Re: [Tagging] discrepancy in shop definition and "wholesale" value

On Mar 9, 2018 00:17, "Johnparis" wrote: Typically they will, for example, sell detergent in boxes of 5 kg instead of 1 kg. Or a liter of ketchup. Hence the (USA) term "big box". So they are "wholesale-sized" but not wholesale in the sense of their sales mechanism. (The wholesale=* tag is for who

Re: [Tagging] aeroway=runway - wiki fiddling

On Mar 9, 2018 03:49, "Austin Zhu" wrote: Well, maybe there is someone who thinks mapping runway as area is wrong? I think that both way and area are OK, because the way element matches the way we map taxiways. So it is useful when others need to guide their plane using osm data(maybe in flight s

Re: [Tagging] Different postal codes in each side of the street

On Mar 9, 2018 14:10, "Fernando Trebien" wrote: In Brazil some streets have a different postal code on each side. There seems to be no officially defined tag to represent this on ways. Nominatim supports [1] US TIGER tags tiger:zip_left and tiger:zip_right, even though those could be replaced wit

Re: [Tagging] Different postal codes in each side of the street

Likewise, not everywhere in America has a postal zipcode, but the Census invented ones for their own purposes. On Mar 9, 2018 16:13, "Kevin Kenny" wrote: > Oops, sent an earlier attempt from the wrong place: > > TIGER:zip_left and zip_right were intended to be ZIP codes, because > they were ther

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=cannabis

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 5:17 AM, James wrote: > well shop=cannabis is going to be needed in Canada in a couple months as > it's going to become legal nation wide with goverment run shops July 1st. > Not to mention I know of a couple in Vancouver that have been open in plain sight and not hiding

Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On 29 March 2018 at 11:58, Javier Sánchez Portero > wrote: > > > I'm looking for a key to denote if you have > > to refuel by your self or not. I meant if the station operates on self > > service mode. > > There are (at least) three modes: >

Re: [Tagging] Attendant on amenity=fuel

On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 5:48 PM, wrote: > There is also an automated key mentioned on the wiki. > > > > This applies mostly to self_service I would guess, and I assumed > automated=yes indicates that you can pay at the pump. > > > > I didn’t mention the following because taginfo showed that it’s

[Tagging] Tagging turn restriction defaults

What would be the best way to handle setting unusual defaults on a regional basis? For example, all of the City of Tulsa and State of Oregon prohibit U-turns at traffic lights. How would one tag for this, and the inverse, tagging where such a turn is allowed by a sign? Most complicated example I

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

I don't think that's particularly harmful. I'm not against extending the criteria to published laws, particularly when those laws are documented in an official source. On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 23:10 wrote: > Actually, it’s not just relatively harmless “noise”. Because such > no_u_turn restrictions

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

lable and under government copyright online already. It's no less verifiable than ground truth, and just as applicable to navigation. On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 16:34 wrote: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_your_local_legislation.2C_if_not_bound_to_objects_in_re

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:06 PM, wrote: > I tought it was obvious, but let me spell it out: such restrictions > represent a default which we should be recorded somewhere (not necessary > inside OSM) once and observed by data consumers, not by creating > potentially 10’s of relations to again a

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:45 PM, wrote: > I never said anything about _*not*_ having some way to encode such > default rules. In fact, if you look at my recent posts here, you will see > that I specifically pointed out the current lack of such a schema as an > issue that needs to be solved. I also

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:50 PM, wrote: > > I find it's less than productive for finding solutions to problems the > > wiki is currently advising to leave unresolved (such as this), or > > ambiguous (like primary vs trunk vs motorway in the US). > > It doesn't tell you to leave the problem unsolve

Re: [Tagging] Railways along streets

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 17:30 Albert Pundt wrote: > What's the best way to map a railway along a street, and how are the > street intersections to be mapped? For example, this street > in Lewistown, PA has a freight line > running along the middle. Should it be ma

Re: [Tagging] Bannered/Special routes (Business, Alternate, etc.) in ref tags

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 10:48 PM, Albert Pundt wrote: > Sometimes bannered routes like business and alternate routes are tagged > with, for example, ref=US 1 Business, spelling it out fully, and other > times they abbreviate it, e.g. ref=US 1 Alt. Which is considered the best > practice? We alrea

Re: [Tagging] How to map Outdoor Fitness Equipment

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Jo wrote: > A few days ago this was installed: > > https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/geAJ9RpsDDeDNQxqwpykBw > > Any suggestions on how to map it? > Fitness station. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/481647738 is an example I've mapped. ___

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 2:41 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have highway=unclassified > with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check > whatever my edit on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway% > 3Dunclassified > w

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 7:28 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Sun, 2018-05-06 at 09:41 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I am pretty sure that it is entirely possible to have > > highway=unclassified > > with officially assigned and posted ref number, but I wanted to check > > whatever my edit on h

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

That's basically the highway=unclassified tag. On Mon, May 7, 2018, 12:07 Vao Matua wrote: > There are many places where people live in Africa that could be tagged as > Rural_Residential if that tag existed. > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Dave Swarthout > wrote: > >> yopaseopor wrote: I su

Re: [Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > Dave Swarthout writes: > > > But when a highway has an officially assigned ref doesn't that define it > as > > "classified"? I don't have a large stake in this discussion but it would > > You would think. But no. > > In the UK, there is a not

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

My suggestion: cycleway=lane lanes=4 lanes:forward=2 lanes:backward=2 motor_vehicle:lanes:forward=yes|no motor_vehicle:lanes:backward=yes|no bicycle:lanes:forward=yes|designated (maybe no|designated if you're not allowed out of the bike lane on a bike) bicycle:lanes:backward=yes|designated Ration

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

; (Which is maybe somewhat unfortunate, but the lanes=count tag predates the > :lanes prefix tags by many years, and has been used that way all over the > place. Mixing different definitions of the lanes key in different places, > or even just different segments of the same road, is go

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Thu, May 10, 2018, 00:29 wrote: > The “lanes=count” key gives the number of full lanes for motorized > traffic. This gives a good estimate for total carrying capacity for vehicle > traffic on this road for software that isn’t too concerned about the > details, or simply older software that doe

Re: [Tagging] complete tagging of all 'right of way'-cases

Thank you! I'm a proponent of the relation method myself, though, stupidly, this is the one that got traction somehow. On Thu, May 10, 2018, 12:38 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 10. May 2018, at 19:12, Ruben Kelevra wrote: > > > > Well, both tags are combined with

Re: [Tagging] complete tagging of all 'right of way'-cases

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > 2018-05-10 21:03 GMT+02:00 Ruben Kelevra : > >> > which is intrinsically flawed, as it gets added to a node but nodes >> > don’t have a direction. >> Yep. It's a mess and really bad to parse and check for consistency. Also >> prett

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

OK, a little more thought on this. On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:45 PM, wrote: > If I may correct your suggestion, that’s not quite right. > > The lanes=* key should be used to specify the total number of *marked* [image: > Wikipedia-16px.png] lanes of a > ro

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:49 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > I'll agree with all your tags, as ":lanes" is for all lanes, including > cycle lanes. > It's just historically that "lanes" (the tag alone) is only for motorised > traffic. > Right, but *why*? I can't think of any reason for this, but I've

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 01:56 wrote: > > From: Marc Gemis > > Sent: Friday, 11 May 2018 14:44 > > > > When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only > > count the "full width segments for motorised traffic". Perhaps > > because traffic law in some countries (e.g. Belgium [1]) def

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 02:56 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 11. May 2018, at 06:44, Marc Gemis wrote: > > > > When the "lanes" tag was introduced the community choose to only count > the "full width segments for motorised traffic". > > > what is the definition for “fu

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 03:27 Marc Gemis wrote: > > The definitions of what a lane is for these two tags are different. > That's fine. They don't have to be the same. > > it would help though that validators and QA tools would not really > warn about the difference. Now people might start wondering

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 03:58 wrote: > I've never gotten any validation errors when correctly tagging a road with > cycle lanes (that is, e.g. for a "normal" 2-way road: lanes=2, > cycleway=lane, and :lanes:forward and :lanes:backward tags with 2 values > each). > cycleway=* is not lane tagging, y

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual barrier. On Fri, May 11, 2018, 11:25 Tod Fitch wrote: > > > On May 11, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > Why the almost religious doctrine level of resistance to change? Even > t

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 12:50 Paul Allen wrote: > > At which point in that long transition should editors switch? And when > should > renderers switch? And when should routeing algorithms switch? > None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission of bicycle lane tagging ort

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual >> barrier. >> >> It does not sound that way to me. It sounds to me like the

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 11. May 2018, at 18:18, Marc Gemis wrote: > > > > We have this problem even at this moment > > (since you apply another definition than many other mappers), but we > > can refer you, new mappers and dat

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2018-05-11 21:48 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen : > >> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:06 PM, Paul Johnson >> wrote: >> >>> >>> None of these three things are a problem now, except that the omission >&

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:38 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Mateusz Konieczny < > matkoni...@tutanota.com> wrote: > >> 11. May 2018 19:16 by ba...@ursamundi.org: >> >> This honestly sounds more of gatekeeping through laziness than an actual >> barrier. >> >> >> You ar

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > Considering that it's already been wrong for nearly 300,000 ways for years >> now, the only thing that could >> > happen on this would be improve. >> > > So, of 7 million lanes tags, 300,000 get it wrong. Which means that > 6,700,000 get it r

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Steve Doerr wrote: > On 12/05/2018 12:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> Actually, while I know about and abide to the wiki definition, I don't >> think it is intuitive to count some lanes and other not. >> > > We do that because of a UN convention: https://lists

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > Why do you keep taggig roads if you know the wiki tells you not to > count cycle lanes? The wiki doesn't mesh with the real world on this issue. How is this lanes=0 and not lanes=2? https://imgur.com/gallery/3C3lHbj How is this lanes=2 an

Re: [Tagging] complete tagging of all 'right of way'-cases

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:53 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 10. May 2018 21:03 by ru...@vfn-nrw.de: > > What do you think about the relation-approach designed by AMDmi3: > > > Relations are generally horrible to edit. > Don't blame a primitive designed to model complex situations for the shortc

Re: [Tagging] complete tagging of all 'right of way'-cases

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 11. May 2018, at 04:01, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > Your from way would be the way those signs are facing, and the TO ways > would be all the ways you would have to s

Re: [Tagging] complete tagging of all 'right of way'-cases

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 12. May 2018, at 23:27, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > Then, it doesn't matter what other traffic control is present, bicycles > turning right have a yield. > &g

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sun, May 13, 2018, 00:37 Marc Gemis wrote: > For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1. > This literally doesn't add up. Also, that's a shoulder on the right, Tulsa screwed up and used white paint for the centerline. Awkward but correct. But as said before, the lanes

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > May I kindly ask my fellow mappers to come back to my initial question > about tagging of oneway cycle lanes? I would like to get an amswer without > changing the existing tagging schemes for lanes. > > Thanks in advance > I still stand b

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:23 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 11:34 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > For your first image lanes=0, lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=1. Awkward > but > > correct. > > > This is of course incorrect, lanes = 0 (or just do not mention it) > and bicycle:lanes:fo

Re: [Tagging] tagging of one-way cycle lanes

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:36 PM, Johnparis wrote: > Back to this again, Paul. It is getting tiresome. If you don't like how > the tag is defined, create a new one. Don't vandalize the old one. > Improvement=vandalism. Got it. > The *:lanes suffix is unrelated to the lanes=* tag. Get over it.

Re: [Tagging] tagging arbiters (gone OT)

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 8:03 AM, Dave F wrote: > On 13/05/2018 22:34, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I've long said that the final arbiters of tagging should be... the people > who implement the routers, renderers, navigation systems,. search engines, > and so on > > > No. > > We already have the case wh

Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

On Tue, May 22, 2018, 11:29 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > 2018-05-22 17:18 GMT+02:00 Tod Fitch : > >> In reviewing the wiki in preparation to fixing some of my older mapping, >> it seems there is an inconsistency in how to tag a road that is wide enough >> to two lanes of traffic but is lackin

Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Tod Fitch wrote: > > On May 22, 2018, at 12:48 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > In the case of your typical bog standard American residential street, I'm > strongly disinclined to agree that this is a two lane situation. I'd be > incline

Re: [Tagging] Sample tagging for highways with no lane markings

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:31 PM, yo paseopor wrote: > Case B: some pics before > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=41.46210902249982&lng=12. > 874923250143638&z=17&pKey=ygjsHztch9KkrIILOPA3Jg&focus= > photo&x=0.4957587433175&y=0.4652742508751958&zoom=0.3348214285714282 > > lanes=1, impossib

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 5:23 AM, wrote: > I interpret roundtrip as “you can get from a stop to another stop that’s * > *before** it in the list of stops by simply remaining in the vehicle”. > That's how I interpret it as well. Tulsa Transit route 222 seems like a good example of a roundtrip=yes

Re: [Tagging] roundtrip

On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 5:41 AM, Peter Elderson wrote: > I wish you a happy trip on that bus, hope it has toilets and a tolerable > coffee machine > Oh, you sweet, summer child. Someone's never tried to take a suburban route in the US, even in a "transit oriented" American city... _

Re: [Tagging] Hamlet is always an unincorporated place in OSM?

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 3:06 PM, santamariense wrote: > > The question is: Is Nominatin wrong or are we mapping a thing that > there not be in Brazil and a best tag should be applied? Or maybe a > new tag like unincorporated=yes/no should be created to complement the > type of hamlet? > It can var

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

If you find a way to do it, by all means, share, since the lane tagging issue is directly affected. On Thu, Jun 7, 2018, 05:52 Peter Elderson wrote: > Providing a more consistent while still backwards compatible tagging > scheme for a feature is not the end of freedom. It just helps to answer th

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 03:45 François Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > According to this page : > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:busway > > it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no and I find this > too restrictive. > Such lanes can also be accessible by cabs, bikes or by foot. >

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 03:54 François Lacombe wrote: > On the "Other" section : > Bus-only roads (asphalt/tarmac): highway > =* + access > =no > + b

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 04:20 François Lacombe wrote: > Then I don't get why we have access=private or access=designated if > access=no can cover all situations when at least one mean of access is not > possible. > designated is basically more yes than yes, but is specific to mode access only. pri

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 03:34 Peter Elderson wrote: > > Some tags have so much 'use' (I prefer the term 'misuse' in some cases.. > > that > convincing most that they need to change gets very hard. > > True, but if the change is a change of direction not requiring massive > changes, 100% backwards c

Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 23:43 Bryan Housel wrote: > The only way I’ll be able to support lane transitions would be as a > relation that has similar semantics to turn restrictions.. from/via/to. > Keep it simple (no multi via ways please). This is already an understood > way of tagging things that

Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes

You'd have more than one via way for the transit:lanes relation. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 01:11 Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 11. Jun 2018 23:02 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 23:43 Bryan Housel wrote: > >> The only way I’ll be able to support lane transitions would be as a >> re

Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes

exactly one node where they connect. That is your via node. *From:* Paul Johnson *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 June 2018 08:46 *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes You'd have more than one via way for the transit:lanes relat

Re: [Tagging] Street exits

Looks like a pretty typical Dutch pedestrian crossing? They're pretty good about organizing things so as to be unambiguously obvious when you do and don't have the right of way in regards to nonmotorized traffic. On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Peter Elderson wrote: > The street is residential

Re: [Tagging] Street exits

I wouldn't call it unmarked; uncontrolled would be more like it. The markings are just a permanent fixture of the surface in this case, kinda like how some American towns use brickwork instead of paint for crosswalks

Re: [Tagging] public transport through service

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 10:36 Michael Tsang wrote: > My problem is "How should we tag a public transport through > service route?" > What's the use case? Better interchange for OSM to GTFS synchronization? > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetm

Re: [Tagging] nautical channels

On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > > On Sat, 30 Jun 2018, 14:03 Paul Allen, wrote > >> >> The way to handle navigable channels across lagoons/lakes is covered at >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:route >> (you might have to invent route=boat or route=ship). >> >

Re: [Tagging] highway=motorway_junction : what about primary, secondary or tertiary ways?

Trunk, yes. Primary and lower, if it has exits intersections, are you sure it's not a trunk? On Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 01:36 David Marchal wrote: > Hello, there. > > > Is highway=motorway_junction also applicable to non-motorway roads? There > are primary, secondary… roads where there are exits, bu

Re: [Tagging] highway=motorway_junction : what about primary, secondary or tertiary ways?

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Michal Fabík wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Trunk, yes. Primary and lower, if it has exits intersections, are you > sure > > it's not a trunk? > > Hi, > I'm not quite sure what you me

Re: [Tagging] Golf wiki page

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018, 17:47 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Apparently areas used for logging-related purposes are not to be mapped in > OSM .. there are no tags available for this land use. > We simply cannot map them. > Well, this complicates things for the US, most national forests are

Re: [Tagging] Put the name in sidewalks and cycleways

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018, 03:32 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Generally properties on the main highway are often a more useful > representation than dedicated ways, but if you go into details it can be > better to have a dedicated way (or you will have to split the main highway > into lots of tiny fragme

Re: [Tagging] areas of risk

Other than dog toilets, this is too subjective to be included in OSM at all, and tends to stink of class and racial biases. On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 14:35 seirra wrote: > Hello, i was wondering whether there was a way to tag areas that may be > risky/dangerous to walk in? i can think of a few stree

Re: [Tagging] areas of risk

On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 16:35 seirra wrote: > hmmm i do see the point there about racial/class bias... i was thinking > more about areas that were known crime spots/had associated illegal > activities people may want to avoid(to the point there are regular police > patrols at night)? also places wh

Re: [Tagging] areas of risk

Then you're just splitting class and race hairs. On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 11:20 seirra wrote: > there can be notable areas though, outside of what may usually be expected > > On 08/17/18 16:03, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, 16:35 seirra wrote: &g

Re: [Tagging] areas of risk

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 16:17 Adam Franco wrote: > > Another "risk" case would be an area where a civil war or conflict has > divided who controls what land. Either side of the line of control may be > incredibly risky for people affiliated with the other side but not to the > supporters of those i

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

On Sun, Aug 26, 2018, 12:30 Dave Swarthout wrote: > I agree that those are two different critters and that using > the passing _place tag is not the best way to handle this. But, aside from > splitting the highway into lanes:forward, lanes:backward, etc., how should > such a turnout be tagged? Th

Re: [Tagging] access/maintenance platforms

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018, 06:36 seirra wrote: > hello, i was wondering what would be the best way to tag a metal > platform? for example the metal staircases that are at times used for > apartments/used for access/maintenance > You mean the fire escape? > ___

Re: [Tagging] About traffic islands

We have the painted on kind in the US as well, bordered by two orange lines and filled with a slash hatch in it. It's treated the same as a raised island but doesn't provide any physical barriers. I usually count this as lanes:both_ways=1, access:lanes:both_ways=no On Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 06:28 yo

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 8:15 PM Dave Swarthout wrote: > @Warin, Thanks for clearing up my confusion about passing places. These > turnouts are definitely not the same. A vehicle should never stop in one. > They are about 1/4 mile long and some but not all have painted lines to > separate the highw

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 6:20 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 at 08:26, Dave Swarthout > wrote: > >> I'm still looking for a simple solution that allows me to tag >> slow_vehicle_turnout lanes in such a way that makes them visible to drivers >> using a GPS as they motor along

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 08:17 Dave Swarthout wrote: Although these lanes are not physically separated by a barrier other than a > painted line, I'm going to opt for the service road scenario. It is simple, > much, much less error prone to map, and IMHO, would do the job better than > the lanes tech

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

I don't think so. Really the only thing throwing this off seems to be the same thing throwing off people who think bus and bicycle lanes shouldn't be counted as lanes: the solid line. On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 11:50 Kevin Kenny wrote: > It seems to me that the key attribute of the 'climbing lane' s

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

ine or even no line at all. I wouldn't make a > difference based on markings. > > I also strongly favor the lines solution but wonder if we could not > stretch the turn key a bit. Something along > turn:lanes:forward=through|turn-out. > > /Tobi > > > Am 10.09.2018 u

Re: [Tagging] Slow vehicle turnouts

not a repave since then). On Mon, Sep 10, 2018, 14:36 SelfishSeahorse wrote: > I wasn't aware that it is allowed to cross a single solid line in the > USA. Hence forget the overtaking:lanes:=* tags in > the example in my last message. > On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 20:38, Paul Johnson

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:42 PM Tobias Zwick wrote: > In order to find an optimal and future proof tagging schema for default > speed limits, I believe that first extensive research have to be done to > find out what exists in the world, what has to be considered. Also, for > default speed limits

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 1:17 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > > > On Sep 18, 2018, at 10:41 AM, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > > > There is a misunderstanding. > > > > So, there are 597 towns, 77 counties and 2 councils in the state of > > Oklahoma and I understand that you want to say that all these entities > >

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 7:09 AM Greg Troxel wrote: > Tod Fitch writes: > > >> On Sep 18, 2018, at 6:19 PM, Joseph Eisenberg < > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> So on the boundary=administrative admin_level=6 for Rogers County, we > could have something like maxspeed:type:default=45m

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 7:18 AM Greg Troxel wrote: > > Philip Barnes writes: > > > And if the default actually applies, or has it been overriden by local > signage. > > > > I am not convinced that a default limit helps, if no speed limit has > been surveyed I would prefer that box not to be disp

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018, 08:27 djakk djakk wrote: > By the way, we should de-correlate the legal status of an highway from the > highway tag : with the key highway:legal_type, values : business_area or > residential_area or an other local legal classification. A highway=tertiary > could also be high

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018, 10:22 djakk djakk wrote: > Yes Paul, I should not forget the beginners ... > > I am not a beginner anymore but I still found “source:maxspeed=“ for roads > a little confusing, as we should use “source=“ only (?) on the metadata (on > the changeset). > Specific keys that don

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 4:51 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > > Kevin Kenny: > >> >> Not all Interstates *ought* to be tagged as motorways. A case in point >> is Interstate 93 in Franconia Notch, New Hampshire, which *ought* >> to be a trunk (it's a two-lane road with a centre guard rail that was

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:15 PM Tobias Zwick wrote: > a) source:maxspeed is still quite simple to use because a 1:1 > mapping is possible, e.g. source:maxspeed=DE:urban -> maxspeed=50 > In other words, it's a good start for getting away from explicitly > tagged speed limits and i

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:31 PM Tod Fitch wrote: > > > On Sep 19, 2018, at 6:59 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > > > An example of an interstate I would call trunk would be I 70 between I > 68 and I 76, given that those two are the two closest junctions. Moto

Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:08 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Thinking about how this would apply to other waterways I've mapped, I >> currently map the streams or drains that pass under roads which rainwater >> passes through like below, these are quite similar but with a completely >> different t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Toll Gantry

For the ones you have to stop at, try adding highway=traffic_signals or highway=stop, it's pretty rare to find toll barriers that expect you to stop to not have one or both. For at speed ones, just don't add the stop or signals that don't exist. As for toll gantries not requiring you to slow down

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 6:05 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 19. Sep 2018, at 21:16, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > > > This is a good argument against tagging an explicit maxspeed=X when > > there is actually no speed limit sign around (X is what the OSM mapper > > by hi

Re: [Tagging] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 11:34 PM Mark Wagner wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:09:12 +0200 > Florian Lohoff wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 11:24:00AM -0700, Mark Wagner wrote: > > > My point is that no such guarantee exists for roads without speed > > > limit signs. Yes, the numeric limit f

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:58 AM Philip Barnes wrote: > > > On 28 September 2018 17:31:18 BST, Kevin Kenny > wrote: > >On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 5:34 AM Marc Gemis wrote: > > > >> I still highway=give_way and highway=stop with > >> direction=forward/backward (which is used by OsmAnd AFAIK). > > > >

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:09 AM Bryan Housel wrote: > I actually mentioned the issue in Milano. > > Essentially `traffic_sign`, `traffic_sign:forward` and > `traffic_sign:backward` need to be treated as "object" tags as things are > now. > > Let’s just do `traffic_sign=*` and consider the others

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:23 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 08:58, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> I honestly don't understand why, ten years since it's introduction as >> OSM's third basic primitive, there's still

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign direction tagging..

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:41 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 6:58 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > I'm still against using forward/backward on nodes, it really feels like > a hacky way to avoid using a relation (up there with using ref=* on ways to > describe

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