Re: [Tagging] RENDER

[André Pirard]

  
  
Hi,
  
  Thanks for your time, Peter, and for a message which I feel like
  the first to want to cooperate.
  However, I don't feel well how your variants fit with the scenario
  I am dealing with, namely:
  
a mapper has a feature to tag
he finds the right tag definition
but that definition has no rendering
hence 


  he uses an approaching but wrong definition that has a
rendering
  or he uses RENDER default rendering (which could
be refused).
  

  
  variant1: how could using right tags cause (using RENDER
  everywhere and) prevent discussing new tags?
  variant2: you are extending the scope to other maps whose authors
  said they won't support RENDER
  variant3: you'll never find a solution if it's not used
  variant4: RENDER is of course not a way to be able to tag x=y
  render=yes nor to choose colors; mappers are supposed to use
  defined and appropriate tags.
  
  Thinking in the same direction as you did may raise some ideas
  like this.
  The lack of rendering may have two reasons that lead to the same
  idea: 1) lack of time for rendering to follow the tag production
  rate  2)  the tags are just too varied to find similarly varied
  rendering
  Both lead to think of classes of objects inside which each new
  object would be put.  If an object has no specific rendering, it
  would inherit the rendering of its class.
  For example, getting back to the mini-golf, it could inherit the
  rendering of the class called "ground", or "park", whatever you
  prefer but rendered. It can be refined to a proper mini-golf
  later.  In fact, it's nothing more than render=park, but possibly
  out of user control if that's what hurts.
  
  But the big, big problem with new tagging is the OSM theory that
  each user can invent his own tags and that they look at each other
  later in hope that they did the same things. That can be
  compatible with RENDER but certainly not with classes.
  
  Well, I said I would stop.  I'll let you think.
  Best regards,
  
  

  
André.
  

  
  
  On 2014-08-27 19:09, Peter Wendorff wrote :


  Am 27.08.2014 um 17:49 schrieb André Pirard:


  All the replies in this thread showed
absolutely no desire to join the
fight and make suggestions, just to disparage the idea.
  
  I don't agree here.
But the way you proposed for this fight is not a solution.
It may be if what you call (and many see as) "the default osm map",
namely the mapnik, now osm-carto stylesheet, would use the render-tag,
but only partly.

Let's imagine "the map" would support RENDER.

variant 1) people stop using wrong tag to "tag for the renderer", and
instead use RENDER=* to get the image they want. This only works partly,
as the selection in cases of restricted place on the map cannot be solved.
As a result there may be now semantic tagging for new stuff as it's more
easy to use RENDER everywhere to get what I want than to propose and
discuss new tags.

variant 2) people use RENDER, but as render is not sufficient to support
garmin maps, osmand, nominatim and others, keep tagging for the renderer
to get their features used there as well

variant 3) nobody uses RENDER, then it's useless of course

variant 4) the best case would be that people use RENDER only on objects
where there is no "right" tagging (yet). In this case it slows down tag
inventions and clutters the map view by many inconsistent rendering
rules, as you add a feature X somewhere in the world and let it be
rendered in red, I add a feature X somewhere else and want it to be
rendered blue, and some other mapper doesn't care about rendering and
adds a feature X without RENDER-tag. Render would even reduce the
motivation to invent and "standardize" new tags, as it's not necessary
any more to get something new on the map.

To summarize: Why do you think RENDER would have any benefit?
I mentioned the drawbacks of it:
- less motivation to get consensus on new tags
- very limited motivation not to tag (wrong) for the renderer any more
- inconsistent map views as a result of inconsistent RENDER-tags for the
same object types

I like the idea to tackle the tagging-for-the-renderer, but all
arguments FOR the RENDER-tag I read yet (if I didn't miss any) are IMHO
countered by the explanations and assumptions above, feel free to
correct me if I'm wrong and add real benefits of RENDER.

regards
Peter

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



  


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

Re: [Tagging] Contact-Tag for Webcam

[Andy Mabbett]

On 26 August 2014 18:44, Andreas Neumann  wrote:

> there exists a tagging for webcams in the
> contact-namespace (contact:webcam=*)

Is this a mis-named operator:contact= ?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] Contact-Tag for Webcam

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 27/ago/2014, alle ore 18:17, Tobias Knerr  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Then again, I'm not a fan of the contact prefix at all


+1, me neither, I am not using it, but some mappers seem to do, otherwise we 
already would have deprecated it ;-)


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

Re: [Tagging] RENDER

[Peter Wendorff]

Am 27.08.2014 um 17:49 schrieb André Pirard:

> All the replies in this thread showed absolutely no desire to join the
> fight and make suggestions, just to disparage the idea.
I don't agree here.
But the way you proposed for this fight is not a solution.
It may be if what you call (and many see as) "the default osm map",
namely the mapnik, now osm-carto stylesheet, would use the render-tag,
but only partly.

Let's imagine "the map" would support RENDER.

variant 1) people stop using wrong tag to "tag for the renderer", and
instead use RENDER=* to get the image they want. This only works partly,
as the selection in cases of restricted place on the map cannot be solved.
As a result there may be now semantic tagging for new stuff as it's more
easy to use RENDER everywhere to get what I want than to propose and
discuss new tags.

variant 2) people use RENDER, but as render is not sufficient to support
garmin maps, osmand, nominatim and others, keep tagging for the renderer
to get their features used there as well

variant 3) nobody uses RENDER, then it's useless of course

variant 4) the best case would be that people use RENDER only on objects
where there is no "right" tagging (yet). In this case it slows down tag
inventions and clutters the map view by many inconsistent rendering
rules, as you add a feature X somewhere in the world and let it be
rendered in red, I add a feature X somewhere else and want it to be
rendered blue, and some other mapper doesn't care about rendering and
adds a feature X without RENDER-tag. Render would even reduce the
motivation to invent and "standardize" new tags, as it's not necessary
any more to get something new on the map.

To summarize: Why do you think RENDER would have any benefit?
I mentioned the drawbacks of it:
- less motivation to get consensus on new tags
- very limited motivation not to tag (wrong) for the renderer any more
- inconsistent map views as a result of inconsistent RENDER-tags for the
same object types

I like the idea to tackle the tagging-for-the-renderer, but all
arguments FOR the RENDER-tag I read yet (if I didn't miss any) are IMHO
countered by the explanations and assumptions above, feel free to
correct me if I'm wrong and add real benefits of RENDER.

regards
Peter

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

Re: [Tagging] Contact-Tag for Webcam

[Tobias Knerr]

On 27.08.2014 04:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Agreed, but the tag prefix in discussion here is "contact", to be used for 
> channels/means to contact the feature, while a webcam is working the other 
> way round, it communicates from the feature to the audience.

I agree that "contact" does not make sense for webcams.

Then again, I'm not a fan of the contact prefix at all (and seeing how
the variants without the prefix are a lot more popular, I'm apparently
not alone in that opinion). For example, I feel that visiting a website
doesn't really involve "contacting" the feature either.

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

Tom, I think you are interpreting the tag amenity=place_of_worship too
literally. In my opinion, this is not intended to only apply to the
specific place or building where the actual worshiping happens.

For one thing, we tag footways as highway=footway but footways are not
highways. And we tag city halls as amenity=townhall even though cities are
not towns (at least in many countries). It would be best to think of tags
as simply identifiers for a type/class of map features. Yes, the English
meaning of the keys and values of tags usually match the feature, but they
don't always have to match.

For another thing, we tag Scientology churches as amenity=place_of_worship
in OSM but scientologists do not really perform any practice that we would
call "worship" or "devotion". So, going by your logic, tagging their
churches as amenity=place_of_worship is wrong. (The debate on whether
Scientology should be considered a religion or not is moot;
religion=scientologist is an established tag in OSM.)

Lastly, you mentioned about parking amenities and you think that these
should not be included in the area tagged as amenity=place_of_worship, but
that they could be included in a larger area tagged as landuse=religious.
But again, going by your logic, we should exclude all parking amenities and
other non-educational features from areas tagged as
amenity=school/college/university. But that is not the current practice.

To conclude, including the temple/mosque/church grounds—even if there is no
worshiping going on the grounds—in the area tagged as
amenity=place_of_worship is perfectly valid.


On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> Eugene, I am not ignoring anything, I am arguing and listening.
> My "90%" were labelled as a guess in a discussion ("quite certainly"),
> the "1/3 of them have building tags" comes from taginfo.
>
> You give examples from 6 places where particular mappers use this
> style, this is also not a statistic. I have seen this style as well,
> and it only reinforces the need to find a solution that suits the
> different situations.
>
> If you have knowledge how the act of worshipping in a Buddhist temple
> differs from a Christian church or Jewish synagogue, in particular in
> being focussed on a particular building vs. practised in a more spatial
> manner on the religious campus, that contribution would be welcome.
>
> So far we have identified the following use cases / situations:
>
> 1
> Building where worshipping ceremonies focus, surrounded by land which has
> a relation
> to the religion, and holds structures that are not used for the act of
> worshipping.
> The building often has architectural significance and stands out as a
> landmark.
>
> 2
> Places of worshipping that are not focused on a particular building, the
> ceremony is performed in a spacial manner, potentially in open space.
>
> 3
> Land which has a relation to the religion, holding e.g. administrative
> office
> buildings, seminar rooms, etc., but no particular building for worshipping
> ceremonies.
>
> 4
> Buildings that were erected for worshipping, thus still have the
> architectural significance and landmark character, but are now used for
> secular purposes, such as concert theatres or climbing halls. Some could be
> reactivated for the religious purpose by bringing the altar back.
>
> I still find a landuse tag very suitable for case 1 and 3, where calling
> the land *=place_of_worship would be a misnomer for the lack of ceremony.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>
>>
>> Thus the comparison with [amenity=school], that can be easily
>> expanded to the
>> whole campus, fails for [amenity=place_of_worship].
>>
>> To conclude, [amenity=place_of_worship] should not be expanded to the
>> full campus, and [landuse=religious] is a suitable, multicultural
>> tag for this land, comparable to [landuse=retail] or
>> [landuse=commercial]
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Thus "amenity=place_of_worship" is perfectly tailored to this
>> particular
>> building and its meaning should not be expanded to something it was
>> not
>> defined for initially. Keep in mind it is already used 611000 times,
>> only
>> 1/3 of them has a building tag, but quite certainly 90% of them are
>> buildings.
>>
>>
> Eugene Alvin Villar wrote, on 2014-08-26 23:34:
>
>  This completely ignores the current practice all over the world
>> (especially in Asia) where the landuse is already tagged with
>> amenity=place_of_worship. Some examples:
>>
>> Buddhist temples in Tokyo, Japan: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gi
>> Catholic churches in Manila, Philippines: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gj
>> Buddhist, Hindu, Methodist, and Muslim places of worship in Singapore:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gk
>> Buddhist temples in Beijing, China: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gl
>> Hindu temples and Christian churches in Bangalore, India:
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gm
>> Buddhist temples in Bangkok, Thailand: http:/

Re: [Tagging] RENDER

[André Pirard]

On 2014-08-26 13:38, Christian Quest wrote :
> André I think you missed a major thing about cartography (and
> topography).
>
> As OSM contributors, we're not cartographers but topographers... we
> record topographic data.
>
> Then cartographers use that data, make choices to have some objets of
> THEIR choice visible on the map THEY are making with the data we
> collected.
Christian, I think that you missed an important sentence of mine:
>> On the other hand, to address another critique, RENDER can indicate
>> that it means that the feature is considered important either only
>> for the standard map or for some other categories of maps.
When the mappers are doing the "tagging for the renderer" that I'm
trying to fight, they have a cartography point of view that their
features do not show and that's almost exclusively on the standard map. 
Hence, RENDER would be a request to show on the standard map (it would
in fact be almost impossible to cope with all the sorts of maps).
>> These choices are made with contraints: scale (no bus_stop at zoom
>> 6), map use (trucks don't care about bicycle parkings).
> These choices are not done at the data level, but at the stylesheet level.
>
> If you're not happy of the cartographer's choices... become a
> cartographer yourself !
>
> OSM gives you that freedom as anybody can use the same data, and the
> same tool to do the map matching our choices by designing their own
> stylesheet.
>
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cartographer
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/topographer
>
> I'm on both sides... topographer as OSM contributor, and cartographer
> make maps with OSM data.
> As a cartographer, I will not use such a tag which does not give me
> control anymore on what appears or not on the map I'm making.
And it's normal because you do not draw the standard map.
And note that RENDER is not coercive, not against any renderer's
decision to to to not map.
But please notice that it's much easier to ignore rendering requests
made with a RENDER tag than those disguised with a "tagging for the
renderer" that I am trying to fight.
All the replies in this thread showed absolutely no desire to join the
fight and make suggestions, just to disparage the idea.

André.




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

Re: [Tagging] RENDER

[André Pirard]

  
  
On 2014-08-26 12:16, Pieren wrote :


  

  On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:36 PM,
André Pirard 
wrote:

  Yes, this sentence
is misunderstood, and by many repliers apparently.
It means that once Mapnik uses a (defined) rendering you
cannot change it (RENDER is ignored).
The main idea behind RENDER is not coloring objects, and
I agree it shouldn't, but showing them.
And the renderer can do that with any single color they
like.

  

  
  

  

  



Basically, all renderers already decide what they print
  or not. 
  

  

If that's "already decided" rendering, I hope that those suggesting
opening a ticket are not jokers ! ;-)

  

  
Adding a flag saying "hey don't forget my feature" will
  not change this principle. 
  

  

Unless the renderers consider that they can't cope with every map
feature, esp. with a specific rendering, that a plain surface and a
name is sufficient and if the mappers are wise enough to follow
guidelines without abusing.
Mapping a recreation site with only one of the three attractions
they have and two big holes is the particular OSM meaning of the
word attraction.

  

  
Also with your tag, the same feature may or may not be
  displayed on the map, depending if you added your RENDER
  tag or not.
  

  

If that's a problem, it has already been said that the simple
solution is defining a rendering.

  

  
Your proposal have no chance to be adopted for these
  reasons.

  

  

Not a single suggestion either.  Happy tagging for the renderer,
everybody.


  

  André.

  



  


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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 27/ago/2014, alle ore 15:26, Tom Pfeifer  
> ha scritto:
> 
> How would you treat graveyards, as sacred and places of worship,
> or not? What about the parking on the property?


Usually graveyards (typically ancient burial places associated to a church and 
directly adjacent) will be part of the sacred area, yes (not to confuse with 
cemeteries). For parkings you'll have to check whether they are within or not, 
simple as that.


> 
> Would you agree we still need a method to tag remaining land,
> as in case 1 and 3?


For areas that are outside of the sacred area I'd usually use religion=* to 
express the affiliation with a religious institution and I'd use other tags 
like for any other object, eg landuse=commercial for a big area of the church 
administration (there are quite some in Rome ;-) ).

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 27/ago/2014, alle ore 13:54, Mateusz Konieczny 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> 2014-08-27 11:51 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer 
>> 
>> We've always said that generalizing a detailed mapping in an automatic way 
>> is possible
> 
> It is possible but sometimes it is really complicated. BTW, I frequently map 
> really small areas with their own landuses.


Not only might it be complicated, it also involves judgement and decisions - 
that's exactly the point why it should be done by the map maker and not by the 
data surveyor.

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

Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging

[SomeoneElse]

On 07/08/2014 16:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



"culvert" isn't a bridge type at all (in my understanding),


(on the other part of this)

I'd agree that "culvert" isn't a type of bridge.  I think that some of 
the confusion in OSM came from someone finding an old American drawing 
of a car driving _over_ an open culvert _on_ a bridge, and thinking that 
the name of the drawing ("The Culvert") referred to the bridge.  It's 
back in the list archives somewhere.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Map Features template

[Richard Z.]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 02:36:04PM -0300, John Packer wrote:
> I'm not sure that's the right mailing list for talking about this, but it's
> probably the closest
> 
> Am I the only one that dislikes the "Map Features" templates on the wiki?
> (example: [1])
> 
> I think they make it harder to edit the wiki.

which may not be that bad in some cases. When someone cares enough to 
create a template it is quite likely to be for an approved and well 
documented feature where there should not be much demand to edit it 
frequently by beginners.

> Some people like these templates because it seems they can make new tag
> values appear in non-english pages by adding them in the english page.
> But this new value appears in english, so in my opinion it kinda defeats
> the purpose of the non-english page...

not too bad, some templates have example pictures which are almost as good
as an native description.
It depends how the template is used.

However it is important that if something is changed in the English
template the other languages at least see that there was a change.

Richard


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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Tom Pfeifer]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote, on 2014-08-27 12:05:


I'd like to bring the sacred area in (speaking about Christian religion here). 
In Italy we are using place of worship on the whole sacred area where known 
(I.e. Not only on the building). For practical reasons a lot of amenity 
placeofworships are still mapped on the church building alone, but this is 
considered preliminary until someone finds out the extension of the sacred area 
(where applicable, can also be the same as the church building in many cases).



Good, that would be considered in use case 2 in my previous mail.
I'd be happy to tag that as place_of_worship.

How would you treat graveyards, as sacred and places of worship,
or not? What about the parking on the property?

Would you agree we still need a method to tag remaining land,
as in case 1 and 3?

I'd still be in favour to have the landuse as the background on
which the various amenities are placed, from places_of_worship
over graveyard to parking.

tom


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

Re: [Tagging] Map Features template

[John Packer]

>
> The purpose of such templates was to have the same list in all
> languages. If someone introduces a new entry, it's spread in all local
> pages. It's probably not translated immediately but it is by far much
> better to see it in English than to have to maintain manually
> separated pages/tables. [..]
>
I don't see this as a big advantage nowadays. People still have to maintain
manually separated pages/tables (and more pages than without these
templates). And as far as I can see, the wiki translation is _mainly_ done
for the sake of people that can't read english, so an entry in english
doesn't really help.
Also, if the original description is updated, the translated versions keep
the old version unless updated manually.

Soon the wiki will enable a rich text editor plugin to make the wiki easier
to use (and consequently invite more participation), so I want to ask
people to avoid using this kind of template, because they make some pages
harder to edit, without considerable advantages.

I think it has a good purpose in pages like the main "Map Features" page,
so I'm not asking to replace it (while we don't have a better solution).

The tag pages came later and probably many of them
> are even not listed in the Map Features where we only show the most
> popular and commonly agreed tags. We can also sort and group them
> differently from a simple alphabetic order or key string. Not
> something we can "program" easily.
>
This kind of page I suggested would only show the tags from a list, and not
every tag.
Ideally it would allow the users to either let the wiki automatically query
the metadata from that tag's page, or let the user specify what to show
(useful when there isn't a tag page for that right now).

But personally I don't intend to solve the redundancy problem with the main
"Map Features" page right now.
I just want people to avoid this kind of "Map Features Template" on normal
pages.

Cheers, John



2014-08-27 5:22 GMT-03:00 Pieren :

> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:36 PM, John Packer 
> wrote:
>
> > Some people like these templates because it seems they can make new tag
> > values appear in non-english pages by adding them in the english page.
> > But this new value appears in english, so in my opinion it kinda defeats
> the
> > purpose of the non-english page...
>
> The purpose of such templates was to have the same list in all
> languages. If someone introduces a new entry, it's spread in all local
> pages. It's probably not translated immediately but it is by far much
> better to see it in English than to have to maintain manually
> separated pages/tables. We don't have enough active wiki contributors
> for such solution. The tag pages came later and probably many of them
> are even not listed in the Map Features where we only show the most
> popular and commonly agreed tags. We can also sort and group them
> differently from a simple alphabetic order or key string. Not
> something we can "program" easily.
>
> Pieren
>
> ___
> 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] Religious landuse

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2014-08-27 11:51 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer 
>
> We've always said that generalizing a detailed mapping in an automatic way
> is possible
>

It is possible but sometimes it is really complicated. BTW, I frequently
map really small areas with their own landuses.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 27/ago/2014, alle ore 10:54, Tom Pfeifer  
> ha scritto:
> 
> If you have knowledge how the act of worshipping in a Buddhist temple
> differs from a Christian church or Jewish synagogue, in particular in
> being focussed on a particular building vs. practised in a more spatial
> manner on the religious campus, that contribution would be welcome..


I'd like to bring the sacred area in (speaking about Christian religion here). 
In Italy we are using place of worship on the whole sacred area where known 
(I.e. Not only on the building). For practical reasons a lot of amenity 
placeofworships are still mapped on the church building alone, but this is 
considered preliminary until someone finds out the extension of the sacred area 
(where applicable, can also be the same as the church building in many cases).

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Il giorno 27/ago/2014, alle ore 10:47, Pieren  ha scritto:
> 
> Also I remember the time
> we always said that landuse is intended for small scale mapping, not a
> parcel scale.


I have never seen it like that. Where there is a significantly different use of 
the land, also on one parcel or sub parcel, I'd map this as such and won't 
incorporate it into a different landuse. We've always said that generalizing a 
detailed mapping in an automatic way is possible, while adding detail to 
pre-generalized maps is obviously not.

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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Tom Pfeifer]

Eugene, I am not ignoring anything, I am arguing and listening.
My "90%" were labelled as a guess in a discussion ("quite certainly"),
the "1/3 of them have building tags" comes from taginfo.

You give examples from 6 places where particular mappers use this
style, this is also not a statistic. I have seen this style as well,
and it only reinforces the need to find a solution that suits the
different situations.

If you have knowledge how the act of worshipping in a Buddhist temple
differs from a Christian church or Jewish synagogue, in particular in
being focussed on a particular building vs. practised in a more spatial
manner on the religious campus, that contribution would be welcome.

So far we have identified the following use cases / situations:

1
Building where worshipping ceremonies focus, surrounded by land which has a 
relation
to the religion, and holds structures that are not used for the act of 
worshipping.
The building often has architectural significance and stands out as a landmark.

2
Places of worshipping that are not focused on a particular building, the
ceremony is performed in a spacial manner, potentially in open space.

3
Land which has a relation to the religion, holding e.g. administrative office
buildings, seminar rooms, etc., but no particular building for worshipping
ceremonies.

4
Buildings that were erected for worshipping, thus still have the
architectural significance and landmark character, but are now used for
secular purposes, such as concert theatres or climbing halls. Some could be
reactivated for the religious purpose by bringing the altar back.

I still find a landuse tag very suitable for case 1 and 3, where calling
the land *=place_of_worship would be a misnomer for the lack of ceremony.

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:


Thus the comparison with [amenity=school], that can be easily expanded to 
the
whole campus, fails for [amenity=place_of_worship].

To conclude, [amenity=place_of_worship] should not be expanded to the
full campus, and [landuse=religious] is a suitable, multicultural
tag for this land, comparable to [landuse=retail] or [landuse=commercial]

[...]

Thus "amenity=place_of_worship" is perfectly tailored to this particular
building and its meaning should not be expanded to something it was not
defined for initially. Keep in mind it is already used 611000 times, only
1/3 of them has a building tag, but quite certainly 90% of them are 
buildings.



Eugene Alvin Villar wrote, on 2014-08-26 23:34:

This completely ignores the current practice all over the world (especially in 
Asia) where the landuse is already tagged with amenity=place_of_worship. Some 
examples:

Buddhist temples in Tokyo, Japan: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gi
Catholic churches in Manila, Philippines: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gj
Buddhist, Hindu, Methodist, and Muslim places of worship in Singapore: 
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gk
Buddhist temples in Beijing, China: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gl
Hindu temples and Christian churches in Bangalore, India: 
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gm
Buddhist temples in Bangkok, Thailand: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4gn

I would like to see how you came up with the "90% of them are buildings" 
statistic.



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

Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*

[Holger Jeromin]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 24.08.2014 22:50:

>> Il giorno 24/ago/2014, alle ore 14:03, Dan S  ha 
>> scritto:
>> On the other hand, if you see an object tagged
>>  addr:housenumber=265-269
>>  addr:interpolation=odd
>> then we can be quite confident that the mapper intended you to
>> interpret this as "265" and "267" and "269".
> Yes, but more simple you could tag as well addr:housenumber=265;267;269 with 
> no need for interpolation or even a second tag.

As i said:
You do not want to expand w159099798 to
addr:housenumber=15,17,19,21,23,25,27

-- 
greetings
Holger


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

Re: [Tagging] Religious landuse

[Pieren]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> If you want to expand the meaning of this tag you would need a migration
> strategy,
> but I don't see it necessary. "landuse=religious" is consistent with
> "commercial"
> or "retail", where you can have different retail amenities or businesses on
> the area. OSM tagging is not perfect, but we do not introduce a new
> inconsistency
> with this tag.

Religious areas can fit into a general "landuse" like "residential"
(or even why not "commercial", "retail", etc). It's not exclusive
(where another landuse polygon is normally). Also I remember the time
we always said that landuse is intended for small scale mapping, not a
parcel scale.

Pieren

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

Re: [Tagging] Map Features template

[Pieren]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:36 PM, John Packer  wrote:

> Some people like these templates because it seems they can make new tag
> values appear in non-english pages by adding them in the english page.
> But this new value appears in english, so in my opinion it kinda defeats the
> purpose of the non-english page...

The purpose of such templates was to have the same list in all
languages. If someone introduces a new entry, it's spread in all local
pages. It's probably not translated immediately but it is by far much
better to see it in English than to have to maintain manually
separated pages/tables. We don't have enough active wiki contributors
for such solution. The tag pages came later and probably many of them
are even not listed in the Map Features where we only show the most
popular and commonly agreed tags. We can also sort and group them
differently from a simple alphabetic order or key string. Not
something we can "program" easily.

Pieren

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