Hi Martin,I would agree that water transportation is a very poor description of
it, however that seems to be the least inappropriate place to put it in the
hierarchical list on the wiki page for access=*. The list also includes
canoe=*, which isn't really transportation for e.g. a recreational
"protected" at all, it's full of trails and jeep
roads. A few of the larger ranchers have fencing, but it's a bit of a
free for all elsewhere... There are few county development rules at all,
course that's partly why I like it here.
- rob -
___
our
summer pasture, and destroyed a wetland at 10,000ft in the process, and
there was nothing we could do about it. It was on land leased from the
Forest Service for grazing. The only protected areas around here are the
wilderness areas.
- rob -
___
re legal but probably physically impossible. Motorized
> travel is prohibited, and would probably be physically impossible anyway.
I do know a trail to Kit Carson Peak like that, but around here the
downed trees don't last long, so I'm not sure if I&#
were obviously foot traffic only, so
now a path. Most of these were closed in only the last few years, I
talked to some of the locals. Access is still public, although the
neighbors wish otherwise...
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@open
to the voting stage shortly.
Thank you,
*Rob*
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
I
use width=2m ? To me, lanes= seems to apply more to non 4wd_only tracks.
They're also usually narrower than the single lane highway too. The
width of the "highway" is important if you're trying to figure out what
size fire truck to bring to
trips. After the last building it
degenerates into a worse track. While changing
highway/smoothness/tracktype/surface at that transition spot helps, they
also often get much narrower.
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@op
7;ve been doing a
lot of field trips to update things based on reality.
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
you get that and the OSM data. Best of both.
Sure beats the days we used a thick paper map book, and a bag of topo maps.
Personally though, what the USFS uses to determine that difference
doesn't seem consistent, and over many years, the road conditions change
drastically due to erosion. I pr
if
it has a county name, like "Lost Gulch Road" too, wouldn't it then be
highway=residential? Is there a difference if it's vacation cabins, or
seasonal or full-time houses ?
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openst
://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ref:GB:usrn
Whilst I have done the work on the wiki page, these tags were first
proposed over on the talk-gb mailing list. They were discussed there and at
the SotM online meeting that the UK community held.
Voting is scheduled to close in two weeks.
Thank you
*Rob
or OsmAnd,
but it works. I do agree the perimeter is probably not worth uploading
to OSM, so I don't worry about the tagging.
- rob -
--
Senior Tech Lead
Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team
https://www.hotosm.org
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ng=yes and
access=emergency is appropriate.
- rob -
--
Senior Tech Lead
Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team
https://www.hotosm.org
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
g around in the
forest, you can't see anything, so two bearings lets us triangulate a
rough GPS location, and have everyone go there.
I don't have a suggestion on tagging, sorry, but sometimes these
locations have parking, sometimes it's a short hike uphill. So consider
something more
se we're all retiring...
Minor note. All of our fire apparatus have a 10" Android tablet
mounted to the dash that runs OsmAnd (of course), and we use offline
navigation heavily, which is where the road names become important.
Using Open Data has decrease
esses
in the more densely populated areas. When I produce a KML file from OSM
data, I put all the names in the description popup. That works in GPS
map apps, but not in OsmAnd. Plus I wonder if that would break routing...
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing
that by driving the road,
although the difference between 'bad' and 'very_bad' is very open to a
difference of opinion... (high clearance only is what I use for
very_bad) But anyway, thank you all for good metadata!
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
sed the actual common name, and put the bad sign in a 'note'. Note
really sure how to handle that...
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
guy on the entire planet calls it that would work.
Him and UPS. :-)
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ad fun talking to the neighbors to try to
make sense of it all. My fire department would be so screwed without our
ability to improve our own maps.
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
.. except that, again, you might want to use a space instead of a
> hyphen in the "ref" tag in this case, and normally you'd use
> semicolons (not commas) as a separator in the "source" tag.
I'm noticing many of the existing roads in OSM in the area I&#
tunately. There are other issues with how search
works in OsmAnd, that's a different email list. :-)
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
in Colorado. My guess would 'amenity='bear_box' ?
(looking at amenity=bbq as an example)
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
becoming more and more common
in western US campgrounds.
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
;re big enough you can put in a decent size cooler plus
supplies A campground sized one would be huge!
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ox on it's own node, right at the location of the
> box. Or if you don't have that info or just want to say that "there is
> a bear box at this campground", you can add bear_box=yes/no to the
> tourism=camp_site
So now it seems it'd be "bbq
maybe
when I get done the current TODO list...
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
;bear
box' only because that's the term I'm familiar with. 'Big Metal Box'
would be accurate too, but confusing.
There's also bear proof trash cans, but I don't think that needs a tag.
- rob -
___
Tagging m
#x27;t say much about this topic. Many camp_sites within OSM
are sparsely tagged (at least around here), so that wasn't much of a
guide either.
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
camped where there were ethernet and power
cables running to many locations. :-)
-rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ker camp-outs I've attended. These
are temporary, so of course not worth mapping.
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> as German "kreisfreie Städte" where an admin_level=6 may be
> a county or a city.
I don't see much if any of this double tagging, but place=* seems more
accurate, which is why I asked. I do see border_type used as well.
Anyway, I can now fix this
ogical_site'
instead ? Or 'historic=cliff_dwelling, ruins=yes' ?
I'll be there in few weeks and plan to collect & validate more metadata
for that area, but was curious about the proper tagging for these sites.
- rob -
--
https://www.senecass.com
_
it is reservation land and poorly
mapped. It's about a remote a place you can get to in the continental US.
Oh, most of these have 'name="Indian Ruin", not sure if that's
necessary as it's redundant.
- rob -
___
Ta
I assume the right place for tags like 'addr:housenumber' &
'addr:street' are on the building way, and not a standalone node ?
- rob -
--
https://www.senecass.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
ill dis[play the address either way, so it's a matter
of the metadata syntax.
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
magery. Best of luck in your mapping.
Yeah, I'm a climber, and it's quite amazing to see how difficult some
of the climbing to the cliff dwellings is. Some people think it was for
defense, I think it was to keep the rats and other animals out of the
stored food. It's a hard, dry
can be seen. Course many driveways around here are
long, and you can't see the house from the road.
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
address sign, which
may be at the end of the driveway, but in an OSM file, the address node
should be on the building. Or part of the building way's tags.
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
ng it up
using 'addr:street' and addr'housenumber'. Everything else like
'addr:full' is ignored. Sometimes it'll limit the search to the nearest
decent sized boundary, like a city.
- rob -
--
https://www.senecass.com
_
ire truck and just drop a 3" hardline into the pond
or creek. Since these locations must be flat, and less than 10ft above
the water source (hard to find in the Rockies), we tag these so newer
responders can find them.
A water pond or cistern with a 3" connection I'd consider a d
the 'ref' to "County Road", or
should 'ref' be 'CR 12', and then "name='County Road 12'" ? This also
applies to state Forest Service roads as well that lack a name tag. I'm
working on cleaning up some ancient crap from the TIGER impo
et='CR 12', but locals call it "Country Road 12", which is
what the sign says. I'm just trying to get this right so I only have to
fix it once. :-)
- rob -
--
https://www.senecass.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
; their ref. That's fine. I will say "I'm taking the A3400 to Stratford"
I'm wondering if "CR 12" or "County Road 12" (the abbreviation
expanded) was the proper value for a ref. If the abbreviation is fine
for the ref, should it then hav
he
type of response and equipment. sac_scale is a bit open to
interpretation based on one's experience, but better than nothing.
- rob -
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
it to help the community share knowledge or is it for something else? In
my opinion as long as the VisualEditor does not have show stopper bugs we
should aim to adopt it as soon as possible. The benefit to our community
(of many non wiki markup users) is substantial.
As always statistics on us
o roundabout, u-turn and travel back on Road A (but do not
grit). In this example Road A would have to be added to the relation twice
first as forward:grit and then as backward:travel.
Is it okay if I ignore JOSMs error in this case?
Regards,
Rob
___
In fact if I'm going to allow roads to appear twice in the relation then I
can just build a continous route with no gaps and do away with the forward:
and backward: bits altogether (just keeping 'grit' and 'travel' as my two
roles).
Rob
On 23 Mar 2014 22:07, "Rob
ads are gritted and the best way to do this is to have
prearranged routes.
Rob
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
thus ensuring that
the correct route is followed every time and that excess grit is not
wasted).
Regards,
Rob
p.s. For some context, whether a road is gritted or not is quite important
in the UK as we are lazy and don't tend to bother with winter tyres/chains
etc.. There is a fine balanc
uot;designation" tag,
and the highway is tagged with an appropriate value (mostly track, but
could be service if part of the route is now a paved road (e.g. an access
driveway to a property along the right of way):
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_rights_of_way_in_England_an
8, "Dave F." wrote:
On 21/05/2014 23:28, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>
> >
> >Going slightly off topic, I notice the UK listing...
Hi Rob
I believe byway shouldn't be deprecated. In my area most of them are signed
as just 'byway' on the ground. There is no indication
pressor stations.
A natural gas pipeline should not be tagged as oneway.
Rob
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
other software) are:
Wood: Woodland with no forestry
Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
In my eyes this is pretty clear. What am I missing / why does there seem to
be so much confusion?
Regards,
Rob
[1]
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/647#issuecomment
On 20 August 2014 18:45, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>
> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
>
>
I think for me the wording isn't quite right. For me landuse=forest is
something that has been planted for the purpose of harvesting trees
Any preferences before I spend time to write a proposal page?
Regards,
Rob
p.s. The ultimate aim is to be able to add a tag so that we have clear data
in OSM (rather than just a name and address) and then file a request to get
the business name rendered as currently addr:housenumber is rendered in
prefe
craft=, office= plus the addition of
industrial= and commercial= for everything else.
Rob
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
that, the other mappers method also has all the information in
to figure out the route, just not sure if existing tools will cope with
that (I actually like including the way twice as this allows you to have
all the ways linking in JOSMs relation editor,
for
this case (another suggestion already made is bicycle=destination)?
For cases where it is difficult to draw a separate way then consider:
highway=secondary
cycletrack:left=two-way
Any feedback will be much appreciated, but please keep in mind the ease of
the system for new users and long-term
>In Denmark, they use lanes/tracks that are immediately alongside the road
>and separated by a shallow kerb, and turn into lanes on the approach to
>junctions. You can certainly move on and off them very easily.
OK. I assume they are not allowed to be used by cars? In these cases the
track can be
There seems to be a need for a new value for the access tags. The new value
would indicate that the way can be used (as it is not illegal /
prohibited), but it is advised to use a different route. There are at least
2 cases I am aware of where this would help:
1. For cycle tracks drawn as separate
e a
convenient footway or footpath nearby."
I see that something like "alternative" may end up being used for suggested
routes, but is there any other (potential new) values for the access tag
that may help here?
RobJN
>2012/5/30 Rob Nickerson <http://lists.openstreetmap.org
Hi all,
One of the issues raised with the extended conditions tag schema was the
use of variable values in the key part of the tag. For example maxspeed:wet
= 80 is in the form constant:variable=variable. This has been deemed to
break the basic tagging rules.
Can I therefore give alternative sugg
today.
Regards,
Rob
On 9 August 2012 17:14, Pieren wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Rob Nickerson
> wrote:
>
> > * maxspeed=120; 80?wet; 60?wet+hgv
> >
> > Here '?' can be interpreted as 'if' and '+' as 'and'.
>
> I
t=5.5; destination unset" (which reads that
there is a maxweight of 5.5t, with no maxweight restriction when using the
road for 'destination' access.
4. Order of the condition value pairs. These should be seen as building
blocks -> condition 1 holds true unless condition 2 override
of tags in use, it will be tricky to find a
schema that is both liked and does not break a single thing.
As for 255 bytes. All vehicles have their own tag, so would be tricky
to hit 255 bytes.
Regards,
Rob
p.s. I am trying to suggest an alternative that does not put all the
c
t was confirmed on the osmf mailing list that the
auto industry has asked how OSM plans to "close the gap" between OSM and
commercial navigation mapping.
Regards,
Rob
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-- Tobias wrote: --
Have you seen the "Conditional restrictions" proposal that was linked
here yesterday?
http://wiki.osm.org/Proposed_features/Conditional_restrictions
It is basically the same idea. The most important difference is that it
uses a ":conditional" suff
c Footpath".
* Having said all this the UK guidelines are now to use
"designation=public_footpath" and no need for an 'access' tag. For
permissive paths I have seen both "foot=permissive" and
"designation=permissive_footpath"
Regards,
Rob
p.s. I
Dear List,
{This is a cross post - please reply to the tagging mailing list or the
proposals [2] talk page }
- - - Announcement - - -
Several attempts have in the past been made to develop a tagging scheme
that is capable of handling the more complex access restrictions (e.g. No
motor vehicles be
veloper mailing
list during the Draft & RFC stages.
Kind Regards,
Rob
p.s. I know voting isn't popular, but it is one part of communications
(i.e. giving feedback) and I encourage you to reconsider it if you have so
far opted not to vote.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feat
-- Eckhart wrote --
Hi Rob,
Am Mittwoch, 19. September 2012, 18:08:30 schrieb Rob Nickerson:
>* Despite some of the perceived benefits of this proposal being challenged*>*
>(mainly in regards to their relevance),*
Except for one claimed benefit, I did not question the relevance of
t
e they may have to go back and waste time correcting
anything they do add once a schema is decided upon). As for the
complexity, I feel that the wiki page can be improved to help explain
the proposal better (for example by using colours like seen on an
alternate proposal [1], and adding some image exa
he page clearer, but essentially your tag
would be:
* vehicle:conditional = no @ Nov-Apr
This would restrict bicycles as well so replace vehicle with motor_vehicle
is this is more appropriate.
Regards,
Rob
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetm
route but should present them as route comments instead. As such the
notes=* tag or perhaps obstacle=* & danger=* would work well. These values
can then be any text rather than a set list of values.
Regards,
Rob
___
Tagging mailing list
Tag
there is a hierarchy of subcategories for
transportation modes.
Rob
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access#Transport_mode_restrictions
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Access_hierarchy_simple.png
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetma
restriction. Replace by those
winter months in which the restriction applies.
Regards,
Rob
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access#Transport_mode_restrictions
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Access_hierarchy_simple.png
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
eading this and is now concerned, please rest assured that I will
consult on any chnages on this mailing list before making any changes.
Regards,
Rob
p.s. Feel free to add a comment to the seasonal=* wiki page. Something
of the form "you may also like to use" rather than "you should a
8am to 4 pm:
* restriction = no_right_turn @ (Mo-Fi 08:00-16:00)
* Example 3: no left turn except PSV's on Monday to Friday 8am to 4 pm:
* restriction = no_left_turn
* except = psv @ (Mo-Fi 08:00-16:00)
This then depreciates the need for day on, etc... tags which I'm not a fan
of - I thi
nal proposal
for turn restrictions to see if any comments were made then.
Cheers,
Rob
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
l the
"applies" type info in this tag. Hence the example "*restriction:hgv =
no_u_turn @ (length > 6)*".
Regards,
Rob
p.s. Any change to day on, day off, hour on, hour off, will also break the
existing scheme (but is in my opinion worthwhile).
p.p.s. All my previous examples ar
On 16 October 2012 23:38, Eckhart Wörner wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> (Putting tagging ML back in To since this might be of interest to other
> people as well, I hope you don't mind.)
>
> > On topic: In your suggestion you proposed "applies = *". What w
Department for Transports website suggests the sign with the HGV only
applies to that type of vehicle. If this is indeed the case, can we simply
use the following (as appropriate):
* maxweight:hgv = *
* maxweight = *
Rob
p.s. These discussions don't seem specific to the conditional restrict
"weight rating"?
Given that example for the UK it is hard to say for sure. I will see if I
can find out. Does Germany's road signs specifically mean manufacturers
weight rating?
Rob
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_vehicle_weight_rating
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G
axweight=* would be enough. The
"Except empty vehicles" is an interesting condition and could be tagged as
maxweight=18 + maxweight:conditional= no @ empty vehicle (or something
similar).
How does this compare to other countries?
Rob
[1]
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads
>Hi Rob,
>
>Am Montag, 26. November 2012, 20:33:08 schrieb Rob Nickerson:
>>* Conclusion - in the UK all weight limits are Gross Vehicle Weight
>>Rating*>>* limits and thus maxweight=* and hgv:maxweight=* would be enough.*>
>except that maxweight does *not* limi
most
applicable).
The wiki definition, in my opinion, does not specify either way.
Rob
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:maxweight
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
? An alternative is to just split the
building in to 2 areas (but technically its 1 building). Can we use some
form of indoor mapping (e.g. room=yes, amenity=*)?
Is there a better solution? All ideas welcome.
Regards,
Rob
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging
introduce. I would therefore suggest switching to the new tagging scheme,
however I'll leave you to decide for yourself. As always the "anything is
better than nothing" rule applies in this situation.
Rob
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@op
think we should change this,
if you agree vote for it and update any systems you have that may be
effected". In this regard, I was pleased to see a proposal specifically for
changing tag recommendations:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/drop_r
ight" applies to the trailer
only. Had the weight been the combination of vehicle plus trailer then we
may have needed to come up with something to describe this. One possibility
would be to borrow from [1], however this is a weight rating (set by the
manufacturer), rather than an actual weig
Good start :-)
One point that jumps to mind: I would imagine that you will find the
"layer=*" tag to be better than "level=*".
All the best,
Rob
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
lk around),
"medium" (as with light but may require a little bit of climbing/stepping
over, and "heavy" (requires chopping tools to cut). Personally I think
anything requiring a saw or more time consuming tools should be separated
out in its own tag. However if you
who it is planted in memory of.
Regards,
Rob
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
rting reference point in km (this is
surely the "milestone" tag??)
Yes, that's in km despite being in the UK. I believe that's called EU
harmonisation :-)
Rob
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
differs
from other tags.
Let me know if you want a helping hand.
Rob
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>@Rob:
>Did you ever try to describe the junction with the Lane and Road
>Attributes?
No, I didn't. And as I've been busy with organising SOTM I didn't even
fully read the tag proposal (hence I didn't vote). I hope you agree that my
general comment about reading thro
eight", and it is found in the vehicle documentation. This tag indicates
the maximum value that can use the way irrespective of whether the vehicle
is fully loaded or not.
Obviously, keep the legal meaning, but add this (or similar) for people who
just want a quick an
hat we use so is not a simple case of installing a plug-in. Hopefully it
will be picked up sooner rather than later but in a volunteer based project
patience is essential :-)
https://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4920
Regards,
Rob
___
Tagging mailing l
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
