Re: [Tagging] Enforcement of access rules

2012/10/29 Martin Vonwald > 2012/10/29 Simone Saviolo : > > As to the enforcement_device tag, I guess I'll have to make a proposal? > > Have a look at this: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:Surveillance > > It is already in use: > http:

Re: [Tagging] exit_to on motorway_junction

2012/11/18 Philip Barnes > On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 21:26 +0100, Colin Smale wrote: > > Phil, there's a difference between routing calculation (which neither > > knows nor cares about road names, numbers, signposts etc) and how the > > result of the calculation is presented to the user. Then you nee

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: expanded address tags for US

2012/11/21 David ``Smith'' > Also, the street name in addresses doesn't always match the name of the > street. For example, there are houses on Old Walker Road which retain > Walker Rd addresses. And the name Lilly Chapel Opossum Run Road is so > long, the local post office recognizes addresses

Re: [Tagging] agglomération

2012/11/21 A.Pirard.Papou > Hi, > > I wanted to map the agglomeration of my village and I am wondering again. > [...] > > How do we tag agglomérations? > Currently, with place=* and their relative info on a closed way. I have written a proposal which aims to change this tagging scheme: [1] H

Re: [Tagging] agglomération

2012/11/23 Kytömaa Lauri > >The idea is that with a 30 driving rules list applying to an agglomération > > If it's just the traffic rules urban vs. rural, there's the tag (with 37 > 000+ uses) > > zone:traffic=**:rural > zone:traffic=**:urban > > where ** is the two letter country code. > > Don't

Re: [Tagging] Multiple purposes for buildings

2013/1/1 Svavar Kjarrval > That's, of course, possible. The question was what value should be in the > building tag in the building polygon. Of course I'd like to implement the > level of detail you suggest but it doesn't answer the original question. > IMO, the question is conceptually wrong.

Re: [Tagging] Multiple purposes for buildings

2013/1/2 Martin Koppenhoefer > 2013/1/2 Simone Saviolo : > > What you are trying to tag is the > > *use* of the building, and not a property of the building per se. Unless > > it's a mall, a retail store's interior is not structurally different > from an > &g

Re: [Tagging] Names on relations and not component ways

2013/1/6 Werner Hoch > > I am wondering what current best practice is. > > Should name be applied to both component ways and relation, > > or is application of name to relation sufficient. > > For waterways, adding one name to ways and all names to the relation is > at least "useful". Longer wate

Re: [Tagging] Follow-up on Time Domains

2013/1/23 Serge Wroclawski > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > It shouldn't be too hard to make a JOSM add-on that converts 3 letters > into > > 2. So that's no problem. > > You seem to be not seeing the point. > > Two letter days of the week (DOW) may be standard in Germ

Re: [Tagging] Resorts

2013/2/1 Steve Bennett > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Дмитрий Киселев > wrote: > > > I didn't like leisure=resort because in such case we will have > > leisure inside leisure in case of swimmingpools or pitch inside > > resort. > > IMHO, that is of absolutely no concern. There's no rule agai

Re: [Tagging] Landuse vs Place - conversation at talk-key-landuse in wiki

2013/2/15 Brad Neuhauser > I would disagree that place=neighbourhood implies landuse=residential: I > know of neighborhoods that are mostly industrial or commercial landuse. > Brad +1. Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http:/

Re: [Tagging] Wikidata tag

I'm honestly appalled by some of the criticism here. I think this is a great proposal and will be very useful once both sides are solid, with WikiData hosting more and more information and OSM linking lots of objects to a WikiData node. As to the McDonalds/McDonalds Deutschland issue, think of a T

Re: [Tagging] Wikidata tag

2013/2/27 Pieren > In my turn for questions, what are you doing if the wikidata is > refering to McDonald's but the tag name or operator is telling "Burger > King" ? > This proposal improves data consistency and relationship between data. Are we really willing to reject it because the data we pu

Re: [Tagging] Wikidata tag

2013/2/27 Pieren > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: > > > This proposal improves data consistency and relationship between data. > Are > > we really willing to reject it because the data we put in may be wrong? > > No, Because it duplic

Re: [Tagging] Wikidata tag

2013/2/27 Pieren > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: > >> Because it might create inconsistencies. > > Does not, as I pointed above. You don't use two tags at the same time > for a > > single piece of information. At most, you use a sec

Re: [Tagging] Wikidata tag

2013/2/27 Peter Wendorff > You "call for editor support" for a new external ID that's not > controllable. > You want it to be a replacement (well, you agree to keep the old tags, but > your argumentation is that the old tags are not necessary any more with the > existence of Wikidata. > > This c

[Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

Hi everyone! I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely accepted both by mappers and by co

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

2013/3/14 Chris Hill > On 14/03/13 14:43, Simone Saviolo wrote: > >> I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been >> in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current >> limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop,

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

2013/3/14 Steve Doerr > I suppose the main downside is that it requires a relation. I've not > mapped give-way relationships myself, but it would be good to map them, and > the node method seems simpler and would involve less database bloat than > adding a relation at, basically, every junction.

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

2013/3/14 Pieren > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Richard Fairhurst > > That's fiendishly clever given that OpenStreetMap didn't exist nine years > > ago... > > ^^ > But, a silly question : where does it help to put so much efforts in > tagging a give-way traffic sign ? It's not for routing. I

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

2013/3/15 Pieren > > It is for navigation. Imagine a corner right before an intersection: the > > navigator would warn you that you'll have to give way or to stop, and > you'll > > prepare the corner accordingly. > > I don't know any commercial car navigation system that warns you about > give-wa

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

2013/3/16 Philip Barnes > Absolutely wrong, obeying traffic rules is 100% the drivers > responsibility. There already enough numpties on the road, without > giving them another reason to blame the satnav. > > A satnav should only use the presence of give ways and stops to > calculate routing time

Re: [Tagging] leisure=swimming_pool for the pool or the complex?

2013/7/22 Bryce Nesbitt > After reading > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dswimming_pool I can't > figure out. > Is this tag for the actual wet area of a pool, or the fenced area of a > pool facility? The page spends > a lot of words about past controversy, but seems silent on th

Re: [Tagging] How to map an household goods store?

2013/9/16 Philip Barnes > On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 05:47 +0200, Stefano Fraccaro wrote: > > I have some shops that sell only household goods like dishes, pots, > > coffee makers, blenders, oven thermometers, ... > > IMHO "shop=supermarket" and "shop=general" are non appropriate. Which > > is the cor

Re: [Tagging] How to tag house numbers based on decametres?

If it's only a problem of routing, wouldn't it be better to let the router do the job? The way would have to be tagged with something like "numbering=distance", with the correct orientation (from start to end), and then it would be easy for a program to find out where #23 is. 2009/10/11 John Smith

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

I'm not sure I understood the WIki correctly - either that, or Osmarender doesn't do what the wiki says. In this place [1], the railway runs on a raised finger of land, as described in the wiki. So I put two parallel ways on both sides of the railway and tagged them as embankments; but the resultin

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

09 at 4:48 AM, Cartinus wrote: > > On Monday 30 November 2009 23:36:27 Simone Saviolo wrote: > >> I'm not sure I understood the WIki correctly - either that, or > Osmarender > >> doesn't do what the wiki says. In this place [1], the railway runs on a > &

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] connection between 2 islands

2009/12/1 Andre Engels > On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Cartinus wrote: > If one wants to show the width of the embankment, I think the more > correct thing to do would be to have the embaknkment be one closed > curve, perhaps also with area=yes attached. This however would have > the problem o

Re: [Tagging] Non-parking car lots

2009/12/3 Steve Bennett > In an area I'm working on, there are a few car factories, with huge > lots of cars awaiting distribution. It's not really a parking lot, and > putting a P on the map would be confusing to anyone looking for > parking. Suggestions? > > Same would go for used car salesyard

Re: [Tagging] Non-parking car lots

2009/12/3 Steve Bennett > On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: > > Wouldn't those be simply commercial or industrial areas? I think there's > no > > need to record what kind of product is stocked there, and cars (in that > > case) are

Re: [Tagging] More about parking

Hi, both kinds of street-side parking are also present all through Italy, and probably in Europe and in the rest of the world. There has been discussion about this in the wiki [1]. Personally, I haven't tagged any yet. I think it's safe to assume (at least in Italy) that the default is that you ca

Re: [Tagging] Offices/non-shop businesses

Why not use business=* instead? Simone 2010/1/27 Matthias Julius > Emilie Laffray writes: > > > 2010/1/27 Liz > > > >> I've started "office=" tags > >> and have put in something simple for what I have found > >> > >> office=accountant > >> office=solicitor > >> office=secretarial services > >

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Trolley)

2010/4/30 Roy Wallace : > [...] consider bicycle=yes. [...] I sense a long and unproductive discussion approaching. ;-) Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature : World wide place=* standardisation only based on population

2010/5/27 sly (sylvain letuffe) : > Here is another try for world wide standardisation of places in order to > hopefully try to create a consistent database and not a renderer work around > font label positionning system -1, if it's exclusively population-based. The risk is that the US have tenths

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature : World wide place=* standardisation only based on population

2010/5/27 Roy Wallace : > Consider the highway=* tag, which has come to refer to "the importance > of the highway for the road grid". Compare this to Simone's suggestion > that the place=* tag should refer to "an idea about the urban texture > of the country". Very similar ideas. If Simone's sugges

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature : World wide place=* standardisation only based on population

>On jeudi 27 mai 2010, Simone Saviolo wrote: >> -1, if it's exclusively population-based. The risk is that the US have >> tenths of cities and smaller countries - say, dunno, Uganda - get >> none. >Well, this is the truth ;-) based on such a scale. I don't se

Re: [Tagging] Proposed feature : World wide place=* standardisation only based on population

2010/5/28 sylvain letuffe : > So every "città" in Italy is tagged place=city ? So you can have a 1 to 1 > città<>city ? > > So all this are tagged place=city : > http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citt%C3%A0_dell%27Italia ? > > and this is just fud : > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/201

Re: [Tagging] religion

2010/5/31 John Smith : > Even though many past religions may no longer be practiced, I don't > think it's a good idea to lump non-Abrahamic monotheistic religions > together under a single banner. Buildings/temples and other places of > worship still exist from these religions, like ancient Greek a

Re: [Tagging] religion

2010/5/31 John Smith : > On 31 May 2010 19:15, Elena of Valhalla wrote: >> that's the stonehenge ones, I meant that the (modern) olympics one >> aren't religious AFAIK > > That's the thing about religions, you can't prove things either way usually. Well, if you want to sort it out that way, then

Re: [Tagging] religion

2010/5/31 John Smith : > On 31 May 2010 19:42, Simone Saviolo wrote: >> Modern olympics start with a ceremony, but no god or declaration of >> faith is involved. It's clear that it is not a religious event. > > I don't know about declarations of faith, but the

Re: [Tagging] highway=motorway and motorroad (implies)

In Italy, access to motorways is forbidden to any vehicle not able to reach 80 km/h on a level floor, and motorbikes and motorcycles under 250cc are excluded too. The motorway must be a dual carriageway (which implies oneway=yes) with at least two lanes per carriageway. There may be sections with d

Re: [Tagging] What classification for a connecting link?

> Nathan Edgars II (nerou...@gmail.com) wrote: >> So a trunk road crosses a primary road, but you're not allowed to turn >> at the crossing. Instead you have to turn before or after and loop >> around to get from one to the other. If this connecting status is the >> sole reason through traffic woul

Re: [Tagging] What classification for a connecting link?

2010/6/17 Nathan Edgars II : > Simone Saviolo wrote: >>The wiki seems pretty clear to me: the definition for trunk_link says >> >>"The link roads (sliproads/ramps) leading to/from a trunk road from/to >>a trunk road or lower class highway." >> >

Re: [Tagging] What classification for a connecting link?

2010/6/17 Nathan Edgars II : > Simone Saviolo wrote: >>Seeing the pictures, in fact, I wouldn't tag them as links either. >>IMHO, they're not really links, they're just streets that happen to >>offer a connection between the two main roads. > > So how

Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ? - OSM ambiguity

2010/6/28 John Smith : > On 28 June 2010 18:56, Gianfranco Gliozzo > wrote: >> abandon point 2 and decide a standard either british or american english or >> a OSM lingo, but I do not like this. > > The problem is people are assuming key/values are supposed to be in > any language, when they're a

Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ?

2010/6/29 Richard Mann : > 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. There is. Or would you rathe

Re: [Tagging] football or soccer ?

2010/6/30 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : > 2010/6/30 Zeke Farwell : >> Wow….  after following the back and forth on this thread I'm really starting >> to understand the argument for numeric tagging schemes >> sport=305 (american football) >> sport=246 (association football, football, soccer, calcio, etc…) >

Re: [Tagging] tagging religious features (abbey, monastery, shrine), probably subtags of place of worship

Also, what about - cloisters* - parvises* - bell towers (I don't think man_made=tower or building=tower are enough) * Here's an example of why I think these are interesting to map: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.329106&lon=8.419258&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF GMaps: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UT

Re: [Tagging] Oil Spill Tagging

2010/7/15 Steve Doerr : > I see that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico > () is tagged as: > > hazard = oilspill > landuse = cemetery > name = oilspill > > Is this correct tagging for such a feature, or should it be considered > v

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

2010/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : > 2010/7/27 David Earl : >> On 27/07/2010 10:21, John Smith wrote: >>> >>> Why do taggers have to compensate for poorly written programs making >>> use of the data? >> >> Why does the data model have to make it so difficult for data consumers in >> the first place? >

Re: [Tagging] Bridges and layers

2010/7/28 Richard Mann : > 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 ma

Re: [Tagging] Polite request for when replying.

2010/8/1 Dave F. : >  On 01/08/2010 14:22, Steve Bennett wrote: >> Fwiw, I'm using Gmail, which groups but doesn't tree-structure >> threads. So my issue is that once there are more than about 20-30 >> messages in a thread, it becomes too hard to follow the argument, so I >> just give up and move o

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

2010/8/19 Anthony : >> And what happens if the name is not exactly the same ? > > Then there's an error that needs to be fixed. > >> That's why some contributors prefer the relation. > > Right problem, wrong solution. So, if the name of a street is changed for whatever reason, I have to go through

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

2010/8/19 Anthony : > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: >> 2010/8/19 Anthony : >>>> And what happens if the name is not exactly the same ? >>> >>> Then there's an error that needs to be fixed. >>> >>>> Tha

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

2010/8/19 Tobias Knerr : > On 19.08.2010 16:27, Simone Saviolo wrote: >> So, if the name of a street is changed for whatever reason, I have to >> go through the, maybe, several hundreds of house numbers on that way, >> change the addr:street on every single one of them, and

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

2010/8/19 Tobias Knerr : > On 19.08.2010 18:28, Tom Chance wrote: >> On 19 August 2010 16:54, Tobias Knerr > > wrote: >> >>     Basic address editing, however, requires more knowledge if implemented >>     using relations - which is bad, because editing addresses is one

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] collection/street relation: which one to use?

2010/8/20 Anthony : > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: >> 2010/8/19 Tobias Knerr : >>> On 19.08.2010 16:27, Simone Saviolo wrote: >>>> So, if the name of a street is changed for whatever reason, I have to >>>> go through the

Re: [Tagging] Ways rendered on wrong layer (counter to the layer tag values)

2010/8/20 Andrew Harvey : > I'm not sure when to use the bridge tag. In this part of the map > http://c.tile.openstreetmap.org/17/120570/78686.png there is a footway > which is at ground level at both ends, but significantly above the > water below in the middle, held up by pylons. I tagged it with

Re: [Tagging] is tourism a good category for everything cultural?

2010/8/24 Ross Scanlon : >> > Typical. >> > >> > NFI about database use so you resort to slinging mud. >> > >> > >> > I have a significant idea about how osm works as I have to integrate it >> > into programs I write or contribute to. >> > >> > If the database was normalised then I'd have a reduct

Re: [Tagging] craft= Proposal

2010/8/24 Peter Körner : > Am 24.08.2010 13:38, schrieb Elena of Valhalla: >> >> On 8/24/10, Peter Körner  wrote: >>> >>> Am 24.08.2010 12:17, schrieb Liz: the butcher and baker are working with raw materials, producing something temporary and not required to have beauty in its

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

2010/8/26 David ``Smith'' : > * If a street has its sidewalks mapped separately, the street itself > should probably be tagged with foot=no. -1. "no" is too strong: pedestrians are never forbidden to go on a road (except for motorways, at least in Italy). Maybe something like "not preferred", only

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

2010/8/27 Alberto Nogaro : >>-Original Message- >>From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging- >>boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Simone Saviolo >>Sent: venerdì 27 agosto 2010 9.41 >>To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools >

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

2010/8/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : > 2010/8/27 Alberto Nogaro : >> Not really. In Italy pedestrians are forbidden to walk on any road, when >> paths (such as sidewalks) designated for pedestrians are available. > > > btw.: there is also strange cases where it seems to me that the > existing signage do

Re: [Tagging] sidewalks

2010/8/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : > 2010/8/27 Simone Saviolo : >> As to bikes, the restriction applies. The signal forbids transit to >> any vehicle, with or without an engine, so bycycles are included. > > > yes, I know, you have to dismount (that's why I wrote &quo

Re: [Tagging] pool/billiards hall?

I agree with using amenity=pub/bar/whatever, sports=pool. But doing a strict classification would be often hard. In my town ([ot] thanks, population-based classification of urban centres, for not calling it a city! [/ot]) there's a bowling hall, with arcade-style video games, pool and table-tennis

Re: [Tagging] radio and/or tv studio?

2010/8/27 Richard Welty : > i just found amenity=studio which will do, although i still > thing office=broadcasting might be helpful to identify > the business office side. Why not amenity=studio, studio=broadcasting, broadcasting=TV? > richard Ciao, Simone

Re: [Tagging] Reasons for associatedStreet?

2010/9/1 David Paleino : > Hello list, > while wondering about street-related things with other folks on #osm...@oftc, > we came to the question: why is Relation:associatedStreet needed at all? > (Karlsruhe schema) > > I've always used it to associate housenumbers to the given street (I found a > r

Re: [Tagging] Reasons for associatedStreet?

2010/9/1 Nathan Edgars II : > Why is a route relation needed to group the segments of a street? Not much to group the segments of a street, but to associate the house numbers to their street. Grouping the segments is a welcome side-effect. Ciao, Simone __

Re: [Tagging] Using route=road to group the segments of a street (was: Re: Reasons for associatedStreet?)

2010/9/1 Nathan Edgars II : > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:26 AM, David Paleino wrote: >> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:19:49 +0200, David Paleino wrote: >> >>> However, I'm using that because I consider "Foo Avenue" as a logical unit, a >>> "route", even if the way is split (because of oneways, different >>>

Re: [Tagging] Reasons for associatedStreet?

2010/9/1 David Paleino : > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:31:22 +0200, David Paleino wrote: > >> Hello list, >> while wondering about street-related things with other folks on #osm...@oftc, >> we came to the question: why is Relation:associatedStreet needed at all? >> (Karlsruhe schema) >> >> I've always us

Re: [Tagging] Non proposed features

> But how do we deal with the map features list, should they be managed? > Managed by who? Managed by which guidelines? If map features were really to be mantained as an official list of OSM features, then they should be somehow enforced in applications. A sort of "OSM certification" for consumers

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - maze

2010/9/17 John F. Eldredge : > Well, amusement parks sometimes contain mazes, but I wouldn't classify mazes > as a type of amusement park.  They are also sometimes a feature of formal > gardens; some hedge mazes have been in existence for centuries. Mazes may be fun park attractions, historic co

Re: [Tagging] RFC: more barrier types

2010/9/20 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : > If you miss something, please report here so that we can extend the > proposal. I've never found an appropriate tag for those bollards that can retract down into the road. They're usually controlled by a remote, and they're often used to prevent non-authorized tra

Re: [Tagging] RFC: more barrier types

2010/9/21 John Smith : > On 21 September 2010 17:32, Simone Saviolo wrote: >> I've never found an appropriate tag for those bollards that can > > barrier=bollard > bollard=retractable|removeable|collapsible|flexible > manual=yes/no Manual? Is this to differen

Re: [Tagging] RFC: more barrier types

2010/9/21 John Smith : > On 21 September 2010 18:28, Simone Saviolo wrote: >> Manual? Is this to differentiate between a) on-demand rectratable > > Manual as in they usually have a padlock or a built in key slot to > manually retract or remove them, as opposed to some kind o

Re: [Tagging] amenity=ice_cream: approved?

2010/9/27 Nathan Edgars II : > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features%2FIce_cream&action=historysubmit&diff=532984&oldid=531944 > This doesn't seem quite right. Care to expand a bit? Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Give Way and Stop in two-way street

2010/9/27 Noel David Torres Taño : > Hello all: > > There are some streets which, being two-way, one way has a Stop or Give Way > and the other has not. How to tag them? If we consider the verse of the way, then probably a :forward vs. :backward specification would work. For example, if a way runs

Re: [Tagging] musings on landuse

I've used landuse in a slightly different way from what you say. After discussion on the talk-it ML, we agreed that single shops in a mainly residential block would be added as POIs, but not mapped as landuse=retail. However, if the shop was a separate building, then the landuse there would be ret

Re: [Tagging] musings on landuse

2010/9/27 : > One issue with tagging a commercial parking lot as landuse=road is that it is > generally legal to use a road as a through route, whereas you can be issued a > traffic ticket for simply cutting across a parking lot without stopping.   > Admittedly, this isn't always enforced.  In m

Re: [Tagging] amenity=ice_cream: approved?

2010/9/27 Nathan Edgars II : > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Luca Brivio wrote: >> In data lunedì 27 settembre 2010 10:14:19, Nathan Edgars II ha scritto: >>> And now we have a tag that replaces all ice cream places, thus >>> providing less information than the former amenity=cafe/fast_food/etc

Re: [Tagging] musings on landuse

2010/9/27 : > So, in Italy, the owner of a private parking lot is not allowed to say that > his parking lot can't be used as a public street?  It is common in the USA to > see signs at parking-lot entrances saying "no through traffic". I wouldn't say he's not allowed. AFAIK (and Google seems to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Roundabout Priority

2010/9/27 Colin Smale : >  I am making a simple proposal of "roundabout=priority_to_right" to indicate > a specific non-standard priority arrangement on some roundabouts occurring > in some parts of mainland Europe. > > Please see: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Roundabout_P

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Roundabout Priority

2010/9/28 Elizabeth Dodd : > On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:51:27 +1000 > John Smith wrote: > >> > So, "regular" roundabouts (i.e., those that are common, with >> > priority to the left) are tagged junction=roundabout, and >> > non-standard right-hand-priority ones are circular ways without the >> > round

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Roundabout Priority

2010/9/28 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : > 2010/9/28 Simone Saviolo : >> intersections [1]. It is just a road that happens to be circular in >> shape, with semaphores or stops along it. > > who get's the right of way, when the traffic lights turn off (say due > to a technical

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Roundabout Priority

2010/9/28 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : > 2010/9/28 Simone Saviolo : >> 2010/9/28 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer : >>> 2010/9/28 Simone Saviolo : >>>> intersections [1]. It is just a road that happens to be circular in >>>> shape, with semaphores or stops along it. &g

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Roundabout Priority

2010/9/28 Colin Smale : > If you leave it at that, a navigation program might not recognise it as a > {roundabout|traffic_circle} so instead of saying "at the next roundabout > take the second exit" it would produce confusing instructions. Another non-problem. > As you > enter the "roundabout" you

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Roundabout Priority

2010/9/28 Simone Saviolo : > a satnav tells > me "third exit of the roundabout" It's unrelated, but Navit (the supposedly best available navigator that uses OSM maps) fails utterly at counting the exits of a roundabout. It will include also oneway ways entering the roundabout

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Roundabout Priority

2010/9/28 ael : > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 03:41:49PM +0200, Simone Saviolo wrote: >> 2010/9/28 Simone Saviolo : >> > a satnav tells >> > me "third exit of the roundabout" >> >> It's unrelated, but Navit (the supposedly best available navigato

Re: [Tagging] operator and brand WAS: Re: community centres

2010/9/29 Noel David Torres Taño : > On Miércoles 29 Septiembre 2010 14:34:30 Nathan Edgars II escribió: >> Wiki user Dieterdreist added a gas station example with >> name=Tankstelle an der Eisenbahnbrücke. I disagree with this, unless >> the name is actually on the signs. In the example the name w

Re: [Tagging] shop=wedding_office

2010/9/30 Noel David Torres Taño : > So, How to make this a formal proposal? You knee in front of your beloved and offer her a ring, as you ask her "Will you marry me?" :-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.or

Re: [Tagging] operator and brand WAS: Re: community centres

2010/9/30 Pieren : > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 6:45 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> If they don't have a name, don't tag one. Simple as this. "Aico Uno >> s.r.l." is the operator IMHO. >> > > -1 > This proposal for "brand" and "operator" shouldn't replace the main tag > "name". > "You" are

Re: [Tagging] operator and brand WAS: Re: community centres

2010/10/1 Pieren : > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Simone Saviolo > wrote: >> >> -1. He is not. >> > > When I say "you", it's not one specific person but the (small) group pushing > for the adoption of "brand" and "operator"

Re: [Tagging] How do I amend the wiki Was[add leisure=swimming_pool to the core-features]

2010/10/12 Dave F. : >  On 11/10/2010 21:30, ed...@billiau.net wrote: >> >> wiki editing is not easy. if the instructions also come in a language >> which isn't your own it gets even harder > > I agree > > For instance, in the discussion pages how do you add your username along > with a time stamp?

Re: [Tagging] highway=informal_path WAS: Re: "new" highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail

For example, what would you tag this? http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Vercelli,+Piedmont,+Italy&ll=45.314604,8.414012&spn=0.001633,0.004128&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=45.314594,8.413845&panoid=VAMbvxwaZiigA_JUOfHBkw&cbp=12,348.5,,0,31.53 I guess you could call it a path, a high-grade path at

Re: [Tagging] Tagging several old_name's

2010/10/25 Dmitry Granovsky : > name:- is not bad. However, we have to somehow combine it with > name:LANG tags: name:en:1945-1954 or name:1945-1954:en. > > Have you ever seen it implemented? One could use name:old:-, or name:old:N to give a chronological order when dates are not k

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - winter & ice roads

2010/12/12 Gleb Smirnoff : > S> This also has the advantage that any renderer/software that doesn't > S> know about winter roads will err on the side of caution by not showing > S> anything at all in some cases. > > Don't map for renderer! :) Renderer/software should know about this tag. We *do* t

Re: [Tagging] Bus depot?

2010/12/15 Dave F. : > Hi > > How are bus depots being tagged? These are places where bus are stored, say > overnight, when not in use. > > I've looked on taginfo & there was only one use of bus_depot, so I assume > it's being tagged differently, but not sure how. There was a short discussion abou

Re: [Tagging] Bus depot?

2010/12/16 Richard Welty : > On 12/15/10 5:59 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Dave F.  wrote: >>> >>> Personally I'd go for landuse=bus_depot. but I'm open to suggestions. >> >> So landuse=* is going to be the new dumping ground? :) I had thought >> landuse=* was for

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Depot

Hi everyone, here [1] is the proposal for a landuse=depot tag. Due to the fact that this is the first proposal I ever made, I'm leaving the draft open for a while, so that more experienced users can review it and point faults with the proposal itself. Also, because I'm not familiar with the detai

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Depot

2010/12/16 Gleb Smirnoff : > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 02:33:25PM +0100, Simone Saviolo wrote: > S> here [1] is the proposal for a landuse=depot tag. > S> > S> Due to the fact that this is the first proposal I ever made, I'm > S> leaving the draft open for a while, so

<    1   2   3   >