[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - cemetery=sector
Cemeteries are usually divided into sectors to quickly find a given grave. Here's a proposal to define this feature: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Cemetery_sector ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - cemetery=sector
thank you for setting this up. There are some comments on the talk-page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Cemetery_sector cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory
2014-07-12 23:06 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com: Same here in the U.S. Usage of the word dormitory generally applies to a single building, a student residence on or near a college campus. +1, still this tag might have its sense to map a dormitory, as building=dormitory doesn't convey this information (it is a tag about a building type, not about the function / institution of a dormitory). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory
On 12/07/2014 15:25, Dudley Ibbett wrote: Hi I was going to say that from a UK English perspective I have never seen dormitory used in this way. However, in the context of a dictionary definition the proposal seems to relate to the definition with regard to a suburb A small town or suburb providing a residential area for those who work in a nearby city. It also appears that it would be used as a modifier. i.e. a dormitory suburb. I may have got this wrong but the proposal would seem to be extending this definition to mean a type of suburb of the University. UK Universities are rather small to have dormitory suburbs and you would generally just talk about the halls of residence or the perhaps the residential area of a campus. I'd go further and say that, for me (UK English speaker), a dormitory is a room. A single building may well contain multiple dormitories. I'd call the building in that case a 'dormitory block'. And also, a dormitory is a communal facility containing two or more beds - otherwise it's just a bedroom. -- Steve --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory
In US English we tend to say dorm hall or dorm building, which seems to be consistent with Steve's thoughts. Perhaps a less confusing way to mark this feature would be using the term residence area and residence hall, but I don't know how much of an Americanism these terms are. --- Jesse B. Crawford Student, Information Technology New Mexico Inst. of Mining Tech https://jbcrawford.us || je...@jbcrawford.us https://cs.nmt.edu/~jcrawford || jcrawf...@cs.nmt.edu On 2014-07-14 12:39 PM, Steve Doerr wrote: On 12/07/2014 15:25, Dudley Ibbett wrote: Hi I was going to say that from a UK English perspective I have never seen dormitory used in this way. However, in the context of a dictionary definition the proposal seems to relate to the definition with regard to a suburb A small town or suburb providing a residential area for those who work in a nearby city. It also appears that it would be used as a modifier. i.e. a dormitory suburb. I may have got this wrong but the proposal would seem to be extending this definition to mean a type of suburb of the University. UK Universities are rather small to have dormitory suburbs and you would generally just talk about the halls of residence or the perhaps the residential area of a campus. I'd go further and say that, for me (UK English speaker), a dormitory is a room. A single building may well contain multiple dormitories. I'd call the building in that case a 'dormitory block'. And also, a dormitory is a communal facility containing two or more beds - otherwise it's just a bedroom. -- Steve - [2] This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus [2] protection is active. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [2] http://www.avast.com/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] The biggest violation of OpenStreetMap, ever.
2014-07-14 16:40 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2014-07-14 12:44 GMT+02:00 Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr: On the first zoom levels, I'm using the capital=* tag to select the country capitals, then sorting them with decreasing population. It is a very small number of objects, that can easily be maintained. this works not too bad for Europe, but fails e.g. for the US, where just Washington appears in Zoom 5, but New York City takes up to zoom level 11 (!) till it gets spelled out, while there is already NYC (short name) in zoom 6 together with a sea of more or less unimportant (at that zoom level) cities http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?zoom=6lat=40.74623lon=-75.75272layers=B000FFF Not worse than the current osm.org rendering... but I agree that it is weird ;) It is not catched by my query because there is no capital=* tag on it. Albany is the state capital (something I've just learned thanks to WP). So more tags may be useful to catch these major places. There are two tags on the NYC place=* node: importance=international and rank=0. importance=* is a proposed tag since 2009, with 700+ occurences. rank=* is not documented in the wiki and currently have 600 occurences. For place=* nodes rank=0 has 135 occurences, with a lot of then in Lituania and several too in Brazil... to avoid too many false positive, it need to be limited to place=city Given the emptyness of the area around Clermont-Ferrand, and Brive, it is quite logical to get them on the map. They are the major cities in the area ;) San Francisco is hard to find, L.A. doesn't appear before zoom 10 (but is hard to spot due to its brevity), and spelled out at zoom 11. But also in Europe there are some serious problems, e.g. Zurich (typical hard case, OK) isn't there at zoom6, unlike Clermont-Ferrand, Brive-la-Gaillarde, or the famous Ebingen on the Swabian Alb ;-) Zurich... admin_centre:4=yes, a tag you'll find only in Switzerland... no capital/is_capital/importance/rank... - IMHO we shouldn't use such a simple approach for the main style. An alternative to the opaque Natural Earth dataset might be a community-generated ranking based on a series of criteria (I named many in my previous post), and which is continuously discussed, modified and voted upon ;-), or a detail ranking for some subjects with relative ranks (i.e. more detailed ranking not mixing up religion and economy in one overall ranking, but having detailed ranking to mirror relative importance in fields like trade, production, transportation, banking, religion, culture, health, public administration, education (e.g. universities), so everybody creating a map can decide what matters to them. Or we could use some other external dataset, e.g. important cities according to the analysis of someone else (usually economy centered), see e.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city We need a default uniform tagging scheme, then update OSM. capital=* + importance=* should be enough, with population to provide a sort order to help text placements for similar capital/importance values. importance maybe have different subjects attached to it. For example, importance:religion=international/national/regional so Mecca or Lourdes may be promoted on some maps but at least data is there. By switching the default rendering to a uniform default tagging, this will quickly push us to improve the data. The only problem may be a new kind of vandalism based on these tags... From time to time thank to my rendering I'm detecting new countries coming from mistakes between country and maybe countryside... Maybe we should switch to the tagging list ;) -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Suggestions for the correct tagging of Field borders
Hi I'm trying to work out exactly how a generic field would be mapped using this new tag. I am assuming you would have a way that marks the field boundary and in many cases this would be tagged with the barrier=fence/wall/hedge. This is what much or my mapping currently consists of. What is enclosed by the field boundary is arguably the field but it seems the use of landuse=field for such an area isn't encouraged where the wiki is concerned. With this new tag presumably you would mark out any areas of field margin with any appropriate additional tag to describe what is in the field margin. The area left within the field would then be tagged with the crop. Field margins have a much tighter definition in the UK, most likely due to the use of payments to encourage farmers to create these for conservation purposes. Wood and scrub wouldn't fall under this definition, nor would hedges so I wouldn't be keen to see these additional tags used. Hedges vary considerably in size around where I live depending on whether they are cut regularly or not but they are still hedges and not field margins. Natural tree rows are also found quite commonly along rivers and streams that form field boundaries. natural=tree_row fits with this feature as they are not field margins. Would it not be better to have a tighter definition of this particular field feature when it comes to the use of any additional tags? Kind Regards Dudley Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:11:49 +0200 From: m...@simon-wuellhorst.de To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Suggestions for the correct tagging of Field borders Hello,thanks for your feedback. I created a proposed features page for fieldmargins where I wrote down my ideas about this topic. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/fieldmargin Please give me feedback (here or on the wikipage) to improve this propose. Greetings,Simon 2014-07-05 19:00 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: Am 05/lug/2014 um 11:08 schrieb Simon Wüllhorst m...@simon-wuellhorst.de: Is a proposal-page in the wiki needed? It is Not strictly needed (you can use the tag straight away), but it is recommended in order to have some documentation remaining. I'd also suggest to put a link (see also) on landuse farmland 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Suggestions for the correct tagging of Field borders
Wouldn't adding attributes solve the problem you described? I.e. field border=* On Jul 14, 2014 2:11 PM, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi I'm trying to work out exactly how a generic field would be mapped using this new tag. I am assuming you would have a way that marks the field boundary and in many cases this would be tagged with the barrier=fence/wall/hedge. This is what much or my mapping currently consists of. What is enclosed by the field boundary is arguably the field but it seems the use of landuse=field for such an area isn't encouraged where the wiki is concerned. With this new tag presumably you would mark out any areas of field margin with any appropriate additional tag to describe what is in the field margin. The area left within the field would then be tagged with the crop. Field margins have a much tighter definition in the UK, most likely due to the use of payments to encourage farmers to create these for conservation purposes. Wood and scrub wouldn't fall under this definition, nor would hedges so I wouldn't be keen to see these additional tags used. Hedges vary considerably in size around where I live depending on whether they are cut regularly or not but they are still hedges and not field margins. Natural tree rows are also found quite commonly along rivers and streams that form field boundaries. natural=tree_row fits with this feature as they are not field margins. Would it not be better to have a tighter definition of this particular field feature when it comes to the use of any additional tags? Kind Regards Dudley -- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:11:49 +0200 From: m...@simon-wuellhorst.de To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Suggestions for the correct tagging of Field borders Hello, thanks for your feedback. I created a proposed features page for fieldmargins where I wrote down my ideas about this topic. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/fieldmargin Please give me feedback (here or on the wikipage) to improve this propose. Greetings, Simon 2014-07-05 19:00 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: Am 05/lug/2014 um 11:08 schrieb Simon Wüllhorst m...@simon-wuellhorst.de: Is a proposal-page in the wiki needed? It is Not strictly needed (you can use the tag straight away), but it is recommended in order to have some documentation remaining. I'd also suggest to put a link (see also) on landuse farmland 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
