Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

Presently, it's common for route relations to have names that violate "name is only the name" and "name is not ref" and "name is not description" rules for name=* tags. On Sun, Oct 8, 2023, 10:24 Volker Schmidt wrote: > Could you give some more examples to illustrate what the problem is that > y

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Presently, it's common for route relations to have names that violate > "name is only the name" and "name is not ref" and "name i

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Use description instead of name for route relations

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 2:31 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 17/10/23 23:22, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 4:51 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On 17/10/23 04:17, Paul Johnson wrote: >> &g

Re: [Tagging] Do we map pedestrian crossings twice?

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:03 PM Jack Armstrong wrote: > Users have been adding pedestrian crossing tags on ways in addition to the > street connecting nodes. In effect, a single pedestrian crossing is tagged > twice. To me, this would seem contrary not only to the OSM wiki page, > “Tag:highway=cro

Re: [Tagging] How to tag correct number of lanes for freeway on/off ramps?

On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 3:19 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Consider https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/42.85888/-73.77169. As I > write this, I-87 is annotated as having 3 lanes south of the on/off > ramps (south of 146). However, the off ramp starts all the way back at > the Sitterly Road overpa

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 11:48 AM Robert Skedgell wrote: > On 12/07/2020 15:48, Mike Thompson wrote: > > 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. ro

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

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... On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 5:07 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > Well, recreational route

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:04 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > Sounds to me that the scheme is creating a problem rather than solving > it... requiring a lot of prior knowledge and tables to code, and expert > knowledge and tables to decode. > It's the same scheme already used for highways. ___

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 7:00 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > > > 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 >

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

I thought we were talking about bicycle routes, not recreational routes. On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:22 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > I can't see how that applies to recreational route networks in Europe. > > Mvg Peter Elderson > > Op 13 jul. 2020 om 15:33 heeft Paul Joh

Re: [Tagging] network tag on route relations

What is a recreational route and how's it got anything to do with talking about modality? On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:25 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > Nederland, Germany and Belgium also have walking routes, horse routes, > inline-skating routes, canoe routes, motorboat routes. Also a myriad of > nod

Re: [Tagging] Intermittent highways?

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 11:23 AM John Sturdy wrote: > I've been adding some detail to a site that is used annually for a > festival (not happening this year because of Covid-19), where there are > paths in the same place year after year, but the paths are not there when > the festival is not happ

Re: [Tagging] How to tag minor commercial roads?

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 12:17 PM Matthew Woehlke wrote: > I'm wondering what, if anything, I should do with > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351516889. It doesn't seem to meet the > definition of a highway=residential, but I'm not convinced it is a lowly > highway=service, either, but I also c

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

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:37 AM Rob Savoye wrote: > The question is how to tag the change in the road. Usually it becomes > "smoothness=very_bad", etc... The question is since it's now more of a > track used by jeeps, should it be narrow=yes, still lanes=1, or should I > use width=2m ? To me, l

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

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:18 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Date: Jul 27, 2020, 15:54 > From: ba...@ursamundi.org > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:37 AM Rob Sav

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

I'd go with highway=track and tracktype=*, surface=* and smoothness=* tags as necessary. Given how inconsistent the 3 and especially 4 digit US forest service roads tend to be, I'd expect tracktype and smoothness are underutilized despite their relative importance on those roads. A big hint: The

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

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:21 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > Personally though, what the USFS uses to determine that difference > doesn't seem consistent, and over many years, the road conditions change > drastically due to erosion. I prefer to go there in a high-clearance > vehicle or UTV and decide a

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

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 would be highway=service not track. > > I assume if the highway has

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

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 5:52 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Di., 28. Juli 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > >> >> I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the property as >> residential (eventually as service) and the

Re: [Tagging] Conditional destinations (hgv, bicycle, maxweight…)

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:53 AM David Marchal via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hello, there. > > I'm wondering, there are destination signs which only apply to some kind > of vehicles: for HGV, for bicycles, for pedestrians, for vehicles below > 12t… How would I tag such destinati

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:24 AM Jmapb wrote: > Is it best to simply tag addr:street=NY 214, matching the ref tag of the > segment and the name tag of the route? This isn't consistent with the > wiki, which specifically says addr:street should match the *name* of a > nearby *way*. I'd go with t

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:00 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 31. Jul 2020, at 18:25, Jmapb wrote: > > > > But most of the ways in the route have no valid name. Segments were > > imported from TIGER with name=State Highway 214 but that's been removed > > in favor of

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

Given that it's not customary or advisable to reproduce ref in the name field, kinda think that's not the worst policy for old_ref=* situations that have no name, as well by extension, but that's a bit more of a grey area still. On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:14 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I agree.

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

So keep State Highway 214 in addr:street=* values, but that doesn't stop noname=yes and ref=NY 214 being the correct values for the way itself. On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:40 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 31. Jul 2020, at 21:31, Paul Johns

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 3:16 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > The reductio-ad-absurdum would be to argue that 42nd Street in Manhattan > should be `noname=yes ref=???` and participate in a route relation with > `network=US:NY:New York:Street ref=42`. I'm sure that would please strict > taxonomists, but mo

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:53 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > > > > On Jul 31, 2020, at 12:45 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > So keep State Highway 214 in addr:street=* values, but that doesn't stop > noname=yes and ref=NY 214 being the correct values for the way itsel

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:59 PM Clifford Snow wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:54 AM Kevin Kenny > wrote: > >> >> >> The nearest problem case to me is Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of >> the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy that straddles >> the US-Canadian border, and wh

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

h it be nice to get them > all added. > > Clifford > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:17 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 6:59 PM Clifford Snow >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:54 AM Kevin

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 12:19 AM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 7/31/20 14:29, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Name is only the name. Names are not refs. For the above example, > > ref=NY 214, noname=yes would be the right way. > > How about the stretch of FM 1960 from I-45 or so g

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:09 PM Clay Smalley wrote: > Chiming in as another settler. I really wish we had more Natives active on > OSM contributing their cultural knowledge. What could we be doing different > in the future to welcome and engage them in our community? > Outreach to tribal GIS offi

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 8:09 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 5:29 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:09 PM Clay Smalley >> wrote: >> >>> Chiming in as another settler. I really wish we had more Natives active >>&

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 9:21 PM Clifford Snow wrote: > If you look at eastern Oklahoma, about 90%, Paul - correct me if I'm > wrong, is boundary=aboriginal_lands. Tulsa is pretty much completely inside > of two different reservations. > Three, actually. I live in the Muscogee Nation, now. Last

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

). On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 1:37 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 9:21 PM Clifford Snow > wrote: > >> If you look at eastern Oklahoma, about 90%, Paul - correct me if I'm >> wrong, is boundary=aboriginal_lands. Tulsa is pretty much com

Re: [Tagging] Ahkwesáhsne, a territory of the Kanien'kehá:ka Nation of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Was:Should admin_level=1 tag be applied to EU?

2020 at 1:52 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > CW: Politics, rightfully being denied the world because where I live is an > idiot. > > Clarification: I'm Cherokee, Choctaw and Scottish, and I'm barred from > entering Choctaw and Scottish territory due to COVID19, and even without

Re: [Tagging] addr:street for routes

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020, 15:29 Jmapb wrote: > > ...Regardless, if this general approach is considered valid and > workable, then I'd like to propose the following answer to my original > question: > > * Q) How should `addr:street` be tagged for an address along an > unnamed way which is part of a n

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:45 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > Hello, > > If: > access=no > foot=yes > > Does this mean that all access except foot travel is prohibited, or is it > an error? > Correct, only pedestrians are allowed. > If: > access=yes > bicycle=no > > Does this mean that all access exce

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:56 AM Simon Poole wrote: > This is why access=yes is useless on highway objects as it is not clear if > it overrides implicit access restrictions or not. > I don't see what's not clear about access=* overriding *all* access not explicitly set. ___

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:27 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > amenity=parking + vehicle=no + electric_scooter=yes > seems like a terrible idea to me > Why? That's actually pretty good. amenity=parking is for motor vehicle parking, electric scooters are a par

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:00 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Aug 7, 2020, 18:05 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:27 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > amenity=parking + vehicle=no + electric_scooter=

Re: [Tagging] Electric scooter parking

On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 6:13 AM Jan Michel wrote: > On 07.08.20 23:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> On 7. Aug 2020, at 19:12, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> I feel like a data consumer unable to deal with access tagging is > already broken in advance. > > although w

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] VANDALISM !

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 8:36 PM Clay Smalley wrote: > For those who aren't following, the DWG recently decided on a two-day ban > for the person who posted this, for the exact behavior they're exhibiting > right now: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3850 > > jdd 3, please take a break. Y

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Hands Off !, respect my (our) space

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:50 AM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Talk-us < talk...@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > In ID, on your profile page is, Other nearby users, and the home location, > map > > the point is other locals based on my (our) edits know where we (I) live, > but come on > > don’t edit the building

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:20 PM François Lacombe wrote: > Is that completely wrong or mappers could eventually add implied tags if > they want to? > The proposal currently states they are optional and it won't raise an > error if mappers add them beside mandatory tags. > No, it's not wrong to ad

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 11:58 AM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > The previous responses are focusing on the benefit of adding explicit tags > in situations where the current tagging is ambiguous. > > Certainly there is a benefit of adding "oneway=no" on all two-way roads >

Re: [Tagging] highway=services on bicycle routes?

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:06 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > For me it sounds sort-of similar (the same definition, just swap "motor > vehicle" with "bicycle", > or use "vehicle" to cover both ) but with drastically different > functionality. > > Similarly lik

Re: [Tagging] highway=services on bicycle routes?

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 12:38 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 9 paź 2020, 15:33 od ba...@ursamundi.org: > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 3:06 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > For me it sounds sort-of similar (the same definition, just swap "motor > vehicle" with

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=street_side

On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 6:40 AM Supaplex wrote: > Hey all, > > I would like to invite you to discuss a proposal for "parking = > street_side" for areas suitable or designated for parking, which are > directly adjacent to the carriageway of a road and can be reached directly > from the roadway wit

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 6:16 AM ael via Tagging wrote: > Let's encourage people to use the source tag properly rather than cause > further decay. Or come up with a better solution, which is definitely > not a changeset comment. > source=* by itself on a way, relation or node is not useful. sourc

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 4:09 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Mapper in Poland run into a tricky case and asked for help. > > I am forwarding this a bit weird case. > > Photo is at > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krak%C3%B3w_Brodzi%C5%84skiego_(5).j

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:25 AM Jan Michel wrote: > Hi, > where do you see a problem here? The current situation might not be > perfect, but it is usable as it is. The only thing to keep in mind is > that the number of "lanes" does not need to match the number of entries > in the "XY:lanes" tags.

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jan Michel wrote: > On 12.12.20 14:25, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:25 AM Jan Michel > > > <mailto:j...@mueschelsoft.de>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > where do you see a problem here? The curren

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:46 AM Jan Michel wrote: > On 12.12.20 17:25, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > Sure, if you manually torque tag it to match the incorrect > > documentation. As soon as you open the lane editor, it rightly corrects > > it to lanes=5, since you have 2 l

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 11:22 AM Jan Michel wrote: > On 12.12.20 17:47, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:46 AM Jan Michel > > > <mailto:j...@mueschelsoft.de>> wrote: > > > > On 12.12.20 17:25, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > >

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 4:37 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Dec 12, 2020, 18:27 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 11:22 AM Jan Michel wrote: > > On 12.12.20 17:47, Paul Johnson wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Mapping bicycle-only turn lanes

On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 5:04 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 12. Dec 2020, at 23:43, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > So what? How are we going to improve if we're not willing to correct > choices that are objectively bad in r

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 7:20 AM Skyler Hawthorne wrote: > Note the last sentence. If the destination:ref must be the same as the ref > it is going to, then this would be I 787, or else all the ways along the > entire I 787 route should have their ref tags changed to indicate direction > as well.

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 9:34 AM Tom Pfeifer wrote: > Both tagging and wiki develop, hopefully forward. In this case, > Key:destination:ref redirects > onto an old 2012 proposal, I'm probably going to resolve that soon with > describing the current practice. > Thank you! If only we could be this

Re: [Tagging] destination:ref with direction?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 10:57 AM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Re: "If only we could be this nimble on long standing things like > sunsetting ref=* on ways in favor of routes" > > Handling ref on routes and ways at the same time requires some more > complicated processing

Re: [Tagging] Continuous shoulder rumble strips (CSRS)

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 10:27 AM Jeremy Harris wrote: > On 20/12/2020 16:07, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Is there a tagging scheme for these bicycle killers > > ? > > I have encountered them on freeways and other major roads that allow > > c

Re: [Tagging] Continuous shoulder rumble strips (CSRS)

On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 4:00 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > The OSM wiki page Traffic_calming defines > >- traffic_calming=rumble_strip > > > as a structure that crosses the road. It also says explicitly: > " Do not confu

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

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 8:07 AM Davidoskky via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > On 13/10/22 10:15, Warin wrote: > > I see no point in depreciating anything at the moment .. 'we' need a > > solution first before even thinking of depreciation. > > I do agree and appreciate this approach

Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:16 AM Rob Savoye wrote: > Where I live in rural Colorado, many of the roads have 3 names. The > county designated one like "CR 2", but often have an alternate name > everyone uses like "Corkscrew Gulch Road", and then many have a US > Forest Service designation like "

Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > F Street and 1st Street (usually written out as First Street, though > this depends on the local standards) are a common name, which goes in > the name field. > It can also be regionally dependent. Oklahoma

Re: [Tagging] Forward/backward routes

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 08:20 Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 6:34 AM Peter Elderson > wrote: > > Keeping linear main route and alteratives separate is actually quite > straightforward and much less work than creating and maintaining routes > with roles. Especially when the forward/ba

Re: [Tagging] Forward/backward routes

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 6:23 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > Well, the simple version I got from bicycle route mappers is: members in > the main direction have no roles. The fact that there is a role tells you > it’s a way for the opposite direction, and then forward tells you the > opposite travel di

Re: [Tagging] Forward/backward routes

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 7:29 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > > Op 20 aug. 2019 om 01:44 heeft Paul Johnson het > volgende geschreven: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 6:23 PM Peter Elderson > wrote: > >> Well, the simple version I got from bicycle route mappers is: members in

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 4:04 PM Tom Pfeifer wrote: > On 21.08.2019 19:44, Rob Savoye wrote: > >Many western state campgrounds have metal bear proof food storage > > boxes in each campsite, but not all of them. At certain times of the > > year this can be important. :-) Around here the bears w

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 5:20 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > On 8/21/19 4:16 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > We don't have that problem!, but are the bear boxes at each individual > > site / pitch, or is there one / "x" for the entire campground? > > Bear boxes are in every campsite, and hold about

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:23 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is there a requirement to tag these 'animal resistant boxes'? Would a more > universal tag be better? > I've generally heard these referred to as "bear boxes" regardless of the species they're intended to guard against. Grant

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:53 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 22/08/19 10:25, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:23 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Is there a requirement to tag these 'animal resistant boxes'?

Re: [Tagging] bear box in campground ?

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:12 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 18:43, Dave Swarthout > wrote: > >> >> Still, if we want to allow for easy expansion of the tagging scheme then >> using waste_basket=bear-proof, for example, would help such future >> expansion. >> > > How about bear_pro

Re: [Tagging] Turn lanes separated by road markings

On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 2:14 PM Markus wrote: > Hello everyone > > I'm unsure how to map the following situation: > > There are two lanes approaching a roundabout, both with different > destinations. The lanes are divided by a solid line (and later a panted > triangle with chevrons) for about 100

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 7:59 AM Paul Allen wrote: > > Anyone who thinks the preceding paragraph is off-topic because it's about > Wikimedia should try to recall all the times on this list when somebody has > insisted that rules is rules, even when the outcome of following those > rules is sub-opt

Re: [Tagging] Bus Routes PTv2

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 6:57 AM Michal Fabík wrote: > > > على ٢٦‏/٩‏/٢٠١٩ ‫١:٣٦ م، كتب James: > > If you have a bus route that doubles back on itself, do you have to > > add the way twice to the relation or add it once and let the router > > figure out that it's already in the relation? > > I add

Re: [Tagging] railway crossings with cycleways

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:58 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > The wiki defines railway=level_crossing as a crossing of rails and a road, > while railway=crossing is for a pedestrian crossing of railway tracks. What > about cycleways? > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wi

Re: [Tagging] Guard booth building type

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 2:59 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > “Booth” implies that one wall is missing (open). > I thought that was an adirondack? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:38 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Personally I believe that "physical division => separate ways; no > physical division => shared way" is the standard in OSM, or perhaps at > least the "rule of thumb". But (since people in the German discussion > have more or less claimed tha

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:22 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/10/19 20:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am Do., 10. Okt. 2019 um 08:40 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm < > frede...@remote.org>: > >> The original mapper claims that using two separate oneway=yes ways is >> clearer and easi

Re: [Tagging] Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:38 AM Snusmumriken wrote: > On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 11:21 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > > Am Fr., 11. Okt. 2019 um 11:10 Uhr schrieb Snusmumriken < > > snusmumriken.map...@runbox.com>: > > > It is up to the driver. I think he can ignore most of the traffic >

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 3:27 AM Florian Lohoff wrote: > i just saw a changeset of someone makeing a mini_roundabout > from a junction=roundabout. I have never used mini_roundabout > as non of the routing/nav engines i tried actually supported it > when i did. > Probably because a mini-roundabout

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:06 AM Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:00:13PM +0200, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > On 23.10.2019 11:35, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > > > These are a very common feature, it does seem odd that routers are > not supporting them. > > > > > > The point is that a min

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:31 AM Robert Skedgell wrote: > On 23/10/2019 11:14, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:55:04AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: > >> I would suggest it is not necessary to replace the simple node with a > >> circular way. I think it is perfectly acceptable if

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:54 AM Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:42:27PM +, Philip Barnes wrote: > > It is not just a British thing, I have encountered many when driving in > France. > > The rules and usage are the same as in the UK. > > The other rule that makes them differ

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 4:31 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 22:10, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> Meanwhile the osmcha example appears to be a 5 way roundabout-type >> junction, but I don't have the clarity in that aerial view to tell if it's >&

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 1:22 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > The roundabout in the Mapillary images that Paul Johnson posted seems to > be one with a traversable centre. At the same time, I would not expect > my satnav to ask me to "turn left" here, but rather to take the nth exit

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:20 AM Paul Allen wrote: > > Necessary, but not sufficient. It doesn't just have to be physically > treaversable, it has > to be legally traversable. > Eeeh, I think that's a bit of a grey area, like stopping on yellow lights. Can you be written up for traversing a mini

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating mini_roundabout

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:55 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 13:30, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 7:20 AM Paul Allen wrote: >> >>> >>> Necessary, but not sufficient. It doesn't just have to be physically >>>

Re: [Tagging] Billboard or something else

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019, 05:55 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am Mi., 30. Okt. 2019 um 11:02 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > >> > these aren’t traffic signs, a common, although underspecified tag is >> man_made=gantry (subtagging the type of gantry could make sense) >> > >> The gantry i

Re: [Tagging] Billboard or something else

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019, 11:06 Jonathon Rossi wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:19 PM Martin Koppenhoefer < > dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Il giorno 30 ott 2019, alle ore 13:09, Jonathon Rossi < >> j...@jonorossi.com> ha scritto: >> > >> > I didn't say these signs had to display messages

Re: [Tagging] Traffic Signs (was: Re: Is there a good way to indicate "pushing bicycle not allowed here"?)

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:02 AM Andy Townsend wrote: > My experience of the US is much less, but what I would say is that > signage there is more likely to be just text, and that text may be > complicated. Parking signs are an example of this (and a bit of a trope > there - see e.g. > http://www.

Re: [Tagging] Service road - Can it be a driveway if serving multiple houses?

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 7:50 AM Dave F via Tagging wrote: > Hi > > In the UK, Amazon Logistics are adding useful data from their GPS'd > delivery vehicles. Mainly highway=service as the last part of their > journey to a destination. > > However, one of their contributors removed service=driveway f

Re: [Tagging] Changeset 62867521

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 7:30 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > 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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:41 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 09:28 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel >: > >> I don't really like the idea to introduce both 'electric_bicycle' as a >> generic term and 'pedelec', 'speed_pedelec' as more narrow tags in case >> we need to be specific.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - park_drive

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019, 04:09 Martin Scholtes wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to inform you that I have made a suggestion about park and > drive. This resulted from a discussion in the OSM DE Telegram Chat. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/park_drive > Definition: Informati

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:19 PM Martijn van Exel wrote: > I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value > to the U.S. map, Eric. > We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to > envisage taking some away. > Not saying we should abolish tru

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:07 AM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 20 Dec 2019, 01:25 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > So, for example, in the US, instead of motorway, trunk, primary, > secondary, tertiary, perhaps something more like freeway, expressway, > major/minor_principal (just having this would fix

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 4:41 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > 20 Dec 2019, 23:04 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > > > > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 19:18, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > > > On 20. Dec 2019, at 04:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick > wrote: > > > > that [/the/] (one & only) road servicing an

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 5:22 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > While =primary refers to "A major highway linking large towns, in > developed countries normally with 2 lanes. In areas with worse > infrastructure road quality may be far worse" > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dprimar

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:57 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Being able to speak each country's highway lingua franca would make it a > lot easier for OSM to become the Rosetta Stone of maps simply from ease of > classification. > > That would mean using "jalan=provinsi" instead of "highway=primar

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:22 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:16, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:57 PM Joseph Eisenberg < > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Being able to speak each country's highway lingua

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >