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

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:47 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:26, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> > I'm not arguing in favor of a change in language for key name. But > the local broadly accepted classification terminology (preferably in > English for

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

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 6:37 AM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 22:30, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> > What I'm saying is highway=bundesstraße could be acceptable, but > straße=bundestraße wouldn't be. Mostly so way type objects with highway=* >

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

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 3:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 21. Dec 2019, at 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, the road classification system in parts of Continental > > Europe was different, so mappers in some major countries, including > >

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

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:50 PM Erkin Alp Güney wrote: > No, that is highway=road. highway=unclassified is one grade above that. > highway=road tends to be most typically used to indicate that there is a traversable path of unknown quality, or a temporary road in a construction zone. These te

Re: [Tagging] depreciate recycling:metal in favor of recycling:scrap_metal

On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 10:50 AM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > There is no useful difference > therefore it is pointless to have two > separate tags for that. > Domestic refuse metals like metal packaging from consumer products (think like, food and beverage cans), something that you can typically

Re: [Tagging] Cycle boxes for two-stage left turns

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:06 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > Hello, > > I'm looking for a way to tag designated areas where cyclists wait to > safely make a far turn (in right-hand-drive regions, a left turn). > I'll call them "left turn boxes" for short though pointers to a better > name would be w

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 1:23 PM joost schouppe wrote: > Especially for car routes, I haven't seen any way to tag touristic routes > for driving cars, like the Turist Veger in Norway or the Route des Cols in > France. It is also of specific interest for cycling. For example, in > Belgium we have a

Re: [Tagging] RFC free_water

I'm not sure what European Water Project is doing to break threading, but could you kindly not do that? Most likely this is caused by replying to an undigested digest, in which you really should be going with individual delivery or using procmail to split the digest into individual messages before

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

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:37 AM Jmapb wrote: > Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page ( > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ): > > > For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling > > traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restric

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

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:41 AM Mike Thompson wrote: > Also, in the parts of the US where I have lived there have generally only > been "multipurpose" paths/trails (a few exceptions). > Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and access, calling things "multipurpose paths

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

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:16 PM Mike Thompson wrote: > > > 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 > acc

Re: [Tagging] Disputed territory mapped as a country

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:41 PM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 1/27/20 18:31, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > > > >> Mateusz, offlist deliberately. > > > > While we're at it, could the list admins fix the BROKEN REPLY-TO? > > I have working "Reply" and "Reply List" features. I

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

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets wrote: > That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common practice. > I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber > foot traffic, `highway=footway` where foot traffic significantly outnumbers > bikes, `hig

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

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets > wrote: > >> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common > practice. > >&

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

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:08 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:55, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wr

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:29 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > I was wondering about tagging roads properly. Previously it was > mentioned to use 'ref' for county roads, ie... "ref='CR 12'", but as the > road sign says "County Road 12", I was wondering about the proper way to > tag this. Should 'CR' be exp

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:07 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > should 'ref' be 'CR 12', and then "name='County Road 12'" > > Sure, if local addresses say “123 County Road 12” and local people say “I > live on County Road 12”. > > If the name is “Old County Road 12”, that would clearly be a name, not

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 5:02 PM Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 1/29/20 16:17, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:07 PM Joseph Eisenberg > > mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > In my hometown, the main road was California highway 96, so “ref=C

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 8:38 AM Rob Savoye wrote: > On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > > You asked this back in August and the answers still apply: > > That was as slightly different question about multiple names, and yes, > still applies. > > > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is no

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:09 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:51 AM Jarek Piórkowski > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 09:38, Rob Savoye wrote: > > > On 1/30/20 2:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > > > "County Road 12" is a ref. It is not a name. People often refer to >

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

Route' rather > >> than 'Road' for these), to the extent that `addr:street=*` will show > >> that for the name, then `name=*` gets that name. (Yes I know that > >> there are mappers who would prefer `noname=yes` in that situation, but > >> address va

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:46 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:09 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > addr:street= should be tagged anyway, and that's where you can put your > "County Route 34". Attempting to infer this based off the nearest street > s

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:38 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > No, no. I'm not proposing addr:street on ways at all, only on things > that actually have an address. What I am saying is that noname=yes should > be a trigge

Re: [Tagging] road names and refs

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:15 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 2:50 PM Richard Fairhurst > wrote: > > Honestly, there is, and it's as Paul and I have described - you put the > ref > > in the ref tag and leave the name tag blank. This is how it has been in > OSM > > since pretty muc

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?&In-Reply-To=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux < florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, AndreasTUHU a écrit : > >> I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54 percent >> of the mixed foot-cycle-ways misses this tag. >> Additionally, the 20 p

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?&In-Reply-To=<88cad950-d9cc-3c2e-9015-a54d7206a...@gmx.com>

On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:41 AM Marc Gemis wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux < > florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, Andreas

Re: [Tagging] How to match multiple destinations and destination:ref?

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:07 AM António Madeira via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hi there. > > I've stumbled with a problem for which I couldn't find a satisfactory > answer. > Say I have a destination sign in a motorway junction exit with 4 > destinations, but only the second one

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 1:18 PM Richard Fairhurst wrote: > A modest proposal: let’s use the name= tag in route relations for route > names. Let’s use the ref= tag for route numbers. If it doesn’t have a name, > it shouldn’t have a name= tag. Same as we do everywhere else. > I'm OK with this. ___

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 2:30 PM Andrew Hain wrote: > Proposal for QA tools: flag anything with the same number in the name and > ref. > So much this. I see this a lot and had to fix a bit of that when I was doing I 405 work. "Interstate 405" is *not* a name and shouldn't be there... _

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 3:39 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > > Richard Fairhurst:: > >> If you need somewhere for a mapper-facing route description (and I can >> see that you need that for “part United Kingdom 5”), then I guess the >> obvious place to put that is the note= tag. But let’s keep it out o

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:29 PM Peter Neale via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Like Dave, I am not sure that I see a huge issue with a name and a > reference duplicating each other (or at least overlapping). > > Names and References are essentially doing the same job; they identify

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:45 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 5:57 PM Richard Fairhurst > wrote: > > > Sure. NCN 4 is called "NCN 4" in the same sense that the M4 is called the > > "M4". That's fine - plenty of people refer to it that way. But OSM > > convention, dating back 15ish

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:10 AM Andrew Harvey wrote: > My view based on current usage, reading of the wiki and general opinion is > that highway=cycleway is meant for any path that is either > designed/intended for bicycles or specifically designated (signposted) for > bicycles, irrespective of if

Re: [Tagging] contact:google_plus status discardable ?

I think that's a distinction without a difference right now. Given that I can check my Google+ right now (yes, mine still works) but it's *now* as dead as people used to claim it was before. On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 5:49 PM Phake Nick wrote: > Google Plus for Corporate is still functional. > > 在

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad wrote: > OK, but it seems redundant to me. A trail/path get tagged as a path. > There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name. Why does > it need to be a route also? > Same reason all 0.11 miles of I 95 in Washington DC is part of a route.

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:06 AM Jmapb wrote: > On 5/12/2020 10:58 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad wrote: > >> OK, but it seems redundant to me. A trail/path get tagged as a path. >> There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 9:23 AM brad wrote: > It isn't part of a route, it's the whole route. I think that's a difference without a distinction in this case. Data consumers still need to know the route is there. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@open

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:43 AM Jmapb wrote: > On 5/13/2020 10:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > We've had relations for over a decade now, IIRC. It's time to stop > treating this basic primitive as entity-non-grata. If tools *still* can't > deal with thi

Re: [Tagging] relations & paths

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 5:48 AM Steve Doerr wrote: > On 14/05/2020 09:31, Jo wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020, 17:44 Jmapb wrote: > >> Regarding the original question -- in what circumstances are >> single-member walking/hiking/biking route relations a good mapping practice >> -- what would b

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

On Sun, May 24, 2020, 18:51 Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 5/24/20 15:26, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I just noticed an apparent contradiction regarding the use of the oneway > > tag between the wiki pages key:oneway > > and motorway > >

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 3:22 AM Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > On 5/26/20 5:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > It can't hurt to specify oneway=yes. I have noticed that the JOSM style >> that shows lane counts and lane use will sometimes not show ways >> properly if onewa

Re: [Tagging] oneway=yes on motorways

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:34 PM Steve Doerr wrote: > I would think that oneway=yes or oneway=-1 was required on motorways in > order to identify the direction of one-way travel. For roundabouts, it must > be easier provided data consumers know the national rules. > Seems pretty easy to tag it an

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 2:59 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie > wrote: > >> Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas? >> Or should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and >> instead use boundary=protected

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 07:10 Martin Koppenhoefer > > sent from a phone > > > On 27. Nov 2018, at 03:27, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > I'm generally a fan of the admin_level option. protected_area is OKisn, > but the protect_class=* tag definitely hits me

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 5:59 AM Paul Allen wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:55 AM Doug Hembry > wrote: > >> But seriously, how many aboriginal lands do you think a mapper would >> have to tag before they remember "protect_class=24"? >> > > How many mappers handle nothing but aboriginal lands

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:24 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 07:22, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> WaPo has an op-ed >> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-oklahoma-could-be-returned-native-americans-it-should-be/> >&g

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

Not to say that tag popularity means it's the best way forward. Consider that the US is still dealing with an import on low quality TIGER data and continent-wide smash-tagging by one person affecting how newer people use highway=motorway and highway=trunk. On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 5:09 PM Doug Hem

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:46 PM Alan McConchie wrote: > I want to take your feedback with the weight and respect it deserves. I > see you voted against "boundary=aboriginal_lands" on the wiki because you > prefer "boundary=administrative". Can you clarify more about your proposed > alternative? >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:35 PM Alan McConchie wrote: > Ok, I see. So you propose that these areas should not have any additional > tags that would identify them as special aboriginal areas, and that the > admin_level should be chosen on a case-by-case basis depending on the > circumstances of ea

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:09 PM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Admin_level=3 is incorrect for reservations. in the USA > > They do not have administrative authority that is superior to that of the > admin_level 4 States or even counties (level 6) in most areas of > govern

Re: [Tagging] Can OSM become a geospacial database?

On Wed, Dec 5, 2018, 14:10 Imre Samu > If I live next to a place called 'Hudson Bay' then I put name='Hudson > Bay' even if some may argue it may not be a Bay. > I'd assume you meant a department store, and if I knew you were near me, I'd also assume it to be a Saks Fifth Avenue (Hudson Bay's mai

Re: [Tagging] How to tag access restriction on interstate highway crossovers?

On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 3:32 PM Xavier wrote: > > By "interstate highway crossovers" I mean small bits of road that > connect the two carriage ways of a US interstate highway and are signed > as "Authorized Vehicles Only" (at least in Virginia they are signed > this way). > > An example is here:

Re: [Tagging] Link roads between different highways type

I think agreeing with the higher level is correct as the link usually inheirets, or at least tolerates, the rules and design standards for the higher road. On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, 04:51 Saeed Hubaishan About the subject I used to tag the link with the lowest way class but in: > > https://wiki.opens

Re: [Tagging] Link roads between different highways type

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 9:02 AM Philip Barnes wrote: > > > On 15 January 2019 14:03:38 GMT, Paul Johnson wrote: > >I think agreeing with the higher level is correct as the link usually > >inheirets, or at least tolerates, the rules and design standards for > >

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019, 11:17 JS The legal situation is already represented by the default OSM setting, > considering all highways as "foot=yes" except some like motorways or those > explicitly marked as "foot=no". > This seems like a good time to remind folks that in North America, there is no san

Re: [Tagging] units and notations for depth

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:19 AM Tony Shield wrote: > Quite right. For OSM purposes I suggest depth in metres, if water is > tidal=yes also tidal_range in metres. > > I can't think of any reason to try to replicate nautical charts and tide > tables. And when planning navigation I do not consider n

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Honestly couldn't hurt the cycleways to have a better model than just path and cycleway, since some networks can get quite complex (consider quietways and cycle superhighways; or the multitiered systems in The Netherlands, for example). On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:39 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue,

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

That actually looks pretty correct. It's a state highway and emergency vehicles are allowed to travel on it, so emergency=yes would be appropriate as well. ref=MI 185 would be better, since US references are XX YYY where XX is the state postal abbreviation (NOT SH, SR, K, M or whatever), but sour

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 Fernando Trebien wrote: > I never thought that emergency access would determine highway > classification. It seems like a secondary use of the way, not its main > use/purpose. > motor_vehicle=no would exclude most emergency vehicles. Most pedestrian ways (highway=ped

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 12:41 Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:32, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 Fernando Trebien > wrote: > >> I never thought that emergency access would determine highway > >> classification. It seems l

Re: [Tagging] Fixing import

Honestly wouldn't be a bad idea for highway=road to be the default type for bulk imports, especially after the TIGER fiasco. On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 03:59 Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Maybe highway=unclassified added in this import should be retagged to > highway=road > (the actual "no known classi

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 13:17 Fernando Trebien wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 12:41 Jarek Piórkowski > wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:32, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 F

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 13:57 Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Feb 27, 2019, 7:31 PM by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > motor_vehicle=no would exclude most emergency vehicles. > > No, it would not. motor_vehicle=no is a legal limitation. > And most emergency vehicles are motor vehicles. And if anything, prese

Re: [Tagging] Emergency vehicle country-specific law

There's quite a few bridges that are *definitely* access=no, emergency=no in my area, but are *not* disused. Might not be physically possible to get a motor vehicle onto the span and definitely not legal to use the span at all, but, not all people care about rules. On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 3:43 AM

Re: [Tagging] Superroutes - good, bad or ugly?

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:19 AM Paul Allen wrote: > I've hesitated to ask this question for months now: what's the > consensus on superroutes? > Coherently and cogently mapping large countries with long routes (such as the United States) would be essentially impossible without them. I think the

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 3:24 AM Charles MILLET wrote: > Taginfo shows it is not the preferred method 979<3562 > > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aleft%3Aoneway=-1 > > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/cycleway%3Aleft=opposite_lane > > *=opposite_lane is/was well understood

Re: [Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 2:43 AM Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 17/3/19 4:30 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Or even > > > https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0766007,153.4447888,3a,20.7y,49.91h,89.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3dPlQ9YxNBm-7lRm4GOUPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 > > > > & back another 30 m's or so >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal Approved - boundary=aboriginal_lands

find any evidence for why people > chose this tag combination instead of boundary=aboriginal_lands. It appears > that the tags are pretty much interchangeable. Most of the features in > Brazil however are tagged incorrectly for the renderer, mixing > leisure=nature_reserve with protect

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal Approved - boundary=aboriginal_lands

OK, all the tribal boundaries in Oklahoma are updated. This will be handy depending on how SCOTUS rules later this year on tribal issues as some of these lines might become state lines. On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 3:32 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > I'm currently working on conflating the bound

Re: [Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:33 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Note that bicycle only lanes are not included in lanes tag count (only > full lanes are counted). > Lets fix this error by omission already. Not counting all lanes serves *nobody*. ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 20:12 Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > Mar 18, 2019, 12:48 AM by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 5:33 PM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > Note that bicycle only lanes are not included in lanes tag count (only > full lanes are counted). > > > Lets fix this

Re: [Tagging] The history behind why :lanes doesn't necessarily add up to lanes (Was Re: Green lanes (OT))

And yet, literally *no* applications support lane values without being included in the lane count. On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 4:51 AM Andrew Davidson wrote: > On 18/3/19 12:38 pm, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > The premise that bike lanes aren't lanes is an inherently flawed o

Re: [Tagging] Green lanes (OT)

Or just a map roulette challenge. On Mon, Mar 18, 2019, 12:46 "Christian Müller" wrote: > This seems reasonable but probably takes years to implement. > Considering how tagging changes moved, or rather not moved, > in the past, the projection into the future is that it will > at best be yet anot

Re: [Tagging] Do we still need cycleway=opposite_lane? (Was: Do we still need cycleway=opposite?)

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:12 PM "Christian Müller" wrote: > Suggesting forward and backward as tag > values is a rather bad thing, as these > are values for route relation roles. > I would say that is true for nodes, though this situation is being handled for nodes that are part of ways better t

Re: [Tagging] Is there any use of shop=general/general_store not covered by shop=convenience/supermarket/country_store?

A small footprint, full service version of a Fred Meyer or Walmart? Kind of feel country store isn't sure if it wants to be like Atwoods or the strangely named Tractor Supply, or if it wants to be like Cracker Barrel or Boot Barn, or if it's analogous to a feed store. On Mon, Mar 25, 2019, 08:46

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Runway Holding Positions

Flightgear uses this for world generation. On Thu, Mar 28, 2019, 12:47 Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > "Inclusion of these markings will allow applications to warn the pilot > prior to entering the > runway safety area without permission from air traffic control. " > > I am pretty sure that OSM is no

Re: [Tagging] what is the meaning of bicycle=yes on highway=path

It's recommended that bicycle and foot get tagged explicitly where there's no obvious global default (like footway, path, cycleway and motorway). On Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 09:44 Volker Schmidt wrote: > In the context of cycling-related tagging there is an issue which I would > like to bring up. > Th

[Tagging] Extremely complicated conditional values

Is there a condition value calculator that can help me come up with sane tagging for this? https://openstreetcam.org/details/955279/18672/track-info This is a chart of advised speeds in MPH for HGVs on a motorway in Oregon based on weight in pounds. I'm at a complete loss of how to tag for this

Re: [Tagging] Tag for a plateau or tableland?

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 5:13 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 7:. > >> I was wondering about leaving them all under peak? >> >> natural=peak >> peak=hill/mountain/plateau/butte/mesa >> >> Would that work? >> > > A peak is well defined as the local high point. A Mesa or butte will

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC (etc) for crossing:signals

On Mon, May 20, 2019, 02:53 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Mo., 20. Mai 2019 um 07:53 Uhr schrieb Nick Bolten : > >> Hello everyone, this is a late addition to this thread (I'll start a new >> one soon after I improve the proposal page), but I want to give an example >> of a crossing that ha

Re: [Tagging] Runway area mapping?

On Mon, May 20, 2019, 21:57 Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 11:36, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >> The current wiki page suggests using "aeroway:area=runway" to map the >> outline of the runway, and mapping the "aeroway=runway" as a line >> along the center of the runway. >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a site with "Luxury Lodges"

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I personally would not tag a >20 foot wide manufactured home as a static > caravan > I'm just amused that staying in a trailer park is considered a high end tourism/glamping experience in the UK instead of a cheap form of permanent housin

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a site with "Luxury Lodges"

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 5:03 PM Peter Neale via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > I'm just amused that staying in a trailer park is considered a high end > > tourism/glamping experience in the UK instead of a cheap form of > permanent > > housing. Granted, my exposure to this phenom

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:10 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Now, my argumentation is in favour of making a distinction between > unmarked and marked but not explicitly for lanes=0. I wouldn't mind or even > slightly favor a tag like nolanes=yes or similar - this would be even more >

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 5:49 PM Greg Troxel wrote: > Joseph Eisenberg writes: > > > This requirement is fine for Europe, but the presence of lane markings > > is not reliable in all of the world. > > > > In developing countries, such as here in Indonesia, the presence of > > painted lane marking

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

rs to pass side to side in the middle. On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 8:02 PM Greg Troxel wrote: > Paul Johnson writes: > > > In that example, I think it'd be better to just tag width=* instead of > > lanes=*. > > Perhaps, but then data consumers have to figure how how

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 7:09 AM yo paseopor wrote: > Also when they are a passable, two way road? > BOE-020_Codigo_de_Trafico_y_Seguridad_Vial > Page 50 > Carril. Banda longitudinal en que puede estar subdividida la calzada, > delimitada o no por marcas viales longitudinales, siempre que tenga

Re: [Tagging] Fuel octane ratings: RON versus AKI

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:25 PM Minh Nguyen wrote: > Compounding the matter, for several years, the fuel:* wiki page has > specified that octane ratings must be expressed in RON, which is used in > more countries. [3] In a few countries including U.S., octane ratings > are only posted in RON, not

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

I'm on board with a state park specific tag. I find protect class to be a clunky answer and not entirely humanly intuitive compared to something like leisure=state_park On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 7:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > We should discuss this at Github to get other ideas and opinions. I

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

I, for one, consider not including bicycle lanes to be a harmful shortcoming. It tells you nothing about where, how many or what turn restrictions apply to the bicycle lanes, all because bicycle lanes don't count because reasons. It also means lane guidance where bicycle lanes exist will automati

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

I don't see it as redefining lanes so much as fixing a bug that never should have been there in the first place. Like whoever came up with the current concept hates cyclists or something. An analogous situation would be of someone decided ground floors don't count. Of course we'd fix that. This

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

Not really, no, you could easily Maproulette this for items tagged cycleway=lane. Besides, just because something is hard to fix doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 13:24 Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > 30 Jul 2019, 16:26 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > I don't see it as redefi

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

Maybe quit fighting against a good idea just because it's hard? And since when have we ever been against incremental improvement over none at all except for this specific thing? On Tue, Jul 30, 2019, 14:04 Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 19:46, Paul Johnson wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] lanes = 0

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 5:50 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 23:33, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> 30 Jul 2019, 21:03 by pla16...@gmail.com: >> >> However, if standard carto makes any rendering decisions based upon >> lanes=n >> >> It is not used at all. >> > > That's one potentia

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:26 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > trunk - connects cities to cities ("National Roads") > primary - connects a town to a city or another town > secondary - connects a village to a town/city or another village > tertiary - connects a hamlet to a village/town or another hamle

Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified

On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 1:35 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > I'm sure the hierarchy > trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary//residential with a side > of service types is general enough that all countries can map their own > system to it. I feel no need to force any country's own system upon any > other co

Re: [Tagging] Cycling "service area"

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 4:52 AM, nwastra wrote: > I also find the highway=cycle_service_area tag is both useful and > specific enough to be a widely used tag if documented on the osm cycling > pages. > Indeed, it's something I would use if properly documented; we call them plaza zones in Tulsa,

Re: [Tagging] Cycling "service area"

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I would prefer a tag structure of the type > highway=service _area (or highway=services ?) > vehicle_type=bicycle; motorcycle; car; agricultural; hgv; motor_vehicle > (with default vehicle_type=motor_vehicle?) > attendant=yes|no > > I have

Re: [Tagging] Cycling "service area"

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:53 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Access tags are something different. You may well have a place were you > can drive to with your car, but the service is only for bicycles > motorcar=yes, bicycle=designated. ___ Tagging mailing

Re: [Tagging] Culverts and Fords

On Mar 2, 2018 08:42, "Vao Matua" wrote: Thank you Ralph, I understand your perspective, but have to disagree a bit (I'm not looking for a battle, however). A ford is a stack of layers that are directly adjacent vertically, with the road slightly below the stream/river. In the dry season a ford

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >