My impression is that a lot of the source:maxspeed were added by a single
user in an armchair edit. So its prevalence is not really an indicator of
anything.
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Jason Cunningham wrote:
> On 22 February 2013 16:38, Martin Vonwald wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Recently the
The English/Scottish word for it is "bothy". But it might be better to use
something a bit more internationally-intelligible.
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> What about:
> amenity=shelter
> historic=alpine_hut
> ruins=yes (if appropriate)
>
> Volker
> (Padova, Italy)
>
You can always make a rendering with the streets drawn wider at zoom 18.
That would solve most of the problems.
Mapping all the street as a series of parallel lines or areas will just
make a large mess of data that is a pain to decipher. It only really adds
value at very high zoom, and it isn't a
The German use of railway=light_rail for S-Bahn is a bit peculiar, since it
is generally operated with "heavy" rail equipment (often loco&coaches), to
mainline signalling standards (which tend to be defined in terms of the
stopping distance for a heavy freight train), and with heavy rail
structures
It's more like what we in the UK would call a gyratory (or simply a one way
system)
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Elliott Plack wrote:
> Hello OSM friends. Another member of the community asked if I think that a
> circulator road around a large athletics facility (RFK Stadium in Wash. DC)
> w
If you add bicycle=yes, they render differently in opencyclemap (not saying
that's a good thing, just an observation). It seems to be used to imply
that it's reasonably passable by bike, and nobody seems to object.
Richard
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:
> Is there a deepe
I think I'd prefer school:type rather than school:status, and I'd prpbably
separate out the denominations to another tag. And please avoid that mess of
underscores in c_of_e - a recipe for typos if ever I saw one.
Richard
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:30 PM, David Earl wrote:
> Because it is likely
Rather than having a bot go round making the data more complicated (and in
the case of very large lakes with lots of islands, and ponds on those
islands, it would be very, very complicated), surely it is better to have a
table available somewhere for people to go look up whether a polygon has
multi
lcn = local cycle network (used in some countries, notably Belgium and the
Netherlands, for circular tours, in other countries for fairly
short-distance routes), rendered DARK blue
rcn= regional cycle network (used for a "node" network in the Netherlands,
used for various sub-national routes in ot
I'd tend to agree that noname=yes is the wrong approach, but maybe there
should be something like roundabout=yes, since that is positively useful
information.
Richard
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Pieren wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Paul Johnson
> wrote:
> >
> noname=yes
> >
ion=roundabout isn't enough?
>
> Bye
> Giuliano
>
>
> Richard Mann ha scritto:
>
> I'd tend to agree that noname=yes is the wrong approach, but maybe there
> should be something like roundabout=yes, since that is positively useful
> information.
> Rich
You maybe ain't going to like this, but the usual distinction in the UK is
that residentials are (typically) 6m+ wide and have pavements/sidewalks,
whereas service is for urban roads which don't have pavements/sidewalks.
Richrd
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2
These short-distance signposted routes can be tagged as lcn (local cycle
network) relations.
I'd prefer there to be a distinction between these (which I think of as
leisure/tourist routes and would call "tcn") and utility routes into a town
centre, but there isn't a distinction at the moment (and
On public land you can usually push a bike and be treated as a pedestrian,
but that's not always the case on private land (eg the University Parks in
Oxford) - bicycles are banned altogether.
So there is a distinction, but it can probably be achieved by using
bicycle=no for situations where riding
Access=private means that the rules are uncertain - so don't bank on being
able to even push a bike.
Richard
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Pieren wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 3:00 PM, James Livingston wrote:
> >> So there is a distinction, but it can probably be achieved by using
> bicycl
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Anthony wrote:
> with_stroller=no, etc.
>
British English is "pushchair". Baby buggy may be more international, but
one underscore is more than enough.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://li
The problem is when some people use spaces and some underscores. Tagwatch
can't tell them apart.
Richard
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Richard Mann
> wrote:
> > but one underscore is more than enough.
>
> One of
In the UK the distinction between lane and track is essentially that tracks
are not part of the road, so you are allowed to travel in the "wrong"
direction, albeit that there's a bit of an accident problem when crossing
side roads :(
So I think of the Danish lanes/tracks as a kerb-separated lane, w
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
> Regarding the "kerb" vs. "curb" question, the dictionary tells me that
> "kerb" is british english, whereas "curb" is international english. I think
> we want to stick with international english, right?
>
I think the norm is to use Britis
The problem is that highway=footway implies (in some people's eyes) that
bicycle=no, and when the honest truth is that it's private land and the
owner doesn't seem to care, you need to put something to modify the default.
bicycle=whatever seems to capture it well, but bicycle=tolerated or
bicycle
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Richard Mann
> >
> > I'm tending towards cycleway=lane+segregated=kerb (or cycleway=track if
> it's
> > two-way)
> >
>
> Not sure that cycleway=lane is best here since the cycleway is not
> part of the car road. There
".
Richard
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Elena of Valhalla
wrote:
> On 12/7/09, Richard Mann wrote:
> > The problem is that highway=footway implies (in some people's eyes) that
> > bicycle=no, and when the honest truth is that it's private land and the
> &
That a path is in common use by bicycles is often pretty easy to establish
(even in places with much less bike traffic than round here), with no real
question that re-survey would see similar tyre-tracks. The problem is not
verifiability, it's how you record what you can see.
Richard
On Mon, Dec
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> you're suggesting how to tag that a path is "commonly
> used" by bicycles - there isn't a tag for that!
I'm only about a year into trying to find a decent answer to this question
(how to tag informal bike paths). I know there isn't a tag for
I think Steve meant "adjacent to the roadway such that you can move
onto/across the roadway at your convenience". This adjacency is important in
jurisdictions where cyclists are allowed to do this (ie where the use of the
lane/track is optional), and where there are a significant prevalence of
side
Are we edging towards:
bicycle=yes|no|private|permissive|unknown - legal status
designation=* - your local (national) name for the legal status
bicycle:defacto=prevented|forbidden|tolerated|discouraged|accepted|supported|established
- the apparent practical status, which you can use or not use,
Could you point us to an example, please?
Richard
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
>
> On 08/12/2009, at 11.17, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> > Given this, it would be fair to say that the "meaning" of
> > cycleway=track is a two-way copenhagen-style bike lane.
>
> Incidental
While we're about it, there's a few other potential values for cycleway (for
interest mainly):
cycleway=buslane (shared with buses)
cycleway=filterlane (explicitly shared with nearside-turning traffic)
cycleway=tight (nearside lane is shared with traffic and is <3.1m wide
cycleway=spacious (nearsi
tight/spacious/critical are terms from the Dutch guidance on
assessing/adapting roads for cycling, and endorsed by UK guidance (Type
"LTN208" into your favourite search engine if interested)
Richard
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:5
Steve - dip your toe in the Smoothness debate on the wiki, and recoil with
horror that people have devoted so much time to arguing over suitability
measures.
You can get a basic classification of physical attributes using the highway
tag (especially when you know that 99% of the use of "path" is f
If it's wide and not explicitly banned to cars then it's highway=track. If
it looks better than ropey, give it a tracktype.
Richard
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> If I trace (from aerial imagery) a path that I'm pretty sure would be
> great to ride on, and that appears to
There's an awful lot of cycleways already, so your definition has to
recognise that. The argument in Europe is whether cycleways are by default
shared (UK / Dutch norm), or by default single-use (the German position).
There's no real argument over the physical (minimal obstructions for road
bikes /
at 9:01 AM, Liz wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
> > There's an awful lot of cycleways already, so your definition has to
> > recognise that.
> I assume that something which is marked as a cycleway really is one
>
> > The argument in Europe is wheth
I really wouldn't try to do something massively different from what has gone
before. Instead it's probably better to use fewer tags more simply, and
avoid using tags in situations & for meanings that are unclear/disputed.
highway=path for rough paths
highway=footway for paved paths
bicycle=yes if
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> > highway=path for rough paths
> > highway=footway for paved paths
> But how would you expect this to solve the current problem? Do you
> think it's just a matter of tweaking some wiki definitions?
>
> Also, with the above proposed definitions
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Dave F. wrote:
> >> In other words, whenever I see a path somewhere, I should say nothing
> >> about who it is for? Just let the user of the map or the builder of
> >> the mapping software decide? That may be
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop wrote:
> Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
> avoid.
I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways like motorways is
ridiculous :)
But seriously, you have a point - usability by bikes should be on a separate
tag
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Nop wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann:
> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop > <mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de>> wrote:
> >
> > Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need
&g
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Nop wrote:
> My point is: There is an important difference between
> - a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
> - some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling
>
> About like the difference between
> - a road marked as one-way
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and
> highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter.
>
Each to their own, but I'd prefer:
highway=cycleway+designation=official_cycleway (or whatever) (for those
officially signposted) and
highw
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Richard Welty wrote:
> within the US, i am increasingly seeing things that might once have just
> been called bike paths
> that are now designated as multi use trails, e.g. the Mohawk Hudson Bike
> Path here in Albany
> has become the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>
>> In bare bones basic, Steve, are you for or against using "highway =
>> cycleway" for officially marked cycleways only? That's what I would
>> like to understand :)
>>
>>
> I'm "
At a bar, you stand up, at a cafe you sit down, at a pub you fall over :)
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
poissonerie, surely?
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Jonathan Bennett
wrote:
> "Fishmonger" has a slight advantage in that it translates into French as
> Poissionerie, German as Fischhändler, Italian as Pescivendolo, and so on.
___
Tagging mailing lis
Re sidewalks and cycle tracks. Best bet is to put them on both the
road (footway=yes; cycleway=track) AND as separate ways (maybe with a
tag like micromapping=yes to boot); there's not going to be agreement
any time soon on which is preferable.
Richard
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM, John Smith
If the sidewalks are next to the road, and in Europe, you can probably
rely on people assuming them by default (unless you advise otherwise).
Clearly in other places, it may be necessary to tag them explicitly.
Richard
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Tyler Gunn wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 May 2010 17:
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Tyler Gunn wrote:
> I think this is a HUGE improvement over what Google Maps shows:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.82372&lon=-97.20104&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF
>
> Tyler
>
Yup, the parking lots give you a real feel for the place.
Richard
__
In the UK, they'd almost certainly be tagged as supermarkets, since
our stores tend to have one product area dominant (eg groceries).
Department stores are large shops with lots of different departments
selling lots of different things from lots of different counters, but
the staff (and the tills)
the :number roles are obsolete (you should order the relation members
instead - probably using JOSM)
The English definition of the forward/backward roles is correct. If
the relation is one-way, and the direction of the way is the same,
then use "forward". If the direction of the way is opposite, u
Nathan - there's some form of setting in your email account that means
that every time you reply to a thread we see a new thread starting
(dropping the Re: prefix, maybe?). This makes it very hard to follow
the thread, as the emails get out of order.
On the specific example, in the UK these would
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Richard Mann
> wrote:
>> On the specific example, in the UK these would be tertiarys: an
>> ordinary street that serves a "through" or within-city distribution
>>
The first one is motorway_link, the second primary (because it's
two-way), the third primary_link, the fourth could be just about
anything from trunk to service. Mapnik makes a mess if a link
intersects a service, but that's cos Mapnik renders a trunk_link under
a service, which is wrong. The simpl
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> The simplest is probably to call the fourth
>> a trunk with a note that there's a case for it being a trunk_link, but
>> that trunk is more renderer-proof.
>
> That seems incorrect, and hence tagging (incorrectly) for the
> renderer. Whe
s at the bottom, which doesn't work.
Richard
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:11 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/6/18 Richard Mann :
>> The first one is motorway_link, the second primary (because it's
>> two-way), the third primary_link, the fourth could be just about
>
If you say "football" in en-GB then you mean the game run by the
Football Association in England, and by FIFA internationally. If you
say "Rugby", you mean whichever of the two codes is dominant in your
part of the country / social circle (and probably Rugby Union by
default). At least the ball's t
In Europe soccer is winning by a factor of about 12:1, but the 2700
"football"s had probably better be interpreted as soccer in the
absence of other evidence.
Richard
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
> In my opinion, football being multi-interpretable, the name should not
> b
The only thing missing on the wiki, as far as I could see, was
something sensible for American Football. It is not sensible to use
"football" for American Football, since the most likely meaning if
someone tags sport=football (in spite of the wiki advice not to) is
that they mean Association Footba
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:56 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 28 June 2010 19:34, Richard Mann
> wrote:
>> "football" for American Football, since the most likely meaning if
>> someone tags sport=football (in spite of the wiki advice not to) is
>> that they mean As
The proper thing would be to render an egg for american_football, and
nothing for sport=football.
If you render for yourself, set sport=football to whatever you like.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:31 PM, pavithran wrote:
> On 28 June 2010 15:24, John Smith wrote:
>> And then add a page for sport=f
In Great Britain it's soccer 950, football 600, association_football nil
By all means add association_football as an additional option (as a
synonym for soccer for those that prefer it), but there's no need to
try to deprecate soccer.
Richard
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Jason Cunningham
wr
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:59 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 30 June 2010 01:51, Richard Mann
> wrote:
>> In Great Britain it's soccer 950, football 600, association_football nil
>>
>> By all means add association_football as an additional option (as a
>> synonym
Perhaps the word "foot" in a little arc pointing up, with the word
"ball" in a little arc pointing down :)
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Steve Doerr
wrote:
> Sounds like we need a rendering image that combines a round and an oval ball
> in some way and use this for any grounds that are tagged
The fashion in the UK is now to impose 20mph speed limits on each and
every street, rather than create zones with entries/exits. It amounts
to much the same thing in the end, but it means that we simply put:
maxspeed=20 mph+maxspeed:note=Oxford 20 mph zone
(the whole city is a 20mph zone except f
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:01 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/7/6 Richard Mann :
>
>> maxspeed=20 mph+maxspeed:note=Oxford 20 mph zone
>
>
> I'd suggest to use source:maxspeed instead of note, as I think it is
> already widely used and documented in the wiki:
&g
There are 6695 landuse=grass in the UK. They're not turf farms.
surface=grass is for highways
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Jonathan Bennett
wrote:
> On 13/07/2010 07:37, char...@cferrero.net wrote:
>>
>> How might I go about tagging the often quite extensive green stretches of
>> land to t
surface=grass 3263 occurrences, 3121 with a highway tag in the UK
Feel free to use surface=grass for landcover if you want to. But
people are more likely to use your data if you use landuse=grass.
Richard
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:38 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 13 July 2010 20:47, Richard M
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Martin Simon wrote:
> I think a combination of motorroad=* and grade_seperated=* would do
grade_separated please (ie with an "a" in the middle)
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.op
1300 uses worldwide, against 1.9m for surface=
So a wiki entry that says maybe you should consider using
surface=paved/unpaved instead might be sensible
Richard
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:16 PM, John Smith wrote:
> I noticed someone just added paved=yes/no to the wiki, is this needed?
>
> Won't
Can't find it on the wiki - do you have a ref?
Richard
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 16 July 2010 07:26, Richard Mann
> wrote:
>> 1300 uses worldwide, against 1.9m for surface=
>>
>> So a wiki entry that says maybe you should consider u
I think surface started as a binary paved/unpaved for roads (with
paved assumed by default, and paved meaning tarmac), and has got
extended to cover cobbled roads, and (subsequently) as a way of adding
more info for tracks/paths.
So for most purposes, the principal distinction is between paved and
I've updated the wiki page to try to explain it more clearly. I've
included Martin's paved=yes flag (though personally, I'd probably just
make it clear in the table that some values such as concrete should be
treated as paved)
Richard
___
Tagging mailin
I don't think we're reaching any consensus that key:paved is an idea
to be positively recommended, so I think it's probably best to record
it in the wiki as "some people do this".
I think the wiki would also benefit from a few notes saying which
values should be treated as paved (in the sense of d
Layers don't work when there are area/way conflicts, because the norm
for rendering is to draw areas first then ways on top. So you have to
have a flag that says "this way isn't really on top". We have a
perfectly adequate flag for this function (tunnel=yes), but people
objected to using that for t
How would you like it rendered? Covered-as-in-a-shopping-mall is quite
different to covered-as-in-protected-from-the-rain. The real problem
is that it's scope is too broad.
Richard
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:11 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/7/20 Richard Mann :
>> Layers d
So something like this:
http://www.classiccarports.com/images/galleries/walkways/covered-walkway-2.jpg
should be rendered the same way as a tunnel?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
One of the things Dave Earl mentioned in his talk about rendering was
the gaps-in-casings you sometimes get at bridges.
What I've ended up doing is
1) rendering casings in layer (not underneath everything like Mapnik)
2) putting in a flag to identify ways that join ways of different
layer, with a
Most vineyards have something similar, though not always so heavily
marketed, so I think you need to find a term that's more
international. Perhaps tourism=vineyard_shop or just shop=vineyard.
Richard
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:15 AM, John Smith wrote:
> On 26 July 2010 10:44, John F. Eldredge w
winery: no such word in en_gb, we just use vineyard for the whole
operation (though of course we don't do these things on the same scale
as Australia). Unless you're going to distinguish between shop=winery
and shop=vineyard, I'd use the more generic term in the tagging
system.
Richard
__
Most of these call themselves vineyards
http://www.englishwineproducers.com/scvineyard.htm
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Liz wrote:
> can you provide a definition of this use of the word?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://l
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Pieren wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Richard Mann
> wrote:
>>
>> Good idea, or just a local fix?
>>
>> Richard
>>
>
> Personally, I think the easiest to fix many issues would be to draw a
> specific po
Dave F (et al),
Renderers draw roads (typically) by drawing a wide grey line on each
segment, a grey circle at each node, then a narrower (say) white line
on each segment, and a white circle at each node. All you see of the
grey is a thin line on each side of the white line: this is the
casing. Th
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
> Shouldn't the layer_change be on the common point, not a way? A way
> (usually) has two ends, so putting the tag on a way will not indicate at
> which end of the way the layer change takes place. But then it degenerates
> to two (or more) conn
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Dave F. wrote:
> So your saying to save the renders time, the data collectors have to waste
> time adding new tags?
There was me thinking this was a project where we each did a bit for
mutual benefit.
Richard
___
Taggi
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Dave F. wrote:
> On 26/07/2010 14:07, Richard Mann wrote:
>> If you draw the
>> grey in the correct layer, then you get little semi-circular arcs of
>> grey at the end of bridges (if they are layer=1).
>
> I've never noticed th
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Cartinus wrote:
> Yes, but human mapping time is a far more scarce resource then computer
> working time. So let the computer fix it. Preprocess!
Computer working time is rarely the limiting resource (otherwise we'd
all have been out of a job long ago).
The advan
Pre-processing isn't really an option for Kosmos, Maperitive,
MapCSS/Halcyon (and judging by the number of rendering tags it spawns)
Osmarender.
Rendering is not something that only the gods do, there are tools
arriving that will make it a lot lot easier to render. When these
people render, they w
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:27 AM, James Livingston
wrote:
> Someone mentioned
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels
> up-thread, is there anything it doesn't cover? I've been using it for over a
> year, although I haven't mapped any really crazy scenarios.
Daniel
cycleway=shoulder looks like a good idea for those countries that
routinely have a wide shoulder on country roads (I've seen them in
Ireland; they aren't common in the UK)
on urban roads (maybe even rural roads with centre lines), you could
do cycleway=tight/critical/spacious, following th
Ed - the proper way to do bus routes is using relations. The operator
tag should be on the relation, and should only have one value. This is
how we deal with geolocations being part of multiple geographical
structures.
If you want to add route_ref tags to the bus stops, then just make a
single lis
If they form part of a route (which is what I assume is meant by piste
cyclable), they should be a route relation. The conventional way of
tagging such relations is:
type=route
route=bicycle
network=lcn/rcn/ncn (local/regional/national depending on the scope of
the route)
{I don't like the use of
I take the cycleway tag to be a statement of how it looks to a middling cyclist:
is there a cycle track
is there a cycle (or in some places a bus, taxi and cycle) lane
is there a shoulder
is it uncomfortably narrow or quite wide
has someone put a series of markings in the gutter, to encourage
moto
You can drive on some cycle lanes (and walk on some cycle tracks), so
I wouldn't advise using exclusivity as a defining criterion for using
the cycleway tag myself. But so long as your tagging is clear, it
doesn't really matter.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Daniel Tremblay wrote:
> I
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Sebastian Klein
wrote:
> from what I understand, landuse is to mark a larger area that has multiple
I think it's useful to differentiate/subdivide areas where there are
noticeable changes in landuse: don't be too enthusiastic about lumping
stuff together. This is
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Peter Wendorff
wrote:
>> The signature? What do you mean?
>
> Well - I fear, I used the word with one of meanings it has in German - but
> probably not in English
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signatur_%28Kartographie%29
>
> A "Signatur" - other meanings can be tr
Please: someone write a bot to add landmark=probably to every tree in
Germany, and stop this debate. If it's a landmark, then it's worth
adding a tag to say so.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/li
The "proper" way to do it is to have separate relations in each
direction, probably named for the origin and destination (ie not
calling it the up Bristol and the down Bristol, but calling it the
Bristol-London and London-Bristol service).
Alternatively, put all the ways in one relation and put ro
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> Fast food is simply a style of serving: you go up to the counter and
> order. It has nothing to do with the cuisine.
>
The Italians probably don't like to think of ice-cream as fast food,
because that has connotations of high sugar/fat con
A greenfield site is one that is currently a field, so it should be
tagged as a field until it gets built on. Nothing should ever be
tagged "greenfield".
A brownfield site is derelict land that was something once, but is now
nothing in particular until someone does something with it. A
"brownfield
The search box is also a lot faster than opening MapFeatures. Indeed
there'd be a case for abolishing MapFeatures (and just making
MapFeatures a category).
Richard
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:59 AM, SomeoneElse
wrote:
> On 13/10/2010 09:30, Lennard wrote:
>>
>> And how exactly would the craft ta
You can also test for the presence of "name:de" in "name", rather than
just equality, so that if name contains (say) French/German/Flemish
components, then you use that rather than making your own name
(name:de) combination.
Richard
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Peter Körner wrote:
> Am 14.10
101 - 200 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
