Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

On 14.08.20 10:00, dktue wrote: So why oppose to the suggested tagging of station=lower_station/mid_station/upper_station? What harm would this cause? There is concerns expressed by the tag value lower/upper that imply the elevation difference, do you want to tag this difference or someting

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

On 14.08.20 10:40, dktue wrote: I would define it as: lower_station: station that has the lowest elevation (exact elevation is not necessary to know, it's obvious) upper_station: station that has the highest elevation mid_station: any other station I want to add: At least in Germany, Switzerla

Re: [Tagging] Antwort: Re: Aerialway stations

I would propose, if you want to use altitude as a definition: bottom: the end station with the lower altitude up: the end station with the higher altitude mid: any station, not being a base or a head station, irrespective of the altitude Or, alternatively one that does not compete wi

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Ski jumping

Hi, I just figured out somebody removed piste:type=ski_jump on the Pyeongchang facilities because the tag is 'still a proposed feature'. Strange thing, but then here I am again in the proposal process. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Ski_Jumping I reopen the RFC informa

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On 11/30/2013 06:40 PM, Egil Hjelmeland wrote: So my revised suggestion to tag a webcam public on internet is man_made=surveillance surveillance= indoor|outdoor|public * surveillance:type=camera * surveillance:zone=weather|traffic|scenic * contact:webcam= name=* operator=* description=* camer

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

On 12/01/2013 03:18 PM, Egil Hjelmeland wrote: I am not at all interested in spending months of my life arguing about an elaborate schemes for cameras. I will just Get It Done. I can't blame you for that :) I think the key here is to use contact:webcam= . That alone is enough to get make an o

[Tagging] Winter sports share the same way

Scott, I relay your question to the tagging mailing-list: As I am a mapper and a renderer, I may not be partial :) I was face recently with a piste shared by alpine skiers and sleds and I choose the easy way: I just tagged the way for skiers. This is not satisfactory, I know. With relations,

Re: [Tagging] Winter sports share the same way

On 01/09/2014 07:27 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: I could go for relations which would solve the multiple use and multiple difficulty issues. Unless you map difficulties like it should: by section, or in OSM, by ways. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstr

Re: [Tagging] Winter sports share the same way

Bryce, There is already a documented scheme for snowshoeing: piste:type=hike + piste:grooming=backcountry (250 use) With piste:type=hike + piste:grooming=classic being for 'winter hiking' (111 use). Yves On 01/13/2014 08:02 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Tod Fitch

Re: [Tagging] aerialway=drag_lift

Thing is, you can expect the average mapper to map an aerialway=drag_lift, but you can't expect every average mapper to distinguish between xyz-bar, platter, rope tow by reading the wiki toroughly. Drag_lift is the default and general tag for lazy mappers for lifts where the user is dragged.

Re: [Tagging] Ski_jump_take_off

According to taginfo: 97sportski_jump_take_off 21historicski_jump_take_off 19nameOlympic Cross-Country / Ski Jump Loop 18piste:typeski_jump 7buildingski_jump 6sportski_jump 6sportski_jump_landing 97 sport=ski_jump_take_off, given the number

Re: [Tagging] Ski_jump_take_off

I've checked the 8 piste:type=ski_jump mapped and a part one that is obscured by cloud, the others are what they are: the piste on the on the ski jump facility (I even forgot I mapped some myself from Bing). I was afraid this tag would be already used by freestyle jumps. So I propose: * piste

[Tagging] Pistemap proposal

Is there any objection to move this page out of the Proposed features? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Piste_Maps This is widely used, and the page is stable for long now. From time to time some opensnowmap.org users feels like they shouldn't use it because of its 'proposal

Re: [Tagging] Pistemap proposal

ons can tag this right, but maybe there is a better solution. Other than those, the proposal looks ok to me. Janko 2014-02-25 20:58 GMT+01:00 yvecai <mailto:yve...@gmail.com>>: Is there any objection to move this page out of the Proposed features? http://wiki.openstreetma

Re: [Tagging] Pistemap proposal

I suggested on the pistemap discussion page to move the page to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Piste_Maps Along with creating a proposal on its own for 'landuse=winter_sports' About this, piste:boundary= is discussed on the discussion page. There is also a proposal for site=piste relation, a

Re: [Tagging] Ski_jump_take_off

All talk and no action :) Remontees, do you want to make a nice proposal page ? Yves On 01/23/2014 10:51 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:35 PM, yvecai wrote: I've checked the 8 piste:type=ski_jump mapped and a part one that is obscured by cloud, the others are what they are

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Route=piste

This proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:route%3Dpiste ... is a bit behind route=ski in taginfo. The goal is to extend route relations to other winter sports along with a piste:type=whatever tag. While route=ski is straightforward, this extension is good for snows

[Tagging] RFC : sport=ski_jumping

Following this discussion: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-January/016284.html Please find: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Ski_Jumping Yves ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lis

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Route=piste

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:route%3Dpiste is open for voting. Yves On 03/19/2014 10:40 PM, yvecai wrote: This proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:route%3Dpiste ... is a bit behind route=ski in taginfo. The goal is to extend route

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - site=piste relations

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Tag:site%3Dpiste is now open for voting Yves ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - site=piste relations

On 03/30/2014 05:03 PM, fly wrote: Do not like piste as value, as it is easily misunderstood and you do include other features. Better use winter_resort or similar. fly Hi Fly, I can follow you on this, but personally I choose piste for the following reasons: 1) semanticaly in line with

Re: [Tagging] access=designated - what do we think it means?

Yes, you're right. I did use this, maybe one or two mistakes, only :) On 04/11/2014 06:40 PM, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Yves wrote: I always assumed it was for street where traffic is allowed for residents or delivery, but not for traffic passing through.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - site=piste relations

More opinions appreciated on this: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Tag:site%3Dpiste Yves ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - site=piste relations

Extended voting period for two weeks. Maybe people still want to express their opinion here, though I have to admit the vast majority of mappers is not concerned: 7 votes is not that bad. Yves On 04/12/2014 09:57 AM, yvecai wrote: More opinions appreciated on this: https

Re: [Tagging] Subsequent wikipedia links

On 01.07.2014 18:08, Tobias Knerr wrote: OSM is open for all new tags. Once we admit wikidata references, what would prevent someone to add the MusicBrainz or freebase.com reference directly in OSM ? Why should we accept one and not the others. Where is the breaking point ? Technically, we enter

Re: [Tagging] Subsequent wikipedia links

On 01.07.2014 18:08, Tobias Knerr wrote: OSM is open for all new tags. Once we admit wikidata references, what would prevent someone to add the MusicBrainz or freebase.com reference directly in OSM ? Why should we accept one and not the others. Where is the breaking point ? Technically, we enter

Re: [Tagging] Subsequent wikipedia links

On 01.07.2014 21:04, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: I disagree. If the goal is to make separate databases function as one big normalized database[1] such that there is no overlap in data, then these inter-database references are, in fact, necessary. I must admit, when I read 'big normalized databa

Re: [Tagging] Subsequent wikipedia links

On 01.07.2014 21:56, Andreas Goss wrote: Am 7/1/14 20:48 , schrieb yvecai: but no content Maybe not directly to OSM, but definitely to the maps you can make out of it. http://osm.lyrk.de/wappen/ I think this is a much better solution than upldating all those image links in OSM. And if

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Enhancing natural=peak tag

Calculating relief features from a DEM is doable. Naming them is not. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Enhancing natural=peak tag

This proposal is not a bad idea: refining an existing tag can't do no harm. However, if rendering is an interesting topic, wiki is full of rendering examples and advices that aren't followed anywhere. Let the renderer render and the cartographer style the map, and trust them to understand tags

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status "Approved" to "Published"

On 05.04.2015 19:01, Dan S wrote: It's such a chuffing tiny innocent suggestion, and it's thoroughly bikeshedded into the ground! As always, voices againt may sounds louder, howeverI have the feeling that changing 'approved' to 'recommended' or 'published' is doable. Yves

Re: [Tagging] named spots in settlements (toponyms)

It's unfortunate the wiki definition of place=neighbourhood defintion allows 'fluid borders' and 'well-defined legal and administrative borders' at the same time. Having a tag for informally named places would be a good idea, if the *informal* nature survives the wiki definition subsequent edi

[Tagging] Route=* for ways ?

I have a concern with this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dpiste Somebody found it useful to document the usage of the route=piste tag on ways, That looks strange to me, and rather contradict the usage. The original page before june 2017 was concerning relations type=rou

Re: [Tagging] towers, why limit communication towers to 2way and broadcasting?

Why not putting the limit around 1 THz ? http://xkcd.com/273/ Yves On 03. 11. 11 14:46, John Sturdy wrote: On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: or maybe even better: "Communication towers are intended to hold equipment for broadcast, two-way communications or reception;

Re: [Tagging] Tag desired for "maintenance"

I am a little bit out of scope, but to me it would make sense to add this kind of information in an external database. What is the point of having this kind of information in OSM ? I think this is how projects like http://www.fixmystreet.com are doing. Yves ___

Re: [Tagging] Tag desired for "maintenance"

On 15. 11. 11 21:09, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On 11/15/2011 09:17 AM, yvecai wrote: I am a little bit out of scope, but to me it would make sense to add this kind of information in an external database. What is the point of having this kind of information in OSM ? Is the difference between a

[Tagging] Value separator

Hi, What is the best way to 'separate' values? I think about piste:grooming='classic;skating' or 'classic+skating'. Actually, this can be argued that this is a particular grooming type of crosscountry ski pistes, not a simple addition of a 'classic' and 'skating' grooming. So, is there any r

[Tagging] Ski resort (once again)

The problem is the following: in this link, the nordic pistes belong to several interconnected 'resorts' or 'domains': http://www.pistes-nordiques.org/?zoom=13&lat=46.80895&lon=6.43328&layers=&e=false&m=raster There is the pistes of 'L'Auberson', 'Les Fourgs', 'La Seigne' and 'Jougne'. I think

Re: [Tagging] Re : Ski resort (once again)

Janko, to group a bunch of elements into a relation or add same a tag to all these elements is not quite the same. A relation carry a meaning (type), while with all these tags, It's seems to me just a collection that you can find with a query :) (Actually, we all know that both are technically

Re: [Tagging] Re : Ski resort (once again)

On 02/04/2013 08:26 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote: ... There is always an overpass query for every need :) Anyway, these site=piste relation members would simply be related by ... ski. Minimal tagging would be: > type=site > site=piste > piste:type=nordic or > type=site > site=piste > piste:typ

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - relation site=piste

Finally I took site=piste for consistency with pistemaps and route=piste proposal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Tag:site%3Dpiste Yves ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=pasture

To refine mowing & grazing, it would be better to separate the two. Whatever tagging form it take, something like mow=yes/no , graze=yes/no Yves On 07/03/2013 07:24 PM, Volker Paul wrote: Sorry, forgot to add the discussion link. I made this proposal because currently, the tag landuse=meadow i

Re: [Tagging] Map Feature Samples

It's not exactly what you are looking for, but I'm working on a script to render mapkeys (legend) images from a stylesheet. It creates a database with node/way/area associated with the tags found in the spreadsheet, then renders it with nik2img. http://dev-yves.dyndns.org/dev/legend2osm_09-06-2

Re: [Tagging] New tag?

Yes, exactly. It's the same thing. Anyway, the minicab_office is a UK definition. Nobody will understand that here. Well, if it is exactly the same thing, maybe it is good to find a common tag. Minicab would not be understood outside UK, neither 'remis' outside South America. What about ameni

Re: [Tagging] bridge=aqueduct mapped as polygon riverbank?

Besides riverbanks are tagged as "waterway=riverbanks" which will lead to problems when one day routing on waterways will be possible. Therefore I and others have switched to mapping rivers as water with "natural=water" and not use riverbanks anymore. Wyo In any case, for routing it is bette

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate

On 03. 01. 11 11:37, John Smith wrote: On 3 January 2011 20:04, Ulf Lamping wrote: What's the difference to waterway=weir? A lot of weirs I've seen don't have any kind of gates, they just semi-dam a river to provide a water supply for nearby towns, the water freely flows over the top of the we

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate

Let's take it on the opposite, we have devices to control water, sort of 'dams'. * Water can go above, under, trough, or between gates * Can be fixed, moving, removable * Can be nodes, ways, or polygons I'm no expert in english, but somebody here could end up with a set of english word that wou

Re: [Tagging] Mountain passes

On 14. 02. 11 21:08, Ulf Lamping wrote: Am 14.02.2011 14:22, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: 2011/2/14 Steve Bennett: On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Ulf Lamping wrote: That was the start of the discussion in 2007, but was changed due to the changes (around the same time) of highway=tunnel /

Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no

On 08. 03. 11 12:00, grin wrote: Hello, Your valuable input is welcome and would be much appreciated. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/illegal Thanks, [[user:grin]] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.

Re: [Tagging] Transportation center that serves both buses and trains?

On 24. 04. 11 21:32, Paul Johnson wrote: On 04/21/2011 08:15 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Using both railway=station and amenity=bus_station gives two labels in Mapnik. I reported this as a bug but apparently it's not fixable: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3478 What should be done? There i

Re: [Tagging] Transportation center that serves both buses and trains?

On 24. 04. 11 23:24, Richard Welty wrote: On 4/24/11 5:11 PM, yvecai wrote: On 24. 04. 11 21:32, Paul Johnson wrote: On 04/21/2011 08:15 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Using both railway=station and amenity=bus_station gives two labels in Mapnik. I reported this as a bug but apparently it'

[Tagging] [RFC] Deprecate piste:type=yes (winter sports)

There is about ~1600 object tagged piste:type=yes in the database. This value is undocumented, and it's hard to give it a meaning ('yes' is not a 'type'). I've created a [Maproulette challenge](https://maproulette.org/challenge/48875) to browse through these elements and guess the original mea

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Require proposal announcements to be made on the new forum instead of the mailing list

From your settings, you can suscribe to notiifcations about a particular tag, here this would be 'tagging'. A 'Tagging' category (that you can also suscribe too) could  be requested to the admins. Yves On 24.09.22 20:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: My question was about getting notif

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Start moving proposal announcements to the new forum

Vincent, I do appreciate your effort with this new proposal. Are you aware that this week a new category "Tagging general discussion " has been created on https://community.openstreetmap.org ? It's probably better to follow this category