Re: [Tagging] Disused/historic railway stations
2013/2/7 Greg Troxel : >> better use always "building" for the building and >> "railway=station" for the station (function) > > I'm sympathetic to that, but what tag goes on the building way other > than building=yes to denote that a building is a station building? Or > was? currently there are 5 480 building=train_station 1 349 building=station 335 building=railway_station 10 building=railway station 10 building=railway_station;train_station 9 building=pumping_station 8 building=station_building 1 railway:historic=station_building so the very much are tagged train_station or station cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Disused/historic railway stations
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > 2013/2/7 Greg Troxel : >> ... because in the present, railway=station means the >> site and we don't really denote the building. In the historic:, >> railway=station is the building and railway=station_site is the place. > > > -1, better use always "building" for the building and > "railway=station" for the station (function) I'm sympathetic to that, but what tag goes on the building way other than building=yes to denote that a building is a station building? Or was? Perhaps railway=station_building historic:railway=station_building would be appropriate. pgpb1DHpqaB9o.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Disused/historic railway stations
2013/2/7 Greg Troxel : > ... because in the present, railway=station means the > site and we don't really denote the building. In the historic:, > railway=station is the building and railway=station_site is the place. -1, better use always "building" for the building and "railway=station" for the station (function) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Disused/historic railway stations
Steve Bennett writes: > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Jonathan Bennett > wrote: >> There was this discussion on talk-gb recently: >> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-January/014376.html > > Yeah, that's actually what prompted this discussion - I was pointed > there by Andy Allan when I commented on some OpenCycleMap rendering > peculiarities. > I guess there is a complete continuum between "there is an active > train station here" and "there was once a train station here, but now > there is nothing but a memory": > > railway=station (active) > disused:railway=station (temporarily or recently inactive) Perhaps; but disused has a different connotation in rail=disused. But if disused: is a prefix generally used for many things (e.g, a restaurant that is recently closed and might reopen might be disused:amenity=restuarant). To me the key point is that a naive renderer that doesn't understand historic/disused won't end up with the wrong values. > railway:historic=station (a building that was formerly a station, and > is now decrepit or used for a different purpose?) > historic:railway=station (the same thing?) I prefer the historic: prefix. > railway:historic=station_site (less than a building - maybe a marker, > an old platform etc.) Again I would flip to historic:railway, but as long as there is an OSM-wide convention it of course doesn't matter. > Do I have this right? How does one tag a station that is active, but > also of great historical value? I think the "this building is of historical value" is totally separate From "this used to be a foo", and should be decoupled from the railroad-specific discussion. > Greg wrote: >>But, I'd ask: how is the distinction between a station location and >>station building made now, for stations that are in service? Is it >>really railway=station vs building=train_station? > > I can't speak for others, but "building=yes" is the only building tag > I ever use. Otherwise you get into a double tagging mess. So I put a > "railway=station" node at the centre, and various "building=yes" and > "railway=platform" ways as needed. (What is a "station building" > technically, anyway... frequently stations have several buildings, > etc.) I dimly remember now that around Boston, station tags for non-terminal stations (on commuter rail, but they are typically stations that have existed since the railroads were built in the mid 1800s) are often nodes on the rail ways. Then there's a building on one side, which may or may not still be a station building (typically not, but if the coffee shop sells tickets, maybe it is???). As for multiple buildings -- that's a good point -- I was thinking about the classic one-building station. So I think there's still confusion around "station site" and "station building", especially because in the present, railway=station means the site and we don't really denote the building. In the historic:, railway=station is the building and railway=station_site is the place. pgpBy859OSFCR.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna
fly writes: > I was trying to get a common tower preset working for JOSM [1], when I > started reading about the terms on wikipedia (english). > > As I am not a native speaker, I like to ask natives about there > thoughts but as far as I understood it. > > What we call man_made=mast is still a tower and man_made=antenna > should be mast, where as antennas are only the transmitter/receiver. (I'm a native speaker of US English, and an amateur radio operator.) In the US, we use "tower" in several ways: fire tower - a structure with stairs and a room on top for looking for fires. This is tower_type=observation, I think. antenna tower - a structure that may or may not be guyed intended to support antennas. The tower is the structural part, and the antennas are used for receive/transmit. The guying is not considered that important (the structural people of course have to get it right, but it doesn't cause people to call something a tower or not a tower). (very rare) coastal defense tower - set up for observation, to control artillery, so it should get tower_type=observation, in my view. http://www.capemayviews.com/Views/Misc/coastal_defense_tower.htm I do not recognize the mast vs tower (guyed vs unguyed) notion in wikipedia as generally valid, although a lightweight guyed pole for temporary use might be called a mast, whereas a permanent structure that is more substantial than 2" pipe is usually a tower. In UK English, the word "aerial" is used instead of "antenna". I have the impression, not well substantiated, that what I would call a tower in the US is often called a mast in the UK, particularly if it is not particularly tall and not built of steel lattice. Stations that broadcast on MF (0.5 MHz to 1.7 MHz, more or less) typically use the tower itself as the radiator, while VHF and up stations have antennas at the top. But from the OSM viewpoint, I don't find that particularly importan. (Also, in general I think JOSM presets should support what taginfo shows as common, rather than leading the way. But I don't know if that's the normal view.) So I am inclined to keep man_made=tower with tower:type either communication or observation. This is how I experience josm now, and it seems like it's right. There are also poles for "streetlights", or things like that. I would not call them towers, because they are not substantial or tall enough for that. Greg pgpW7wizDsk0B.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Disused/historic railway stations
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > There was this discussion on talk-gb recently: > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-January/014376.html Yeah, that's actually what prompted this discussion - I was pointed there by Andy Allan when I commented on some OpenCycleMap rendering peculiarities. I guess there is a complete continuum between "there is an active train station here" and "there was once a train station here, but now there is nothing but a memory": railway=station (active) disused:railway=station (temporarily or recently inactive) railway:historic=station (a building that was formerly a station, and is now decrepit or used for a different purpose?) historic:railway=station (the same thing?) railway:historic=station_site (less than a building - maybe a marker, an old platform etc.) Do I have this right? How does one tag a station that is active, but also of great historical value? Greg wrote: >But, I'd ask: how is the distinction between a station location and >station building made now, for stations that are in service? Is it >really railway=station vs building=train_station? I can't speak for others, but "building=yes" is the only building tag I ever use. Otherwise you get into a double tagging mess. So I put a "railway=station" node at the centre, and various "building=yes" and "railway=platform" ways as needed. (What is a "station building" technically, anyway... frequently stations have several buildings, etc.) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna
Hi I was trying to get a common tower preset working for JOSM [1], when I started reading about the terms on wikipedia (english). As I am not a native speaker, I like to ask natives about there thoughts but as far as I understood it. What we call man_made=mast is still a tower and man_made=antenna should be mast, where as antennas are only the transmitter/receiver. Any Hints ? Thanks fly -- [1] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/8076 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
Makes sense. So we're back to amenity. Something like amenity=shelter + shelter_type=field_shelter + (if necessary) access=private should cover it. Martin 2013/2/6 Alberto : > I'm against animal=shelter. As emerged in previous discussions, an animal is > not a shelter. > It exists amenity=animal_shelter [1] for large structures with a staff that > takes care of animals and that eventually heals them. > On taginfo already exists animal=shelter, and in many cases it has been used > to tag what now is tagged with amenity=animal_shelter. The migration is slow > because we have to check every single case. > For consistency with other shelter's tags [2], I would use: > amenity=shelter > shelter_type=field_shelter > The availability can be specified by access=* tags. > After all if you need a shelter against bad weather, you can use also a > field shelter, if it is accessible. In this sense consistency with > amenity=shelter tag is useful. > You should also update page on shelters [2] and on animals [3] when we'll > agree on field shelters' tagging. > > [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Danimal_shelter > [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type > [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animal > > Alberto - Viking81 > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
I'm against animal=shelter. As emerged in previous discussions, an animal is not a shelter. It exists amenity=animal_shelter [1] for large structures with a staff that takes care of animals and that eventually heals them. On taginfo already exists animal=shelter, and in many cases it has been used to tag what now is tagged with amenity=animal_shelter. The migration is slow because we have to check every single case. For consistency with other shelter's tags [2], I would use: amenity=shelter shelter_type=field_shelter The availability can be specified by access=* tags. After all if you need a shelter against bad weather, you can use also a field shelter, if it is accessible. In this sense consistency with amenity=shelter tag is useful. You should also update page on shelters [2] and on animals [3] when we'll agree on field shelters' tagging. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Danimal_shelter [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animal Alberto - Viking81 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
2013/2/6 Martin Simon : > -1 for tagging it as amenity=shelter. > We also don't do that with carports, garden sheds or dog houses. > The object tagged amenity=shelter should imho be intended and usable for > sheltering humans against bad weather and be freely accessible. Agree to a certain degree that it should be freely accessible. It depends on the context if this is given for a field shelter. In my experience in areas with low population density you might find shelter in a place like this e.g. when caught by bad weather. As always, its up to the mapper. I wouldn't use amenity when the field shelter is locked up. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
-1 for tagging it as amenity=shelter. We also don't do that with carports, garden sheds or dog houses. The object tagged amenity=shelter should imho be intended and usable for sheltering humans against bad weather and be freely accessible. -Martin 2013/2/6 Martin Vonwald > 2013/2/6 Martin Koppenhoefer : > > So trying to remove ambiguity as much as possible you could tag this: > > > > building=field_shelter (or building=roof, layer=1) > > amenity=shelter > > shelter_type=field_shelter > > Except for the building, that was my first idea. In my opinion it > would fit the description of amenity=shelter in the wiki quite well. > > Martin > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
2013/2/6 Martin Koppenhoefer : > So trying to remove ambiguity as much as possible you could tag this: > > building=field_shelter (or building=roof, layer=1) > amenity=shelter > shelter_type=field_shelter Except for the building, that was my first idea. In my opinion it would fit the description of amenity=shelter in the wiki quite well. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
2013/2/6 Philip Barnes : > I would go for building=shelter rather than amenity. > > > Amenity would imply it is available for anyone passing with a horse to take > shelter. I think this would put more implication into amenity than what it practically has in OSM (see e.g. amenity=parking, access=private or amenity=prison or ...) I'd go for the more specific building=field_shelter (but also building=shelter if you prefer) for the building-tag, or also building=roof if mostly open. amenity=shelter would be OK for me Don't find shelter_type a very good choice (IMHO it would be more logical to use shelter:type, but checking actual usage "shelter_type" is the established key). Also the value "field" is not very appealing (sounds as if the "field" itself is a kind of shelter). So trying to remove ambiguity as much as possible you could tag this: building=field_shelter (or building=roof, layer=1) amenity=shelter shelter_type=field_shelter cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: > 2013/2/6 Dudley Ibbett : >> The other problem with mapping some of these is they are often designed to >> be mobile to get round planning rules. > > Correct! > >> I'm not sure I'd map this mobile type as it will probably/should move in the >> next year! > > I only think about field shelters that are _not_ mobile. In the UK > they are more often - but not always - mobile because of some legal > reasons. In other countries they are often fixed. I'm only concerned > with the fixed ones. I think the UK ones that are technically mobile aren't necessarily actually moved --- it's just that they have to be moveable within a set period (I think less than 24 hours) if there's a complaint about them. So it may well still make sense to map them. __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Disused/historic railway stations
On 06/02/2013 00:50, Greg Troxel wrote: > (I > am also curious if a British railroad geek could explain if the OSM > terms seem right to the railfan community.) There was this discussion on talk-gb recently: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-January/014376.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
2013/2/6 Philip Barnes : > I would go for building=shelter rather than amenity. > > Amenity would imply it is available for anyone passing with a horse to take > shelter. Actually if amenity is not a good choice I would rather go for animal=shelter instead of building=shelter. Maybe the key animal seems to be a good idea for "amenities for animals" just a thought. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
I would go for building=shelter rather than amenity. Amenity would imply it is available for anyone passing with a horse to take shelter. Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 06/02/2013 9:00 Martin Vonwald wrote: No, they are definitively not stables. Differently to a stable the horse can go in and out as it pleases. They are usually placed in the field as protection from bad weather. An example of a field shelter can be seen here: [1] You definitively don't call them stables ;-) Martin [1] https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Dde8VPJLW2uFZhGAyS7g_dKwEoVeXBNAtDGqG0BKo9U?feat=directlink 2013/2/6 Philip Barnes : > Are they not stables? Am not sure about amenity, that implies public use. > > I would suggest building = stable. > > > > Phil > > -- > > > > Sent from my Nokia N9 > > > > > On 06/02/2013 7:03 Martin Vonwald (imagic) wrote: > > Hi, > > Are there any arguments against using amenity=shelter + > shelter_type=field_shelter for field shelters (see [1]) for horses? > > From the wiki: > The amenity=shelter tag marks all sorts of small shelters to protect against > bad weather conditions. > > Sounds good to me. > > Regards, > Martin > > [1] > https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Dde8VPJLW2uFZhGAyS7g_dKwEoVeXBNAtDGqG0BKo9U?feat=directlink > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > p...@trigpoint.me.uk > https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Dde8VPJLW2uFZhGAyS7g_dKwEoVeXBNAtDGqG0BKo9U?feat=directlink > ___ Tagging mailing list p...@trigpoint.me.uk https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Dde8VPJLW2uFZhGAyS7g_dKwEoVeXBNAtDGqG0BKo9U?feat=directlink ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
2013/2/6 Dudley Ibbett : > The other problem with mapping some of these is they are often designed to > be mobile to get round planning rules. Correct! > I'm not sure I'd map this mobile type as it will probably/should move in the > next year! I only think about field shelters that are _not_ mobile. In the UK they are more often - but not always - mobile because of some legal reasons. In other countries they are often fixed. I'm only concerned with the fixed ones. Thanks, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
Sorry, but the picture is not a stable. It is, in the UK, a field shelter. The other problem with mapping some of these is they are often designed to be mobile to get round planning rules. The image is a mobile version. There have been previous discussions on this, so you might want to search on the mail group. I'm not sure I'd map this mobile type as it will probably/should move in the next year! Dudley Philip Barnes wrote: Are they not stables? Am not sure about amenity, that implies public use. I would suggest building = stable. Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 06/02/2013 7:03 Martin Vonwald (imagic) wrote: Hi, Are there any arguments against using amenity=shelter + shelter_type=field_shelter for field shelters (see [1]) for horses? >From the wiki: The amenity=shelter tag marks all sorts of small shelters to protect against bad weather conditions. Sounds good to me. Regards, Martin [1] http://www.herefordstables.co.uk/imgs/gallery/10_12ft-field-shelter.jpg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
No, they are definitively not stables. Differently to a stable the horse can go in and out as it pleases. They are usually placed in the field as protection from bad weather. An example of a field shelter can be seen here: [1] You definitively don't call them stables ;-) Martin [1] https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Dde8VPJLW2uFZhGAyS7g_dKwEoVeXBNAtDGqG0BKo9U?feat=directlink 2013/2/6 Philip Barnes : > Are they not stables? Am not sure about amenity, that implies public use. > > I would suggest building = stable. > > > > Phil > > -- > > > > Sent from my Nokia N9 > > > > > On 06/02/2013 7:03 Martin Vonwald (imagic) wrote: > > Hi, > > Are there any arguments against using amenity=shelter + > shelter_type=field_shelter for field shelters (see [1]) for horses? > > From the wiki: > The amenity=shelter tag marks all sorts of small shelters to protect against > bad weather conditions. > > Sounds good to me. > > Regards, > Martin > > [1] http://www.herefordstables.co.uk/imgs/gallery/10_12ft-field-shelter.jpg > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?
Are they not stables? Am not sure about amenity, that implies public use. I would suggest building = stable. Phil -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 06/02/2013 7:03 Martin Vonwald (imagic) wrote: Hi, Are there any arguments against using amenity=shelter + shelter_type=field_shelter for field shelters (see [1]) for horses? >From the wiki: The amenity=shelter tag marks all sorts of small shelters to protect against bad weather conditions. Sounds good to me. Regards, Martin [1] http://www.herefordstables.co.uk/imgs/gallery/10_12ft-field-shelter.jpg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
