Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

Along with this, I really hope renderers start computing surface=* and toll=* values for ALL ways. I say this since "surface=asphalt, highway=cyclway" is an exceptionally rare combination in the midwestern US, but "highway=cycleway, surface=gravel, toll=yes" is not. On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 2:29 A

Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > For bicycle routing the paved information is not very useful. I strongly dispute this. In the US, where practical bicycles are the exception, not the rule, surface information is exceptionally important. The overwhelming vast majority of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - cycleway=soft_lane

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Hubert wrote: > I would like to ask for any comments and opinions to this proposal > https://wiki.opens > I'm against this. Along with cycleway=lane/hov=lane at this point. Just use per-lane tagging (bicycle:lane

Re: [Tagging] name and brand tags

I'm pretty sure operator=Batman wouldn't work for name=Batman's Good Food, which is brand=Phillips 66... On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > > On 09/24/2014 10:22 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > >> Besides in my experience petrol stations do have a name, it may not be >> obvious u

Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:54 AM, wrote: > Toll? I assume that means the same in US English as in UK English? > Yes, as in you need to pay a fee to travel on it to use it. > You really have to pay to use cycleways? How is the toll collected and > enforced? > I've encountered them in a couple p

Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no

to use cycleways? How is the toll collected and >> enforced? >> >> Phil (trigpoint ) >> >> On Sun Sep 21 2014 23:36:04 GMT+0100 (BST), Paul Johnson wrote: >> > Along with this, I really hope renderers start computing surface=* and >> > toll=* values for

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Tagging for complex junctions or traffic signals that are named

I can see this being somewhat practical in North America, but the tagging for North American examples tends to fall within existing standards. Take Coe Circle in Portland or Bartlett Square in Tulsa for example. And ignore the fact that Bartlett Square is round On Sep 28, 2014 10:15 PM, "Ники

Re: [Tagging] Public lands with designated parking lots

Sounds like mapping the trailhead and associated entities as a "site" would be useful. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:site On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Eric Kidd wrote: > I enjoy mapping nature reserves, large parks and trail systems. These > typically share a number of feature

Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=stationery, shop=office_supplies

When I think of a stationery shop, I think of something like a FedEx Office minus the copiers and shipping. When I think of an office supply store, I think of something like Office Depot, Office Max or Staples, which also sell office furniture, computers, adding machines, filing cabinets, etc. On

Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=mall versus shop=shopping_centre

I'm thinking this is a shopping mall , and this is a shopping center . Not to be confused with a mall . On Mon, Oct

Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=mall versus shop=shopping_centre

uld not be a mall. > > Volker > > On 21 October 2014 07:57, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> I'm thinking this is a shopping mall >> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Eaton_Centre_HDR_style.jpg>, >> and this is a shopping center >> <

Re: [Tagging] Default maxspeed unit on waterways

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Pieren wrote: > Hi, > > Currently, le wiki ([1]) suggests that maxspeed has to specify the > unit "knots" when it's not km/h. But "knot" is the unit used worldwide > on waterways. Why should we add something obvious on all waterway > elements? Except it totally

Re: [Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

Can we move towards using the lanes tagging used for every other mode already? It's much more precise and can deal with situations like where the bike lane is not the extreme left/right lane. On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Hubert wrote: > Hallo, > > since a new main value for UK:advisary cyc

Re: [Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > "2. the cases where the bike lane is in the middle of the road is > limited" - bicycle lane in > the middle is standard before advanced stop line (to be on the left side > of right-turn) - > at least in Poland > Not unheard of to common

[Tagging] boundary=aboriginal_lands versus boundary=protected_area

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Daboriginal_lands https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area I've read over both proposals, and both are getting long in the tooth. I realize that the former is slightly more commonly used, but neither have much traction fo

Re: [Tagging] boundary=aboriginal_lands versus boundary=protected_area

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> I've read over both proposals, and both are getting long in the tooth. I >> realize that the former is slightly more commonly used, but neither have &

Re: [Tagging] custom road ref shields

Why not just compose this from the network tag on the relation? I'm almost certain that was one of the motivating factors to going to route relations in the first place. On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:48 AM, johnw wrote: > I have a question about creating custom road shields, and I know this ties >

Re: [Tagging] custom road ref shields

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 10:11 PM, johnw wrote: > That looks really good. Some graphic designers need to remake the shields > for icon size (bigger lettering, details ignored), but the system of > putting on the roads looks great. amItheOnlyOneHere.png that thinks, in the vast majority of cases,

Re: [Tagging] custom road ref shields

Kind of thought this was settled already, even in the strange cases of states with multiple highway networks (Oklahoma, Texas, Missouri, to name three). On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > I've been trying to understand the issues that keep us from having > Pictural Route Shi

Re: [Tagging] path vs footway

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM, johnw wrote: > AFIK - footway and path are more toward the width, surface, smoothness, > maintenance level, and expected use of the way. a sidewalk often gets > tagged as footpath, as would be a concrete walkway in a garden. > > Paths are usually less maintained, l

Re: [Tagging] path vs footway

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Richard Mann < richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote: > Interesting interpretation of history. Slightly different version: > > The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with > highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted something less

Re: [Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Hubert wrote: > Mo 03.11.2014 20:18 fly : > > > Either just let your proposal exist and start using it or simply use the > lanes:-tagging like > > > > biycle:lanes=yes|yes|designated > > Can I do that, even if the proposal was rejected? > It would leave the proble

Re: [Tagging] [Imports] Portland, OR building and address import

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Darrell Fuhriman wrote: > One open question for me, which we I would appreciate guidance on, is > whether or not to import address points for each unit number in a building, > where we have them. Right now, we are not planning to, but it would be easy > to change t

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] State highway refs (was Re: New I.D Feature)

Sounds like an analogous situation to the difference between State Highways and State Routes in Oregon. The shields always have the state route, the blade markers at bridges and some milemarkers list both the route and the highway. Not all state highways are members of state routes (since roads i

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations & convenience stores

Problem with this idea is usually the fuel is not sold in the convenience store, and at newer convenience store models that actually care about their customers beyond being a walking wallet (ie, OnCue, QuikTrip) will have a separate driveway and parking area behind the store so you don't have to ge

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations & convenience stores

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > In my opinion the "gas station" is not the building but the whole area. > Also the address belongs to the whole area and that's the way I tag gas > stations: > >- Draw an area to cover the complete gas station and put amenity=fuel >t

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations & convenience stores

How about site relations? Seems like a good use of a site relation. On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Jack Burke wrote: > >> -1. I don't really agree. The parking/driving area is no more a part of >> the gas station than any other parki

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations & convenience stores

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Jack Burke wrote: > I usually do building=roof + layer=1 + amenity=fuel + brand=Foo for the > pumps, and building=retail + shop=convenience for the store part. I also > usually put opening_hours on each of them if/as I find out what those are. > This is how I ha

Re: [Tagging] Moveable objects tagged as building=*

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:44 AM, John Willis wrote: > > Semi temporary buildings are usually called portables. Schools I have been > to in the US will have them in place for several years, though they lack a > foundation and can be moved away whole or in sections as a truck trailer - > similar to

[Tagging] Replying to raw digests considered harmful

Could you please consider either subscribing to the nondigested version of the mailing list or use procmail to split each digest into it's constituent messages ? Replying to the emails containin

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

On Jan 3, 2015 4:14 AM, "John Willis" wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 3, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > > Why multipolygons? Typical area with various church thingies (church, vicarage etc) > > is not requiring multypolygon - it is usually may be represented by a simple closed way. >

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

I'm OK with this. Pretty rare to see indoor (or even specifically denominational!) PoWs at Boy Scout camps in the US from what I've seen. On Jan 2, 2015 9:45 AM, "Mateusz Konieczny" wrote: > "I don't agree that place_of_worship requires a building." > > Yes. But buildings that are PoW require a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC: Reverse Vending Machine

On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 8:35 PM, makko wrote: > Apparently there is no consensus what to use to indicate reverse vending > machines (RVM). >See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_vending_machine >and: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bottle_reverse_ > vending_machines > > I t

Re: [Tagging] barrier=net ?

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 9:55 PM, John Willis wrote: > What's the difference between an alley and a motorway besides width? How it drains, how thick the hard surface is, lane width, paved shoulders, buildings not adjacent to the roadway with doors extending into the road (saw a collision between

Re: [Tagging] AddrN

This seems like a problem better handled by indoor mapping individual suites inside a building , unless I'm fundamentally missing the concept and this is about buildings who have multiple addresses valid for all suites. On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Traffic Signals)

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > Sorry but I'm sceptical about the scheme. It adds very little value > compared > to its own complexity. In particular the timing of the lights is highly > volatile > in modern cities, and it seems impossible to collect the ground truth as a >

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:27 AM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 19/01/2015, NopMap wrote: > > > > There seems to be an edit war on the wiki page > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Avoid_semi-colon_value_separator > > > > I personally think that the problem has been discussed many times and it

Re: [Tagging] AddrN

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Dmitry Kiselev wrote: > Andrew, you don't answered a question how to compare addr points to poi > points, > and chose is there one address or two or more. > > Also there is no chance to map building with addresses with node > (without polygonal geometry, in case

Re: [Tagging] AddrN

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 5:28 AM, Dmitry Kiselev wrote: > > > This seems like a particularly strange edge case for the address scheme, > > but I'm curious if any of those valid addresses are consider the > "primary?" > > I am curious too, and there is no answer actually. Ofc. whe can chose one > o

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24/01/2015 11:51 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: ON the subject of > man_made=tap > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Pieren wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Kotya Karapetyan >> wrote: >> >> > As of today, a total

Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Никита wrote: > Wow. Quality of discussion here. > > > I even find the second example more difficult to visualize. It's just > worse than the first in every respect > > payment=efectivo;visa;mastercard;american␣express > payment=mastercard;visa;efectivo > > Now tr

Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

Several freeways that were designed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the Baghdad, IQ area got tagged similarly to that (highway=unbuilt or similar). No idea if they were later built by some authority. Also didn't know if it was inside knowledge by a returning soldier past the end of whatever app

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a cistern?

On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > "cistern" in English implies underground or covered. > > You want something like > man_made=water_tank (unfortunately often used as firw-water tank) > > or > man_made=storage > storage=water > I realize there's a bit of a bikeshedding facto

Re: [Tagging] RFD Camp ground Kitchens and their fittings

On Feb 1, 2015 2:49 AM, "Dave Swarthout" wrote: > > There is much that needs to be done to bring OSM up to speed regarding camping facilities IMO. We have only a very few tags tourism=camp_site, tourism=caravan_site, and in a stretch, leisure=summer camp to describe the myriad of facilities out th

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > +1 "Nobody votes because it's a borderline pointless endeavor." > > I joined this group to effect changes in tagging things of interest to me. > But the discussions inevitably go round and round with nary a thing getting > resolved. If some

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > And it seems for the most part, the tags with the most staying power seem >> to be ones that were natural fits, and *then* were documented *how >> they're actually used* in the wiki retroactively. >> > > A mostly +1 on that. > > The *proble

Re: [Tagging] Electronic or 'e' cigarettes?

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Dave F. wrote: > Hi > > A shop that solely sells electronic cigarettes has been added locally. I > guess this type of product will be on the increase so I think it's best to > clarify unified tag, if there's ever been such a thing in OSM :-) Checking > Tag-info it

Re: [Tagging] Motorroad does not apply to all lanes

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:36 PM, 715371 wrote: > Hi, > > I have a very, very special case here: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/318383959 > > There is a road with four lanes, but not all of them seem to be > motorroad. There is a sign which suggests that. I do not like to have a > separate

Re: [Tagging] Motorroad does not apply to all lanes

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:06 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > *I looked carefully at the situation of that road bridge in Bremen, and to > me it looks clear that the stretch on the bridge cannot legally be a > motorroad. When you enter from the west on the on-ramp I bet you do not > find any sign tell

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Seems like a combination of parking tags and access tags are in order. Typical restrictions in the US would be emergency stopping only, bicycle=yes, foot=yes unless posted otherwise or, in Oklahoma's case, there's a minimum speed posted... On Feb 2, 2015 8:32 AM, "Martin Vonwald" wrote: > I agree

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

On Feb 2, 2015 8:47 AM, "Martin Vonwald" wrote: > > > 2015-02-02 15:41 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson : > >> Typical restrictions in the US would be emergency stopping only >> > Yes - and what tag would that be for emergency stopping only? I think that > is m

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs., optional cycletracks)

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > No. If - for example - you need to turn left on the next crossing and the > adjacent cycleway is separated from the main road so that it is not > possible to turn left from the cycleway, you are allowed to switch to the > main road and driv

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Dmitry Kiselev wrote: > Playgrounds almost newer are supervised by any kind of stuff. > Kids areas and rooms, in most cases have employees who takes care of kids. > Sounds like you're describing the difference between a playground and a day care.

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a cistern?

On Feb 2, 2015 3:11 PM, "Clifford Snow" wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:54 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: >> >> Once again, we are divided by a common language. In American usage, a cistern is a holding tank for captured rain water, used as an alternative to a well in areas where no city wate

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote: > > Surely there is never a law against breaking down. And yet, in Oklahoma and Germany, it's considered preventable and, as such, prohibited on roads with minimum posted limits. The irony of this in a state known for having a high number of "rez cars

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

On Feb 3, 2015 3:37 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote: > > On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote: >>> >>> >>> Surely there is never a law against breaking down. >> >> >

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

On Feb 3, 2015 4:11 AM, "Philip Barnes" wrote: > > On Tue Feb 3 09:36:21 2015 GMT, Colin Smale wrote: > > On 2015-02-03 10:20, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > > On Feb 3, 2015 3:06 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote: > > > > "Preventable"? Ho

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Unless I'm way off, maybe a gore point? Transition into a traditional toll plaza? On Feb 3, 2015 5:30 AM, "Colin Smale" wrote: > A shoulder lane in the middle of the carriageway? Maybe you can > illustrate your scenario. > > Under normal circumstances (one way per carriageway) > shoulder=left/r

Re: [Tagging] How to tag a cistern?

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:35 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > On February 3, 2015 3:05:53 AM CST, Paul Johnson > wrote: > >> >> On Feb 2, 2015 3:11 PM, "Clifford Snow" wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 12:54 PM, John F. Eldre

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

; four lanes. Additional bicycle lanes may also be present. > > Regards, > Martin > > > > 2015-02-03 12:33 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson : > >> Unless I'm way off, maybe a gore point? Transition into a traditional >> toll plaza? >> On Feb 3, 2015 5:30 AM,

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations & convenience stores

Sorry, *still* catching up on stuff after the holidays, a mental breakdown, a car breakdown, replacing that car with a truck, not being able to tag the truck because of the holidays for a month, a truck breakdown... On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 4:25 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 11:

Re: [Tagging] Combining gas stations & convenience stores

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 3:44 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2014-12-12 17:28 GMT+01:00 fly : >> >> Am 05.12.2014 um 21:30 schrieb Paul Johnson: >> > How about site relations? Seems like a good use of a site relation. >> >> As long as it possible to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reception Desk

This seems to have a bit of overlap with information to a large extent. Most have tourism information for the area they're located and vicinity and can provide a lot of the same stuff as a general tourism information office would. They just also rent space to park an RV (or even an RV or cabin), o

Re: [Tagging] Tram tracks running in a road

On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Markus Lindholm wrote: > On 8 February 2015 at 19:57, Jo wrote: > > I don't like to reuse the same ways for both railway and highway. The > shape > > of the railways follow smooth curves for obvious reasons, whereas cars > can > > make 90 degree turns. > > I don't

Re: [Tagging] Tram tracks running in a road

train:lanes=* might be a tag worth inventing for the highway way, giving it more thought. On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Luca Sigfrido Percich < luca.perc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > many thanks for all your feedback! It will take me a week to sort it all > out! :) > > In Milano we alread

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > In the USA occasional sections of even Interstate highways are open to > bicycles, > where no equivalent route exists. There's some argument to tag these as > bike paths to avoid the tag soup of lanes, > and ensure the (unusual) situation is

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:21 AM, fly wrote: > Am 06.02.2015 um 14:00 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt: > > In the USA occasional sections of even Interstate highways are open to > > bicycles, > > where no equivalent route exists. There's some argument to tag these as > > bike paths to avoid the tag soup of l

Re: [Tagging] Access restrictions for shoulder lanes?

Wikipedia seems to be incomplete on this; I'm presently unaware of any state that has a statewide prohibition. On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 7:22 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > On February 9, 2015 4:32:36 AM CST, Paul Johnson > wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Bry

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?

ted. Good luck with that. On Feb 11, 2015 4:53 PM, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/02/2015 4:34 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 8:00 AM, Dave Swarthout > wrote: > >> +1 "Nobody votes because it's a borderline point

Re: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station

On Feb 18, 2015 8:13 PM, "Dave Swarthout" wrote: >The French tried to prevent new words from creeping into what they consider pure French too. The most amusing of which I'm aware of makes the following names equivalent in Canada: KFC, PFK, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Poulet Frit Kentucky... ___

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - dump_station

On Feb 18, 2015 4:38 PM, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 19/02/2015 8:19 AM, David Bannon wrote: >> >> Subject renamed for clarity. >> >> * leaving it as it is - easy choice >> * Adding dump_station to waste= - consistent with whats there now. >> * Adding dump_station to amenity= - e

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > Please have a look at this feature proposal > > . > One question I have is, would this be more for something like this storage lot I can't figure out how to map

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > Thanks for all comments. > > I would like to throw another issue in before I update the proposal with > the recommendations all of you made. > > What to do with places where one *cannot* camp? I have run in many > situations where it would

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Areas, e.g. National Parks, often have a blanket camping policy. > For example "camp only in designated sites". > Or "camp anywhere 200 feet from water". That too could use a tagging. > Restriction multipolygons? __

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I'd expect the width to be the width of the bollard and maxwidth the (in > theory "legal") width of the vehicle that can pass through (e.g. number > taken by reading off a sign) and you might want to add > maxwidth:physical=1.22m (the

Re: [Tagging] Does oneway:bicycle apply to cycleway=track?

What's the location we're working with? On Feb 25, 2015 2:05 PM, "715371" wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a situation where a cycleway=track is not a oneway, while the > highway itself is a oneway=yes. So I added oneway:bicycle=no to the way > because it is true from at least one point of view. > > T

Re: [Tagging] Mapping private home toilets

On Mar 2, 2015 12:07 PM, "Bryce Nesbitt" wrote: > I'm opening a discussion about at least mechanically re-tagging operator:type=private > into "access=no" or "access=private", so that rendering software can choose to omit these locations depending on the map purpose. I'm supportive of this chan

Re: [Tagging] Mapping private home toilets

On Mar 2, 2015 7:59 PM, "Bryce Nesbitt" wrote: > 3) We already have "access=private", a well established tag. The question is which private things should be excluded from > rendered maps (e.g. toilets), and which ones should show (e.g. buildings). Why not use a faded icon or a red icon for toi

Re: [Tagging] paving_stones:n

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > The whole idea of including a size for paving stones seems overkill to me. > Although in places like Germany and Austria where they're running out of > things to map, it might be more attractive. > The really uncanny thing is that this thre

Re: [Tagging] Bus route relations. Forward/backward tag

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Éric Gillet wrote: > 2015-02-16 13:03 GMT+01:00 fly : > >> There are still cases where forward/backward are useful with P2-routes. >> E.g. a route with a loop and some members used twice but different >> directions. >> > > Shouldn't one just duplicate the stop_po

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > > > 2015-03-05 8:00 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > >> On 5/03/2015 5:48 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> >> For areas area:highway should be used, not highway. >> >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/area:hi

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2015-03-05 10:56 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson : > >> I'm guessing because nothing uses highway:area=* but highway=* area=yes >> is working in production? > > > > these have different m

Re: [Tagging] Tagging accepted payments at each toll lane

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Jake Wasserman wrote: > I'm trying to capture the accepted payment for each lane at a toll booth. > I haven't been able to find any other examples of this and I'm hoping for > some pointers here. > > One thought is to use the ":lanes" suffix in conjunction with "p

Re: [Tagging] Tagging accepted payments at each toll lane

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:53 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: > 2015-03-03 19:07 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > >> By the time you get to that level of tagging, >> why not micro map each lane? >> > > One of the reasons (not a good reason) is that when I and others did that > we got bashed because of our poi

Re: [Tagging] Tagging accepted payments at each toll lane

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: > >> 2015-03-03 19:07 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt : >> >>> By the time you get to that level of tagging, >>> why not micro map each lane? >>> >> >> One of the reasons (not a good reason) i

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - register

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:08 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/register > > This is for books where people enter their names, routes and comments. > These > books are located on peaks, along trails, in buildings and in caves. > In German we call t

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps

Martin, could we get an example of what you're proposing at Pioneer Courthouse Square ? Portland's central transit hub and main square seems like it would be a suitably complex use scenario that would make all other examples simpler. On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Martin

Re: [Tagging] route=foot

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 13:06 +0100, Marc Gemis wrote: > > In Belgium and The Netherlands we have tagged all the regional walking > > networks as foot. With this system of walking networks it is possible > > to plan walks as short as 2-3 km and

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

Not sure what problem this is trying to solve. US CB usage doesn't do offsets for transmit and receive typically (some radios can do it but it's not within the US spec), and local company specific usage is typically well-signposted in an obvious location as necessary, with the de facto running cha

Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges & abandoned railways

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > 2015-03-09 23:06 GMT+01:00 John F. Eldredge : > >> >> How does it "help mappers see what they have mapped" to not show a large >> structure which has been mapped and which is physically present? >> > > I didn't say the bridge shouldn't be ren

Re: [Tagging] ?=maze

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Richard Z. wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:57:28AM +1100, Warin wrote: > > > > Mapping a maze path would reduce the enjoyment of the maze .. at least > for > > me. Even if it was a single path. > > spoiler_warning=yes ? > > I do not think that is necessary: >

Re: [Tagging] Toll enforcement devices

On Mar 13, 2015 9:18 PM, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 14/03/2015 11:31 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >> >> OsmAnd was telling me that I was passing a toll_booth on a German motorway, >> however it was just one of the camera bridges operated by TollCollect, >> and applicable only for toll:

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground > inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also > noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business > would be. >

Re: [Tagging] Regional stylesheets for osm-carto (Was: rendering of local power lines)

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 20:14 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:21 PM, johnw wrote: > > In certain countries (such as the one I am in) the thick black > > line has a single purpose - private train line

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/03/2015 7:57 PM, Steve Doerr wrote: > >> On 12/03/2015 05:49, Warin wrote: >> >>> On 11/03/2015 4:06 AM, Sam Dyck wrote: >>> In Canada, privately licensed frequencies, not CB >>> >>> Humm Why call it a 'channel

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Haul Channel

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > The problem with frequency=XXX.XXX MHz is that many people known only the > channels (e.g "9"). > And it's not just frequency, it's encoding (GMRS/CB/etc) > Well, AM/FM/USB/LSB/CW... a CB with FM capability and a tuner that'll wind up into

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Wählen / Voting - Sanitary Dump Station

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:04 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> As a tagged property of a mapped place (e.g. campground, store, fuel >>> station), without a specific position. >>> >> >> Probably

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

Argh, let's not invent yet another amenity type for this. Why not tag for the dispenser type? Then you'd still be able to find fuel as an amenity (which is better than nothing if you don't get your preferred dispenser type in most cases) but you could, say, filter for only fuel amenities that hav

Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've come across regular filling stations without a roof. Somewhere in > Scotland.. on a Sunday .. no one there but a credit card reader so I could > get fuel. > > Others in Australia .. White Cliffs, Warburton, Docker River

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Andreas Goss wrote: > It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and >> vote compared to the number of mappers. >> > > STOP USING MAILINGLISTS!!! > > Those things might be nice for some tech savy people, but for everybody > else it's just a

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