significant percentage of the trails are organi

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 4:18 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > Disambiguation. US:FS:Hood and US:FS:Ozark are two different national forest service networks with entirely different numbering schemes. Plus network=CA by itself would be Canada, not California, which is US:CA... Paul, do you have a list o

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

bicycle_possession=no similar pattern could be used for other prohibited items (vs. mode of transportation), e.g. alcohol_posession=no firearm_possession=no On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:34 PM Mark Wagner wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:29:17 +0200 > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > And we would

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 3:31 AM Alan Mackie wrote: > > Do we have any tagging for areas where e.g. open alcohol containers are prohibited, where firearms are specially prohibited* or disallows possession of a recording device or camera? A separate 'specific item banned' tag is starting to sound l

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 1:36 PM Jmapb wrote: > As I see it, having bicycle=no imply permission to push a dismounted bicycle violates the principle of least surprise because it's inconsistent with other *=no access tags. I wouldn't presume I could push my car along a motor_vehicle=no way, or dismou

Re: [Tagging] Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 2:34 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > > ...but then your horse is a passenger in a vehicle. Otherwise that would > be like saying a human can't ride in a vehicle if foot=no. Exactly, foot=no doesn't mean that feet are not allowed, it means that using a mode of transportation

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:07 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:56 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > >> On 7/27/20 1:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but maybe still correct >> >> if it is leading to only vacation huts) >> >> these woul

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:38 PM brad wrote: > > > > I'm in central Colorado, & around here, I agree, tracktype is not > useful, the tracks here are mostly solid, grade 2 or 3, but could be a > high clearance, or 4wd road due to rocks and ledges. > However, smoothness could, and should be rendered

[Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

Hello, If: access=no foot=yes Does this mean that all access except foot travel is prohibited, or is it an error? If: access=yes bicycle=no Does this mean that all access except bicycle travel is allowed, or is an error? Here is one example of the first case: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:59 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > My reading of the wiki [1] indicates that the more specific tag overrides > the less specific tag. > So, access=yes foot=yes would then be redundant. I don't have an example, but I have seen that too. > And the transport mode section [2] of t

[Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

In specifying access constraints for the roads it manages, the US Forest service makes a distinction between ATVs, highway vehicles, and "OHVs > 50"." The first two categories correspond to the tags motorcar=* and atv=* I think, but I have not been able to find an existing tag that corresponds to "

Re: [Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 2:47 PM John Willis via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > I would say that is a “motor_vehecle” > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motor_vehicle > Sure, it is a motor_vehicle, but it is just a subset of motor vehicles, so I don't think that tag would be

Re: [Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:28 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 1. Sep 2020, at 22:33, Mike Thompson wrote: > > > > OHVs > 50 > > > is there also an upper limit? No legal upper limit that I am aware of. In practicality, the

Re: [Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:46 PM Kevin Broderick wrote: > More likely than prohibiting bikes, the USFS could allow > non-street-registered OHVs over 50" on a trail, but keep it closed to > normal street-registered vehicles; > Not sure if I have ever seen that, but we would still need a way of expre

Re: [Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 6:03 PM brad wrote: > For your example, I would just tag it as motor_vehicle=yes.From what > I've seen, If OHV's >50" are legal, pretty much any motor vehicle is > legal. > Actually, I think I have found some examples in the MVUM (motor vehicle use map) file from the US

Re: [Tagging] OHV greater than 50 inches (wide)

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 4:52 AM Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) < robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 21:33, Mike Thompson wrote: > > In specifying access constraints for the roads it manages, the US Forest > service makes a distinction between ATVs, hig

Re: [Tagging] OSM Wiki

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 4:48 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Two more questions re the wiki. > > " A water tap is a man-made construction providing access to water, *supplied > by centralized water distribution system*" - how about taps connected to > rain-water tanks? That part of that sentence s

Re: [Tagging] OSM Wiki

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 5:53 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 at 09:37, stevea wrote: > >> I haven't heard a wider chime-in to my emphasis on "potable" (drinkable, >> if you prefer) but I think many of us mean that with a water_tap, even if >> we don't say it, I think we s

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

Technically what the electric utility is selling is energy, not power. One gets billed for kilowatt-hours, not kilowatts. See [0]. However, colloquially, the terms power and energy when it comes to electric utilities are used interchangeably, although "power company" seems to be favored vs. "ene

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

separated in subsidiaries. Is that the case in the US or Xcel does not have > subsidiaries for the different economic activities? > There is no subsidiary. Mike > On 18/11/2022 23:31, Mike Thompson wrote: > > Technically what the electric utility is selling is energy, not po

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

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 3:05 PM Matija Nalis < mnalis-openstreetmapl...@voyager.hr> wrote: > > Also, if being advanced consumer with higher power limits, you ALSO (in > addition to > two things above) have to pay for reactive power too, according to > cos(phi) > (beware of those inductive loads li

Re: [Tagging] Slate roof tiles

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 4:01 PM Marc_marc wrote: > Le 13.03.23 à 21:52, Evan Carroll a écrit : > > Slate is always black > > maybe never :) > it's often from dark grey to blue grey, > sometime pale grey and some other minor colors > Yes, and even green and red[0] [0] https://www.slateassociation

[Tagging] Changeset 62867521

Hello, User dvdhns are having a friendly discussion regarding this changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/62867521#map=16/40.3021/-105.6436 They have some good reasons for adding "(off trail)" to the end of the name to the "Fire Trail", but I don't think they override the rule that we

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > In the second case: is fire trail illegal No, there are no signs on or near the trail indicating this. Nor are there any signs in the park that going off official trails is illegal (there are a few restricted areas elsewhere in the par

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:37 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > > I just added my thoughts to the changeset comment. Thanks for commenting. > Generally an "official" (I use the term loosely) trail will be signposted Agree. It will also show up on official park maps, and possibly in official park GIS data.

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:50 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > It's a trail just for firefighting and rescue to access, but closed to all others, correct? That is not correct. There is no legal restriction on its use for foot travel. ___ Tagging mailing list Tag

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

>> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use >> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add >> access keys for any other permitted traffic.___ I have never understood the use of tags like "cycleway", "bridlewa

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:53 AM Tod Fitch wrote: > But having values of footway, path, cycleway and bridal way allow a short hand that allows the map users (and renderers) to use a set of assumptions about the way. And it allows mappers to quickly categorize the way. I personally would find it

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and access, calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are clearly purpose built for a specific mode and possibly

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:32 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:16 PM Mike Thompson wrote: >> >> >> Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a cycle

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 171 Path for all

On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:49 AM St Niklaas wrote: > Hi All, > > > > IMHO it is never a well taken decision to tag a path / bridleway for > walking or pedestrians at the same time. Ill shut up when walking a path > and Equestrians have been using the same trail or path, a horseshoe tends > to spoil

[Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

Hello, I have always been under the impression that the highway tag should be based off of function. Recently I have come across a number of cases where driveways and residential roads were tagged "highway=track" (perhaps because they are unpaved?), e.g. [0]. Before I change these, I wanted to c

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 1:28 PM ael wrote: > I would not be comfortable tagging very rough tracks as anything but a track: > if it requires a 4 wheel drive or agricultural vehicle to negotiate. > I think a "road" normally implies navigation with a standard vehicle is > possible. In general that i

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 2:45 PM Greg Troxel wrote: > Not really germane to driveways, but a major distinction, at least > around me (ma.us) is that > > a road is a legal thing, with its own parcel > > a track is an agricultural road, or old time logging road, within a > parcel Here in Color

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 4:15 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > In the rural southern Arizona community where my parents retired the only > real way to tell the difference between a track and a service+driveway+upaved > is whether you end up at a house in a reasonable amount of distance. In all of the cases

Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 9:26 AM Philip Barnes wrote: > > I agree with AEL, people who live in there tend to take that into > account when they buy vehicles and tend to own 4x4s. These are all roads which a normal car can navigate. Not everyone that lives in these areas drives a 4x4. _

[Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

Hello, We have a trail [0] around here where walking/hiking is not allowed, but running is. Currently it is tagged foot=yes, which doesn't give the full story. In case you are wondering how such a situation could come about, it is because the land manager wants faster traffic (trail runners, mount

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

Thanks Jason, On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 4:37 PM Jmapb wrote: > > minspeed:foot? A value of around 6 or 7 (default unit is km/hour) should > separate the fast walkers from the joggers. Of course it's anyone's > guess if there would ever be any software support for this key. Interesting idea. > > An

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

Thanks Martin! On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 5:49 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Another idea could be to introduce “running” as a new state of foot, e.g. > foot=no > foot:conditional =yes @ running That makes sense to me. I will wait and see if anyone has any objections or better ideas, and if not,

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 1:02 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > > How is this access preference indicated? There are signs that say something like "No Hiking, ... Mtn Bikes, Horses, and Trail Runners Only" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https

Re: [Tagging] Running but no hiking/walking

All, Thanks for the suggestions and discussion. I have implemented Martin's suggestion: foot=no foot:conditional = yes @ running Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

Hello, Just because a trail is wide enough to accommodate a four wheeled vehicle does that make it highway=track if it was constructed for, and its primary and intended use is for, recreation and not for forestry or agriculture access? Mike ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or > footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a police car or > emergency vehicle can fit, generally these are still mapped as > highway=cyclew

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:09 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > > However, if you are talking about a paved multi-use path, bicycle path or > > footway which happens to be 3 or 4 meters wide and therefore a p

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Wed, May 20, 2020, 8:11 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There are no tags on the way to suggest it is not a 'track'. > > Motor vehicles are not excluded in anyway, for example 'motor_vehicle=private, comment=Recreational use, motor vehicles for maintenance only' While it is not (yet)

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 9:24 AM brad wrote: > > I don't agree with calling a 2 track/road a path and I don't think that common usage, or the wiki says this either. It is not really "2 track" as its surface is uniformly graded and covered with gravel from side to side (there are not separate ruts f

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:35 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > > May 21, 2020, 19:20 by miketh...@gmail.com: > > So are we saying highway=path/cycleway/footway implies width<3 (or some similar value)? > > Yes, but it may be larger. Especially busy cycleway

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:15 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Please use full tagging and don't create implicit values after the fact. > We do have the width or est_width tags,tets use them, where they are needed. I agree! For the way in question, I tagged its width (as well as smoothness, max_speed,

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:49 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > There is also an old problem how large footway should be to qualify as a pedestrian road, > > with varied opinions. > Would you also say then that a way tagged as highway=path/footway/cycleway, wi

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:36 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > > Would you also say then that a way tagged as highway=path/footway/cycleway, width=4 would be an error? > > No. Here in Portland, Oregon, most of the "multi-use paths" (mainly cycleways, but also used by pedestrians and sometimes horses)

Re: [Tagging] track vs footway, cycleway, bridleway or path

On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:52 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I guess the “if the driveway is too long, make a part of it service”-rule is actually there to help data consumers (if it’s very long it might be worth showing it earlier, assuming you hide driveways earlier than service roads). Isn't t

[Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

I know we just had a similar discussion, but I am discovering more and more cases where mappers have changed every dirt road they can find to "highway=track". For example, it looks like all of the dirt roads in the area of this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17051445 have been changed to "

Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

6, > is still adding features. chachafish has a history of commenting on > changesets so I would expect you'll get a reply. > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 3:11 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > >> I know we just had a similar discussion, but I am discovering more and >> more cases wh

Re: [Tagging] Highway mistagging ... again

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:33 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > I see someone has left a changeset comment, that's the right thing to do, Thanks Andrew. I think two of us have left comments now. If you have a different or better way of explaining it, please leave a comment yourself. On another change se

[Tagging] Taginfo for specific geographies

I would like to find all of the tags that are used over a user specified geography (could be a country or a bounding box). Is there anyway to do this for geographies other than those listed here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taginfo/Sites Mike ___

Re: [Tagging] Taginfo for specific geographies

; http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/ > > Matthijs > On Nov 25, 2013 11:34 PM, "Mike Thompson" wrote: > >> I would like to find all of the tags that are used over a user specified >> geography (could be a country or a bounding box). Is there anyway to do >> this for geo

Re: [Tagging] natural=cloud

I am hoping this has something to do with it being April 1st On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > On 1 April 2014 18:08, Pierre Knobel wrote: > > I just wanted to mention a new tag I created yesterday: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcloud > > I

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

> It is also a significant loss of detail because you reduce the length of the bridge to 0 Maps are abstractions. They don't represent reality precisely. In most cases we already reduce the width of roads to 0 as they are not represented by areas. The question should be whether the value of the

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

int the value of increased precision ceases to grow, and may even decline. On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2014-04-02 18:16 GMT+02:00 Mike Thompson : > > > It is also a significant loss of detail because you reduce the length of >> the

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

th to represent a real world object that does. Also, in many cases the width tag is is not used on roads. On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Mike Thompson wrote: > > We aim at precision/accuracy (IMHO, at least I do), > 1) How much precision/accuracy? No real world measuremen

[Tagging] path vs footway

I am editing trails in a US National Park of which I have first hand knowledge. Nearly all trails in this area have been tagged "highway=footway" although most of them are open equally to foot traffic and horse traffic. Any reason to leave them as "footways"? The wiki suggests that "path" is more

Re: [Tagging] Pathways with steep vertical slopes, accessed via climbing chains

Is this the type of thing you are talking about: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata Mike On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 8:28 PM, johnw wrote: > Went hiking on mt Miyogi yesterday in Gunma, and like other steep mountain > parks, sections of the trail were near vertical or co

Re: [Tagging] path vs footway

Thanks for everyone's comments. Based upon the information you have provided I believe these trails best fit "highway=path" as long as the appropriate access tags are added. I will also use "informal=yes" when appropriate as well as indicate surface type and smoothness. For those few cases where

[Tagging] hitch rack for horses

How should one tag a hitch rack? This is a place to tie horses. For example, at a location where a rider may want to dismount and continue on foot because the way ahead is not suitable for horses. I searched the wiki, but didn't find a suitable tag. Mike

Re: [Tagging] hitch rack for horses

Nop, Is it amenity=hitching_post that you are suggesting? I see a German language page on the wiki[1] that mentions it. Mike [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Reiten On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 4:14 PM, NopMap wrote: > Asked around with the same question and it came down to hitching_post.

Re: [Tagging] man_made=adit_entrance

> I'm a native speaker of English and I only came across the word "adit" > relatively recently. To me it seems obscure and technical - but I > understand that in other parts of the world it's common. In the US the term "adit" appears on at least some USGS 7.5 minute topo maps. The ones I have expl

Re: [Tagging] barrier=net ?

I have been tagging the vertical "netting" at golf courses as "barrier=fence" In some cases there is more or less horizontal netting, and in that case I agree that "barrier=fence" does not fit. Mike On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:41 PM, johnw wrote: > There are 544 uses of barrier=net, and I want to

[Tagging] length=

I have noticed a "length" tag used on some linear ways [1]. It seems that this is redundant, as the length could be calculated from the geometry itself. It could also be the source of future errors should someone split the way, for example to add more detailed tagging, such as varying smoothness.

Re: [Tagging] length=

Thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts. > I personally recommend to use the length key while mapping street cabinets as > nodes. Agree, length makes sense on nodes > The way in OSM is only a (sometimes not precise) drawing of an existing > feature and can be different from the reality.

Re: [Tagging] length=

> E.g.: a 17-degree mapped mountain road or San Francisco street's will get > its actual length a 5% bonus compared to its real-life counterpart. True, but such roads are not very common (17 degree ~= 30%). There are a few short streets in places like San Francisco that are this steep. In these ca

Re: [Tagging] length=

Here I diverge. If the hedgerow is an improtant part of the landscape then I'd map it .. even if it is not at your required level of 'accuracy'. Reason: it is the relationship between the objects on the map that is important rather than the absolute accuracy of any one object. +1 _

Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of "palm" for leaf_type

> > It certainly seems to me that palm trees are different enough from what I > usually consider to be a broad-leafed tree to warrant their own leaf_type. > +1 Palms are their own group of trees distinct from broad-leaved trees or conifers and it makes sense to tag with a different value. Mike ___

Re: [Tagging] addr:interpolation on highway

I think this type of information has value. Even if every building on the street also has its own address, this allows an application to find the approximate location of an address for a building that at the time of the survey had not been built. The necessary information can often be found on st

Re: [Tagging] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?

Some of the parts about OSM seems to be in the spirit of the project, although I would word some of it a bit differently. To the extent possible I think we should focus on the positive and avoid negative statements about other projects, or over generalizations about those projects. For example "Y

[Tagging] SHAPE_Leng, SHAPE_Area, GIS_ACRES

I am encountering the tags SHAPE_Leng, SHAPE_Area, GIS_ACRES on US National Forests. If I am making other edits to the OSM element in question, can these be deleted? Converted to some other tag? Thanks, Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetm

Re: [Tagging] SHAPE_Leng, SHAPE_Area, GIS_ACRES

Clifford, Thanks, if there are no objections, I will delete the next time I am making other edits. Mike On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Mike Thompson wrote: > >> I am encountering the tags SHAPE_Leng, SHAPE_Area,

Re: [Tagging] SHAPE_Leng, SHAPE_Area, GIS_ACRES

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > > If there's a primary key from the original source, that has some value, do > leave that. > I don't think there is, but I will make sure to leave it if there is. > > > > Also take a look to see if the shape could be simplified: often tho

[Tagging] waterway=stream & oneway=1

Is it really necessary for a way that is tagged waterway=stream to also be tagged oneway=1? Isn't this implied? Please see this example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/306529208 note it appears that after I originally entered the way its direction was reversed (i.e. it now flows uphill). Perhaps

  1   2   >