[Tagging] Tag destination vs. relation destination_sign
Hi! Currently it reads in the section When to use on the wiki page of the key destination [1]: Attention: Do not use them for mapping at highway=primary and highway=secondary (or smaller). In such cases, a destination sign relation is the recommended way for direction directives. Also above that sentence a list of road types is given on which that key should be used and only on that road types. May I ask who exactly recommended the use of the relation destination_sign and who decided, that destination may only be used on a few type of roads? I suggest to remove the section When to use and instead add the following sentence (or similar): Instead of they key destination, one might also use the relation destination_sign, which is able to provide detailed information about the type and colour(s) of the road sign. That's the way I always thought about those two tagging schemes: destination is the simple variant and destination_sign the complex. I used both in the past, but only used the key lately. Best regards, Martin [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination#When_to_use P.S: I am aware, that I may simply ignore the wiki, but I don't want to lose any potential information, because someone thinks one must use destination_sign on e.g. highway=primary, but considers it as too complicated. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag destination vs. relation destination_sign
I've asked this question several months ago on the help-website [1]. When should I use destination and when the relation? Until now I did not get any answer. Only recently I noticed the sentence you are referring to. From then on, I followed this advice. So I'm interested to learn which is the preferred way of mapping. I didn't add too many destinations yet, and can easily remap what I did so far. regards m [1] https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/35719/mapping-destination-on-a-primary-road On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: Hi! Currently it reads in the section When to use on the wiki page of the key destination [1]: Attention: Do not use them for mapping at highway=primary and highway=secondary (or smaller). In such cases, a destination sign relation is the recommended way for direction directives. Also above that sentence a list of road types is given on which that key should be used and only on that road types. May I ask who exactly recommended the use of the relation destination_sign and who decided, that destination may only be used on a few type of roads? I suggest to remove the section When to use and instead add the following sentence (or similar): Instead of they key destination, one might also use the relation destination_sign, which is able to provide detailed information about the type and colour(s) of the road sign. That's the way I always thought about those two tagging schemes: destination is the simple variant and destination_sign the complex. I used both in the past, but only used the key lately. Best regards, Martin [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination#When_to_use P.S: I am aware, that I may simply ignore the wiki, but I don't want to lose any potential information, because someone thinks one must use destination_sign on e.g. highway=primary, but considers it as too complicated. ___ 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] Tag destination vs. relation destination_sign
Looking at the description, I could imagine that the original idea was to use key:destination on motorways and similar roads (primary WITH primary_junction), because there you have normally no crossroads, but only “y junctions” on oneways. So for motorways it is more likely that there is only one version of the content of the signposts. But at normal crossroads, it may be more likely that the signpost content for one of the leaving ways is different (different content depending of the road from which you are coming). However, that’s just raw guess about the original intention. Also unsure if all these assumtions are correct (on the ground). I suggest to remove the section When to use and instead add the following sentence (or similar): Instead of they key destination, one might also use the relation destination_sign, which is able to provide detailed information about the type and colour(s) of the road sign. +1. Key:destination for the simple cases the the relation for the complex cases seems fine for me. Lukas PS: In the wiki, Key:destination is used for “signposts or ground writing”, but Relation:destination_sign only for signposts. I would extend Relation:destination_sign also to ground writings. And in general, I think it would be a good idea to harmonize the allowed tags (key:distance, key:time) between key:destination and relation:destination_sign. PPS: As far as I understand, the key:destination is used on OSM ways _after_ a signpost/groundwriting. If this is correct, the examples with the yellow and white signposts on the wiki page are confusing (tagging a motorway_link makes no sense here), and I would recommand to remove these three examples. Lukas Sommer 2015-01-10 17:40 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com: I've asked this question several months ago on the help-website [1]. When should I use destination and when the relation? Until now I did not get any answer. Only recently I noticed the sentence you are referring to. From then on, I followed this advice. So I'm interested to learn which is the preferred way of mapping. I didn't add too many destinations yet, and can easily remap what I did so far. regards m [1] https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/35719/mapping-destination-on-a-primary-road On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: Hi! Currently it reads in the section When to use on the wiki page of the key destination [1]: Attention: Do not use them for mapping at highway=primary and highway=secondary (or smaller). In such cases, a destination sign relation is the recommended way for direction directives. Also above that sentence a list of road types is given on which that key should be used and only on that road types. May I ask who exactly recommended the use of the relation destination_sign and who decided, that destination may only be used on a few type of roads? I suggest to remove the section When to use and instead add the following sentence (or similar): Instead of they key destination, one might also use the relation destination_sign, which is able to provide detailed information about the type and colour(s) of the road sign. That's the way I always thought about those two tagging schemes: destination is the simple variant and destination_sign the complex. I used both in the past, but only used the key lately. Best regards, Martin [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination#When_to_use P.S: I am aware, that I may simply ignore the wiki, but I don't want to lose any potential information, because someone thinks one must use destination_sign on e.g. highway=primary, but considers it as too complicated. ___ 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] Tagging Digest, Vol 64, Issue 30
The ID editor already has multifaith as a selectable pull-down item for the religion= tag. On January 9, 2015 7:23:54 PM EST, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Send Tagging mailing list submissions to tagging@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Tagging digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging Notes feature question (Dave F.) 2. Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging Notes feature question (Dan S) 3. Re: [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging Notes feature question (Dave F.) 4. Re: religion=multi* ? (John Sturdy) 5. Re: religion=multi* ? (Philip Barnes) 6. Re: religion=multi* ? (Andreas Neumann) 7. Re: religion=multi* ? (John Willis) 8. Re: religion=multi* ? (SomeoneElse) -- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 12:12:48 + From: Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com To: Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu, Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging Notes feature question Message-ID: 54afc5c0.3030...@madasafish.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed 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 -- Message: 2 Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 12:17:42 + From: Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Changeset messaging Notes feature question Message-ID: CANuikkqvzrLNgqA5jHogDyBVOMcwCut2pzr7HxE=d8bchcv...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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,
Re: [Tagging] Tag destination vs. relation destination_sign
Don't forget there is also a proposal for specifying more details on the destination key. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Destination_details It also allows to specify colour. regards m On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote: Looking at the description, I could imagine that the original idea was to use key:destination on motorways and similar roads (primary WITH primary_junction), because there you have normally no crossroads, but only “y junctions” on oneways. So for motorways it is more likely that there is only one version of the content of the signposts. But at normal crossroads, it may be more likely that the signpost content for one of the leaving ways is different (different content depending of the road from which you are coming). However, that’s just raw guess about the original intention. Also unsure if all these assumtions are correct (on the ground). I suggest to remove the section When to use and instead add the following sentence (or similar): Instead of they key destination, one might also use the relation destination_sign, which is able to provide detailed information about the type and colour(s) of the road sign. +1. Key:destination for the simple cases the the relation for the complex cases seems fine for me. Lukas PS: In the wiki, Key:destination is used for “signposts or ground writing”, but Relation:destination_sign only for signposts. I would extend Relation:destination_sign also to ground writings. And in general, I think it would be a good idea to harmonize the allowed tags (key:distance, key:time) between key:destination and relation:destination_sign. PPS: As far as I understand, the key:destination is used on OSM ways _after_ a signpost/groundwriting. If this is correct, the examples with the yellow and white signposts on the wiki page are confusing (tagging a motorway_link makes no sense here), and I would recommand to remove these three examples. Lukas Sommer 2015-01-10 17:40 GMT+01:00 Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com: I've asked this question several months ago on the help-website [1]. When should I use destination and when the relation? Until now I did not get any answer. Only recently I noticed the sentence you are referring to. From then on, I followed this advice. So I'm interested to learn which is the preferred way of mapping. I didn't add too many destinations yet, and can easily remap what I did so far. regards m [1] https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/35719/mapping-destination-on-a-primary-road On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: Hi! Currently it reads in the section When to use on the wiki page of the key destination [1]: Attention: Do not use them for mapping at highway=primary and highway=secondary (or smaller). In such cases, a destination sign relation is the recommended way for direction directives. Also above that sentence a list of road types is given on which that key should be used and only on that road types. May I ask who exactly recommended the use of the relation destination_sign and who decided, that destination may only be used on a few type of roads? I suggest to remove the section When to use and instead add the following sentence (or similar): Instead of they key destination, one might also use the relation destination_sign, which is able to provide detailed information about the type and colour(s) of the road sign. That's the way I always thought about those two tagging schemes: destination is the simple variant and destination_sign the complex. I used both in the past, but only used the key lately. Best regards, Martin [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination#When_to_use P.S: I am aware, that I may simply ignore the wiki, but I don't want to lose any potential information, because someone thinks one must use destination_sign on e.g. highway=primary, but considers it as too complicated. ___ 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
Re: [Tagging] Tagging private property
Am 02.01.2015 um 07:33 schrieb Megha Shrestha: Do we tag the whole area as owner =* ??? Oh no, please try to avoid this!!! We collect GEO-FACTS in OSM and are no land title register. Please also try to take care of privacy concerns. And think about that the fact needs to be checkable easily by anybody. Cheers, Michael. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?
In this dropdown, iD is simply returning the most popular results from taginfo: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/religion#values https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/religion#values On Jan 10, 2015, at 6:57 PM, Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org wrote: well that explains the slightly, but not significantly, higher usage numbers on this value. Interesting enough that iD implements a value that is not even documented. Jack Burke wrote on 2015-01-10 20:18: The ID editor already has multifaith as a selectable pull-down item for the religion= tag. [changing subject back from Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 64, Issue 30] ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC: Reverse Vending Machine
Apparently there is no consensus what to use to indicate reverse vending machines (RVM). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_vending_machine and: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bottle_reverse_vending_machines I therefore would like to suggest a set of tags that can be used in this case. First of all the tag to indicate the RVM itself, applied to a single node: amenity=reverse_vending_machine Since most RVMs do not give out cash, we need something to indicate where the coupons or marks can be redeemed. For this I suggest using the operator tag with the markets or the market chains name as the value. operator= Market/Market Chain Furthermore, we need something to indicate what kind of items the RVM accepts. Some people suggested using the tags known from recycling for this. However, since refundable items usually require to have a certain icon or barcode, this seems not suitable. Additionally RVMs sometimes accept whole crates of bottles. Therefore I suggest using dedicated tags for this purpose: refund:plastic_bottles=yes refund:glass_bottles=yes refund:cans=yes refund:crates=yes In some cases, operators only accept the items they themselves are providing. This is in some countries prohibited by law, but sometimes ignored. For this purpose I suggest an optional tag, which indicates an RVM, which only accepts refundable items that can be obtained from the operator. refund:operator_only=yes|no Regards, Lumiukko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
