Re: [Tagging] Ski_jump_take_off

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:04:38PM +0100, Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 22.01.2014 21:52, yvecai wrote: > > 97 sport=ski_jump_take_off, given the number off such facilities in the > > world can be considered as a massive use of the tag. Should we really > > change the key even if leisure, man_made or pi

[Tagging] tag "covered" questions

Hi, considering a fairly short way that is partially covered in several places by one or more buidlings: (1) should the way be split in sections and covered applied striclty only to the covered sections (2) or is it good enough to mark a larger section with covered and interpret it to th

Re: [Tagging] Ski_jump_take_off

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 01:33:41PM +0100, Janko Mihelić wrote: > 2014/1/23 Richard Z. > > > * sport=* is used for something different. His intention was to describe > > the > > details of a technical structure, not to say what kind of sport facility > > it is. &

Re: [Tagging] tag "covered" questions

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 01:34:42PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > > > Related, in cases where covered is used without a layer tag should there be > > a common node in the place the way is crossing the building boundary in the > > same way there are supposed to be common nodes when stre

Re: [Tagging] Ski_jump_take_off

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:31:51PM +0100, Janko Mihelić wrote: > We should try to unify tagging of various sport objects as much as > possible. Golf courses are tagged like this: > leisure=ski_jumping_hill (over the whole area) > ski_jump=take_off (or maybe better, ski_jump=in-run) > ski_jump=lan

Re: [Tagging] tag "covered" questions

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:39:12PM +0100, Johan C wrote: > It was a bit confusing to me, but tunnel=building_passage seems to be a > better one than covered=yes for the situations when a highway is under a > building. I think ideally such a building should be split giving the > building a different

Re: [Tagging] Wikipedia tag validator

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 10:25:48AM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Keepright has a new maintainer, and will be revived on a new server soon. is there an issue tracker or other possibility to report bugs and issues for keepright? Richard ___ Tagging maili

[Tagging] Waterway dam tagging issues

Hi, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Dam says: << * Smaller dams can be drawn as a way Way and tagged with waterway=dam. They will be rendered with a black line. * Bigger dams can be drawn as an area Area and tagged with waterway=dam. They will be rendered with a gray hatching. >> I think it

Re: [Tagging] Canal banks

On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 03:13:23PM +0100, Janko Mihelić wrote: > 2014-02-03 Dave F. : > > > > > A user has recently amended them all to natural=water & water=canal. Is > > there a specific reason for this? Does it correct any problems or give any > > advantages for rendering etc? > > > > Users ma

[Tagging] Hot springs

Hi, I have significantly changed https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hot_Spring with the intention to revive the proposal - thanks for any comments and enhancments. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:28:28PM +0100, Richard Z. wrote: > Hi, > > I have significantly changed > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hot_Spring > with the intention to revive the proposal - thanks for any comments and > enhancments. just to clarify, amo

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 01:29:06PM +, Dan S wrote: > 2014-03-03 12:53 GMT+00:00 nounours77 : > > > >> I have significantly changed > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hot_Spring > >> with the intention to revive the proposal - thanks for any comments and > >> enhancment

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 08:14:42PM +0100, fly wrote: > Well, think it might get tricky. I know places where you will find > several springs right next to each other. Some are hot, some are warm > and some are cold. All have different contents not depending on the > temperature. that is fine. The

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 01:53:48PM +0100, nounours77 wrote: > > > I have significantly changed > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hot_Spring > > with the intention to revive the proposal - thanks for any comments and > > enhancments. > > > Dear Richard, > > thanks for y

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 07:35:02AM +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: > Speaking as a chemist, the term "sulfuric" would imply strong acidity as in > sulfuric acid. What you're looking for I believe is a term to indicate if > the water smells bad or not. Many hot springs have a rotten egg smell lent > to

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 03:50:30PM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote: > Hi, > > +1 to Tobias. > > I feel it needs clarification for this tag scope. > > I think it was "leisure=hot_spring" once, > and switched to "natural=hot_spring". exactly. > So the main purpose of this scheme is now "natural". > L

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 12:44:40AM +0100, Henning Scholland wrote: > Am 03.03.2014 23:45, schrieb Richard Z.: > >>> All together, I am not really sure if it is smart to split > >>> springs by temperature. > > not by temperature, which is very subjective as explai

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:06:45AM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote: > > So the idea is to have > > natural=hot_spring - the hole in earth where hot water is comming out > I see :) > > So I prefer to switch the icon from Onsen icon ♨ to another ones. > it ♨ maybe to use for leisure/amenity scheme. anoth

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 11:01:50AM +0100, Peter Wendorff wrote: > Aren't volcanos exactly what geothermal refers to, only near or at the > surface instead of deep down in the earth? apparently not, I can only direct you to the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_%28geology%

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 09:24:24AM -0600, John F. Eldredge wrote: > In what sense is volcanic heat not geothermal? In some sense you could argue that volcanos are also heated by geothermal heat but the details are very different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_(geology)#Heat_sources <>

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:56:57AM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote: > * Onsen without lodging > amenity=public_bath > leisure=onsen so in this combination which object would you tag with leisure=onsen, the water pool? The same object which is also tagged with public_bath? Looking at https://wiki.opens

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 12:58:51PM -0600, John F. Eldredge wrote: > I don't see anything in that definition that says the heat from within the > earth has to be a minimum distance below the surface in order to be classed > as geothermal. Volcanism is a subset of geothermal, where the hot material

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:15:13AM +0100, Peter Wendorff wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Am 05.03.2014 21:50, schrieb Richard Z.: > > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 12:58:51PM -0600, John F. Eldredge wrote: > >> I don't see anything in that definition that says the heat from withi

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 05:45:51PM +0900, johnw wrote: > > On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > > I know of a number of each type of facility that I won't be adding to > > the map > > > This is for an amenity for a building - like Sauna. not a natural=hot_spring > (which is wh

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 12:38:14AM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Just saying: > > Tradition among both cavers and hot springs bathing enthusiasts is to > keep quiet about locations, > passing the word though caving societies and word of mouth. Why? > Because caves and hot springs > that become we

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:44:30PM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote: > > John > > some onsen are not associated with hot springs, but have hot sand instead. > Yes, but they are rare case. > Most of onsen are hot water bath. > So might be represented by adding following sub_tags. > > bath:sand_bath=[yes|n

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:51:47AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > Hello everyone, > > This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my > understanding, the layer tag has no specific meaning other than to > specify a rendering order. The wiki, however, states that it is wrong > to tag

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com > > > At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with > > dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense > > That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > > > in theory yes. However "nearby" is a problem as rivers can be very long. > > Many people simply tag rivers with layer=-1 without even thinking about >

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:36:26PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com > > > At least OsmAnd renders all waterways with layer=-1 with > > dashed casing, as if they were underground, which to me makes sense > > That's clearly a bug. Waterways underground

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:55:39PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > I don't think you should be required to check the river's layer tag. > Validators should do this job for you, it's quite easy to write a rule > for that. validators can check for many errors but if you want to change anything you

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 04:51:18PM +0100, Pieren wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > There has been a proposal long

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:30:30AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:34:41PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:24:07AM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Sat, 15 Mar 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > Therefore, everyone needs now to handle those hardly useful layer > > > warnings about trivial cases (and waste their time on "correcting" them). > &g

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 01:25:16PM +0100, André Pirard wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder why we make bridges split and split and split the roads. do not like that too much either. > In reality, bridges are pieces of concrete or stonework at level -1 > under an uninterrupted foil of tarmac at level 0. b

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 02:06:13PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > "the validator will only prevent the most obvious errors but will give > you no clue how to fix them correctly" > > I know. But two or three rounds of trial and error with the validator > should be enough to bring a new user to an

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 03:19:36PM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > Situation 1 happens in many other cities across the world, and if you > tag the bridge as layer=1, you may end up inverting the rendering > order of highways, leading to this: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/138032009 what exa

[Tagging] building=bridge vs. man_made=bridge

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 09:36:43AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > Am 16/mar/2014 um 01:42 schrieb "Richard Z." : > > > > Also building=bridge is the wrong tag for this bridge > > > > why? Let's be cautious with judgements like &qu

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 09:40:15PM +1100, David Bannon wrote: > A few months ago, I spent two long days traversing a 250Km section of > the "Kennedy Development Rd" in Queensland. No part of it even > approached the grade5 described in tracktype= . There are many other > roads, world wide, often q

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:02:35AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > On 14.03.2014 15:51, Fernando Trebien wrote: > >> This is a small issue that came up recently in Brazil. In my > >> understanding, the layer tag has no specific meani

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:38:08PM +0100, fly wrote: > On 24.03.2014 20:45, Richard Z. wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:02:35AM -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > As it might be even hard to define t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Coastline-River transit placement

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 03:44:17PM +0100, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > Hello, > > i put up a proposal for specifying somewhat tighter limits on where to > place the transit between the coastline and the riverbank polygon at > the mouth of a river: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Propos

Re: [Tagging] natural=cloud

On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 12:25:03PM -0500, Clay Smalley wrote: > Sounds about right, but add layer=* tags where appropriate. Clouds go above > the land, so we have to make sure they render above everything (except > certain bridges and buildings). Might as well add layer=5 to all of them > for good

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 10:15:39AM +0200, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Errington wrote: > > I have discovered a bunch of rivers and streams with layer=-1 in my > > local area. In my opinion this is simply wrong, > > It's not wrong. It's just another way to use the tag l

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 03:53:25PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Wed, 2 Apr 2014, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > > C'mon guys. Tagging an entire river at layer=-1 is simply not the way to do > > things, unless it is a covered river or one that runs underground. What > > other possible justification

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 11:21:51PM -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > April 1st aside: the number of important implicit assumptions is relatively > small. Rivers under, power lines over, closed ways under except if they're > tagged building, etc. Currently this type of layering is implicit in > vario

[Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

Hi, I have something revolutionary simple in my sleeve for the case where a highway is going over a waterway: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:bridge#Simple_one-node_brunnels_for_way_over_waterway We have been thinking about it for a while and it seems there is some demand which cou

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:59:40PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2014-04-02 16:41 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. : > > > have something revolutionary simple in my sleeve for the case where > > a highway is going over a waterway: > > > > > > https://wiki.op

Re: [Tagging] What is OSM: a base layer for individual maps, or a fully featured geobased information system?

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 08:18:12PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Problem is that while "wanting things to show on the map" is a strong > motivator for people, it doesn't scale - we are not far from the point > where for every feature we add to our main map we have to remove another > feature from

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:08:46PM +0100, Dave F. wrote: > On 02/04/2014 17:14, Richard Z. wrote: > >as explained in the rationale the dimensions of the bridge/culvert > >are frequently only a fraction of the achievable precision. Think > >of a track crossing a small creek i

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 01:53:15AM +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote: > Also -1 for the proposal. > > Rationale in the Wiki says this would save us database space, we would have > 2 ways and 1 node less per bridge. Also, that maintaining one node is > easier than maintaining 3 ways. Lastly, problem of pr

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 07:44:40PM +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote: > On 02.04.2014 18:14, Richard Z. wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 05:59:40PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> IMHO there is a fundamental problem to your proposal because you want to > >> connect 2 wa

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:52:13PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > Am 03/apr/2014 um 21:43 schrieb Richard Z : > > > > so again: *** <> *** > > > > Where is your aerial imagery? I want that!! > > > you don't need image

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:53:44AM +, Philip Barnes wrote: > Whilst I think this is a very bad idea for the same reasons as already given > by Martin and Janko. > > What on earth is a Brunnel? I don't know and neither does google. I have an > idea from reading the thread but I wonder how man

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 12:07:42PM +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote: > 2014-04-03 11:12 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > > > FWIW, it is not true, we would "save" 1 way or 2, but the amount of nodes > > would remain the same, because with the new proposal the waterway would get > > an extra node whi

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:27:57PM -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: > That is my main objection as well. This proposal is to deliberately reduce > the accuracy of the data in the name of saving a few seconds of mapping time. nonsense. This proposal is here to improve the accuracy. You do not have

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:49:56PM +0100, Dave F. wrote: > On 03/04/2014 22:04, Richard Z. wrote: > > > >A brunnel is a crossbreed of a bridge with a tunnel. It has been used > >somewhere to describe > >constructions where it is not easy to decide whether a grade separ

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:41:56PM +0200, André Pirard wrote: > Hi, > > Regarding normalized layers. > If I can believe my eyes, bridges/culverts are under (uninterrupted > foil) roads > : > > bridge=roa

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 11:04:13PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Sat, 5 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:41:56PM +0200, André Pirard wrote: > > > > In addition, "key:layer" *is not* rendering layer/order. > > > > One e

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 10:14:05PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 05.04.2014 21:17, Richard Z. wrote: > > If the road (for whichever reason, valid or not) has layer=-1 and the > > forest > > just the implicit layer==0, the road should still be drawn abo

Re: [Tagging] simple_brunnel : one node bridge like xing highway over waterway

On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 03:52:42PM -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: > You are being asked, is the word "brunnel" one you coined, or is it in use > already by other people? Pointing to a page you wrote is not an answer to > the question. I have used a word I found in the wiki. I did not investigat

Re: [Tagging] direction=forward/backward on nodes ?

On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 10:43:58PM +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote: > 2014-04-12 20:39 GMT+02:00 John Packer : > > > I have never used this key before because of the drawback you mentioned: > > "There is no editor supporting this tag when reverting a way direction", > > > > Does anyone else think that

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:42:34AM +0200, Pieren wrote: > On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:46 AM, Andrew Errington > wrote: > > > I am using OSMAND for navigation, so it's important to have clear maps. Now > > that I have downloaded the latest data for this area (which includes my > > updates) I am mu

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 07:06:16PM +0900, Andrew Errington wrote: > Should I add layer=-1 to all the rivers and streams again? no, see other email. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/ta

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 09:53:21PM +0100, Chris Hill wrote: > On 21/04/14 21:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > >2014-04-21 20:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ><mailto:ricoz@gmail.com>>: > > > >> Without any additional tags like "tunnel=*" o

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:58:35AM +0200, André Pirard wrote: > On 2014-04-21 22:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote : > > > > 2014-04-21 20:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. > <mailto:ricoz@gmail.com>>: > > > > > Without any additional tags like "tunnel=

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:54:37PM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > Layer tag is a *hint* to the renderer, nothing more. > > > > the wiki page says > > << > > The layer=* tag is one of several methods

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or informal swimming holes?

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:03:50PM -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > How best should I tag informal swimming areas? These typically have no > lifeguard or facilities. An example deep-content site for these types of > holes is: > http://www.iforgotthename.com/ > > In OSM is it best to create an area a

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or informal swimming holes?

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 02:07:15PM +0100, Philip Barnes wrote: > On Thu, 2014-04-24 at 23:03 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > How best should I tag informal swimming areas? These typically have > > no lifeguard or facilities. An example deep-content site for these > > types of holes is: > > http://

[Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

Hi, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge mentions "swing" bridges without defining them. Apparently mappers do totally disagree what "swing" means.. out of our mapped bridge=swing * about half are small swinging bridges (aka simple suspension, hanging bridges) * some are swing bridges

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 05:58:01PM +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Good old Wiipedia helps: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge#Types_of_bridges > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_bridge > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_bridge wikipedia is clear on that but if you look at "swing

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 05:10:26PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: > Volker, > > There was a rather inconspicuous sentence at the end of > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge linking to the additional > "bridge:..." keys. I've reordered the introductory material in that page > somewhat t

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

On Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 09:21:46AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: > On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 8:25 AM, Richard Z. wrote: > > > > > > thanks, that looks much better now. > > > > Would it be fine to add the "simple_suspension" type > >(http://en.wi

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

Hi, lots of the national wikis refer to bridge=humpback which is missing in the English wiki, how to add it? Also, should the key:bridge pages really encourage user defined bridge values? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

red bridges. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/covered, from examples > section: http://www.travelbygps.com/special/covered/covered_bridge.JPG > > > 2014-08-10 12:33 GMT+04:00 Richard Z. : > > > Hi, > > > > lots of the national wikis refer to bridge=h

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: > > > It is neither constructed with the intention of calming traffic, nor is > it intended as any kind of barrier (a bridge is usually exactly the > opposite!) Let us not be afraid of using a different tag for what is > clearly a diff

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 12:41:22PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: > On 2014-08-10 12:13, Никита wrote: > > >I.e they define this tag as subtype of > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_bridge [5]. I don't see any real > >application/use to bridge=humpback. Also, bridge=humpback does not imply > >covered

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:00:06AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > Il giorno 11/ago/2014, alle ore 10:30, Philip Barnes > > ha scritto: > > > > I do not like the idea of bridge=movable. whilst true, it is only useful to > > routers and looses the diversity of OSM, we should not dumb

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:40:57AM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: Hi, > http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1263/1186115057_7f88a4aaed_o.jpg looks like a landmark or tourist attraction to me and a narrow single lane bridge. The speed limiting factor on this particular bridge might be that you don't see

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: Hi, > As the author of the last big redesign, I'm having trouble understanding > some of these criticisms and would appreciate it if people would draw out > the critique a bit so I can try to improve things. my criticism was limi

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:40:00PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Richard Z. wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 12:28:59PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: > > > > > > > Maintaining both "bridge=movable" and "

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 09:27:45PM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: > > > > > > > > > The image reminds me of a bridge, no longer open for traffic, on the old > > National Pike in Western Maryland. I can see where one might want to reduce > > spe

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:57 PM, SomeoneElse > wrote: > > > For the benefit of anyone looking at taginfo stats in this thread, it's > > worth mentioning that there's some "non-survey-based" editing going on: > > > > http://www.o

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:02:39AM -0300, John Packer wrote: > Richard, > Perhaps these cases in which the outline of the bridge was drawn is related > to this proposal: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/man_made%3Dbridge yes, I am pretty sure it was a desperate attempt to mak

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 09:06:02AM -0300, John Packer wrote: > PS: If you removed these 'bridges as area', you probably should fix that. I have removed the area around this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25397414 and filed this ticket as it did not render sanely: https://github.com/gra

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

is to solve a known rendering problem in > > bridges. > > Nowadays, when two or more parallel ways are in a bridge/viaduct, they are > > drawn as separate bridges. > > Drawing the area of the bridge would solve that. > > > > Cheers, > > John > > > &

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:12:07AM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote: > Hi! > > 2014-08-12 22:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. : > > > what else can I do? > > > > Maybe it's time to open up a change request for the main map style? The tag > man_made=bridge seems to be use

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:25:33AM -0300, John Packer wrote: > > Just noticed that some mappers resort to adding building=yes or similar to > > make it render at all. > > Note that bridges that are buildings actually exist. [1] > > But adding building=* to a bridge when it's not the case would be

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 06:54:11AM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > 2014-08-11 18:28 GMT+02:00 Christopher Hoess > > > > As the author of the last big redesign, I'm having trouble understanding > > some of these criticisms and would appreciate it if people would draw out > > the critique a bit

Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:31:28PM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote: > 2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard : > > > On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : > > > > Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with > > cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this

Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:48:35PM -0400, David K wrote: > I support a general tag for hill crests with sufficient vertical curvature > to introduce a visibility, grounding, or takeoff hazard. It could be > applied to railroad crossings, humpy bridges, or just roads traversing > hilly terrain; all

Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 05:32:20PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 14.08.2014 13:18, Dan S wrote: > > >>> I think that it is an obvious idea, but wiki claimed that "At the moment > >>> there just a > >>> tag to map the entrance to a cave." despite fact that existing tags fit > >>> well. > >

Re: [Tagging] To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 05:50:06PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > Il giorno 15/ago/2014, alle ore 23:52, St Niklaas ha > > scritto: > > > > I would go for building=bridge, since a bridge is a building > > > actually a bridge isn't a building according to standard terminology, it i

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - nudism

> > i was also thinking about that. i think it is only neccesary if a former > nudist place is changed to a place where clothing is expected > in some areas nudism is so prevalent that it is a good idea to use nudism=no in places where it is not expected/allowed. In other areas it would not mak

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - nudism

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:54:21PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Maybe a more generic tag like dress_code would also catch these places? This > was already proposed some time ago IIRR. this was already discussed on some talk page - why can't I find it now? :( > It could also be inter

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:12:07AM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote: > Hi! > > 2014-08-12 22:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. : > > > what else can I do? > > > > Maybe it's time to open up a change request for the main map style? The tag > man_made=bridge seems to be use

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - nudism

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 01:08:25AM +0200, Heiko Wöhrle wrote: > > > Hi everybody, > > i'd like to readdress an old draft from Xan, that has never been voted > but is nevertheless in use. > > Please feel free to comment the slightly changed proposal: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pro

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - nudism

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 08:28:13PM +0200, Heiko Wöhrle wrote: Hi, > yes i changed the values because i found the differentiation between > "customary with prevalent nudity" and "permissive but not prevalent nudity" > difficult. > > But i had a mistake in my description, it should be: > "designat

Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 06:45:30PM +0100, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry to raise this issue again but it really does need resolving: > > * for ensuring good data; and > * to prevent forest and wood being rendered as the same thing [1] > > Currently the descriptions in the green box on the

[Tagging] minus or underscore in attribute values?

Hi, another mapper metnioned to me that it is unusual to have attribute values with a minus, like bridge:structure=cable-stayed On the other hand, it is an apporved proposal - what are the opinions on that? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@

  1   2   >