Re: [Tagging] Waterway tributary role

Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 11.04.2019, 13:48 +0300 schrieb Eugene Podshivalov: > Hi all, > Does anyone remember where "tributary" role of waterway relations was > discussed. > It is used quite often in Fance but I could not find any reference on > the wiki. From 2010 to 2012 the mapping of waterway r

Re: [Tagging] Waterway tributary role

Hi, Am Samstag, den 13.04.2019, 11:48 + schrieb marc marc: > destination is the opposite, no ? > if river A go into river B : > in relation A : destination=B > in relation B : A with rôle tributary Destination helps human mappers to understand the data. It is optional. https://wiki.openstree

Re: [Tagging] Waterway length

Hi, it is an optional tag an it is useful for quality checks of the data. Am Dienstag, den 29.01.2019, 18:37 +0300 schrieb Eugene Podshivalov: > Hi all, > The relation:waterway wiki page recommends using "distance" tag for > "the total length of river in km". Was there any discussion of this > ch

Re: [Tagging] Wikipedia tag validator

Hi, I'm wondering, if you're aware of WIWOSM: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WIWOSM They provide lists of bad wikipedia tags, too: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WIWOSM#Logging regards Werner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.

Re: [Tagging] Reviewing the use of addr:housename

Am Sonntag, den 15.06.2014, 16:02 +0200 schrieb fly: > Please, be careful. Not all of the numeric housenames are errors. You > have to check them individually or maybe better contact the user and ask > for clarification. I've added a feature request for keepright: https://github.com/keepright/kee

Re: [Tagging] relation type for raceways

Hi, Am Montag, den 16.03.2015, 20:04 -0400 schrieb Richard Welty: > as i go forward mapping raceways in north america, one of the > issues is modeling multi configuration courses such as Watkins > Glen and Lime Rock. > > one solution is to use route relations, and add a new > route type, > > rou

Re: [Tagging] tributary role in waterway relations: widespread?

Am Montag, den 29.02.2016, 12:01 +0100 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:21:44 +0100 > David Marchal wrote: > > > > > Hello, there. > > > > I wondered: I saw the' tributary' role on some waterway relations; > > while I understand its usage — to represent the fact that a > > wa

Re: [Tagging] highway=path, path=hiking

Hi, On Samstag, 16. Juli 2011, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:51 PM, SomeoneElse > > wrote: > > "highway=path, path=hiking" doesn't say any more to me than > > "highway=footway" on its own would. > > The distinction is "well constructed" versus "rough, minimal > maintenance".

[Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway

Hi all, the relation type=waterway proposal was written long times ago but never formally approved: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Waterway The relation is widely used as you can see in statistics: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Waterway#Tools It wou

[Tagging] Converting relation type "relatedStreet" to "assiciatedStreet"

Hi there, the relation type page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation lists the relatedStreet relation as an similar type of associatedStreet. Are there any objection to convert and cleanup the relatedStreets into associatedStreet relations? Often there could be merge several r

Re: [Tagging] Converting relation type "relatedStreet" to "assiciatedStreet"

Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 11:07 +0100 schrieb David Paleino: > On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:56:19 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote: > > the relation type page: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Types_of_relation > > > > lists the relatedStreet relation as an simil

Re: [Tagging] Converting relation type "relatedStreet" to "assiciatedStreet"

Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 12:12 +0100 schrieb David Paleino: > On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 11:56:39 +0100, Werner Hoch wrote: > > Well, one relation type would be perfect. But for now I think we should > > try to reduce the different types one by one. > > Then I propose merging r

Re: [Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway

Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 12:13 +0100 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > Before we vote, shouldn't we try to clean up the proposal? E.g. there > is this sentence: "Hint: If the waterway starts as a stream and > becomes larger, then use the tag of the largest waterway (e.g. > river)." > Well, almost a

Re: [Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway

Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 22:16 +1100 schrieb Steve Bennett: > The proposal looks pretty sensible to me. I just wish there was a > meaningful process we could follow. Probably what we really want to do > is deprecate any alternative tagging schemes, and direct people to > this one. As soon as th

Re: [Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway

Hi Chris, Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 15:53 + schrieb Chris Hill: > I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread. > > There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people > are free to use *any* tags they like. > > There are no such things as deprecated tags, tagging

Re: [Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway

Am Montag, den 20.02.2012, 20:11 + schrieb Chris Hill: > On 19/02/12 23:38, Steve Bennett wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Hill wrote: > >> I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread. > >> > >> There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people are >

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

Hi ceyockey, Am Freitag, den 04.01.2013, 08:43 -0500 schrieb dies38...@mypacks.net: > I recently created a waterway where I put the name of the waterway > on the relation but not on the component ways which are grouped by > the relation. > This results in the name of the waterway not appearing

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

Am Sonntag, den 06.01.2013, 16:43 -0600 schrieb Toby Murray: > On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Werner Hoch wrote: > > AFAIR there's currently no relation type that inherits it's tags to the > > member ways, so that the name tags are rendered on the map. > > R

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

Hi, Am Montag, den 28.01.2013, 17:26 +0100 schrieb Tobias Knerr: > Nevertheless, there appears to be a trend to merge them into a single > area for the entire river via multipolygons. This has been brought to my > attention by a recent changeset > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/1480

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

Hi Paul, Am Montag, den 28.01.2013, 17:47 -0600 schrieb Paul Johnson: > On Monday, January 28, 2013, Werner Hoch wrote: > There are a few of that monster relations out there: > > http://www.h-renrew.de/h/osm/osmchecks/02_Relationstypen/planet/bd8a1061c

Re: [Tagging] Giant river multipolygons

Am Dienstag, den 29.01.2013, 13:25 +0100 schrieb Janko Mihelić: > 2013/1/29 Richard Mann > The Danube river is perfectly adequately made whole by looking > for name:en=Danube. Get the computer to do the work, not > mappers. > > What if there is a little river Danube, somew

[Tagging] Proposal - Draft: key=osm for aerial imagery and internel objects

Hello, I've created a proposal for imagery objects and other objects that are only used internaly in osm. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/osm Aerial Imagery: --- With the new Bing images many new relations have been created that contain boundaries

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Draft: key=osm for aerial imagery and internel objects

Hi Serge, On Mittwoch, 15. Dezember 2010, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Werner Hoch wrote: > > I've created a proposal for imagery objects and other objects that > > are only used internaly in osm. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Draft: key=osm for aerial imagery and internel objects

Hi Robert, On Mittwoch, 15. Dezember 2010, Robert Naylor wrote: > On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 12:08:37 -, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Werner Hoch > >> > >> Examples without unified tagging: > >> http://www.openstreetmap.or

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Draft: key=osm for aerial imagery and internel objects

On Mittwoch, 15. Dezember 2010, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Robert Naylor wrote: > > Also see top of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/Coverage > > > > "Please use this page for recording coverage. Do not use boundary > > relations. Large, detailed relations can be ex