Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)
Looking at the existing tagging, I think I will take a ride down the slippery slope you mention. For example: an "aed" is an emergency medical device people are mapping. Learning the locations of these could be important in an emergency: checking the mapping makes sense. So how about: lastcheck=date (the only required tag) lastcheck:source=* (a description of your mapping party or expedition) lastcheck:status=(operating/needs_maintenance/restricted/closed) lastcheck:note=* (notes on the above e.g. 'sprays water on feet') operator=* (the operator of the facility, who is responsible for attending to the facility) This could apply to any node or way, but it would be silly on most. I've seen a few lastcheck= on meadows, but would never add one myself. I would however check drinking water, aed's, toilets, and maybe opening hours. Thus we'd have: - lastcheck/lastcheck:status=* *for facilities that are intended to remain in operation, even if they are inoperable when observed.* - disused=yes *for facilities that have ceased operation, but still exist on the ground* - disused:oldtag=oldvalue *for facilities that have ceased to exist on the ground (e.g. building is a vacant lot).* On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I have no strong opinion on the general idea but one thing sticks out: > "operational_status=operating"**. > > Obviously, this should be the default assumption. If there's a toilet > mapped then I assume that it is working. > > I understand how you'd like mappers to reaffirm that it is *indeed* > working by setting "operational_status=operating"**, but this takes you > way into the terrain of "verification mapping" which is a larger topic - > what you're suggesting really only makes sense if one can assume that a > mapper passing by a working toilet would make sure it is tagged > operational_status=operating and then update the operational_status:date to > the current date. (If you do not expect this behaviour then you wouldn't > need operational_status:date because it would simply be the date when the > tag has been last changed.) > > This leads to a situation where a mapper is expected to, as he or she > walks the streets, update every object in the database with "yep, this is > still there, I walked past it right now". Because just as a toilet could > fall into disrepair, a shop could close or a house vanish, and what we > currently do is we map this when we see it but we don't map "yep the house > was still there last Sunday". Attempting to do this would change the > typical mapper workflow and the structure of our data drastically. > > I know it's a slippery slope argument, and you're only proposing to do > this for a narrow subset of things - I just wanted to point out that > "verification mapping" is not something we do currently. > > Bye > Frederik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Childcare Tag
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Of the solutions, I feel that calling it what it's called locally is > preferable. Anyone who cares to compare across countries is going to have > to parse the location first anyway. We've managed to handle creating definitions that we could use worldwide for pretty much everything else, including roads, sports, other schools, various amenities, etc. One of the beauties of OSM is that the tags are relatively unified between nations, where they're not, it's usually just because a certain feature is highly localized. I'd be very sad if we threw away so many years of international cooperation and consensus and I don't understand why these tags can't be defined in the same way other tags are. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Childcare Tag
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:00 AM, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:07 PM, alyssa wright > wrote: > > > It is my understanding that kindergarten means something very different > in other places of the world. How does OSM account for such cultural > differences? > Of the solutions, I feel that calling it what it's called locally is preferable. Anyone who cares to compare across countries is going to have to parse the location first *anyway*. In the USA the grades are well defined: - Day care or Nanny Care (from birth)(generally private) - Preschool (age acceptance varies based on provider)(generally private) - Bridge-K (entry based on readiness)(generally private) - Kindergarten (entry based on age)(first universal public option) - Elementary (1st through 5th grade)(public option) - Middle (6th through 8th grade)(public option) - High School (9th through 12th grade also called freshman/sophmore /junior/senior)(public option) - Community College or College or Vocational School (rare except for a few feilds) - Masters Program - Graduate Program ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Double and misfitting house numbers
For the two buildings sharing one address: is there a higher level tag on the lines of landuse= that could have the address:housenumber= attached? Example use case: a corporate campus with multiple buildings, but a single postal address. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Double and misfitting house numbers
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Tobias wrote: > It is kind of both. So in the end you will have the 101 on the building > and the shop. That seems okay to me. We don't map to the renderer, so if it's both, it's both. If you feel strongly it should only be on one, let it be on the shop, and if two shops share the same housenumber, so be it, because it's true. >> The building I live in is mixed use. Some of the building contains >> retail shops, and then there's a large apartment complex (which is >> where I live). > > So there are two separate buildings? No, it's one building, but I live in New York city, and buildings here are often a mix of retail and residential, with retail on the bottom floors and residential on the top floors, and they share the same housenumber. >> I've tagged the shops with the same addr:housenumber as the apartment >> complex, because that's the truth. > > So you are preferring to double-tag each house number. In your example I > would say that you do not need to add house numbers to the shops because > they can be obtained from the building way. I don't like complex relations, either as a mapper or as a tool author. Working with them as a mapper is a pain, and writing tools that understand them is also hard. >> Google is confused about this and thinks I live in a store, but >> Nominatim simply asks if I mean the apartment complex, or the >> shops.[1] > > Does Google use OSM Data at you place? At my place I guess google bought > the right to use those data from the local municipal authority or > somebody else. Google does not use OSM data anywhere, but in the US (where I live), Google has shop data and when I put in my address, it geocodes it to a shop. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> access=permissive (while nominally private, no visible attempt is made >> to restrict access, and casual use appears to be tolerated by the >> owners). >> access=inquiry (an inquiry must be made for access, for example to >> receive a key). >> access=customers (the explicit policy is to require a purchase of some >> sort prior to use of the facilities. Non-customers should expect a >> risk they would be blocked from the facility.). > > Thank you Bryce, > +1, this looks like a quite exhaustive list, I'd suggest you add this to the > proposal, as it seems to be very useful Is there too much overlap between "customers" and "inquiry"? What do people think? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Double and misfitting house numbers
On 18.07.2013 16:53, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Tobias wrote: > >> 1. Double house numbers: I want to tag the house number 101 of a shop. >> The building in which the romms of the shop are located has the house >> numbers 97,99,101,103,105,107,109. The house numbers of the building are >> either tagged on the entrances each or on the building-way (here: >> addr:housenumber=97,99,101,103,105,107,109) since the association to the >> entrances is unknown. > >> Because there are several shops with the same house number, there would >> be several nodes or ways with the same house number. And only one is >> concerning the building/entrance. > > There are things I'm not sure I understand here. > > The example you show is a shopping mall, with the address tagged on > the building as a set of housenumbers (as you say, 97, 99, 101...) > > But then you say all the stores share the same housenumber. Just a few shops share the same house number. There are actually more shops in the mall than there are shops at the OSM. And there are also shops in the level above. > > I'm not sure I understand that, so maybe you an clarify it for me. > > Are you saying that all the stores are 97, 99, 101, 103, etc. or that > one store, say the Garde bakery, is at 99, and the Schäfer's Backshop > (you people sure do love your bakeries!) is at 103? The second is right in this example. In fact every shop has an house number, but it is often not labeled at the shop's door. The postal service would also know where to deliver something, if you write for every shop inside the mall 97-103 instead of the exact house number. > > If the stores have a housenumber- and you know that housenumber, > include it in the store. > > If they're shared amongst all the stores equally, ie they all have 97, > 99, 101, etc. then I'd tag the building. It is kind of both. So in the end you will have the 101 on the building and the shop. > > >> For those who would like to have an example from the real world - here >> it is: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.101067&lon=8.787526&zoom=18&layers=M > > Very useful to have an example... > >> Another thing is that renderers are double-rendering those house numbers >> (which is better than the opposite) and since some rooms are added to a >> building (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr), house numbers >> are there not only twice. > > If each shop had one housenumber, then I'd remove it from the building > as I added it onto the shop. Since this is not redundant, I will agree. I think you could obtain the address of an amenity within the building-way from the building way attributes. > >> The shop has the >> address 14-16 which means that none of the building addresses is fitting >> the shop address. Hence I would have to add addr:housenumber=14-16 which >> is like above in a way a double housenumber-tagging. > > It's okay if both objects have the address tag, because both are correct. Since this is the common way - it would solve both problems in a way. But just since you do not remove the house numbers from the building way or the entrances, otherwise flats which are not tagged are identified in the google way (as you are writing below). > > The building I live in is mixed use. Some of the building contains > retail shops, and then there's a large apartment complex (which is > where I live). So there are two separate buildings? > > I've tagged the shops with the same addr:housenumber as the apartment > complex, because that's the truth. So you are preferring to double-tag each house number. In your example I would say that you do not need to add house numbers to the shops because they can be obtained from the building way. > > Google is confused about this and thinks I live in a store, but > Nominatim simply asks if I mean the apartment complex, or the > shops.[1] Does Google use OSM Data at you place? At my place I guess google bought the right to use those data from the local municipal authority or somebody else. > > - Serge > > [1] I'm anthropomorphizing a bit here. What really happens is that > Google returns a single value for the address, while Nomatim returns > multiple values. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > Thank you for your opinion and helpful advices so far! I am summing up a little bit (correct me, if I am going too far or am wrong): * Since you know the house number of a shop include it in the node/way of the shop. * In general it is allowed to have a house number twice or multiple times - since it is correct in the real world. * Two distinct buildings which share a house number are both tagged with the house number (necessarily true). * Since every shop/amenity of a building has a house number it can be removed from the entrance node or building way. Since all of that is common sense, I do not
Re: [Tagging] Double and misfitting house numbers
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Tobias wrote: > 1. Double house numbers: I want to tag the house number 101 of a shop. > The building in which the romms of the shop are located has the house > numbers 97,99,101,103,105,107,109. The house numbers of the building are > either tagged on the entrances each or on the building-way (here: > addr:housenumber=97,99,101,103,105,107,109) since the association to the > entrances is unknown. > Because there are several shops with the same house number, there would > be several nodes or ways with the same house number. And only one is > concerning the building/entrance. There are things I'm not sure I understand here. The example you show is a shopping mall, with the address tagged on the building as a set of housenumbers (as you say, 97, 99, 101...) But then you say all the stores share the same housenumber. I'm not sure I understand that, so maybe you an clarify it for me. Are you saying that all the stores are 97, 99, 101, 103, etc. or that one store, say the Garde bakery, is at 99, and the Schäfer's Backshop (you people sure do love your bakeries!) is at 103? If the stores have a housenumber- and you know that housenumber, include it in the store. If they're shared amongst all the stores equally, ie they all have 97, 99, 101, etc. then I'd tag the building. > For those who would like to have an example from the real world - here > it is: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.101067&lon=8.787526&zoom=18&layers=M Very useful to have an example... > Another thing is that renderers are double-rendering those house numbers > (which is better than the opposite) and since some rooms are added to a > building (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr), house numbers > are there not only twice. If each shop had one housenumber, then I'd remove it from the building as I added it onto the shop. > The shop has the > address 14-16 which means that none of the building addresses is fitting > the shop address. Hence I would have to add addr:housenumber=14-16 which > is like above in a way a double housenumber-tagging. It's okay if both objects have the address tag, because both are correct. The building I live in is mixed use. Some of the building contains retail shops, and then there's a large apartment complex (which is where I live). I've tagged the shops with the same addr:housenumber as the apartment complex, because that's the truth. Google is confused about this and thinks I live in a store, but Nominatim simply asks if I mean the apartment complex, or the shops.[1] - Serge [1] I'm anthropomorphizing a bit here. What really happens is that Google returns a single value for the address, while Nomatim returns multiple values. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Double and misfitting house numbers
There are two things concerning house numbers, I do not know how to tag correctly: --- 1. Double house numbers: I want to tag the house number 101 of a shop. The building in which the romms of the shop are located has the house numbers 97,99,101,103,105,107,109. The house numbers of the building are either tagged on the entrances each or on the building-way (here: addr:housenumber=97,99,101,103,105,107,109) since the association to the entrances is unknown. Because there are several shops with the same house number, there would be several nodes or ways with the same house number. And only one is concerning the building/entrance. For those who would like to have an example from the real world - here it is: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.101067&lon=8.787526&zoom=18&layers=M I assume that it is not a clean solution to add addr:housenumber to each shop, because it would be harder to identify house number errors. Another thing is that renderers are double-rendering those house numbers (which is better than the opposite) and since some rooms are added to a building (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr), house numbers are there not only twice. I could imagine two solutions: - Creating a house number relation (but there are too few editors able to edit relations) - Defining a tagging scheme for shops which is like contact:housenumber. --- 2. Misfitting house numbers: I want to tag a shop which is situated in two buildings. One is only concerning the shop (house number 16) and the other (house number 14) is also concerning flats. The shop has the address 14-16 which means that none of the building addresses is fitting the shop address. Hence I would have to add addr:housenumber=14-16 which is like above in a way a double housenumber-tagging. Here is the link to the example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=53.080139&mlon=8.821026&zoom=18&layers=M Solutions could be also as above. --- Would you agree on double tagging house numbers (e.g. addind addr:housenumber for each shop) or should we define another tagging which would be used for those buildings only where the housenumber cannot be obtained ambiguously from the building way or entrance node? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Open - toilets, toilets:disposal, pitlatrine
Am 18/lug/2013 um 08:06 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt : > access=public (explicitly public and open to whoever walks up. A > fee may apply.) > access=permissive (while nominally private, no visible attempt is made > to restrict access, and casual use appears to be tolerated by the > owners). > access=inquiry (an inquiry must be made for access, for example to > receive a key). > access=customers (the explicit policy is to require a purchase of some > sort prior to use of the facilities. Non-customers should expect a > risk they would be blocked from the facility.). > access=no/private (though I'd rather map this as toilets=no on a facility). Thank you Bryce, +1, this looks like a quite exhaustive list, I'd suggest you add this to the proposal, as it seems to be very useful cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
