Re: [Tagging] Basic philosophy of OSM tagging
On Wed, 2015-01-14 at 11:28 +1100, Warin wrote: What is the basic philosophy of OSM tagging at the top level? Are 'we' tagging for What things are? eg highways OR What things are used for? eg amenity I think its a very good question Warin. Perhaps, at the hart of much angst amongst OSM'ers. To complicate, should we tag for what things are used for OR what they are officially intended for ? Many bush roads in Australia are good examples, perhaps initially cut by oil and gas explorers, adopted by recreational 4WD'ers, become tourist roads. In many cases, never maintained, not gazetted as official roads. I know a road, put in to maintain a railway line, that does not appear on any official map but is an excellent way to access an iconic destination, Chambers Pillar. Last time I used it there were no signs to deny access but tourists are kept unaware of it. Should I map it next time I'm there ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
Am 13.01.2015 um 17:17 schrieb François Lacombe: 2015-01-13 16:17 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com mailto:kotya.li...@gmail.com: I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement. Have you also voted at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting ? Yes, as Fanfouer I won't vote. I fully agree regarding the (in)consistency and would be happy to contribute to develop a consistent tagging scheme and the method to maintain it. Well, a full list of features regarding water networks (fountains, springs, industrial facilities for treatment, ...) which can be added to OSM would be a great beginning. We'll be able then to summarize the existing tags, and maybe refine some of them to best describe those features. Let's return to it once this tag discussion is over. It took more than 4 months already! The time shouldn't be a problem here. 4 month is really quick when some other proposals need years to be completed. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement And there is no need to ever have a vote. Most of the discussion as far as I remember where beyond man_made=water_tap. The proposal now is only about one tag and as I read it, it is no replacement but only a possible addition to amenity=drinking_water, though this could be better documented. Hope the rest of the discussion won't get lost and we already had similar problems with amenity=drinking_water + drinking_water=no. E.g. we need some rework of the whole issue and at least two tags where one could describe the method/structure to gain the water (well,tap ..). Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] barrier=net ?
I mostly met them on tennis courts. For my common understanding, I would be able to break through a net with a sharp knife while I would struggle to do so with a fence. This would still fit with material=* but isn't there a difference in construction between fence and net where the first is free standing where the second one is tied up. Wonder how a net could fit under fence in foreign languages or if it is much easier to have an own main value for it. cu fly Am 07.01.2015 um 05:50 schrieb Andrew Harvey: I've also used it to tag nets in the water used to provide swimming areas safe from sharks. On 07/01/2015 11:42 am, johnw jo...@mac.com mailto:jo...@mac.com wrote: There are 544 uses of barrier=net, and I want to add it into the wiki. For many golf courses, driving ranges, and baseball fields world wide, and many school grounds in Japan, they may have a fence or wall, and in addition a separate expansive and very tall netting, in some cases 5 to 10 stores tall for a driving range, supported by steel or concrete poles (that look like telephone poles). In many instances, the net alone is the sole barrier between a golf course and adjacent property, forgoing a wall or fence, when trespassing or privacy concerns is not an issue. I don’t think these kinds of nets fits very well with =fence, so I’d like to add the value to the wiki page (and then for rendering in -carto) Javbw. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Basic philosophy of OSM tagging
Hi, On 01/14/2015 01:28 AM, Warin wrote: What is the basic philosophy of OSM tagging at the top level? There is no basic philosophy at the top level from which everything else can be derived. It's like evolution - some things are a bit strange but you can often understand them by looking at how they came to be. There is a tendency however to tag for What things are? eg highways simply because something can always have side effects that are not related to the primary purpose, or the primary purpose is not immediately obvious. For example, a motorway is not only a transport feature, it is also an insurmountable barrier for pedestrians or cyclists. Tagging is very often based on what you see, not what you know. If you see a body of water (and you might be doing that from aerial imagery, sitting 1000s of miles away), you tag it as a body of water even if you don't know whether this is an artificial reservoir that supplies drinking water or a crater lake or anything else. Tagging What things are used for? eg amenity might require more knowledge than the mapper has, especially in the case of mapping from aerial imagery. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] barrier=net ?
On 07/01/2015 9:29 pm, althio althio althio.fo...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew your case is more specialized so I feel barrier=net is lacking. How about barrier=fence fence_type=shark_net Sounds good with me. I'll re-tag the ones I've tagged. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?
2015-01-13 11:44 GMT+01:00 althio althio althio.fo...@gmail.com: Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: religion=multi looks OK to me, the similarity to sport makes it easier to remember than religion=all (and it is very likely more accurate, as all is too inclusive I guess). Some airports REALLY wants to be that inclusive. that is not a problem, as multi doesn't exclude all, but all requires all. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Basic philosophy of OSM tagging
This comes from the tap discussion but has implications elsewhere. What is the basic philosophy of OSM tagging at the top level? Are 'we' tagging for What things are? eg highways OR What things are used for? eg amenity Explanation? By example; Highways are used for transport so would be better tagged as transport=motorway, sub tags for vehicles etc. OR amenity=drinking_water would be better tagged as water=blubber -- Is there an FAQ on this? Or has this never been documented/though of? Have fun with this :) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] barrier=net ?
2015-01-13 6:09 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 9:55 PM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: What's the difference between an alley and a motorway besides width? How it drains, how thick the hard surface is, lane width, paved shoulders, buildings not adjacent to the roadway with doors extending into the road (saw a collision between a building door opening just in time to get slammed shut by a slow moving truck that happened to be going down the alley; person opening the door was OK), no direct access, lack of dumpsters in the travel lanes, through traffic... also on another level, where it leads to / comes from (connecting major cities vs. backdoor access/service), i.e. the setting and usage, how you get to it (on ramps), the signage, the guard rails, etc. I guess John wasn't very serious with his comment, or he'd rather asked what they had in common if anything ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] kind of a shop=ticket
I created a feature proposal on this topic https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ticket_type I'm happy to get your feedback Karsten On 12.01.2015 10:48, althio althio wrote: This is very related to amenity=vending_machine (taginfo = 54 000) with its associated key: vending=* (taginfo = 50 000) http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/vending#values Maybe we could come up with something that unite the used keys. On 12 January 2015 at 09:55, k4r573n k4r5...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi, I wonder how to map the kind of a ticket shop. It would be practical to see ticket shops for concerts on a culture map and such shops for aerialway on a skiing map. for now I've 2 ideas tickets:ski=yes/no tickets:concert=yes/no tickets:public_transport=yes/no ... or ticket=ski ticket=concert ticket=public_transport ticket=... tagwatch lists 49 entries of ticket=* 48 entries of tickets=* 15 entries of tickets:public_transport=* 16 entries of tickets:bus=* 10 entries of tickets:subway=* this wiki page [1] recommends to use tickets:*=* What should I document in the wiki? ___ Karsten [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Tag:shop=ticket ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?
2015-01-12 21:59 GMT+01:00 althio althio althio.fo...@gmail.com: I think they are definitively for worshiping and prayers. amenity=place_of_worship is pretty clear for me. also this one: http://gloria.tv/?media=600653language=o9CtE7uatTg looks like a wayside shrine, but the title says place of worship... cheers, Martin PS: religion=multi looks OK to me, the similarity to sport makes it easier to remember than religion=all (and it is very likely more accurate, as all is too inclusive I guess). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: religion=multi looks OK to me, the similarity to sport makes it easier to remember than religion=all (and it is very likely more accurate, as all is too inclusive I guess). Some airports REALLY wants to be that inclusive. a prayer room for all faiths and denominations at Stansted. We welcome people of all faiths to join us in our chapel and prayer rooms at Gatwick. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...
Hi, Some places in the wiki mention cycleway:lanes:* tags, and those are indeed used in a few places (31 uses currently). It seems to me these tags are obsolete and have been replaced by bicycle:lanes:*, is that correct? Should I probably mass-replace them? -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...
+1 to all. Except none in this case was meant to be the default value from the :lanes proposal. Am 13. Januar 2015 13:45:24 MEZ, schrieb Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: 2015-01-13 13:38 GMT+01:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de: I would not. IMO bicycle:lanes is an access Tag while cycleway:lanes defines es the type. So one could have cycleway:lanes:forward=none | lane and bicycle:lanes:forwad= yes | designated , for example. That's correct. AFAIK it is common understanding, that some kind of way with access tags bicycle=designated and vehicle=no (or similar) is more or less identical to a cyclelane. My problems with cycleway:lanes=...|lane|none|... are: * The value none is not specified for the key cycleway * The tag cycleway=lane tells use, there is a cyclelane, but it doesn't tell us where. Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...
2015-01-13 13:38 GMT+01:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de: I would not. IMO bicycle:lanes is an access Tag while cycleway:lanes defines es the type. So one could have cycleway:lanes:forward=none | lane and bicycle:lanes:forwad= yes | designated , for example. That's correct. AFAIK it is common understanding, that some kind of way with access tags bicycle=designated and vehicle=no (or similar) is more or less identical to a cyclelane. My problems with cycleway:lanes=...|lane|none|... are: * The value none is not specified for the key cycleway * The tag cycleway=lane tells use, there is a cyclelane, but it doesn't tell us where. Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting I voted earlier today 'no' to this proposal in its current state and provided my arguments. But now I'm asked to forward them on this mailing list (perhaps to see if I'm the only who disagrees). My main concern with the proposal is its collision with the existing amenity=drinking_water tag. And we get enough complains from newcomers about our tagging complexity to not create more confusion. The amenity=drinking_water tag is old and widely used (82.000 in taginfo). But recently some people asked how to tag water resource which is not intended for drinking like tap in cemeteries, see the question referenced from the help site ([1]). I fully agree that we need a solution here but it should not interfer with the existing tag amenity=drinking_water. I did not follow the whole discussion but when I was called to provide my opinion on the proposal, the first sentence in the wiki says This is a proposal for tagging of (publicly usable) water taps, such as those in the cities and graveyards. Water taps may provide potable and technical water, which can then be further specified with drinking_water=yes|no. A bit later, there is a warning about fire_hydrant but nothing explains here clearly where is the difference between man_made=water_tap+drinking_water=yes and amenity=drinking_water. And nowhere it says if drinking_water subtag is mandatory or not or what is the default value about potability. And we have seen in the past that with such ambiguities, a tag is very quickly improperly used by the community. Between the lines and comments, we see that some people would deprecate the older tag. Why not but then tell it clearly. What I don't like is what we have seen in the past with some proposals deliberately ambiguous about deprecating older tags because they know it is not very popular in the votes, and enforced the deprecation later, when the tag is moved to the adopted sections. I'm not personnally a big supporter of the amenity=drinking_water but I think the current proposal is not clear enough compared to the existing tags. Pieren [1] https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/27869/how-to-tag-water-taps-not-intended-for-drinking-water ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...
I would not. IMO bicycle:lanes is an access Tag while cycleway:lanes defines es the type. So one could have cycleway:lanes:forward=none | lane and bicycle:lanes:forwad= yes | designated , for example. Am 13. Januar 2015 13:28:22 MEZ, schrieb Andrew Shadura and...@shadura.me: Hi, Some places in the wiki mention cycleway:lanes:* tags, and those are indeed used in a few places (31 uses currently). It seems to me these tags are obsolete and have been replaced by bicycle:lanes:*, is that correct? Should I probably mass-replace them? -- Cheers, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...
2015-01-13 13:52 GMT+01:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de: +1 to all. Except none in this case was meant to be the default value from the :lanes proposal. The default value is always an empty value, e.g. minspeed=|80|50. The value none might be defined by the main key, e.g. maxspeed=none. If the main key does not specify the value none, one should not use this value in any suffixed key. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
2015-01-13 16:17 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com: I vote yes but this will automatically need a refinement. Have you also voted at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting ? Yes, as Fanfouer I fully agree regarding the (in)consistency and would be happy to contribute to develop a consistent tagging scheme and the method to maintain it. Well, a full list of features regarding water networks (fountains, springs, industrial facilities for treatment, ...) which can be added to OSM would be a great beginning. We'll be able then to summarize the existing tags, and maybe refine some of them to best describe those features. Let's return to it once this tag discussion is over. It took more than 4 months already! The time shouldn't be a problem here. 4 month is really quick when some other proposals need years to be completed. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement All the best *François Lacombe* fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com www.infos-reseaux.com @InfosReseaux http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap
On 14/01/2015 12:01 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Message: 2 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:35:39 +0100 From: Pieren pier...@gmail.com To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap Message-ID: capt3zjr3djv_s0krxhdmb4jgyv_9ztyigowux+1nhcmx-a7...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Voting My main concern with the proposal is its collision with the existing amenity=drinking_water tag. And we get enough complains from newcomers about our tagging complexity to not create more confusion. The amenity=drinking_water tag is old and widely used (82.000 in taginfo). But recently some people asked how to tag water resource which is not intended for drinking like tap in cemeteries, see the question referenced from the help site ([1]). I fully agree that we need a solution here but it should not interfer with the existing tag amenity=drinking_water. I did not follow the whole discussion but when I was called to provide my opinion on the proposal, the first sentence in the wiki says This is a proposal for tagging of (publicly usable) water taps, such as those in the cities and graveyards. Water taps may provide potable and technical water, which can then be further specified with drinking_water=yes|no. A bit later, there is a warning about fire_hydrant but nothing explains here clearly where is the difference between man_made=water_tap+drinking_water=yes and amenity=drinking_water. And nowhere it says if drinking_water subtag is mandatory or not or what is the default value about potability. And we have seen in the past that with such ambiguities, a tag is very quickly improperly used by the community. Between the lines and comments, we see that some people would deprecate the older tag. Why not but then tell it clearly. Pieren I appreciate you concerns. They should have been raised in the commenting period of the proposal rather than the voting period that is coming to a close. 1) amenity=drinking_water The wiki has photos of blubbers - one tap. And that is what I have used it for - blubbers. Some have suggested using amenity=drinking_water with portable=no ... I'd like it changed to only reference blubbers or things that are meant for the human to directly consume water. But that is another discussion! And should be raised as a separate issue/subject to attract attention to it on that topic ONLY. amenity=drinking_water needs clarification. Without any other tag for a tap .. well I'll use it inappropriately as I have no other choice... is that a solution that is acceptable? Or should I use amenity=water_point .. though it is not intended for large quantities of water? 2) Taps. They need a tag. There is nothing suitable. Sub tags for them have been discussed and there is a lot in them .. but they again should be a separate topic/subject as they could be applied to other water objects. Voting 'no' on taps .. to me means we should not tag taps. May be I should not map blubbers either ! Not clear to me what amenity=drinking_water means exactly? And then there is the old chestnut of highway=footway and highway=path. That is a ridiculous thing .. and to justify it saying it is historical is no justification at all.If the tag tap is better then why reject it due to a less suitable tag being present? Just so the less suitable tag continues? 3) alternatives ? amenity=water_point with sub tags portable=yes/no/boil/filter+boil/ temperature=chilled/cold/tepid/hot/boiling tap=yes/no flow_rate=l/m spigot=plain/threaded ? others? Maybe water should be a higher level tag? Like highway thus water=river/stream/lake/tank/pipe/tap/blubber/well/spring/? Again too late for the discussion period .. and at that high a level should be a new discussion. == There are lots of inconsistencies in OSM tags. At the very basic level, are 'we' tagging _what things are_ ... or _what they are used for_? Both have been used, but there should be a fundamental decision to go one way or the other. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
