Re: [Tagging] Sports_centre, gym, dojo
At 2011-04-09 20:41, Brad Neuhauser wrote: PS--To me, fitness centre would eliminate any possible confusion with other usages of gym or gymnasium, but if gym has already been in wide usage, it'll do. +1 Not that I spend any time there myself :-|, but people that do almost universally call them gym(s). PPS--In the US, gymnasium is definitely not limited to places where people do gymnastics, as mike said it's a large indoor room for a variety of sports--like basketball and volleyball--and also sometimes events like assemblies or dances. ... at a school. The long form of the word would normally cause one to think about such a multi-purpose building at a high school or elementary school. Colleges and universities generally have separate facilities for some of those things and name them more specifically. I never hear someone refer to one of the commercial fitness centers as a gymnasium. I noticed a note on the bottom of the page that a bot changed ~1500 gyms to sport=gymnastics!? If so, that was almost certainly wrong if people have been using the term as per US common usage. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux)
since there haven't been any new comments over the last couple of days i would like to start the voting for the proposal next weekend. here's the link again in case you haven't read it yet: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking regards, flaimo ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking (redux)
2011/4/10 Flaimo fla...@gmail.com: since there haven't been any new comments over the last couple of days i would like to start the voting for the proposal next weekend. here's the link again in case you haven't read it yet: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking I am not sure if it is a good idea to put all these new tags into the amenity namespace. Amenities are general features (e.g. mapnik tries to render all of them) and the proposed tags like parking_space would in a complete mapping state clutter the map. If I get this right you suggest to consider amenity=parking as preliminary and to replace it with amenity=parking_space for single parking lots or groups of them, connected with relations? I think this is too complicated for most cases. I suggest to continue the use of an area with amenity=parking for outline of the whole facility and optionally parking=parking_space for single or groups of actual parking spaces (plus optionally all subtags for all kind of details as suggested). from your proposal: * Parking spaces always have to be grouped together in a relation. In rare situations where there’s really only one single parking space that is not somehow connected to any other spaces nearby, amenity=parking should be applied. * A parking space should preferably be mapped as an area, but it is also possible to use a node. * Each single space should be mapped as a separate area. Exceptions for using one area to represent more than one space: o A lot of similar parking spaces side by side without any differing attributes and you don't want to put that much afford into it. o Spaces are just too small to map (for example for bicycle parking) o Satellite images aren't good enough and don’t allow the mapping of single parking spaces, but you can still make out separate groups of spaces. * It should not be used as a representation of one big single parking area. Highways should not cross this areas. maybe it would be easier to split this up in 2 proposals: one for parking_spaces and one for complex parking relations. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
