Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?
As poodles are always the litmus test for new tags, toy poodles are acceptable, full poodles are not. You can stash your sacrifice in your carry-on quite quickly if need be - if it's a toy poodle. Javbw On Jan 10, 2015, at 9:23 AM, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 10/01/2015 00:17, John Willis wrote: Similarly, animal sacrifice and practicing voodoo at the airport's prayer room might get you arrested. Not even poodles? :) https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-January/020847.html Cheers, Andy ___ 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] religion=multi* ?
multi fits the sports tagging scheme well, and I think it is best for the religion tag too. Allis not good, as most sports places don have a clay sumo ring or a sandy pit for beach volleyball set up, so all would be wrong. Similarly, animal sacrifice and practicing voodoo at the airport's prayer room might get you arrested. Multi seems the best fit. Javbw On Jan 10, 2015, at 12:58 AM, Andreas Neumann andr-neum...@gmx.net wrote: On 09.01.2015 13:52, John Sturdy wrote: Wouldn't it be simplest to leave the religion or denomination tag out, if the facility isn't specific to a particular religion or denomination? __John Hi, I see this problem: Where is the difference between a multifaith place and an object with missing religion-tag? Andreas -- Andreas Neumann http://Map4Jena.de http://Stadtplan-Ilmenau.de ___ 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] religion=multi* ?
On 10/01/2015 00:17, John Willis wrote: Similarly, animal sacrifice and practicing voodoo at the airport's prayer room might get you arrested. Not even poodles? :) https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-January/020847.html Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging Notes feature question
On 01/01/2015 00:39, Tom Hughes wrote: On 01/01/15 00:36, Dave F. wrote: I'm struggling to comprehend how a button to turn off the notes layer, that's separate ( hidden!) from the only obvious button to turn the layer on can be described as 'logical' to an experienced user let alone a newbie.. Well the problem is that what you see as a button to turn on the notes layer is what I see as a button to add a new note ;-) That button was intended to encode the add a note action, not the view notes action. OK, but however you perceive it, it still activates the 'view notes'. Although it adds clarity to do so, it's not essential to the 'add a note' function. If I just wanted to view existing notes I wouldn't use that button, I would open the layer switcher and turn on the notes layer. On a scale of 1 to 10, how obvious do you think that is to the user? The problem with turning off the notes layer again when the add note control is disabled is that it might already have been on before you started adding a note, so we would probably have to remember if we had turned it on or if it was already on . Trying to figure out what to do if somebody starts toggling the notes layers on and off manually while the add note control is active just introduces even more levels of complication... By 'we' do you mean the programmers? I hope not. It's not that complicated! on/off, yes/no, 0/1 binary! It's the DNA of computers! No I'm not saying the programming is necessary complicated, I'm saying it's hard to know what the correct behaviour is from a UX point of view. I don't really see it as that confusing: I don't think the 'add note' button needs to turn on the 'view notes', but lets assume it does: * The 'add note' button turns both the add view layers on should them off again, except if 'view' was previously turned on via hidden option under Layers. Then it should leave 'view' on. * If 'view' is turned off via the Layers menu while 'add' is visible, turn 'view' off as it not directly linked or strictly needed to add a note. Cheers Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging Notes feature question
This appears to be nothing to do with tagging - you've presumably sent to this list by mistake... 2015-01-09 12:12 GMT+00:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: On 01/01/2015 00:39, Tom Hughes wrote: On 01/01/15 00:36, Dave F. wrote: I'm struggling to comprehend how a button to turn off the notes layer, that's separate ( hidden!) from the only obvious button to turn the layer on can be described as 'logical' to an experienced user let alone a newbie.. Well the problem is that what you see as a button to turn on the notes layer is what I see as a button to add a new note ;-) That button was intended to encode the add a note action, not the view notes action. OK, but however you perceive it, it still activates the 'view notes'. Although it adds clarity to do so, it's not essential to the 'add a note' function. If I just wanted to view existing notes I wouldn't use that button, I would open the layer switcher and turn on the notes layer. On a scale of 1 to 10, how obvious do you think that is to the user? The problem with turning off the notes layer again when the add note control is disabled is that it might already have been on before you started adding a note, so we would probably have to remember if we had turned it on or if it was already on . Trying to figure out what to do if somebody starts toggling the notes layers on and off manually while the add note control is active just introduces even more levels of complication... By 'we' do you mean the programmers? I hope not. It's not that complicated! on/off, yes/no, 0/1 binary! It's the DNA of computers! No I'm not saying the programming is necessary complicated, I'm saying it's hard to know what the correct behaviour is from a UX point of view. I don't really see it as that confusing: I don't think the 'add note' button needs to turn on the 'view notes', but lets assume it does: * The 'add note' button turns both the add view layers on should them off again, except if 'view' was previously turned on via hidden option under Layers. Then it should leave 'view' on. * If 'view' is turned off via the Layers menu while 'add' is visible, turn 'view' off as it not directly linked or strictly needed to add a note. Cheers Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ 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] [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging Notes feature question
Apologies Thanks. On 09/01/2015 12:17, Dan S wrote: This appears to be nothing to do with tagging - you've presumably sent to this list by mistake... 2015-01-09 12:12 GMT+00:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: On 01/01/2015 00:39, Tom Hughes wrote: On 01/01/15 00:36, Dave F. wrote: I'm struggling to comprehend how a button to turn off the notes layer, that's separate ( hidden!) from the only obvious button to turn the layer on can be described as 'logical' to an experienced user let alone a newbie.. Well the problem is that what you see as a button to turn on the notes layer is what I see as a button to add a new note ;-) That button was intended to encode the add a note action, not the view notes action. OK, but however you perceive it, it still activates the 'view notes'. Although it adds clarity to do so, it's not essential to the 'add a note' function. If I just wanted to view existing notes I wouldn't use that button, I would open the layer switcher and turn on the notes layer. On a scale of 1 to 10, how obvious do you think that is to the user? The problem with turning off the notes layer again when the add note control is disabled is that it might already have been on before you started adding a note, so we would probably have to remember if we had turned it on or if it was already on . Trying to figure out what to do if somebody starts toggling the notes layers on and off manually while the add note control is active just introduces even more levels of complication... By 'we' do you mean the programmers? I hope not. It's not that complicated! on/off, yes/no, 0/1 binary! It's the DNA of computers! No I'm not saying the programming is necessary complicated, I'm saying it's hard to know what the correct behaviour is from a UX point of view. I don't really see it as that confusing: I don't think the 'add note' button needs to turn on the 'view notes', but lets assume it does: * The 'add note' button turns both the add view layers on should them off again, except if 'view' was previously turned on via hidden option under Layers. Then it should leave 'view' on. * If 'view' is turned off via the Layers menu while 'add' is visible, turn 'view' off as it not directly linked or strictly needed to add a note. Cheers Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?
Wouldn't it be simplest to leave the religion or denomination tag out, if the facility isn't specific to a particular religion or denomination? __John On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 09/01/2015 01:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-01-09 00:56: denomination=none ;-) Nice, but we need to stay on the religion= level But couldn't the sharing be inter-denominational, rather than inter-religion? As I see it: 1. No specific religion, such as rooms at hospitals, airports etc. 2. Shared places where different religions/denominations preach/perform services at separate times. 3. Shared places where different religions/denominations preach/perform services at the same time. I'm guessing this would more likely be denominations than religion. Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ 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] Boundary Relations. What's a subarea used for?
On 2015-01-09 12:25, Dave F. wrote: I'll leave them for now, as I can work around them, but I'm still not convinced of their use or comments given by others as reasons to keep them. Out of respect to the mappers who have gone before you, isn't a valid excuse to keep data if it's incorrect. The sentiment of what you say is easy to agree with, but determining what is incorrect is exactly what we are grappling with here. Just because you would do it differently, doesn't make it incorrect. I assume that these subarea links are actually correct in a factual sense. Your willingness to leave them for now should really be upgraded to leave them until the community agrees to remove them which IMHO means that another way is found of conveying the same information which we agree is so superior to what we have that it is worth the effort of converting the existing data and data consumer tooling. Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Boundary Relations. What's a subarea used for?
On 08/01/2015 09:35, Steve Doerr wrote: On 08/01/2015 01:21, Dave F. wrote: Are they relevant? If so, what are they for? The wiki suggests they're superseded: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary#Relation_members No it doesn't, it says they're 'optional, disputed, and redundant'. The term 'redundant' has multiple meanings, but I take it to mean 'not strictly necessary', 'not adding additional information', or some such. I'd say leave them unless they cause a real problem. Out of respect to the mappers who have gone before you, if nothing else. I'll leave them for now, as I can work around them, but I'm still not convinced of their use or comments given by others as reasons to keep them. Out of respect to the mappers who have gone before you, isn't a valid excuse to keep data if it's incorrect. Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?
On 09/01/2015 01:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-01-09 00:56: denomination=none ;-) Nice, but we need to stay on the religion= level But couldn't the sharing be inter-denominational, rather than inter-religion? As I see it: 1. No specific religion, such as rooms at hospitals, airports etc. 2. Shared places where different religions/denominations preach/perform services at separate times. 3. Shared places where different religions/denominations preach/perform services at the same time. I'm guessing this would more likely be denominations than religion. Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
