[Tagging] Pre-proposal: gambling

2013-09-27 Thread Matthijs Melissen 
Dear all,

There are currently various tags for gambling-related shops and amenities
in use, including amenity=casino, shop=bookmaker, shop=betting,
shop=lottery, and shop=gambling. See here for an overview of usage
statistics:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/gambling .

As shops and amenities for gambling are already widely used, we should aim
to stay as close to the current way of tagging as possible when writing a
proposal. However, the usage statistics to which I linked show some issues
with the current way of tagging, which would be good to resolve. These
issues include the following.

- The current tagging contains some ambiguous tags. For example,
amenity=gambling is used for both bookmakers and casinos.
- Some real-world objects are tagged in (many) different ways. For example,
bookmakers are tagged as shop=bookmaker, shop=betting, and (less
frequently) amenity=gambling. Lotteries are tagged in many different ways
as well.

Data consumers (and end-users as a consequence) would benefit if these
issues were resolved. Fixing current tagging will probably be difficult,
but more guidance in the form of well-documented tags might help prevent
these issues at least for future tagging.

In order to create clearer documentation for future mappers and resolve
ambiguities, I am interested in the opinion of the community on the
following questions.

1. Should we map all gambling-related places in a single way, for example
as amenity=gambling and then specify with gambling=*-tags, or should we
keep different tags for different kind of gambling places?

2. If we want to use different tags for different kind of gambling places,
which types of gambling places should we distinguish? For example:
- Should we distinguish bookmakers and lotteries? Note that some places
combine sports betting with traditional lotteries.
- Should we distinguish casinos (with croupiers) and 'playing halls' (or
whatever they are called) without croupiers?

With kind regards,
Matthijs Melissen
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

2013-09-27 Thread Michał Sałaban 
OK, I gathered the three ideas here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Qanat#Tagging

Any thoughts on it? Preferences?

I realized it is not easy to make a distinction between canal and
aqueduct, but we may assume that the latter is usually for drinking
water or irrigation of small areas of land. Everything dealing with
navigation, flood protection or vast area irrigation would be rather a
canal.

-- 
Michał

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

2013-09-27 Thread Martin Koppenhöfer 


Am 27.09.2013 um 21:33 schrieb Michał Sałaban :

> However it might create confusion with already existing bridge=aqueduct.


IMHO bridge=aqueduct is nonsense, we also don't use bridge=highway or railway, 
and aqueducts don't have to be bridges, they are also underground, or on solid 
walls/foundations.

FWIW I am using historic=aqueduct around here for historic aqueducts (I.e. 
mostly fragments and not a continuous working duct), and would expect sth like 
man_made as key for working ones, maybe also waterway would be fine.

Cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

2013-09-27 Thread Michał Sałaban 
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> When you look at the Wikipedia canal article, there is nothing remotely
> similar to a qanat.

It is not, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct_(water_supply)
looks more similar and even lists qanat as a form of aqueduct.

Perhaps we could do it like this:
waterway=aqueduct
and:
aqueduct=bridge — for the "usual" aqueducts placed overground on pillars,
aqueduct=surface — for the ground-level ones, e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arizona_cap_canal.jpg
aqueduct=qanat — for qanat

However it might create confusion with already existing bridge=aqueduct.

-- 
Michał

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

2013-09-27 Thread Janko Mihelić 
On the canal wiki article  it
says "An artificial open waterway used for transportation, waterpower, or
irrigation." I guess we have to add "drinking water" to that list.

When you look at the Wikipedia canal
article,
there is nothing remotely similar to a qanat.

I really don't understand why we have to flatten complexity of all types of
waterways into a few different tags.

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterfall

2013-09-27 Thread fly 
On 27.09.2013 16:20, bredy wrote:
> Can we modify the proposal natural=waterfall because the writer stop the
> work?

If we get to a conclusion that natural=waterfalls is the whole area with
maybe several falls + rapids it would be better to start a new one and
describe the differences.

Right now we can not distinguish between natural and waterway cause both
describe the same. E.g. the plural 's will make the difference between
old use and new use.

Do not forget to link from both *=waterfall to the new proposed
natural=waterfalls

My 2 ct
fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

2013-09-27 Thread Matthijs Melissen 
On Sep 27, 2013 3:34 PM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
wrote:
>
> > Am 27/set/2013 um 12:18 schrieb Matthijs Melissen <
i...@matthijsmelissen.nl>:
> >
> > Also, wouldn't we be able to use waterway=canal, tunnel=yes (or
whatever tag we use for underground waterways)? Possibly combined with
qanat=yes?
>
>
> I'd rather use something like canal_type=qanat instead of sth looking
like an attribute

For everyone suggesting this: that seems indeed a better solution than what
I proposed.

-- Matthijs
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterfall

2013-09-27 Thread bredy 
Can we modify the proposal natural=waterfall because the writer stop the
work?



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/waterfall-tp5778845p5779186.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterfall

2013-09-27 Thread bredy 
fly high wrote
> but they are called falls (natural=waterfalls ?).

+1 falls is better



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/waterfall-tp5778845p5779185.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Post vote clean up

2013-09-27 Thread bredy 
Ok thanks



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Post-vote-clean-up-tp5779068p5779182.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

2013-09-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 


> Am 27/set/2013 um 12:18 schrieb Matthijs Melissen :
> 
> Also, wouldn't we be able to use waterway=canal, tunnel=yes (or whatever tag 
> we use for underground waterways)? Possibly combined with qanat=yes?


I'd rather use something like canal_type=qanat instead of sth looking like an 
attribute

cheers,
Martin


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

2013-09-27 Thread Brad Neuhauser 
man_made=pipeline, pipeline=qanat?  This is similar to how the aqueduct
page proposes to tag modern aqueducts, but qanats seem a distinct type of
structure from aqueducts due to the vertical wells.  (And I agree with
John's point that it is not really like a pipeline, but I'd argue that OSM
often uses terms in a non-literal way to group related features)

Brad


On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> I think this is quite a unique structure that can't be described with
> "canal". Especially if the main reason is rendering. Canals are not used
> for drinking water, the concept is entirely different. If I had to use
> anything, I would use aqueduct,
> but I would rather use waterway=qanat.
>
> Janko
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Visual editor for the wiki (WAS: How to overcome lack of consensus)

2013-09-27 Thread André Pirard 
On 2013-09-17 21:49, Rob Nickerson wrote :
>
> Daniel wrote:
> > - Make it easier to edit the wiki. 
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> I agree - the wiki can be hard to edit if you have never done this
> before. This is why I requested a visual editor (that is now used by
> Wikipedia) to be added. Unfortunately this requires an update to the
> version of MediaWiki that we use so is not a simple case of installing
> a plug-in. Hopefully it will be picked up sooner rather than later but
> in a volunteer based project patience is essential :-)
I tried that editor and it's really not worth it. It's not available on
en.wikipedia (shame?) but only as beta testing for other languages.  It
looks like a very basic, unhandy rich text editor (e.g. no drag and
drop), with absolutely no possibility to edit markup (e.g. our
ubiquitous {{tag ...}} and with restrictions due to web programming.
But if you're really fond of such editing, you may copy an OSM page
code, paste it to Wikipedia, edit it there, and copy&paste it back to OSM.
I personally don't believe much in Web editors, including e-mail.  That
should run on a PC.
I'm editing HTML with Kompozer which is not extraordinarily more complex
that a basic editor, but it's more than complete and handy.
If Kompozer does not know some markup, you just pull the curtain, edit
the code and come back to the visual display and editor.
The boon is that the server's files are mapped (mounted) in my Ubuntu
filesystem, as if the server was on my PC, just like editing local files.

Cheers,

André.





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

2013-09-27 Thread Janko Mihelić 
I think this is quite a unique structure that can't be described with
"canal". Especially if the main reason is rendering. Canals are not used
for drinking water, the concept is entirely different. If I had to use
anything, I would use aqueduct ,
but I would rather use waterway=qanat.

Janko
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

2013-09-27 Thread Michał Sałaban 
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:00 PM, John Sturdy  wrote:

>> Also, wouldn't we be able to use waterway=canal, tunnel=yes (or whatever tag
>> we use for underground waterways)? Possibly combined with qanat=yes?
>
> Or perhaps waterway=canal, tunnel=yes, canal=qanat?

This makes sense. It also leaves possibility for mapping open qanats,
which go on the surface. This happens sometimes in the end sections,
before the water gets divided among recipients.

> Or man_made=pipeline, location=underground, type=water?
>
> I think I'd call it a pipeline if the water fills it to the roof of
> the tunnel, and a canal if there's air above the water (which seems to
> be the case, as Wikipedia mentions air from the tunnels being used for
> cooling).

Qanats are not pipelines, there's usually plenty of space above the
water. Some of them would collapse when filled, as the upper part is
not protected against water.

> If anyone's going to map to that level of detail, will "depth" refer
> to the draught of the water channel (depth from bottom to top of the
> water), or depth of the whole thing below the ground surface?

I think it should mean the depth of the bottom of the qanat relative
to the ground surface. The depth of water is variable with seasons and
of less importance.

How do we map the shafts then? It is similar to manhole=* in some way,
but also serves for ventilation purposes.

-- 
Michał

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

2013-09-27 Thread John Sturdy 
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Matthijs Melissen
 wrote:
> According to Wikipedia, qanat's are known under different names in other
> parts of the world (kethara, galerias, foggara, ...). Wouldn't it be
> possible to use a more generic name?
>
> Also, wouldn't we be able to use waterway=canal, tunnel=yes (or whatever tag
> we use for underground waterways)? Possibly combined with qanat=yes?

Or perhaps waterway=canal, tunnel=yes, canal=qanat?

Or man_made=pipeline, location=underground, type=water?

I think I'd call it a pipeline if the water fills it to the roof of
the tunnel, and a canal if there's air above the water (which seems to
be the case, as Wikipedia mentions air from the tunnels being used for
cooling).

If anyone's going to map to that level of detail, will "depth" refer
to the draught of the water channel (depth from bottom to top of the
water), or depth of the whole thing below the ground surface?

> That
> would increase the chance of them being rendered on general-purpose maps.

+1

See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_network

__John

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

2013-09-27 Thread Matthijs Melissen 
According to Wikipedia, qanat's are known under different names in other
parts of the world (kethara, galerias, foggara, ...). Wouldn't it be
possible to use a more generic name?

Also, wouldn't we be able to use waterway=canal, tunnel=yes (or whatever
tag we use for underground waterways)? Possibly combined with qanat=yes?
That would increase the chance of them being rendered on general-purpose
maps.

-- Matthijs


On 27 September 2013 01:35, Michał Sałaban  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've just created a proposal page about tagging qanats:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Qanat
>
> I hope you will help me to find a good way of mapping these features
> little known in western world :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Michał
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

2013-09-27 Thread John Sturdy 
I'm not sure whether this should have its own tag; how different is it
from either an underground pipeline or an underground canal?

__John

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mapping qanats

2013-09-27 Thread Janko Mihelić 
Wow, I never heard of qanats.

man_made=qanat and qanat=shaft sound ok, although I would rather use
waterway=qanat. I see there are only 3  man_made=qanats mapped right now,
so there is no problems with changing those.

Janko


2013/9/27 Michał Sałaban 

> Hi,
>
> I've just created a proposal page about tagging qanats:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Qanat
>
> I hope you will help me to find a good way of mapping these features
> little known in western world :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Michał
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging