Re: [Tagging] leisure=events

[johnw]

> 
> IMHO we do indeed have no need for building=public / civic.

if I were back in San Deigo, I might agree with that, but having come to Japan, 
there is a definite and immediately recognizable distinction of city buildings, 
*and* they are used quite heavily. 

There is a known difference and a corresponding need for these facilities - at 
least the major buildings - to be treated above a standard office building. We 
recognize this with the amenity=townhall tag, and someone created 
building=civic for a reason, and I feel there should be a landuse to denote the 
complex's land differently than the standard commercial use building.

> Both can be considered vague building types, but on a very generic level, I'd 
> encourage everyone to use more specific building tags.

generically, yea they are both office buildings.  I'm concerned primarily with 
the landuse to go with townhall complexes and other admin buildings. 

> It is also not clear from building=public what exactly this indicates 
> (publicly owned and used by a public entity but not generally accessible, 
> publicly owned and open to the general public, privately owned but publicly 
> operated and publicly accessible or even not, publicly owned and privately 
> used).

 If we start getting into building=public, then yes, there is a lot of 
ambiguity, which is why I took your suggestion and narrowed it to 
landuse=public_admin, i'll drop the others from this point forward.

For the vast majority of the *administration* buildings, either in California 
or Japan (and I imagine elsewhere =] ), there is absolutely no ambiguity. 
Everyone knows the building types I listed :

>> public_admin would the city halls, courthouses, state, and capital 
>> buildings, embassies, etc. This is the most important one, IMO. 

(along with US "federal buildings") are definitely government operated. There 
is zero ambiguity with those. Maybe public is a bad word.  how about 
landuse=civic_admin?

> Generally I would not deduct any kind of ownership from the building type, 
> and neither from the landuse, and not even from access-tags ;-)

You're right - those tags don't really show ownership. And I don't really care 
about ownership either - mostly purpose. We separate schools because we 
recognize that is a useful landuse to differentiate - like all the myriad of 
landuses - public or private, a park is a park, and a school is a school. But 
for this particular one (cuvic_admin), it is pretty obvious that it is a 
government operated building. 

I'm stating that there is a need for a landuse to show purpose for these 
heavily trafficked (known) civic buildings, just as we denote the others. They 
are more than an office building, just as a university is more than an office 
building complex with meeting rooms.

The above is the main point of what I'm trying to say.

> If we were to tag ownership (problematic, might have privacy implications, 
> could be hard to verify with publicly accessible sources) a dedicated new tag 
> should be used, e.g. proprietor, owner, property_of or similar

If we get into building=public, yea. But landuse=civic_admin seems pretty cut 
and dry. Which government ( village / town / city / county-prefecture 
/state-province / region / federal) is is a question proprietor= could answer, 
but thats outside my discussion.. 


your suggestions and rebuttals have helped me think through my points and 
clarify my opinions. Thanks =D

 ありがとう (Arigatou)
John

PS: sorry to hijack leisure=events 


> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> 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] leisure=events

[Antônio Marcos]

I think areas used for temporary fairs would fit well in landuse=events.
The case of a permanent fairground seems to be just like an amusement park,
which can be just tagged as tourism=theme_park. What I want to keep clear
is that event areas are permanent places for events and are lands reserved
for festivities, lands used for a specific purpose (that's why I'm willing
to use landuse for that), no matter if events are ever made on it. It is
something designated and events are periodical and temporary.


On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Sun, 2014-03-09 at 20:49 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > 2014-03-09 17:18 GMT+01:00 Antônio Marcos :
> > I have created this proposal some time ago for a new tag
> > called leisure=events (originally landuse=events), which
> > should describe areas reserved for events in a city or in a
> > place (more info at the proposal
> > page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/leisure%3Devents).
> Does anybody have more opinions and suggestions on this, please?
> >
> >
> > I think "event" is not a good description for a place where events
> > take place, something like event_space / event_place would already be
> > better, but still seems very generic. What kind of events do you have
> > in mind, folk festivals? parish fairs? trade fairs? concerts? beer
> > festivals? just to name a few.
> >
> >
> > For these maybe "fairground" would be a good tag (not sure for leisure
> > as a key, maybe use a neutral "amenity"?)
> >
> Fairground is not a good choice, a fairground is often a permanent
> landuse, certainly not an event. It will have rides, rollercoasters,
> amusement arcades and the like there that can be mapped any time and
> other things Americans usually call a fairground and amusement park.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] leisure=events

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2014-03-09 at 20:49 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 2014-03-09 17:18 GMT+01:00 Antônio Marcos :
> I have created this proposal some time ago for a new tag
> called leisure=events (originally landuse=events), which
> should describe areas reserved for events in a city or in a
> place (more info at the proposal
> page 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/leisure%3Devents). Does 
> anybody have more opinions and suggestions on this, please?
> 
> 
> I think "event" is not a good description for a place where events
> take place, something like event_space / event_place would already be
> better, but still seems very generic. What kind of events do you have
> in mind, folk festivals? parish fairs? trade fairs? concerts? beer
> festivals? just to name a few.
> 
> 
> For these maybe "fairground" would be a good tag (not sure for leisure
> as a key, maybe use a neutral "amenity"?)
> 
Fairground is not a good choice, a fairground is often a permanent
landuse, certainly not an event. It will have rides, rollercoasters,
amusement arcades and the like there that can be mapped any time and
other things Americans usually call a fairground and amusement park.

Phil (trigpoint)



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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=events

[Antônio Marcos]

Thanks for the support so far,

I think the leisure key doesn't fit good in the case, the event-destinated
area is not a place where people generally go during the year in their
spare time when there is no events, so it is a pretty specific land used
and reserved for events. Also, the leisure tag would conflict with other
leisures inside the event area (pitches, dance halls, stadiums, tracks,
etc.) or even with the area the used land is in, for instance a park, which
is the example I've given before, of an area inside a park where I live (
http://binged.it/19kxgU2, the circus/event area is part of a park). So, I
think landuse best describes it. I know the conflict the landuse key may
cause with meadows or parking lots, but it is "mainly used for describe the
primary use of land by humans", by its definition at its wiki page; If it's
primarily not used for events, it is not properly an event area. Any place
can receive events, but not all of them are designated for it. As for
recreational grounds, I think what I said here applies to, as its use is
not for necessarily for events.
Event lands are therefore really designated for that, even though it may be
just a ground area (then we can tag landuse=events +
surface/landcover/natural). For the value "events", it does describe a
dedicated place: used for events; It is a general but also specific tag :).
If the event comes to be necessary for its mapping, then we could create,
as I said before, some tag like "event_type" with values ranging from corn
festivals to world's fairs. "Event_space/place" would come redundant with
the key landuse.



On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 2014-03-10 12:48 GMT+01:00 johnw :
>
> otherwise we would have no need for building=civic / public.
>
>
>
> IMHO we do indeed have no need for building=public / civic. Both can be
> considered vague building types, but on a very generic level, I'd encourage
> everyone to use more specific building tags. It is also not clear from
> building=public what exactly this indicates (publicly owned and used by a
> public entity but not generally accessible, publicly owned and open to the
> general public, privately owned but publicly operated and publicly
> accessible or even not, publicly owned and privately used). Generally I
> would not deduct any kind of ownership from the building type, and neither
> from the landuse, and not even from access-tags ;-)
>
> If we were to tag ownership (problematic, might have privacy implications,
> could be hard to verify with publicly accessible sources) a dedicated new
> tag should be used, e.g. proprietor, owner, property_of or similar.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> 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] leisure=events

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-03-10 12:48 GMT+01:00 johnw :

> otherwise we would have no need for building=civic / public.



IMHO we do indeed have no need for building=public / civic. Both can be
considered vague building types, but on a very generic level, I'd encourage
everyone to use more specific building tags. It is also not clear from
building=public what exactly this indicates (publicly owned and used by a
public entity but not generally accessible, publicly owned and open to the
general public, privately owned but publicly operated and publicly
accessible or even not, publicly owned and privately used). Generally I
would not deduct any kind of ownership from the building type, and neither
from the landuse, and not even from access-tags ;-)

If we were to tag ownership (problematic, might have privacy implications,
could be hard to verify with publicly accessible sources) a dedicated new
tag should be used, e.g. proprietor, owner, property_of or similar.

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=events

[johnw]

Thanks for the quick reply Martin!

I always assumed "commercial" => company => private. Same with "industrial => 
industry, otherwise we would have no need for building=civic / public. 

reading through what you wrote, it seem like most of my suggested civic 
buildings would be landuse=commerical currently. 

The wiki pages for key:landuse and key:building pairs the buildings with the 
landuses (landuse=commercial suggests building=commercial, retail too), and 
there is building=public and building=civic (which is where they suggest using 
the amenity tags for townhall and community_center) - but crucially no 
suggested landuse.

So I assumed because there is a building/landuse combo for 
commercial/retail/industrial/residential there would be a pair for civic as 
well. level too, which leads me to feel there is a gap to be filled with 
landuse=civic.

I think the idea of separating the major public offices by landuse gives us the 
chance to visually separate them on the map via landuse instead of by building= 
or amenity= tags.

To make a narrower tag definition, landuse=public_admin & =public_center would 
be the next narrowest definitions I can think of. 

public_admin would the city halls, courthouses, state, and capital buildings, 
embassies, etc. This is the most important one, IMO.

public_center would be the community centers, libraries, public pools, public 
performance halls, etc. Maybe landuse=event would fall in there too. 

Thanks again for the quick reply. Tagging seems to have some some very very 
specific cases, and others where a catchall is used - and understanding the 
gaps, and why they are there is difficult for me sometimes. Thanks for helping 
explain the logic behind it.

Javbw






On Mar 10, 2014, at 7:33 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 2014-03-10 10:52 GMT+01:00 johnw :
> Well, to me, landuse=civic it is the land that public owned, public accessed 
> facilities that not covered by a specific existing landuse (works, water 
> treatment plant, school, landfill, highways, railways).
> 
> 
> IMHO we should not mix "specific" and "general" values in the same key. 
> Either we use only specific or only generic values, (and do subtagging if the 
> main tag is generic).
> 
> If you want to state the ownership (public/private/etc.) I'd suggest to use 
> an additional tag, otherwise we would end up with different landuse tags for 
> the same feature (say a townhall or a ministry) dependent on the ownership. 
> 
> Additionally it seems quite arbitrary which features are covered by a 
> "specific existing landuse" and which aren't, so this is a strange criterium, 
> why not invent other specific values for the missing bits?
> 
>  
> 
> In the built environment (not natural), there are some *general* landuses, 
> such as:
> 
>  - 4 private landuses (residential, industrial, commercial, retail)
> 
> 
> IMHO there is currently no connotation whether these are private or publicly 
> owned. This is about the use of the area, not about ownership.
> 
>  
> 
>  - 1 Access restricted Public landuse (Military)
> 
> 
> 
> even military can be private, look at all those private military contractors 
> nowadays.
> 
> 
>  
> But absolutely no public built environment general definition landuses.
> 
> 
> I can choose a specific one for a school, university/college, hospital, 
> landfill, park, recreation ground, airport, etc, but not for the 
> administration offices and other public services provided by the government. 
> They have no generic landuse of their own.
> 
> 
> so far I have used "commercial" for public administration places.
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> I think it it is necessary that hospitals and schools have a separate, 
> specific landuse, Just like a quarry or a landfill, but there has to be a 
> catchall to throw all the myriad of offices into.
> 
> 
> If we should introduce a new specific landuse still I believe that "civic" is 
> too generic.
> 
>  
> 
> Now, there are building labels for these buildings, but not for the land 
> surrounding them.
> 
> 
> buildings are orthogonal to these kind of features (one feature can easily be 
> split over several buildings and outdoor areas and facilities, let's not mix 
> this up, the buildling tag says what kind of building this is, not what is 
> inside or how it is used). 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While tagging these as I would a private office complex (building=commerical 
> / landuse=commercial), I found that building=civic/public has no coorsponding 
> landuse=civic/public tag, nothing remotely close.
> 
> 
> I'd also question building=civic (way too generic IMHO). building=commercial 
> is some kind of office? There are also more specific tags like 
> "building=office_block" "building=office_tower", etc. for this.
>  
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mai

Re: [Tagging] leisure=events

[Nick Allen]

Hi,

Sorry, I may be joining this discussion part way through.  Has anyone 
considered

'recreation ground'

In the UK there are many, but they are normally referred to as 'recs'.

Towns & villages often have them - village green or small park used for 
a variety of purposes, including often by visiting fayres.


Regards

Nick

Volunteer 'Tallguy' for 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team


Mapping volunteer 'Tallguy' for http://www.openstreetmap.org 



Treasurer, website & Bonus Ball admin for 
http://www.6thswanleyscouts.org.uk/ (treasu...@6thswanleyscouts.org.uk 
)


On 10/03/14 11:36, John F. Eldredge wrote:

Yes, landuse=civic is too generic   It only states that the land is owned by 
local government, without giving any indication of what the land is used for.



 Original Message 
From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Sent: March 10, 2014 3:15:00 AM CDT
To: "daveswarth...@gmail.com" , "Tag discussion, strategy and 
related tools" 
Cc: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] leisure=events




Am 10/mar/2014 um 00:36 schrieb Dave Swarthout :

landuse=civic


could you give some more examples what fits into this?
a public swimming pool? a courthouse? a library? a power station ? A wastewater 
treatment plant? the homeland security vehicle depot? a museum? a church? the 
federal money reserves? a government office? a fenced area where drinking water 
is monitored?


what is the definition of "civic"?


cheers,
Martin
___
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] leisure=events

[John F. Eldredge]

Yes, landuse=civic is too generic   It only states that the land is owned by 
local government, without giving any indication of what the land is used for.



 Original Message 
From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Sent: March 10, 2014 3:15:00 AM CDT
To: "daveswarth...@gmail.com" , "Tag discussion, 
strategy and related tools" 
Cc: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] leisure=events



> Am 10/mar/2014 um 00:36 schrieb Dave Swarthout :
> 
> landuse=civic


could you give some more examples what fits into this? 
a public swimming pool? a courthouse? a library? a power station ? A wastewater 
treatment plant? the homeland security vehicle depot? a museum? a church? the 
federal money reserves? a government office? a fenced area where drinking water 
is monitored?


what is the definition of "civic"?


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

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

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

Re: [Tagging] [osm_sk] Re: Aktualizace: Tags for Czech/Slovak address system

[Andrew Shadura]

Hello,

2014-03-10 12:01 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout :
> Just a quick reminder, the term "borough" has several meanings and could
> easily be misused. In Alaska, where I'm from, boroughs are large
> administrative areas — very similar to counties in the contiguous United
> States. So they are districts, in a sense, but perhaps not in the way
> intended in your example.

Which is exactly my point. The proposed scheme misuses some tags
(addr:place), adds new tags duplicating already existing (addr:borough
instead of addr:suburb) and adds more ambiguity by using the term
borough which may mean things different from municipal districts, so
I'm for reworking this scheme, but there are people who disagree with
me. That's why I brought the topic here for more discussion.

-- 
Cheers,
  Andrew

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

Re: [Tagging] [osm_sk] Re: Aktualizace: Tags for Czech/Slovak address system

[Dave Swarthout]

Just a quick reminder, the term "borough" has several meanings and could
easily be misused. In Alaska, where I'm from, boroughs are large
administrative areas — very similar to counties in the contiguous United
States. So they are districts, in a sense, but perhaps not in the way
intended in your example.

Dave


2014-03-10 13:38 GMT+07:00 Andrew Shadura :

> Hello,
>
> I think it's important to add both tagging@ and talk-cz@ to the loop,
> as this question needs more serious consensus, in my opinion. I've left
> the original message below, just in case anyone wants to translate it
> from Czech directly.
>
> In short, Dalibor proposes to use addr:place and addr:borough as a more
> featureful replacement of addr:suburb, which I think is not very
> justified and is against common practices elsewhere. His proposed scheme
> is:
>
> > "addr:conscriptionnumber"="220"
> > "addr:housenumber"="220"
> > "addr:street"="K úvozu"
> > "ref:ruian:addr"="28413113"
> > "addr:place"="Lochkov" část obce
> > "addr:borough"="Praha-Lochkov" městská část
> > "addr:city"="Praha"
> > "addr:postcode"="15400"
> > "addr:country"="CZ"
> > "source:addr"="cuzk:ruian"
>
> The Czech term ‘část obce’ here, in my opinion, exactly matches what is
> ‘a distinct section of an urban settlement (city, town, etc.) with its
> own name and identity, e.g. annexed towns or villages which were
> formerly independent’, which is a definition of a suburb. However,
> addr:place is commonly used to define a part of address which has usage
> similar to the street part, but isn't related to the street.
>
> Speaking of addr:borough, the only difference I see between the
> proposed usage of it and what would be otherwise addr:suburb is that
> the official name of a municipal district may be not the same as the
> name of a locality. Dalibor, please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> I wonder, do we really need to introduce new tags now and redefine the
> meaning of old tags, or maybe we can fit this into the existing model
> somehow? I think that maybe it's enough to have the districts and
> boroughs as properly tagged boundaries, and to have addr:suburb set the
> the official name of a municipal district, what do you think?
>
> Anyway, I'd like to also hear the opinion of non-Czech or non-Slovak
> members.
>
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2014 20:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
> Dalibor Jelínek  wrote:
>
> > Ahoj,
> > dovolte mi přispět do diskuse a objasnit naše stanoviska.
> > Předně ono je to o hodně složitější. Fakt. Zejména Praha. Viz
> > http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8C%C3%A1sti_Prahy
> >
> > Ale od začátku:
> > addr:place jsme začali používat a úspěšně používáme pro malé obce a
> > části obcí
> > (tady je třeba říct, že "část obce" je termín z registru RÚIAN a
> > znamená v lidských termínech prostě malá vesnice, co nemá místní úřad
> > a patří pod jinou obec),
> > kde nejsou pojmenované všechny ulice. Před nějakou dobou totiž začal
> > Nominatim
> > úspěšně hledat podle addr:place, když nenašel nic podle addr:street.
> > Takže běžné adresy do malých vesnic jako je Libív 5 najednou šly
> > najít, pokud měly addr:place.
> >
> > Teď se snažíme doplnit všechny adresy podle RÚIAN a tam používáme
> > addr:place i ve městech, kde jsou používané ulice. A nevidíme žádný
> > problém, protože addr:street
> > máme pořád a navíc jméno části obce, což je ve městě rovno (podle nás
> > i podle RÚIAN městké čtvrti).
> > Jako bonus je, že se dá najít i dům podle čtvrti a čísla popisného,
> > což je informace, která je uvedena v katastru.
> >
> > Jenže nad tím je ten zmatek s většími městskými částmi. Praha je sice
> > extrém, ale ostatní
> > statutární města jsou taky nic moc.
> >
> > Naštěstí v RÚIAN je to o maličko jednodušší:
> >
> > Tady je jedno pražské adresní místo:
> > http://vdp.cuzk.cz/vdp/ruian/adresnimista/28413113
> >
> > Do OSM ho přepíšeme:
> > "addr:conscriptionnumber"="220"
> > "addr:housenumber"="220"
> > "addr:street"="K úvozu"
> > "ref:ruian:addr"="28413113"
> > "addr:place"="Lochkov" část obce
> > "addr:borough"="Praha-Lochkov" městská část
> > "addr:city"="Praha"
> > "addr:postcode"="15400"
> > "addr:country"="CZ"
> > "source:addr"="cuzk:ruian"
> > Rovnou upozorňuju, že neplatí, že by takhle podobné byly addr:place a
> > addr:borough všude.
> >
> > Tahle adresa ale má ještě další vyšší celky (dle RÚIAN)
> > správní obvod - Praha 16
> > městský obvod - Praha 5
> > A tady asi nastupuje addr:suburb, který by mohl mýt jedním z těch
> > obvodů, ale spíše bychom potřebovali dva. Mohli bychom použít
> > district, ale ten máme už využit jako okres a ani jeden z těch obvodů
> > není okres.
> > Borough je definován tady
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place
> > a vůbec nám nevadí, že zatím není addr:borough, to můžeme později
> > dopsat a adresní tagy většinou vznikají jako dvojčata addr:něco a
> > place=něco.
> >
> > Navíc použití suburb v OSM je prostě blbě. Suburb je periferie,
> > předměstí. Že ho OSM poutíbá ve významu městského obvodu, části je
> > sice možné, ale my se n

Re: [Tagging] leisure=events

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-03-10 10:52 GMT+01:00 johnw :

> Well, to me, landuse=civic it is the land that public owned, public
> accessed facilities that not covered by a specific existing landuse (works,
> water treatment plant, school, landfill, highways, railways).
>


IMHO we should not mix "specific" and "general" values in the same key.
Either we use only specific or only generic values, (and do subtagging if
the main tag is generic).

If you want to state the ownership (public/private/etc.) I'd suggest to use
an additional tag, otherwise we would end up with different landuse tags
for the same feature (say a townhall or a ministry) dependent on the
ownership.

Additionally it seems quite arbitrary which features are covered by a
"specific existing landuse" and which aren't, so this is a strange
criterium, why not invent other specific values for the missing bits?



>
> In the built environment (not natural), there are some *general* landuses,
> such as:
>
>  - 4 private landuses (residential, industrial, commercial, retail)
>


IMHO there is currently no connotation whether these are private or
publicly owned. This is about the use of the area, not about ownership.



>
>  - 1 Access restricted Public landuse (Military)
>
>

even military can be private, look at all those private military
contractors nowadays.




> But absolutely no public built environment general definition landuses.
>
>
> I can choose a specific one for a school, university/college, hospital,
> landfill, park, recreation ground, airport, etc, but not for the
> administration offices and other public services provided by the
> government. They have no generic landuse of their own.
>


so far I have used "commercial" for public administration places.





>
> I think it it is necessary that hospitals and schools have a separate,
> specific landuse, Just like a quarry or a landfill, but there has to be a
> catchall to throw all the myriad of offices into.
>


If we should introduce a new specific landuse still I believe that "civic"
is too generic.



>
> Now, there are building labels for these buildings, but not for the land
> surrounding them.
>


buildings are orthogonal to these kind of features (one feature can easily
be split over several buildings and outdoor areas and facilities, let's not
mix this up, the buildling tag says what kind of building this is, not what
is inside or how it is used).




While tagging these as I would a private office complex
> (building=commerical / landuse=commercial), I found that
> building=civic/public has no coorsponding landuse=civic/public tag, nothing
> remotely close.
>


I'd also question building=civic (way too generic IMHO).
building=commercial is some kind of office? There are also more specific
tags like "building=office_block" "building=office_tower", etc. for this.

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=events

[Pieren]

+1 for leisure (not presuming any combination/overlapping with a landuse)
-1 for events (could be misused for any events, not for a dedicated place)
+1 for "event(s)_space", "event(s)_place", "event_whateveryoulike"

Pieren

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=events

[johnw]

Well, to me, landuse=civic it is the land that public owned, public accessed 
facilities that not covered by a specific existing landuse (works, water 
treatment plant, school, landfill, highways, railways).

In the built environment (not natural), there are some *general* landuses, such 
as:

 - 4 private landuses (residential, industrial, commercial, retail) 

 - 1 Access restricted Public landuse (Military)

But absolutely no public built environment general definition landuses. 


I can choose a specific one for a school, university/college, hospital, 
landfill, park, recreation ground, airport, etc, but not for the administration 
offices and other public services provided by the government. They have no 
generic landuse of their own. 

- City/town halls, regional / national capital buildings, museum complexes, 
community centers, arts centers, courthouses, jails, pension offices, DMV, 
immigration offices, embassies, etc - All of the landuses that would fall under 
"commercial" if it was a private institution's offices. 

I think it it is necessary that hospitals and schools have a separate, specific 
landuse, Just like a quarry or a landfill, but there has to be a catchall to 
throw all the myriad of offices into. 

Now, there are building labels for these buildings, but not for the land 
surrounding them. 

In my old suburb of San Diego, I have never been inside the city hall, but it 
is part of the complex with the fire station, library, police station, post 
office, and other administrative offices.  All have their own building tags - 
but the landuse? that is a mystery.

There is also a community center with a pool, park, and little league field as 
well - I know how to tag the buildings, and the park's landuse,  but the 
majority of the land that the community center takes up isn't a park.

In Japan, people have to go to the city hall very often (for their mountains of 
paperwork), so the city offices are **very** heavily travelled local and 
regional landmarks. It's crazy.

While tagging these as I would a private office complex (building=commerical / 
landuse=commercial), I found that building=civic/public has no coorsponding 
landuse=civic/public tag, nothing remotely close.

And nothing existing fits unless I treat it as "commercial" - which it really 
isn't.


 Hence, landuse=civic. 




A public events venue, which offers a race track, performance venues, skyway, 
event parking, stadium, and multiple event halls is also a landuse=civic 
situation, unless another specific landuse tag (landuse=event) is made. Most of 
the "events" I'm familiar with are special events that take over a park, 
stadium, community center, or the main street of the town. 

The landuse of any stadium (a baseball/football stadium) , arena (San Deigo's 
"sports" arena), exposition hall / convention center (Moscone center, Javitz, 
or Tokyo Big Site), or other event area should then be landuse=event. There is 
no good specific landuse for them, just the general landuses of civic (public) 
or commercial (private).

 so I guess landuse=event is a good idea too. A 70,000 seat stadium isn't a 
recreation ground, a commercial or retail area, or a park, so landuse=event is 
pretty good. Having a color added to make it stick out from the map is a good 
idea too. 



Javbw





On Mar 10, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> 
> 
>> Am 10/mar/2014 um 00:36 schrieb Dave Swarthout :
>> 
>> landuse=civic
> 
> 
> could you give some more examples what fits into this? 
> a public swimming pool? a courthouse? a library? a power station ? A 
> wastewater treatment plant? the homeland security vehicle depot? a museum? a 
> church? the federal money reserves? a government office? a fenced area where 
> drinking water is monitored?
> 
> 
> what is the definition of "civic"?
> 
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> 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] leisure=events

[Martin Koppenhöfer]

Am 10.03.2014 um 09:30 schrieb Peter Wendorff :

> And even other shared purpose concepts are pretty common for event
> spaces, I think:
> - Sometimes parks (most of the year leisure=park) are used for events
> regularly.
> - Many parking spaces (most of the year amenity=parking;
> parking=surface) are used for events regularly.
> - Some festivals, as Yves wrote, use places being meadow
> (landuse=meadow) or similar agricultural ground (these often takes place
> after harvesting).


There are also musicians in the subway or on the pavement. I think bringing 
these up is offtopic, as the OP has asked for a tag for a specific place with a 
specific programme. Other cases like those that you mention might get different 
tags or sometimes won't be tagged specifically regarding events.


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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=events

[Peter Wendorff]

Am 10.03.2014 06:39, schrieb Yves:
> Many music festival take place on otherwise landuse=meadow
+1

And even other shared purpose concepts are pretty common for event
spaces, I think:
- Sometimes parks (most of the year leisure=park) are used for events
regularly.
- Many parking spaces (most of the year amenity=parking;
parking=surface) are used for events regularly.
- Some festivals, as Yves wrote, use places being meadow
(landuse=meadow) or similar agricultural ground (these often takes place
after harvesting).

I'm sure there are even more common combinations, e.g. market places and
so on.

So for good tagging practise it may be better NOT to use any of the
common big keys for the tag, although I agree that it's useful; because
landuse, leisure and amenity might be present already with the other
properties tagging of these areas.

regards
Peter



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

Re: [Tagging] Hot springs

[Richard Z.]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:44:30PM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote:
> > John
> > some onsen are not associated with hot springs, but have hot sand instead.
> Yes, but they are rare case.
> Most of onsen are hot water bath.
> So might be represented by adding following sub_tags.
> 
> bath:sand_bath=[yes|no]  ; if the bathing amenity is sand bath (Suna_yu) or
> not.

that reminds me we also have hay_bath in the Alps, so that would also 
fit into it and may be helpful for other cases too.

> bath:sauna=[yes|no]  ; if the bathing amenity has sauna facility. (Use
> it when the main function of the amenity is public_bath. consider using
> "amenity=sauna" when the main purpose of the amenity is sauna)

not sure but usually the sauna in public baths is somewhat separated so
we might as well tag part of the object as sauna.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] leisure=events

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 10/mar/2014 um 00:36 schrieb Dave Swarthout :
> 
> landuse=civic


could you give some more examples what fits into this? 
a public swimming pool? a courthouse? a library? a power station ? A wastewater 
treatment plant? the homeland security vehicle depot? a museum? a church? the 
federal money reserves? a government office? a fenced area where drinking water 
is monitored?


what is the definition of "civic"?


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

Re: [Tagging] [osm_sk] Re: Aktualizace: Tags for Czech/Slovak address system

[Andrew Shadura]

Hello,

I think it's important to add both tagging@ and talk-cz@ to the loop,
as this question needs more serious consensus, in my opinion. I've left
the original message below, just in case anyone wants to translate it
from Czech directly.

In short, Dalibor proposes to use addr:place and addr:borough as a more
featureful replacement of addr:suburb, which I think is not very
justified and is against common practices elsewhere. His proposed scheme
is:

> "addr:conscriptionnumber"="220"
> "addr:housenumber"="220"
> "addr:street"="K úvozu"
> "ref:ruian:addr"="28413113"
> "addr:place"="Lochkov" část obce
> "addr:borough"="Praha-Lochkov" městská část
> "addr:city"="Praha"
> "addr:postcode"="15400"
> "addr:country"="CZ"
> "source:addr"="cuzk:ruian"

The Czech term ‘část obce’ here, in my opinion, exactly matches what is
‘a distinct section of an urban settlement (city, town, etc.) with its
own name and identity, e.g. annexed towns or villages which were
formerly independent’, which is a definition of a suburb. However,
addr:place is commonly used to define a part of address which has usage
similar to the street part, but isn't related to the street.

Speaking of addr:borough, the only difference I see between the
proposed usage of it and what would be otherwise addr:suburb is that
the official name of a municipal district may be not the same as the
name of a locality. Dalibor, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I wonder, do we really need to introduce new tags now and redefine the
meaning of old tags, or maybe we can fit this into the existing model
somehow? I think that maybe it's enough to have the districts and
boroughs as properly tagged boundaries, and to have addr:suburb set the
the official name of a municipal district, what do you think?

Anyway, I'd like to also hear the opinion of non-Czech or non-Slovak
members.

On Sun, 9 Mar 2014 20:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Dalibor Jelínek  wrote:

> Ahoj,
> dovolte mi přispět do diskuse a objasnit naše stanoviska.
> Předně ono je to o hodně složitější. Fakt. Zejména Praha. Viz 
> http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8C%C3%A1sti_Prahy
> 
> Ale od začátku:
> addr:place jsme začali používat a úspěšně používáme pro malé obce a
> části obcí
> (tady je třeba říct, že "část obce" je termín z registru RÚIAN a
> znamená v lidských termínech prostě malá vesnice, co nemá místní úřad
> a patří pod jinou obec),
> kde nejsou pojmenované všechny ulice. Před nějakou dobou totiž začal 
> Nominatim
> úspěšně hledat podle addr:place, když nenašel nic podle addr:street.
> Takže běžné adresy do malých vesnic jako je Libív 5 najednou šly
> najít, pokud měly addr:place.
> 
> Teď se snažíme doplnit všechny adresy podle RÚIAN a tam používáme
> addr:place i ve městech, kde jsou používané ulice. A nevidíme žádný
> problém, protože addr:street
> máme pořád a navíc jméno části obce, což je ve městě rovno (podle nás
> i podle RÚIAN městké čtvrti).
> Jako bonus je, že se dá najít i dům podle čtvrti a čísla popisného,
> což je informace, která je uvedena v katastru.
> 
> Jenže nad tím je ten zmatek s většími městskými částmi. Praha je sice 
> extrém, ale ostatní
> statutární města jsou taky nic moc.
> 
> Naštěstí v RÚIAN je to o maličko jednodušší:
> 
> Tady je jedno pražské adresní místo:
> http://vdp.cuzk.cz/vdp/ruian/adresnimista/28413113
> 
> Do OSM ho přepíšeme:
> "addr:conscriptionnumber"="220"
> "addr:housenumber"="220"
> "addr:street"="K úvozu"
> "ref:ruian:addr"="28413113"
> "addr:place"="Lochkov" část obce
> "addr:borough"="Praha-Lochkov" městská část
> "addr:city"="Praha"
> "addr:postcode"="15400"
> "addr:country"="CZ"
> "source:addr"="cuzk:ruian"
> Rovnou upozorňuju, že neplatí, že by takhle podobné byly addr:place a 
> addr:borough všude.
> 
> Tahle adresa ale má ještě další vyšší celky (dle RÚIAN)
> správní obvod - Praha 16
> městský obvod - Praha 5
> A tady asi nastupuje addr:suburb, který by mohl mýt jedním z těch
> obvodů, ale spíše bychom potřebovali dva. Mohli bychom použít
> district, ale ten máme už využit jako okres a ani jeden z těch obvodů
> není okres. 
> Borough je definován tady 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:place
> a vůbec nám nevadí, že zatím není addr:borough, to můžeme později
> dopsat a adresní tagy většinou vznikají jako dvojčata addr:něco a
> place=něco.
> 
> Navíc použití suburb v OSM je prostě blbě. Suburb je periferie,
> předměstí. Že ho OSM poutíbá ve významu městského obvodu, části je
> sice možné, ale my se nechceme přidávat k špatnému používání
> anglických slov.
> 
> Mohli bychom použít quarter místo place. To by bylo asi logické, jenže
> ne z pohledu RÍUAN, kde place je část obce, což znamená malou ves na
> venkově a čtvrť ve městě. To bychom si v tom pak udělali pěkný hokej.
> 
> neighbourhood už je zase moc malé.
> 
> Takže nám prostě vyšel place=borough a addr:borough jako lepší než
> subrub.
> 
> Zdraví,
>  Dalibor
> 
> 
> On Thursday, February 20, 2014 7:55:41 PM UTC+1, Marián Kyral wrote:
> >
> > Ahoj, 
> > na Talk-cz mometálně probíhá příprava na