Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > >OK, well, in JOSM at least, using the Relation Toolbox is snappy simple > > You cannot be serious, Paul. There is a relation here in Thailand, a > super-relation?, that I've been wanting to edit for months. It has three or > four relations,

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 11/7/15 6:02 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > sent from a phone > > > >> Am 07.11.2015 um 22:31 schrieb Richard Fairhurst >: > >> > >> To do it properly and > >> lessen the chance of multiple relations being accidentally created fo

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 5:39 AM, moltonel 3x Combo > wrote: > >> While I agree that relations can break and can be tricky to edit, I >> find it tiring to see this argument repeatedly used against the use of >> relations for this or that us

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2015-11-10 13:31 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > >> >> I like amenity=bicycle_tool_stand, >> > >> > +1, "repair_station" is ambigous / can easily be misunderstood. Even >> though >> > "amenity=self_serve_bicycle_tool_stand" looks lik

[Tagging] Proposal: effective_hours tag for restrictions

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > > El 10 nov 2015, a las 09:57, Badita Florin > escribió: > > Hello, i have a question, how do you tag the opening hours for a turn > restriction that is activated only during a certain time of day or week. > Also, do you have an idea what

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2015-11-11 11:00 GMT+01:00 Gerd Petermann >: > >> pro 2) : less confusing for those who like the duck test >> (if there is a tertiary_link there should also be a xyz_link) >> contra 2): more work for many people, hard to verify >> r

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: effective_hours tag for restrictions

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Gerd Petermann < gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I like the idea to use effective_hours=*. > > I just wonder if this oneway="Fr-Su 00:-24:00" > > means something like that: > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28865357 > Yes, though I would assume he me

Re: [Tagging] Tagging dangerous intersections

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Kieron Thwaites wrote: > Hi, > > I recently passed through an intersection in a particularly dodgy part > of town that actually had warning signs up, warning motorists that > said intersection is a hotspot for "smash and grab" robberies. (If > anyone is intereste

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > Am 11.11.2015 um 08:48 schrieb Paul Johnson : > > > > Where I have run into issues that make it difficult to tell if the > relation is correct is when a route ends on a

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > Am 11.11.2015 um 08:20 schrieb Paul Johnson : > > > > I thought the problem was a 2000 member limitation in the API, though > the geographic grouping really helps manageabi

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 6:48 AM, David Earl wrote: > Having been negative, now the opposite... > > Why stop at ref? > > There are lots of places where it would help to group things uniquely > rather than by a simple text string. Names are the obvious next one. If we > put the names on a separate

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Sunset ref=* on ways in favor of relations

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:48 PM, David Earl > wrote: > >> There are lots of places where it would help to group things uniquely >> rather than by a simple text string. Names are the obvious next one. If we >> put the names on a separate shar

Re: [Tagging] improve tagging of traffic_calming

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Rafael Avila Coya wrote: > Hi: > > What happens when a traffic calming is a crossing for pedestrians at the > same time? I have some examples in this avenue of my home town where I > live: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1080908514 Traffic calming goes in th

Re: [Tagging] improve tagging of traffic_calming

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > But they are definitely not crossings. I've seen a few traffic_calming > "humps" (a longer bump) that have a crossing on them in Eugene, Oregon, but > they are unusual, not the normal case. I haven't seen humps that have crossings on the

Re: [Tagging] improve tagging of traffic_calming

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 11:22 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote: > > A raised area several feet across with a marked crosswalk on top is > > not uncommon in Silicon Valley and more of them seem to appearing in > > residential areas. I suspect that it is

Re: [Tagging] improve tagging of traffic_calming

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 3:51 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > I reckon I wouldn't have a problem with doing that. I have always used > only a node for the traffic_calming devices I've encountered but I can see > how splitting a way to make it a table or chicane might be problematical. > But then how

Re: [Tagging] highway=crossing not rendered on Mapnik (& others)

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Richard Mann < richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com> wrote: > You may or may not know, but mid-block signalled crossings are a bit of a > UK-specific phenomenon. In many other countries (in Europe, anyway), > signalled crossings are part of junctions. > Eeh, it's com

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalk Tagging for Routing

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:01 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > And what about the obligation to walk on the left side of the road > when there is no sidewalk ? Should a router take that into account and > let you walk to the next road crossing to switch sides ? Would be > pretty neat. > Not sure how feasi

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalk Tagging for Routing

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 15:22 -0800, Clifford Snow wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Tobias Knerr > > wrote: > > > Sure, but the sidewalk attribute is essential for other, much more > > > basic > > > use cases that separate ways

Re: [Tagging] Road Running Railways

Nope, that's it. Center the line between the rails for the railway. Optional: landuse=highway for the ROW of the road. On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Dominic Coletti wrote: > Hi all, > > I have noticed that there is no set tag for rails that are embedded within > the road. One strategy I hav

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Modal lane tagging. bicycle:lanes=no|no|no|designated (left three lanes closed to bicycles, right lane a designed bike lane). May also be joined with something like, motor_vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|yes|no to exclude motorists from the far right lane... On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Volker Schmidt

Re: [Tagging] No Entry Signs

Looks similar to (but perhaps opposite to the situation on) Wander Way, in Salem, Oregon which is briefly one way to prevent congestion in an intersection https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@44.9328535,-123.0121099,3a,75y,12.03h,75.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2dc3iR2D6U7fTCbUF7MmtA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664 . The

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Yes, Paul, lane tagging would solve many if not all of my tagging > problems. But, as far as I know, there are no renderers that would > interpret the data correctly. Renderer issue. ___ Tagging

[Tagging] HOA-required names

Are names of private roads required by HOA's noteworthy enough to put into OSM? I remember passing this once in Fountain, CO and just happened upon it again in the headlines, and made me wonder since it is something that is a well known area landmark. http://www.krdo.com/news/a-sign-that-will-mak

Re: [Tagging] HOA-required names

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On Sat, 2015-12-26 at 17:45 +0900, John Willis wrote: > > > > > On Dec 26, 2015, at 5:10 PM, Shawn K. Quinn > wrote: > > > > > > basically just someone's driveway > > > > It may not be an official name, as in an official city public road.

[Tagging] roles in relations

I'm trying to figure out both who and why keeps changing roles on relations from "forward/backward" which makes sense and can be easily sorted and checked to "north/south/east/west", which only makes sense of the child is another relation in a super-relation. US 75 in Oklahoma, for example, which

Re: [Tagging] roles in relations

e corresponding direction. On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 4:44 PM, John Willis wrote: > > > > On Dec 27, 2015, at 6:02 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > I'm trying to figure out both who and why keeps changing roles on > relations from "forward/backward" which makes sen

Re: [Tagging] Specifying maxweight, when different weight limits are signed

Split values are somewhat frequent in the US. Oklahoma and Oregon definitely has different weight limits posted for bridges for straight vans, single trailers, doubles (or some road train combinations like triples, turnpike doubles, Rocky Mountain doubles...). On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Ma

Re: [Tagging] Specifying maxweight, when different weight limits are signed

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > Looking at the photo in the original post, it looks like the categories > are a bit more specific than "hgv" - possibly articulated/semitrailers vs. > drawbar trailers, possibly based on the number of axles. What is the > proper/legal defintio

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Street Parking Restrictiion)

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Paul Simpson wrote: > Dear All, > > I am sending this RFC in order to receive some feedback regarding my OSM > feature proposal for Street Parking Restrictions. > > Already supported in JOSM and in increasingly widespread active use under a more comprehensive sche

[Tagging] key:priority

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:priority Would there be any major objection to expanding the priority key to include two way, multilane situations? Example would be a two way street that was formerly a one-way street, and has signal timings as if it were a one-way street (thus the green wa

Re: [Tagging] Tagging scrap yards, junkyards

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:16 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2016-01-20 2:03 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout : > >> After consulting Taginfo I've come up with these two tags for now: >> landuse=industrial >> industrial=scrap_yard >> >> Opinions, suggestions? >> > > > > I'd prefer a "feature" tag, rat

Re: [Tagging] key:priority

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:priority > > > > Would there be any major objection to expanding the priority key to > include > > two way, multil

Re: [Tagging] Formalising shoulder tagging

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > From my travels .. I'd say the most frequent (most miles) case is > shoulder=no. > Of course this could be made sensitive to the highway classification .. > motorways usually have a shoulder, driveways don't. > I would still

Re: [Tagging] Formalising shoulder tagging

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 3:59 AM, Gerd Petermann < gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Seitenstreifen Yes, that would be what we're referring to, if Google Translate is to be believed. http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/84rYvy_hxh95K8ipF1NfVw/photo has an example of an expressway with both a

Re: [Tagging] Formalising shoulder tagging

motor_vehicle:shoulder=* ?? On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On 29 January 2016 at 13:14, Richard Fairhurst > wrote: > > > > Thanks to everyone who contributed. > > > > I've accordingly formalised the page and moved it to > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shoulder

Re: [Tagging] Formalising shoulder tagging

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 7:11 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > shoulder:motor_vehicle=* feels better. But you are not allowed to walk on > the shoulder anyway, so actually something like shoulder:access=breakdown > would be a better start. > parking:lane:right=no_parking would already be the existing tag

Re: [Tagging] Inconsistent road refs

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Paul Norman wrote: > There is a stretch of local highway which used to be signed with a ref, > but no longer is. On the other hand, most of the intersecting roads still > show that this highway has the old ref. Some other parts of the road remain > signed. > > The

Re: [Tagging] Inconsistent road refs

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:35 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > If on the other hand the refs are still valid, but simply aren't > signposted on some stretches anymore, I would keep them in "ref". If they exist, but not signed, ref:unsigned might be a better key. Interstates 444 and A1 exist, but

Re: [Tagging] Do-it-yourself versus hardware stores

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > > As you can see, these definitions are quite similar. Not surprisingly, > taggers have problems with these definitions too. Some examples > * Home Depot in the US is tagged home depot 1161 times as > shop=doityourself, but also 148 times

Re: [Tagging] Do-it-yourself versus hardware stores

I believe that would generally be known as a "makerspace", though I'm not sure what the tag would be. On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2016-02-09 0:39 GMT+01:00 Matthijs Melissen : > >> Would it make sense to keep distinguishing between shop=doityourself >> and shop

Re: [Tagging] Do-it-yourself versus hardware stores

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Jaakko Helleranta wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > >> shop=doityourself >> and shop=hardware are the same thing, with some notion of scale, >> > > So this is rather similar distinction as > shop=convenience > vs. > shop=supermarket > .

Re: [Tagging] Do-it-yourself versus hardware stores

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 2:36 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Am 09.02.2016 um 08:51 schrieb Paul Johnson : > > So this is rather similar distinction as >> shop=convenience >> vs. >> shop=supermarket >> .. and perhaps even on top of that >> vs. >

Re: [Tagging] Do-it-yourself versus hardware stores

Good timing, Colin. I was about to bring up what differentiates DIY from, say, a lumberyard or a steel yard, which focuses primarily on the materials wholesale and may (for example, Parr Lumber ) incidentally have a small hardware and paint shop (at radi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Internet cafe

Very handy when you need it here. Internet cafes are somewhat common in rural Oklahoma despite charging $15-30/hour for access on fairly slow connections, but beats the pants off paying by the megabyte on AT&T's GPRS network (which can cost as much as $1000/GB). On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:24 PM, D

Re: [Tagging] Which access tag for school buses?

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I m looking for an access tag for school buses. > In the specific case I want to tag > "no access for buses except school buses" > My tagging would be > tourist_bus=no (no private busses) > bus=no (no public transport buses) > school_bus=ye

Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Rory McCann wrote: > Hi, > > The subject of disputed country borders came up on help.osm.org > again[1], specifically about India and the Kashmir area. There might be > a way to solve this issue. Currently OSM tags the de facto country > borders. But what if we als

Re: [Tagging] Model railroad exhibition/show

Do you mean for like, a model railroad club, such as Green Country MRC in Sand Springs, OK or Columbia Gorge MRC in Portland, OR? (I get the abbreviations for these backwards for obvious reasons). On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Tijmen Stam wrote: > Is there a proper tag for a model railroad l

Re: [Tagging] Model railroad exhibition/show

3:49 PM, Tijmen Stam wrote: > Yeah, like that. > But I think closed clubs don't need to be tagged - only clubs that have > regular opening hours to the public (be it an open house once per 3 months > or every day with paid admission) > > On 24-05-16 23:23, Paul Johnson wro

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Michael Tsang wrote: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/learner_driver > > The proposed feature *learner driver* is to tag the legal access of a > highway by a vehicle driven by a learner driver. It is similar to > Key:access#Transport > mode

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Michael Tsang wrote: > On Tuesday 28 June 2016 04:12:37 Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > > I can see this as potentially useful, except for one part: > > > > For values, see access <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:acces

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Michael Tsang writes: > > > I agree on the point that mode:learner_driver=* is better, but, however, > isn't > > it common sense that learners are not allowed on motorways? Can you give > me > > some regions where learners are, by default,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Colin Smale writes: > > > It's not a question of common sense, it's a question of > > law... > > Agreed. I was just refuting the notion of "there should be one > international default". > > > Countries and states may differ, but they will

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > Il giorno 28 giu 2016, alle ore 15:19, > jeffrey.rho...@geogr.uni-giessen.de ha scritto: > > > > In fact, in Germany you even have to have at least 2*45minutes driving > practice with your instructor before

Re: [Tagging] New tag

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Hans De Kryger wrote: > How does everyone feel about (store_number=) for store numbers that > companies assign their stores? > I generally use ref=* for the store number. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.

Re: [Tagging] number of bollards in a line

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > When I map a line of bollards as a way (barrier=bollard), it could > be useful to give the number of them. Similar to step_count on > highway=steps. > > I wonder if we should define a special key such as bollard_count=12 (used > 3x) > or keep i

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Johnparis wrote: > Ooh, I think Martin's suggestion would become a MAJOR project. > > If I recall correctly, "right turn permitted on red after stop" is the > traffic law in the entire United States with the sole exception of New York > City. (Wikipedia says this

Re: [Tagging] Bus routes forward/backward

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Hans De Kryger wrote: > If i remove the forward/backward tag on a section of a way (part of the > bus route) does that signify the bus goes both ways? > I would advise against this; and instead use a separate relation for each direction of a route as it greatly s

Re: [Tagging] Bus routes forward/backward

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2016-07-13 8:39 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson : > >> I would advise against this; and instead use a separate relation for each >> direction of a route as it greatly simplifies maintenance of the route. > > >

Re: [Tagging] How can I display maxspeed on my Garmin?

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > I posted this on the Garmin OSM forum but nobody responded. Maybe someone > here can help with this. > > I recently added maxspeed to many highways in my neighborhood and am > looking for a way to have them display on my Garmin Montana. Mo

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

rough 800+ miles of > Interstate only to have someone go behind me and "fix" everything by > removing "through" where it isn't signed. > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> Here's another example of how none breaks: http://m

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Rihards wrote: > On 2016.08.26. 00:15, Jack Burke wrote: > >> Freeway exit tagging >> >> >> I am totally confused. >> >> What is the proper method to use turn:lanes to tag freeway lanes >> approaching an exit, where the exit branches directly from an edge lane >>

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 11:06 PM, David Mease wrote: > Road markings are both beneficial and useful for navigation. Cities and > governments have paid a lot of money installing them all over globe > precisely for these reasons. OSM would be well served to include them > exactly as is. I don't hea

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:51 AM, yo paseopor wrote: > I think it is so clear. Instead of no painting marks with an arrow, you > have some vertical signs and also no_change lane marks, so for me it is > clear how it works. With all traffic signs, posted I think the junction > will have all the inf

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 8:19 AM, yo paseopor wrote: > I think you can specify the information you know instead this information > is not explicit written on the road. So for me , in my opinion it is better > specify through or whatever will be the direction that none or |" " > (blank) or someth

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Georg Feddern wrote: > Am 26.08.2016 um 14:18 schrieb Kieron Thwaites: > >> I can, however, see the rationale behind tagging "none;slight_right", >> as well as tagging nothing at all, and as such, I think that this is >> an issue that we need to find consensus on

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 9:44 AM, yo paseopor wrote: > If you know which turn:lane it is you can specify it instead there's no > marks. In Spain, with administrations in crisis some of them don't paint > all the lanes (before the crisis they painted all the lanes). So I think we > can explain the

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > what would you suggest in this case (common on this motorway ring): > https://www.google.it/maps/@41.897599,12.3821544,3a,75y, > 350.16h,82.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb1o9_JZ0Vq_WPwrk5Bu4Fw! > 2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en > > There are three

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:30 AM, yo paseopor wrote: > I don't know for 4th lane so short if it's better to mantain three lanes > and then "create a way with one lane" to join or to exit the motorway. It's > clear and the driver or the data will be there to decide which lane is > better for him,

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 2:25 PM, yo paseopor wrote: > > if you add the way for the forth lane at the point where it starts (as >> opposed to the point where you latestly could change) you will get less >> optimal routing suggestions in the case the route is calculated from after >> the start of t

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

I've given it a little minor tag-completion update if anybody wants to compare notes. On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Duane Gearhart wrote: > FYI - the exit 78 interchange information has been updated. The Mapzen > directions are calling out the exit as you expected > http://www.openstreetmap.

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Jack Burke wrote: > > This exit has no turn lane. There is no staging lane prior to the exit > where tags could be placed, one should not be created just so that there is > a place to put tags. > > This freeway should not be split. You said yourself that the exit

Re: [Tagging] Roads with no speed limits

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Hans De Kryger wrote: > Here in Phoenix Arizona more than half the freeway off ramps have no > listed speed limit. Does (maxspeed=none) work? I've worked hard here in the > valley adding speed limits and when you look at the ito map it looks like > no one added an

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jack Burke wrote: > Would love to compare notes on that, but it'll have to be later next week. > > If you want to look at what I do for exits, feel free to examine pretty > much all of them on I 75 south of Atlanta, as well as through downtown. > No problem. Anot

Re: [Tagging] Permissive turn restrictions

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > Il giorno 01 set 2016, alle ore 12:00, Nick Hocking < > nick.hock...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > > Turn restriction seem to be either mandatory (only) or prohibitive (no) > but I think we need a permissive one, maybe (allowed) > >

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:18 PM, David Mease wrote: > I thing my reservations about this type of tagging is that this may be > "tagging for the router". > On some level, all of it is. > I still view the turn:lanes scheme as a (probably incomplete) way of > describing complex intersections. Tag

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 7:06 AM, LeTopographeFou wrote: > Hi > > According to the waterway=stream wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap. > org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dstream): > > *If a flow exists, the direction of the way must be downstream (i.e. the > way direction follows the flow)* > > As of toda

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] non-temporary usage of highway=road

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Aun Johnsen wrote: > i.e., highway=road means anything between a small footway to motorway, so > a routing engine might wrongfully send cars down a set of steps or a hiker > up a motorway > Seems like an actual temporary road tag, not a tag that which is temporar

Re: [Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > It's the second time that we are having a major discussion here in > Brazil, on how to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas. > Don't. Too subjective, and tends to highlight some kinds of bigotry while basically giving a pass t

Re: [Tagging] Proper Tag for Not-a-Roundabout

My opinion on this would be as follows... junction=roundabout being anything that's roundaboutlike, where entering traffic yields. junction=mini_roundabout being the same, that does NOT have a hard median in the middle, and is just painted on (rare enough in North America that short of photographi

Re: [Tagging] Proper way to tag highways located in "dangerous" areas

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, 20:44 Paul Johnson, wrote: > >> >> Don't. Too subjective, and tends to highlight some kinds of bigotry >> while basically giving a pass to other kinds. >> > > How is it s

Re: [Tagging] Light rail station tagging

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Michael Tsang wrote: > Dear all, > > I tagged the public_transport=stop_position's on the light rail network > in my > region with railway=tram_stop, because the wiki mentions that "Insert a > node > with railway=tram_stop and name=* on the tram track (railway=tr

Re: [Tagging] fixme -- by a specific date

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Bill Ricker wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> When mapping seasonal closures here in Utah[1] I realized I am still >> missing a solid way to mark a road as closed for the season and then have >> some level of c

Re: [Tagging] highway=primary/secondary/tertiary - tag according to quality or usage?

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Michael Tsang writes: > > > There are some highways which the quality isn't up to the usage, > resulting in > > congestion. Those highways connects high-quality motorway/trunk/primary > > highways together for long distance traffic, but the

Re: [Tagging] ref:forward and ref:backward?

Short answer: No. Long answer: Get on board with road relations already. On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Albert Pundt wrote: > Are ref:forward and ref:backward valid tags for use? Though only existing > in short, isolated instances, there are many segments of road where a route > only follows

Re: [Tagging] ref:forward and ref:backward?

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2017-01-12 6:40 GMT+01:00 : > >> I certainly use route relations, and since ref is only really used for >> the renderer, I don’t know what I was thinking ref:forward and ref:backward >> would be useful for… > > > > Tagging considerat

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] cardinal directions

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Hi all, > > Some of you may remember the discussion we had on tagging cardinal > directions in the US, which led to the wiki page[1] describing the current > practice. > Basically the convention we arrived on is to tag relation members wi

Re: [Tagging] Public transport cards

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2017-01-17 8:47 GMT+01:00 Tijmen Stam : > >> However, I would warn against using OSM as a database for public >> transport. It seems as if public transport is sometimes overmicromapped in >> OSM. > > > > +1, I'd see public_transport

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] cardinal directions

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > I am trying to be consistent with the outcome of the discussion that we > had on talk-us a couple of years ago. Right now both are used > (north/south/east/west as relation member role as well as direction on the > relation tag) but the f

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] cardinal directions

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > Martijn van Exel > > On Jan 18, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > >> I am trying to be consistent with the outcome of the discussion

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] destination:street

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 2:13 PM, yo paseopor wrote: > Little apreciation: > Please, no multiple values,no semicolon.Better subtags > That doesn't always work. Fictional example, but one that does come up routinely, particularly around small to moderate sized towns and rural America (imagine a b

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] destination:street

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:21 AM, yo paseopor wrote: > Other solution > destination=Main Street > destination:2=7th Avenue > destination:3=Downtown Mappersville > destination:4=Karte County Courthouse > ... and so on. > Is this actually being used by anyone? Semicolons have seperated multiple va

Re: [Tagging] highway=services & "Road Stations" - subtag requested.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:34 AM, John Willis wrote: > I am not familiar enough with service/rest areas outside Japan then - most > people in California get a lonely gas station at the exit ramp, maybe with > a McDonald's - not a government designated spot to stop and buy local goods > with a clea

Re: [Tagging] highway=services & "Road Stations" - subtag requested.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 7:34 PM, John Willis wrote: > > On Jan 26, 2017, at 12:45 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Usually just a vending machine in a cage and some overused, > under-maintained toilets and lots of parking. > > > > yea, i’m more familiar with the view poi

Re: [Tagging] self-service laudry machines a camp and caravan sites

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I see on the wiki page > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site > the option > shop=laundry > > This does not seem to be appropriate to map caravan sites that offer > self-service coin-operated washing machines or dryers

Re: [Tagging] lanes=3 + lanes:forward/backward=1 for "semi-divided" roads?

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Mark Wagner > wrote: > > I'd consider mapping it as a dual carriageway. I don't know what the > > law is in Pennsylvania, but here in Idaho, a doubled double-yellow > > line is the legal equivalent of a physi

Re: [Tagging] self-service laudry machines a camp and caravan sites

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Mark Wagner wrote: > On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:28:17 +0900 > John Willis wrote: > > > Javbw > > > > Side note: > > > > I imagine laundromats could have a whole > > > > Laundromat:foobar=n scheme. > > > > Laundromat:10kg_dryer=8 > > Laundromat:20kg_dryer=2 > > Laund

Re: [Tagging] Center turning lanes: centre_turn_lane=yes method vs. lanes:both_ways method

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Albert Pundt wrote: > To go along with my earlier question about "semi-divided" streets, what is > considered the best way to map center turning lanes? I know of the > centre_turn_lane=yes key, as well as lanes=3 used together with > lanes:both_ways=1 and turn:lan

Re: [Tagging] Center turning lanes: centre_turn_lane=yes method vs. lanes:both_ways method

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Tristan Anderson < andersontris...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I've always used > > > lanes=5 > > centre_turn_lane=yes > > > as a shortcut that implies > > > lanes=5 > lanes:forward=2 > lanes:both_ways=1 > lanes:backward=2 > turn:lanes:both_ways=left > > It's just a way

Re: [Tagging] Center turning lanes: centre_turn_lane=yes method vs. lanes:both_ways method

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 5:27 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I like the centre_turn_lane=yes method. > > But there is also the lanes= x|x|x method as shown on > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes > > Assume I have a 5-lane road with two normal lanes in each direction and a > centre-turn lane in

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >