Re: [Tagging] Campaniles tagging

2018-03-12 7:54 GMT+01:00 Tomasz Wójcik : > Currently there are 2 tags for campaniles, which has no difference between > each other: > > * man_made=tower + tower:type=campanile > * man_made=campanile > > I think we should move "man_made=campanile" to "man_made=tower + > tower:type=campanile" combi

Re: [Tagging] tag "covered" questions

2014/1/24 Martin Koppenhoefer > > Am 24/gen/2014 um 07:46 schrieb Kytömaa Lauri : > > > > It's then only natural that they use tunnel=building_passage or even > tunnel=yes when they map these, totally without any regard to whether some > engineers or geologists or encyclopedia editors have restri

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

2014-04-03 22:42 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. : > > Don't dismiss that argument so casually. The current rule is that the > > way below the bridge should not share a node with the bridge itself. > > the current idea that culverts float bellow roads without having anything > common with them is not correct

Re: [Tagging] natural=cloud

I reread this thread today, and what gave away the joke is that there is agreement. Most messages quote the previous one and comment "Great! Also...". Merry Christmas, Simone 2014-04-02 2:38 GMT+02:00 André Pirard : > On 2014-04-01 19:08, Pierre Knobel wrote : > > Hi all, > > I'm new on thi

Re: [Tagging] Suggestions for the correct tagging of Field borders

2014-06-13 14:15 GMT+02:00 Simon Wüllhorst : > Hello Guys, > > currently I’m tagging the country around my place (farmland, farmyards, > meadow and so on). Farmlands are typically surrounded or seperated by small > areas/borders of several vegetations (trees bushes, at least in Germany), > called

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - cemetery=sector

2014-07-14 16:04 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > thank you for setting this up. There are some comments on the talk-page: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Cemetery_sector > Thanks! In my town, these got tagged as place=locality, and, while I couldn't agree the least w

Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key

2014-08-14 10:40 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm : > Hi, > > On 08/14/2014 08:09 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > shop=ice_cream (710, documented but difference between using amenity and > > shop keys is not documented) -> amenity=ice_cream (4053) > > amenity=ice_cream sounds very strange to me. I can't i

Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key

2014-08-18 13:41 GMT+02:00 John Packer : > I'm not sure what is a gelateria. > Couldn't this be tagged simply with amenity=cafe + cuisine=ice_cream ? > Pretty much the same way as a pub could be tagged amenity=restaurant + cuisine=burgers + alcohol=yes. Regards, Simone _

Re: [Tagging] patron saints

http://overpass-turbo.eu/?w="patron_saint%3Ait"%3D*+global&R I swear, I would think that there were more of these. patron_saint:it seems to be a common suggestion for this purpose in Italian discussions about churches, I really thought we had more of them. Anyway, as you can see there are a few al

Re: [Tagging] patron saints

2015-01-26 15:28 GMT+01:00 Steve Doerr : > On 26/01/2015 00:01, Simone Saviolo wrote: > >> http://overpass-turbo.eu/?w="patron_saint%3Ait"%3D*+global&R >> >> I swear, I would think that there were more of these. patron_saint:it >> seems to be a c

Re: [Tagging] patron saints

2015-01-27 11:25 GMT+01:00 André Pirard : > On 2015-01-27 09:51, Simone Saviolo wrote : > > 2015-01-26 15:28 GMT+01:00 Steve Doerr : > >> On 26/01/2015 00:01, Simone Saviolo wrote: >> >>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/?w="patron_saint%3Ait"%3D*+global&R

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

2015-03-03 19:07 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > By the time you get to that level of tagging, > why not micro map each lane? > One of the reasons (not a good reason) is that when I and others did that we got bashed because of our pointlessly detailed representation, despite it being actually a good

Re: [Tagging] Maxspeed

2015-05-11 1:41 GMT+02:00 Andrew MacKinnon : > How do you tag speed limits on curves and highway on/off ramps? At > least in Ontario, these speed limits are advisory only and signed with > a yellow sign (and sometimes on curves you will see a curve speed > limit sign and a higher general speed lim

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

2015-05-15 1:27 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 14/05/2015 11:55 PM, pmailkeey . wrote: > >> amenity=pub is really just pub(=yes) etc. >> > > That is a better example .. to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff > and is a building. As are restaurants, petrol stations etc. > No

Re: [Tagging] tunnel=building_passage or covered=yes

Yes, an obvious one: a building_passage *goes through a building* :) Semantically it is quite important to distinguish between a colonnade/arcade and a building passage (BTW, also arcades and colonnades have their own tag). covered=yes just implies that the building is over the highway, but it mig

Re: [Tagging] Adding directionality to stop signs

2017-03-20 17:36 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt : > I am inserting them in quantity, but only in the simple way of a node on > the way. "My" stop signs apply to the nearest junction. This should in > principle allow a routing algorithm to determine the directionality of the > sign. I would consider havi

Re: [Tagging] winter tyres

2017-11-16 13:55 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > I believe the question remains whether "winter_equipment" is sufficient or > if we want to distinguish. e.g. between winter tyres and snow chains or > spikes. There might also be different regulations for different kind of > vehicle, e.g. hgv, mo

Re: [Tagging] Short-term parking zones

2018-01-14 12:32 GMT+01:00 Matej Lieskovský : > Greetings, > > if you group all the streets in a single relation, the relation is likely > to be rather big. > This can be hard on the server. > You're saying that having a relation with 1000 objects in it is "hard on the server", instead suggesting

Re: [Tagging] Short-term parking zones

2018-01-14 15:05 GMT+01:00 Matej Lieskovský : > Citation provided: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation#Size > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Size > > Notice that the border relation you linked is already version 790 (and > borders change far less often than roads). V

Re: [Tagging] Short-term parking zones

2018-01-15 11:07 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > On 14. Jan 2018, at 12:32, Matej Lieskovský > wrote: > > > > If you create a single empty relation with the details of the parking > zone rules, > > you can then tag every road with the id of the relation. > > It is basically a way of flipping

Re: [Tagging] Short-term parking zones

2018-01-14 16:01 GMT+01:00 Matej Lieskovský : > Upon further analysis of empty relations, I suspect they will be far more > problematic than I expected. While it is on the wiki since 2010 and feels > like a powerful tool, it does not seem to be used (let alone supported by > consumers). > > My bad

Re: [Tagging] Vote / Opinion poll about history=event

2011/5/5 John Smith > On 6 May 2011 01:09, Andre Engels wrote: > > Unless you are in New Zealand, you're unlikely to tag the same thing: > > It's being used for a Maori fortress, see > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81_%28M%C4%81ori%29 > > That seems too specific, it should be a subset of

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway

2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II > On 5/11/2011 10:47 AM, Flaimo wrote: > >> you misread that. because if its imprecise definition, there are still >> heated discussions on how detailed landuses should be mapped. some >> leave out the areas of the streets, some don't. all i wanted to state >> out is, t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway

2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II > On 5/11/2011 11:15 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: > >> 2011/5/11 Nathan Edgars II mailto:nerou...@gmail.com >> >> >> >> >>On 5/11/2011 10:47 AM, Flaimo wrote: >> >>you misread that. because

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway

2011/5/11 Tobias Knerr > M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> If you follow the convention that each way should be drawn along the > >> center of the real-world feature, then the width of e.g. a sidewalk can > >> still be determined at any point along the road from just the single > >> outline area an

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - area:highway

2011/5/12 Stefan Bethke > Am 12.05.2011 um 10:50 schrieb Tobias Knerr: > > > Sorry for my previous unfinished mail, I didn't want to send it. > > > > To summarize what I intended to say: > > > > * I assume that most road shapes are adequately described with just a > > single outline area for the

Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified

2011/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > I wonder if this definition which was formerly part of the description > for highway=unclassified is still valid: > > "Unclassified roads typically form the lowest form of the > interconnecting grid network." > > It was removed here "(Tidying up the struck bits)":

Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified

2011/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > 2011/7/27 Simone Saviolo : > > IMHO, it's a sentence that is both unclear and wrong. "Interconnecting > grid > > network" has no significance: if it wasn't interconnecting it wouldn't be > a > > network, and a g

Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified

2011/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > 2011/7/27 Simone Saviolo : > > Of > > course, the roads are interconnecting, otherwise it wouldn't be a > network. > > I thought this was a common term in English, but as I am not a native > speaker I might be wrong > Neither

Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified

2011/7/29 John F. Eldredge > Greg Troxel wrote: > > > I think the underlying problem is that there's a big gap between > > tertiary, which should be a road that really is used to go somewhere > > and > > residential, which more or less means a road that you wouldn't care > > about unless you des

Re: [Tagging] Entrance and exit roads for parking lots: `service=?`

2011/8/7 Mike N > On 8/7/2011 4:17 PM, Gioele Barabucci wrote: > >> I found some instances of "driveway leading to a parking lot" and >> similar sentences. Is is OK, from a linguistic point of view, to >> identify these roads as driveways? >> > > I agree that having the parking lot entrance tag

Re: [Tagging] Relations (was directions)

2011/8/9 Pieren > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > > A big +1. > I'm afraid that people promoting relations (once they understand the > concept, they want to use it everywhere) are not the one editing often the > map data ... > -1. I use them often, and I would like to s

Re: [Tagging] Relations (was directions)

2011/8/9 Mike N > On 8/9/2011 10:44 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > >> Relations make the map hard to work with. >> > > Agree - one of the barriers to entry by new mappers is the complexity. We > need to do everything possible to keep it simple and usable. And not just > by creating ever-more-c

Re: [Tagging] Relations (was directions)

2011/8/10 Serge Wroclawski > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: > > > if we make a system that any newcomer can > > use completely without even having to dwelve into the details, then we're > > basically dumbing it down and limiting

Re: [Tagging] Relations (was directions)

2011/8/10 Tobias Knerr > Simone Saviolo wrote: > > Ok, but there are use cases where simple things don't suffice. In the > > case at hand, for example, using something like direction=forward > > doesn't work in all the use cases. And using direction= > degr

Re: [Tagging] Translating tags into the database itself ?

2011/8/18 Peter Wendorff > Hi Pieren. > > On the one hand I agree with you, that using latin in "species" without > specifying a language code differs from the way it is done with name and > name:* tags. > On the other hand latin AFAIK is the common language to name plant species > all over the w

Re: [Tagging] Translating tags into the database itself ?

2011/8/18 Pieren > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: > > +1. It's not a "Latin name", but the scientific name itself. > > Okay for latin ... but OSM shouldn't be reserved for experts imo. I'm > afraid that this sub-t

Re: [Tagging] Translating tags into the database itself ?

2011/8/18 Pieren > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: > > > > surface=paved is just as precise as species=Juglans regia. It's up to the > > consumers to adapt it to their audience. Also, I'd expect that a > Frenchmen > > understan

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011/8/24 Josh Doe > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II > wrote: > > On 8/23/2011 7:38 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > >> > >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/67469500 is an extension of a > >> sidewalk across a railroad, whereas the adjacent highway does not cross. > >> Is

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

athan Edgars II >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/24/2011 3:44 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Secondly, I'm not sure that the >>>>>> way of the crossing would be

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011/8/25 Anthony > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: > > Woah, stop :-) What I meant is: > > - we've always said that each way should represent a linear feature; > > - for highways, this means a carriageway. If a road has a single two-way &g

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011/8/25 Josh Doe > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:30 AM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: > > Considering the above, I can hardly see how a crossing (either for > > pedestrians or cyclists or horsemen) would deserve its own way > (especially a > > highway=*). The only "need

Re: [Tagging] Is a sidewalk always adjacent to a traversable road?

2011/8/25 Anthony > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Nathan Edgars II > wrote: > > On 8/25/2011 4:30 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: > >> > >> - it is disputed whether to draw two ways where two lanes are divided by > >> a traffic island > > > &g

Re: [Tagging] landuse=residential and named residential areas which belong together (neighbourhoods/subdivisions?)

2011/8/29 Martin Koppenhoefer > We have been recently discussing on the German ML about > landuse=residential. In Germany many mappers were mapping subdivisions > / neighbourhoods [1] with landuse=residential. This led to very rough > landuse information, because in order to keep the (sometimes q

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Roundabouts and routing

2011/9/9 Martin Koppenhoefer > 2011/9/9 Graham Stewart (GrahamS) : > > David Earl wrote: > >> The reason I needed such a tag was to avoid one way arrows cluttering up > >> the map on those little Y-shaped approaches to roundabouts > > > This seems like a bad approach to me. (pardon the pun) > > I

Re: [Tagging] Wide steps

2011/10/7 David Earl > Any suggestions as to how to represent some steps... > > These steps aren't that unusual I guess, but they aren't a staircase. They > form the edges of a piazza-like platform, running most of the way around it. > There are only 4 steps, but they are several of them, up to a

Re: [Tagging] Wide steps

2011/10/7 David Earl > On 07/10/2011 18:13, Peter Wendorff wrote: > >> I'm not sure, but perhaps the area:highway-proposal [1] is useful here. >> > > There are already numerous highway areas for things like market places and > piazzas, but it's done as highway=x;area=yes, not with its own key. Th

Re: [Tagging] Amenity parking

2012/1/11 Martin Koppenhoefer : > 2012/1/11 Erik Johansson : >> I will gladly change my amenity=parking to what ever you decide. Does >> access=private work? The parking lots aren't private it's just that >> you can't park there. > > > access=private doesn't say that something is private, it means

Re: [Tagging] Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)

2012/1/11 Ben Johnson : > For a public access pool (eg run by a local government authority, or even a > private operator who's main business is the swimming pool) usually charge an > entry fee and have opening hours, so i'd use [access=permissive] - likewise > for tennis clubs with public access

Re: [Tagging] Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)

2012/1/13 Ben Johnson : > Okay that explains it very well. I have a friend with a farm who explained a > little to me and the obligation makes perfect sense. But would you tag such > ways as "private" or just leave them as default access?  Farms aside, I > struggle to think of examples of permissiv

Re: [Tagging] Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)

2012/1/13 Michael Krämer : > In writing this reply I thought about examples for permissive here in > Germany. Thinking about that I guess it's kind of the default here so > we hardly differentiate from "access=yes". Basically it would be any > private way or road where access is not explicitly rest

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines

2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II : > On 1/17/2012 6:28 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> 2012/1/17 Maarten Deen: >>> >>> On 2012-01-16 23:27, Robin Paulson wrote: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?lat=-36.878407&lon=174.741523&zoom=19 the landuse polygon has an orange highlight on

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines

2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II : > On 1/17/2012 8:10 AM, Simone Saviolo wrote: >> >> I find it useless to map such wide areas as landuses. There's no point >> in tagging a whole village's area as landuse=residential, and there's >> no point in making a sixt

Re: [Tagging] psv (was Re: access=no (was Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)))

2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II : > On 1/17/2012 8:32 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> psv=yes (or bus=yes) > > > This has been bugging me for a while - why do we group buses and taxis? Is > this a common grouping in the UK? I don't know about other places, but at least in Italy it's common that pu

Re: [Tagging] psv (was Re: access=no (was Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)))

2012/1/17 Paul Johnson : > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 08:34:48AM -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> On 1/17/2012 8:32 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >psv=yes (or bus=yes) >> >> This has been bugging me for a while - why do we group buses and >> taxis? Is this a common grouping in the UK? > > Are the

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Mapping guidelines

2012/1/17 Jo : > For what it's worth. When I start rendering/printing maps based on OSM, I > think it's extremely ugly if the landuse is not 'connected' to the roads, > i.e. that the landuse uses separate parallel ways with a small space in > between for its definition. > I also prefer to create la

Re: [Tagging] Mapping guidelines

2012/1/17 Nathan Edgars II : > On 1/17/2012 11:18 AM, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Nathan Edgars II >>  wrote: >>> >>> On 1/17/2012 10:32 AM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote: > > A residential street is u

Re: [Tagging] Mapping guidelines

Allow me to remind another advantage of a detailed landuse mapping. I've mapped cultivated land lot by lot around Vercelli. Not only this allows to detail the crop types (rather than saying that between Chivasso and Pavia it's "mostly" rice), but it also makes it possible to make precise and punctu

Re: [Tagging] Extension of the "payment:*" keys

2012/4/11 : > You also need: > > payment:debit_cards for shops such as aldi and lidl. Would you mind to clarify that? Debit cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debit_card) are accepted in most shops, not only Lidl. I'm not sure I understood what you meant. Thanks, Simone __

Re: [Tagging] Turn Restriction usage

2012/4/11 Ross Scanlon : >> In one case there is a road where a two way section comes to a divider >> and becomes two one way sections for a while. The suggested route came >> along one of the one way sections, then turned about 340 degrees to go >> down the other side of the road. It may be legal

Re: [Tagging] Turn Restriction usage

2012/4/11 Ross Scanlon : >>> No.  The router should know not to do this. Likewise as below the router >>> should not make u turns at traffic lights. >> >> >> Based on what? How does the router know that the two ways are two >> carriageways of a single road? Couldn't they be a straight road, that >>

[Tagging] Alternative names in local language

Hi everyone. Recently, I've been in Nice. Nice, as many of you may know, has been for centuries under the control of Savoy, whose official language was Italian; then it was ceded to France, that changed all the toponyms to their French equivalent. Nonetheless, the whole area also clinged to its lo

Re: [Tagging] Alternative names in local language

2012/5/22 Volker Schmidt > Ho guardato come lo fanno a Bolzano-Bozen. > > Un esempio > > name = Via > Argentieri - Silbergasse name:de = Silbergasse name:it = Via Argentieri > Da notare che i nomi italiani in Alto Adige spesso non sono tr

Re: [Tagging] Mapping larger Mini-roundabouts

2012/6/6 Georg Feddern > > For highway=pedestrian, at platforms and many other things we allow to >> add area=yes to a feature to turn a circular way (ring) to a circular area >> (filled area, polygon). >> If - and that's in fact more or less the result of the discussions we had >> in the last d

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Blue flags (Foundation for Environmental Education's Blue flag criteria for beaches and marinas)

2012/6/26 Janko Mihelić > The Blue Flag is a voluntary eco-label awarded to 3849 beaches and marinas > in 46 countries across Europe, South Africa, Morocco, Tunisia, New Zealand, > Brazil, Canada and the Caribbean. > > More about it here: http://www.blueflag.org > > I suggest a "fee_blue_flag=yes

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Blue flags (Foundation for Environmental Education's Blue flag criteria for beaches and marinas)

2012/6/26 Michael Krämer > Hello, > > > 2012/6/26 Janko Mihelić > >> I suggest a "fee_blue_flag=yes" tag which should be used in combination >> with "leisure=beach_resort" or "leisure=marina". This could be useful for >> easy searching of well equipped, maintained and clean beaches and marinas >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Blue flags (Foundation for Environmental Education's Blue flag criteria for beaches and marinas)

2012/6/26 Janko Mihelić > 2012/6/26 Simone Saviolo > >> However, as far as I know, the Blue Flag is awarded on a Commune basis, >> so I don't think it would be ok to tag a marina or a beach resort. For >> example, in Italy, Varazze is traditionally a Blue Flag

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Blue flags (Foundation for Environmental Education's Blue flag criteria for beaches and marinas)

2012/6/26 Janko Mihelić > 2012/6/26 Simone Saviolo : > > > > Yes, actually every beach is marked with the blue flag. However, it is > not > > relative to a single resort. Also, signs usually say "Varazze Bandiera > Blu > > d'Europa" wi

Re: [Tagging] Data redundancy with "ref" tag on ways vs relations

2012/7/31 Apollinaris Schöll > Instead of saying "don't impose your views on others", you should >> provide an argument why the proposal is bad and ideally, propose >> alternative solution to the presented problem. This way, I can react >> with counter-argument, or admit that the original propos

Re: [Tagging] Data redundancy with "ref" tag on ways vs relations

2012/8/1 Peter Wendorff > Am 01.08.2012 16:01, schrieb Simone Saviolo: > > > Do you know how many editors are out there? and there are bots all kinds > of scripts with API upload support ... Feel free to fix all of them. As far > as I know not a single editor for mobile ap

Re: [Tagging] Shark tagging

2012/8/2 Martin Vonwald > 2012/8/2 Serge Wroclawski : > > I took this photo of a building across the street. > > > > How do you propose I tag it? > > > > http://www.emacsen.net/shark-bldg.jpg > > I would suggest shark=great_white or simply shark=yes if you are not > sure about the exact species.

Re: [Tagging] name of river/admin area

2012/9/4 Colin Smale > On 04/09/2012 15:30, Phil! Gold wrote: > >> I fully agree that there's no way to set a global standard; it should be >> left to the locals, who know the features best. >> >> But how local is local? It's obvious that a single standard for the > whole world is not going to h

Re: [Tagging] Coastline around a bridge?

2012/10/3 Martin Koppenhoefer > 2012/10/3 Martin Vonwald : > > Hi! > > > > Any reason why the coastline should go around a bridge? > > > > > http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=coastline&lon=5.13984&lat=52.32549&zoom=16&opacity=0.55&overlays=coastline_error_lines,line_not_a_ring,line_overlap,lin

Re: [Tagging] Naming boundary ways

2012/10/4 A.Pirard.Papou > Q1: which naming of border line piece do you consider valid and which do > you prefer? > Q1a: Municipality1 — Municipality2? > Q1b: Highest-level1 — Highest-level2 (Europe — Asia) > Q1c: Municipality1 — Municipality2 (Highest-level1 — Highest-level2) ? > Q1d: nothing >

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

2012/10/12 Eugene Alvin Villar > However, I personally don't think your example of putting the URLs to > a place's webpage on foursquare, Google+, Yelp, TripAdvisor, etc. is > the way to go. > > OSM is not a link directory so adding many such links on the OSM > database doesn't seem appropriate.

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

2012/10/12 Pieren > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: > > > I think that contact info of an amenity (allow me to group shops, > > restaurants, bars, and companies under that umbrella just for a minute) > > should be considered all of equ

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

2012/10/12 Pieren > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: > > > by that reasoning, we should remove all the bars, all the shops, all the > > restaurants, all the companies, all the fuel stations, all the parking > > information (a free parki

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/15 Tobias Knerr > On 15.10.2012 10:56, Martin Vonwald wrote: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png > > > > Only part 5 is relevant. Assume there is no physical separation just a > > double line between the upper and lower two lanes. How would you tag > > this: >

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/15 Johan C > I think there's some confusion here. Imagic's question was on a motorway > example. Where did you get this from? Sure, he referred to a picture with the model of a motorway, but he esplicitly said "consider only section 5". We're not talking about that section 5 *on a motor

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/16 Paul Johnson > I'd go with option b. Despite being a single way, you're committed to > taking the ramp by that point (due to the double-white solid lines), making > it functionally an extension of the ramp. The OP explicitly asks you to focus on section 5 alone, NOT on section 5 as

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/15 Colin Smale > I don't understand why emergency vehicles are so important in this > discussion. Because OSM publicly advertises the fact that its maps are being used in the Gaza's strip by emergency vehicles that would otherwise have no map? Just to name one. Also because emergency ve

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/15 Philip Barnes > The law varies from country to country. In the UK, it is legal to cross > a solid white line to turn into a side road, or driveway. You can also > cross one to overtake a slow moving vehicle, such as a cyclist or > tractor. > > In France, where it is illegal to cross a

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/16 Martin Koppenhöfer > > > Am 16/ott/2012 um 11:28 schrieb Markus Lindholm >: > > > To be able to do proper routing for emergency vehicles perhaps it > > would be a good idea to introduce something like landuse=highway that > > would denote an area suitable for motor vehicles and that i

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/16 Colin Smale > There's maybe a difference between the case of two lanes in the same > direction, and two lanes in opposite directions. > There's none. If a solid line is painted between lanes going in opposite directions, it's legally impossible to cross the line. If a solid line is p

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/16 Colin Smale > Are you seriously suggesting that emergency services will trust a satnav > in preference to their own eyes and brains? > I hope not, and I hope this is true for everyone and not only for emergency vehicle drivers. However, not all places are within eye distance. An ambu

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

2012/10/17 Kytömaa Lauri > >Only part 5 is relevant. > Having just returned from my (mapping) trip, and having finally > browsed through all these messages on this subjet, I don't think > anybody mentioned it explicitly: You can't consider only part 5. I think he means that, for lack of a bette

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways (2nd Part)

2012/10/17 Martin Vonwald > Hi (again)! > > Thanks for all the answers. I would like to ask three more (the last > one for this week - promised!): > > Same image as before: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png > > Now consider part 4 to 6. At what point would you split th

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways (2nd Part)

2012/10/17 Martin Koppenhoefer > 2012/10/17 Martin Vonwald : > > Same image as before: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Lanes_Example_2.png > > > > Now consider part 4 to 6. At what point would you split the way coming > > from part 4? > > a) Before the end of part 4 > > b) At the end

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

2012/10/18 Eugene Alvin Villar > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: > > 2012/10/12 Eugene Alvin Villar > >> > >> However, I personally don't think your example of putting the URLs to > >> a place's webpage on foursquare, Go

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

2012/10/18 Eugene Alvin Villar > opening hours and operators [...] are intrinsic > properties of these amenities. Links to web pages *about* the amenity > on third-party websites are not intrinsic properties. > I think this is exactly what we disagree about. If I, the owner of a shop, create a F

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

2012/10/18 Peter Wendorff > Cuisine often is essential even for the basic map stuff: a map about > pizzarias vs. a map about chinese restaurants, or a map that has distinct > icons for different food and drink facilities. > The operator might be interesting, too, e.g. to get all parking spaces >

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

Peter, Eugene, I think we've reached consensus here (have these words ever been said in an OSM mailing list? :-D ). Of the tags Eugene listed about the restaurant in Berlin, I'd only tentatively keep link:facebook and link:google+, but I am not able to judge how much of the content is relevant and

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

2012/10/18 John F. Eldredge > If you can generate a custom rendering of a particular geographical area, > opening (and closing) hours could be useful. For example, if you are > scheduling an all-day business meeting that includes a lunch break, it > would be useful to give attendees a map that s

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

2012/10/18 Janko Mihelić > 2012/10/18 Simone Saviolo > >> >> Ideally yes - but keep in mind that not all amenities are mapped, and not >> a lot (<-- euphemism) of them have the opening hours. Of course, this >> shouldn't stop us from thinking about

Re: [Tagging] Standard for external links to location based services

Ok, I'm done trying to nitpick. I too am now convinced that we should only have one website reference, be it a regular website or a Facebook page or a Twitter stream or whatever. Frederik and Peter, don't worry, I'm not trying to make OSM a marketing support. I am convinced that a website is an ab

[Tagging] Enforcement of access rules

I wish to map the cameras that my municipality is installing these days to enforce the access restriction in the ZTL ( = limited traffic area). I think the most appropriate structure to do this would be the enforcement relation [1], but none of the listed types of enforcement is up to the task. I

Re: [Tagging] Enforcement of access rules

2012/10/24 Martin Koppenhoefer > 2012/10/24 Simone Saviolo : > > I wish to map the cameras that my municipality is installing these days > to > > enforce the access restriction in the ZTL ( = limited traffic area). I > think > > the most appropriate structure to do th

Re: [Tagging] Enforcement of access rules

2012/10/24 Martin Koppenhoefer > 2012/10/24 Simone Saviolo : > > I agree, but a speed "camera" is not actually a camera. > > > -1, it is, and it is combined with a device to measure the speed of the > vehicle. > Ok, I see what you mean. Then I su

Re: [Tagging] Places & admin boundaries

2012/10/28 Alberto > > 1) Polygon vs point for "Populated urban areas" (place=city, town...): > > Hello, we talked about this problem in Italian list [1]. > We agreed that boundaries and places should not be confused because in > general they refer to different things. > We also agreed that taggi

Re: [Tagging] Enforcement of access rules

2012/10/24 Simone Saviolo > How would I go about formalizing this "proposal"? Do I need to make a > proposal page? I'm not trying to add a feature, just to expand on one. > Since I've received no replies, I'll proceed to add the "access" value

  1   2   3   >