Re: [Tagging] atms with names?
On 23 October 2010 03:29, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: all cases. Using brand with multiple values feeld incorrect to me, because it is not the brands of the atm but it is networks where it is affiliated with. Isn't this what relations are for, to group things? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Chamber of Commerce?
On 23/10/2010 02:00, Alan Mintz wrote: In most cities in the US, and even some smaller towns, there's an organization called the Chamber of Commerce. With varying participation from municipal government, it's a portal for new businesses to come to for help and information, networking with other business owners, representing businesses in addressing the city, sometimes informal arbitration, etc. There are only a handful of existing tags with the name [Cc]hamber [oO]f [Cc]ommerce, with no consistent tagging. Any objection to amenity=chamber_of_commerce ? Hum, interesting but maybe a little too limited... In France they are Chambres de Commerce et d'Industrie but also Chambres d'Agriculture and Chambre des Métiers et de l'Artisanat (handicraft and workshops...). They are globaly designated as Chambres Consulaires (for historical reasons). They are organised in several levels, local, department, region, country (and also Europe : Eurochambres). It would be interesting to have a more generic tag for all them, and subtags for the type and the level. -- FrViPofm ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] atms with names?
Am 23.10.2010 09:06, schrieb John Smith: On 23 October 2010 03:29, M∡rtin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: all cases. Using brand with multiple values feeld incorrect to me, because it is not the brands of the atm but it is networks where it is affiliated with. Isn't this what relations are for, to group things? No. Relations are to relate things to each other. Therefore the role is the interesting part of the relation concept. A group of things, where none of them has a specific role is not a relation, it's a collection or category. Often relations are misused for these kind, but intentionally this is not correct. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] atms with names?
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 10/22/10 1:45 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/10/22 Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net: for ATMs, brand and operator are likely to be the same, as what the user really wants to know is if it's his bank, or one that will hit him up with extra charges. so i'd say use the street name of the financial institution. Don't know in your country, in Germany we have different situations: there is cash group with 5 or so private mayor players in banking (you don't pay fees on any of them if you're account holder on one). the situation is different in the US, and hard to map with current OSM tagging conventions. ATMs can serve multiple networks, and cards can work in multiple networks, but no-fee is restricted to ATMs belonging to card holder's financial institution. If we want to get precise (or pedantic), that isn't quite accurate. It's your bank's ATMs, plus any other bank your bank has an agreement with. For example, as a credit union member, I've never payed a fee at another credit union ATM. I don't know if that's universal or just a feature of the credit unions I choose to go to. But then there's also another bank I belong to which doesn't have any branded ATMs, but gives me a list of ATMs in my area where I won't be charged a fee. An accurate map of ATMs to determine fees would be very hard for us to make. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What tags to use on a scenic route?
2010/10/22 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: On 22/10/2010 17:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: Primary tags shouldbe used to describe what it is, not whom it *might* be used by. For example: art galleries museums are used by many other people than those on a holiday. Yes, I agree, tourism has some tags in it, that really don't fit well. Beside those mentioned artwork, zoo, pick_site, theme_park, viewpoint are other examples IMHO. It does suit well for the accomodations though (as tourism is not only defined for leisure but also for business and other travellers). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tourism was Re: What tags to use on a scenic route?
2010/10/22 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: Perhaps tourism should be folded into leisure? (That's not always correct for hotels anyway, but is better.) -1, hotel and the other accomodations --- if we change at all --- fit well there, or might merit a new main tag accomodation. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Amenity key
2010/10/22 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au: On Fri, 2010-10-22 at 19:06 +0200, Claudius wrote: Am 22.10.2010 18:28, David Murn: One way I heard it described, is an amenity is something youre likely to want to navigate to. While that description is a bit vague, it seems to fit most current applications of the key. Like amenity=prison ;) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Prison If you were visiting someone in an out-of-state prison, it certainly would be somewhere one might want to navigate to, the same way you might want to navigate to an ATM, fuel station or school. everything can be something you might want to navigate to, so this is a bad definition IMHO. You might also want to navigate to a lake, a park, a train station, a hairdresser, a museum, a weir, a power station, an apple tree, ... cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] atms with names?
2010/10/22 j...@jfeldredge.com: In the USA, an A(M is usually a member of multiple networks, sometimes ten or more, and will usually have decals on the front of the machine identifying which networks it is a member of. You can use the machine if your bank is a member of any of those networks, but may have to pay a surcharge if the bank operating the ATM is not your bank. basically the situation in europe is the same or similar. There are quite a lot of networks, national and international, where some of the networks assure only the function of your card, while beeing a member in others will reduce or eliminate the fee. An atm usually is part of more then one network. Therefore I proposed to add Key:network to the atm page. This might not cover all needed information in all cases to decide whether you will have to pay a fee, but it will help. Additionally operator should be tagged for the bank that set up the atm, and maybe name for the name of the individual machine. If there is also a brand tag to be set can be valueated by the mapper and might depend on local structures. E.g. I could imagine something like amenity=atm operator=Berliner Sparkasse brand=Sparkasse network=Maestro;ec;cirrus cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: (given that footway, cycleway and bridleway are all synonyms of highway=path designated=foo, dedicated=foo, official=foo, etc.). Ralf Kleineisel wrote: Footway on the other hand is for designated pedestrian ways, i.e. in many countries a blue sign with pedestrians on it. No, not that restrictive. When path was introduced, the equivalence was given inother direction: there are globally lots of ways tagged as footways and cycleways that have no signposts at all, some of which were even drawn before anyone had ever visioned highway=path. Changing the definition of highway=footway etc. has never even been proposed - it's unnecessary wordplay to claim retrospectively that the word designated in highway=footway definition was originally used for the same as the value designated for access tags. Yet some translated guidelines have taken that view. Any highway=path + foot=designated is for practical purposes equal to a highway=footway - there's a way for walking (unless it has other access tags, but a footway could have them, too.) -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What tags to use on a scenic route?
On 23/10/2010 11:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: It does suit well for the accomodations though (as tourism is not only defined for leisure but also for business and other travellers). Not sure if something got lost in translation, but tourism definitely does not include business travel. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tourist http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tourist Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What tags to use on a scenic route?
2010/10/23 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: On 23/10/2010 11:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: It does suit well for the accomodations though (as tourism is not only defined for leisure but also for business and other travellers). Not sure if something got lost in translation, but tourism definitely does not include business travel. I was astonished as well: Tourism is travel for recreational, leisure or business purposes. The World Tourism Organization defines tourists as people who travel to and stay in places outside their usual environment for more than twenty-four (24) hours and not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes not related to the exercise of an activity remunerated from within the place visited.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] What tags to use on a scenic route?
On 23/10/2010 13:36, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I was astonished as well: Tourism is travel for recreational, leisure or business purposes. The World Tourism Organization defines tourists as people who travel to and stay in places outside their usual environment for more than twenty-four (24) hours and not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes not related to the exercise of an activity remunerated from within the place visited.[1] This is a quote from a WTO document; an organization that, by it's own admittance goes further than the usual definition to allow the accountants to calculate the total income. I'd rather stick with bodies whose purpose it is is to define the meaning of words; such as the OED: http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0873740#m_en_gb0873740 Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 09:49 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: No. Width is not a sufficient criterion to determine whether it’s a track. There is a rails-to-trails conversions around here that don’t have anything physically preventing cars from driving down it A track is not defined by being physically impossible to drive on with a car. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/22/2010 09:50 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: That’s not what the wiki says. It says “If a path is wide enough for four-wheel-vehicles […] it is often better tagged as a highway=track.” That doesn’t mean that that is the only criterion. Then what do you think is the difference between path and track grade5? I think only the width. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/23/2010 02:04 PM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: No, not that restrictive. When path was introduced, the equivalence was given inother direction: there are globally lots of ways tagged as footways and cycleways that have no signposts at all, some of The wiki says: highway cycleway For designated cycleways and highway footway For designated footpaths (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Highway), which is exactly what I was saying. The example photos there support this. For highway=path it says non-specific or shared-use path, and the photo shows a forest path or trail which is smaller than a track, not very well kept, natural surface. Changing the definition of highway=footway etc. has never even been proposed - it's unnecessary wordplay to claim retrospectively that the word designated in highway=footway definition was originally used for the same as the value designated for access tags. The word designated says that there is a sign, doesn't it? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
Ralf Kleineisel wrote: The wiki says: The example photos there support this. And the other pages say otherwise. As you say, example photos, not definition photos. The text and the pictures in the wiki have been changed to each and every direction so many times that none will be able to force their view on all pages - and even more so to check that all use cases in the database comply with that changed form. The status quo is to keep the mixed and varying definitions scattered on lots of pages and try to live with that. All attempts have stopped at people stating the facts and their opinions of how things should be and shouldn't be - and often with uncompatible constraints. And sadly no one noticed soon enough after the path was introduced, that the documentation for the equivalence was written in the wrong direction. So some took it for granted that they were only ways-with-blue-signs, others kept using the style they were since the beginning. Given any mapped footway/cycleway, you can not know if it has a blue sign (or a local equivalent). All these arguments, and various common interpretations are listed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path The section Current situation lists why it's impossible to claim that footway or cycleway is anyhow clearly defined to be limited to (with the blue signs) signposted ways. It also in a way lists what the interpretations have in common. Redefining tag meanings only in the wiki will never work, as somebody would have to inspect, for example, all the 1.3 million ways already tagged with footway. The word designated says that there is a sign, doesn't it? That is only one meaning of the word, and requiring a sign wasn't the way footway/cycleway were used before path. If a way is legal (or even possible, think narrow urban stuff) only for pedestrians, setting up or omitting any signs (not forbidding pedestrians, naturally) doesn't make it anything else than a footway. Likewise ways with a no motor vehicles sign are often cycleways - only pedestrians and cyclists are allowed and do use them, even if a different sign would imply otherwise a bit different traffic rules on those ways. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/23/2010 06:02 PM, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: Ralf Kleineisel wrote: The wiki says: The example photos there support this. And the other pages say otherwise. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway both say designated, too. way footway/cycleway were used before path. If a way is legal (or even possible, think narrow urban stuff) only for pedestrians, setting up or omitting any signs (not forbidding pedestrians, naturally) doesn't make it anything else than a footway. Yes, for narrow, paved urban ways I'd say so, too. Likewise ways with a no motor vehicles sign are often cycleways - only pedestrians and cyclists are allowed and do use them, even if a different sign would imply otherwise a bit different traffic rules on those ways. I think using cycleway and footway (mainly, there will always be exceptions) for ways with signs (either the pedestrian only, cyclists only or the no motor vehicles) and path mainly for ways which are unpaved and smaller than tracks reflects the everyday usage of the terms best. This way the usage is intuitive for new users. And we don't need a new tag for trails. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Ralf Kleineisel r...@kleineisel.de wrote: Then what do you think is the difference between path and track grade5? I think only the width. Not 'only'. If you see that the way is or has been used by 4 wheels vehicules, then tag 'track', otherwise 'path'. Imagine a path inside a forest (or in the mountain or whatever) is 4 meters wider for a short distance (but very narrow before and after), don't change from 'path' to 'track' just because it is 4 meters wide. Think that 'track' can be used to establish routes for 4wd's. If they are not connected to other tracks or higher highways, it's not very helpfull. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Ralf Kleineisel r...@kleineisel.de wrote: And we don't need a new tag for trails. +1. At least one point where almost everybody agrees ;-) Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new highway tag for small and informal footpaths; trail
On 10/23/2010 11:01 PM, Pieren wrote: On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Ralf Kleineisel r...@kleineisel.de mailto:r...@kleineisel.de wrote: Then what do you think is the difference between path and track grade5? I think only the width. Not 'only'. If you see that the way is or has been used by 4 wheels vehicules, then tag 'track', otherwise 'path'. Yes, sure, but for this it has to be wide enough, right? Imagine a path inside a forest (or in the mountain or whatever) is 4 meters wider for a short distance (but very narrow before and after), don't change from 'path' to 'track' just because it is 4 meters wide. Think that 'track' can be used to establish routes for 4wd's. I agree. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Amenity key
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:09 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: everything can be something you might want to navigate to, so this is a bad definition IMHO. The fact that categories are used as keys is a bad design. So, whatever. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Announce: New #osm-tagging dedicated IRC chat on oftc.net
Hi everyone! I'm happy to report that we now have a dedicated IRC chat room, for the specific topic of 'tagging map features'. This IRC chat is designed to work as an extention of the tagging mailing list and the main osm mailing list, as well as the various applications which work with map features, such as Garmin Maps (mkgmap and openmtbmap, groundtruth) as well as the various map editors and renders, who all need to know the tagging schema. For general chat, members of this chat room will be asked to submit their questions over to the main #osm irc channel. To find this channel, simply search using pidgin on oftc.net or create it if there is knowone in the room. cheers, sam -- Twitter: @Acrosscanada Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/ http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans Skype: samvekemans IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room) @Acrosscanadatrails ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
