Re: [Tagging] Draft - Vegetarian/Vegan
On 15 February 2011 00:39, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 18:53 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/2/14 Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net: AFAIK there is quite a lot of differentiation in the vegetarian community (e.g. Ovo, lacto, ovo-lacto, veganism, raw veganism, fruitarianism, buddhist vegetarianism) if you are an expert in this field, maybe you could extend the proposal to take this into account? Even more than that, the definition of vegetarianism can vary from person to person. A vegan friend many years ago used to say that true 'vegans' dont use any animal product, true 'vegetarians' dont eat any animal product, where some people dont follow that strictness as much. I imagine that different cultures could have different definitions of vegetarian too. Thank you for this feedback, I will update the page to accommodate more dietary variations and clear definitions to help people understand the internationally understood difference between fruitarian, vegan, vegetarian, pescarian and other dietary requirements/choices. Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] airport vs. aerodrome
I know that this has been discussed various times, but as there was no outcome besides generic ideas (number of flights, international flights, number, length and surface of the runway and other intense preprocessing or external (=currently not available) detail requiring stuff) I raise again the question: why don't we map bigger airports with aeroway=airport? The reason why I came to this issue is in the mapnik stylesheet (I know, don't tag for the renderers, but a rule already in the main stylesheet definitely would help in this transition). The thing is that the current mapnik stylesheet does indeed already include a different icon and would render aeroway=airport on lower zooms (Z9 if I recall right). Usually it is quite simple for every mapper to name the more important airports of his city (e.g. in Rome it would be either Fiumicino or Ciampino, I never heard of someone leaving or arriving at another airport, in London it would be Heathrow, Luton, Stansted, Gatwick, City, and maybe some other, but at least those would be clearly standing out before all those other airfields and airports). Have a look here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.16lon=-88.536zoom=10layers=M could you tell which are the more important ones? Not at first glance I guess. A finer and more granular/elaborate distinction could still be applied (later or in custom renderings), but this would at least help to identify the well known and most important ones (in which people are usually interested when flying with an airline instead with their own private jet). Comments? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft - Vegetarian/Vegan
On 14/02/2011, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/2/14 Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net: Hello, Please read and comment on my draft proposal to improve our tagging of vegetarian and vegan food: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Vegetarian I want to use something more sophisticated than cuisine=vegetarian for restaurants, cafes and shops. I am not an expert in this field, but maybe it would be better to do it the other way round: yes/strictly, i.e. vegetarian=yes implies available while vegetarian=strictly implies that no meat has ever been fried in their pans ;-) AFAIK there is quite a lot of differentiation in the vegetarian community (e.g. Ovo, lacto, ovo-lacto, veganism, raw veganism, fruitarianism, buddhist vegetarianism) if you are an expert in this field, maybe you could extend the proposal to take this into account? Aren't attributes like that more suitable to describe a person than a restaurant. I mean a person can follow a ovo-lacto diet, but find hard to think there would be a restaurant where every meal on the menu would be an ovo-lacto vegetarian meal. /Markus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
2011/2/16 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: -1, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer our wiki is becoming something like the bible: you can find a page for every opinion ;-) I don't have a big problem with layer=0 being considered ground level, but before someone wrote it on the key page the consensus was that layers do only express relative order, not an absolute position. I suggest we agree on one version and correct the other one. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
On 2/15/2011 7:52 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/2/16 Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com: -1, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer our wiki is becoming something like the bible: you can find a page for every opinion ;-) I don't have a big problem with layer=0 being considered ground level, but before someone wrote it on the key page the consensus was that layers do only express relative order, not an absolute position. I suggest we agree on one version and correct the other one. Since giving long ground-level ways nonzero layers screws up every place they cross another way, it seems clear what should be done. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] airport vs. aerodrome
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:02 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: (I know, don't tag for the renderers Can we just ban that ridiculous, misquoted and harmful commandment? Taking into account renderer support for current and proposed tags is perfectly appropriate. A finer and more granular/elaborate distinction could still be applied (later or in custom renderings), but this would at least help to identify the well known and most important ones (in which people are usually interested when flying with an airline instead with their own private jet). I'm not in favour of splitting aerodrome into aerodrome and airport if it doesn't scale to further divisions. It just introduces another English word which will cause more quibbles about what aerodrome is vs what an airport is. Then we'll want to split hairs over airfields, and intercontinental airports - whereas the semantics of all those things are totally irrelevant. Just solve the problem once and for all: aeroway=aerodrome importance=5 And the best part is, if this takes off, we can apply it to the next one of these...because this problem is hardly unique to airports. And it lends itself very well to letting local mapping communities define their own standards in ways that aren't counterintuitive. Would you really want to see the only airfield in the whole country mapped as aeroway=intercontinental_airport? No...but importance=9 is a lot less jarring. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] airport vs. aerodrome
On 2/15/11 9:24 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:02 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: (I know, don't tag for the renderers Can we just ban that ridiculous, misquoted and harmful commandment? Taking into account renderer support for current and proposed tags is perfectly appropriate. that's why i proposed the rephrased version: don't tag INCORRECTLY for the renderers there should never be an objection to tagging correctly. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] airport vs. aerodrome
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: that's why i proposed the rephrased version: don't tag INCORRECTLY for the renderers there should never be an objection to tagging correctly. Let's make it clearer and more memorable: Don't use stupid tags to please a renderer. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging long roads
On 2/15/2011 10:22 PM, Andrew Errington wrote: Hi, I have noticed inconsistencies and discrepancies in motorway names here in Korea. I can fix this because I have photographed the roadsigns which give the correct names, however, the motorway ways are split into many (many!) segments due to bridges, tunnels, changes in numbers of lanes or speed limits etc. Plus, there are two ways for each segment (one in each direction). Is there a tool which will 'follow' a way based on some unchanging tag (e.g. ref=*) and alter other tags on each segment it finds? I only want to change the name=* tag. I don't want to change any other tags as they represent other mappers' work. Use the xapi in JOSM to download all motorways in the area, or all ref=*, or whatever: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Xapi (ctrl-L and paste the URL) Then select all the ways (ctrl-F type:way ref=*) and change the tags. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] airport vs. aerodrome
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 13:24 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:02 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: (I know, don't tag for the renderers Can we just ban that ridiculous, misquoted and harmful commandment? Taking into account renderer support for current and proposed tags is perfectly appropriate. I think the analogy was more about things like landuse=commercial to make the renderer render a yellow area for sand, or landuse=forest to make a parkland render green. I'm not in favour of splitting aerodrome into aerodrome and airport if it doesn't scale to further divisions. It just introduces another English word which will cause more quibbles about what aerodrome is vs what an airport is. Well, wikipedia defines an airport as a place aircraft take off and land and may be stored or maintained, while aerodrome is a location where flight operations can take place. Consider a seaplane landing area, this could be designated as an aerodrome area, without being an airport. A remote airstrip may be considered an aerodrome, without having any sort of status as an airport. Some remote roadhouses in central Australia for example, have an aerodrome out-the-back for light aircraft that are hopping across the country or flying doctors or even local resident operations. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Underground / hovering buildings
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 01:52 +0100, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/2/16 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: -1, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Layer http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer our wiki is becoming something like the bible: you can find a page for every opinion ;-) Thats the great thing about standards, theres so many to choose from. I suggest we agree on one version and correct the other one. Well, the page seems to contradict itself, suggesting that a tunnel under a building is layer=0. Also in a note near the bottom of the page, it is suggested that a flat bridge at the same level as the ground around it should be level=1, even if what it crosses is far below. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
