Re: [Tagging] ?=maze
On 19/02/2015 7:44 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: there are also few amenity=maze and historic and tourism. The key attraction is used according to the wiki for features on a playground or in a theme park. Given the huge variety of maze types (ranging from built ones in masonry, ones made of vegetation to those ornaments carved into historic buildings, etc) I'm in favor of distinguishing with different keys. Mazes are a very broad topic, with great history (the first work of an architect was a maze, Daedalos built it according to Greek mythology to tame the Minotaur). Currently we seem to lack documentation which tag to use for which kind of maze. Rather than unifying the tags we should try to get the docu clear and decide which tag to use for the different manifestations of mazes. cheers Martin The usuall OSM practice is to have one tag xxx=maze and then have a sub tag to distinguish the type of maze. Why this exception .. other than poor practice in the past? By having several =maze possibilities; a) the mappers may well make errors .. that cannot be detected other than by being on the ground. b) the mapper may not know what type of maze it is .. and thus either not enter it or make a guess. My preference is for one tag =maze .. if a distinction is to be made between them then use a sub tag.. but there does not look to be enough of them for that to be worthwhile? So the choice for tags so far is attraction=maze ... looks too restrictive if restrained to only amusement parks. historic=maze ..looks too restrictive as new mazes would be excluded. So I'd exclude the above two. amenity=maze leisure=maze tourism=maze I'd be tossing a coin to chose between the three. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ?=maze
On 19/02/2015 8:15 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The problem with tourism=attraction attraction=maze Is that attraction is a top level tag, not a subtag of tourism=attraction. So maybe: tourism=attraction type=maze subtypes=labyrinth;hedge I'd do tourism=maze ... similar to zoo, theme park, museum, artwork. and if necessary sub tag under that .. there are lots of different types .. see wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ?=maze
I think that attraction=maze is better than attraction:type (shorter, without colon, type is not really adding anything useful, clear detailing of tourism=attraction). 2015-02-19 3:59 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: If it's of interest to outsiders it seems like an attraction. Thus how about: *tourism=attraction* *attraction:type=maze* *name=Happy Tunnel Kiddie Maze* *website=http://maze.example.org/ http://maze.example.org/* You want all those similar features (maze/tube hill/ride/garden/water park/whatever) to show up on a tourism/visitor type map. This is also a clear case where the existing maze tags could be mass retagged to the new scheme. --- You just want to be clear if a given feature is PART of a larger attraction (e.g. one ride in a water park), or if it's the high level feature (e.g. the water park itself). See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dtheme_park and the associated 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] Feature Proposal - Draft - Sanitary Dump Station
Well done Bryce, I did not realise that there was a 'failed' attempt to get this through as dumpstation in the past ! The name may not be ideal IMHO but I'll definitely vote for it. Mind if I add a bit of the recent history, how we arrived at this proposal ? David On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 23:23 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: It's clear there's on one term that's perfect. Moving on, here is: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sanitary_Dump_Station For your edits and participation. ___ 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] ?=maze
there are also few amenity=maze and historic and tourism. The key attraction is used according to the wiki for features on a playground or in a theme park. Given the huge variety of maze types (ranging from built ones in masonry, ones made of vegetation to those ornaments carved into historic buildings, etc) I'm in favor of distinguishing with different keys. Mazes are a very broad topic, with great history (the first work of an architect was a maze, Daedalos built it according to Greek mythology to tame the Minotaur). Currently we seem to lack documentation which tag to use for which kind of maze. Rather than unifying the tags we should try to get the docu clear and decide which tag to use for the different manifestations of mazes. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ?=maze
The problem with tourism=attraction attraction=maze Is that attraction is a top level tag, not a subtag of tourism=attraction. So maybe: tourism=attraction type=maze subtypes=labyrinth;hedge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ?=maze
Yes Mateusz, +1 from me, sounds good - Dan 2015-02-19 8:00 GMT+00:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: I think that attraction=maze is better than attraction:type (shorter, without colon, type is not really adding anything useful, clear detailing of tourism=attraction). 2015-02-19 3:59 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: If it's of interest to outsiders it seems like an attraction. Thus how about: tourism=attraction attraction:type=maze name=Happy Tunnel Kiddie Maze website=http://maze.example.org/ You want all those similar features (maze/tube hill/ride/garden/water park/whatever) to show up on a tourism/visitor type map. This is also a clear case where the existing maze tags could be mass retagged to the new scheme. --- You just want to be clear if a given feature is PART of a larger attraction (e.g. one ride in a water park), or if it's the high level feature (e.g. the water park itself). See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dtheme_park and the associated 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:waste_collection
On 19/02/2015 9:59 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-02-18 23:09 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waste_collection I believe there are still some issues with this proposal. For one the concept is still not clear/logical with the currently suggested values IMHO you should decide whether this tag will work like waste_collection=type of collected waste or like waste_collection=type of waste collectors (object). Currently you are mixing up those two (e.g. cigarettes is a kind of waste, household_bin is a kind of object to collect waste), Cigarette bin then? It is what I was thinking of .. and I think I found it in one of my searches on OSM values? Don't recall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_receptacle I'm for objects .. some objects do state the type of waste sometimes as that is for later processing, sometimes as it is part of there function. Ok .. so I could append 'bin' to all the solid types .. but for liquids .. what? 'Receptacle'? Is that acceptable? // Secondly, the chosen generic term looses scale / size information, compared to introduced tags like waste_bin. Oh.. how big is a waste bin? Some are small .. like the above cigarette bins to large like skip bins ... So the word bun to me does not define an expected size. The suggested key waste_collection=* doesn't give any information on the amount you can dispose at these places. Are these to be used on big plants/centres as well as on small bins? Then I'd expect to have another subtag to denote the size / amount of material you can dispose. E.g. for building material or earth you'd expect to be able to bring lorry loads of material, while for drugs or batteries the most common features are only accepting household quantities. cheers, Martin And a sub tag for fee, opening hours etc .. I too would like a 'volume' tag .. but that is another proposal as it could be used for other things .. capacity is used for parking ... just a number without unit. 'Volume' would need a unit .. perhaps litres .. as I say another proposal .. with separate discussion. There is mention of 'size' or 'volume' on the proposal page .. but I've not taken it further. I note that building does not in it self define an expected size .. having an area is a start but it then nneds a height.. So a volume sub key would follow present OSM practice. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ?=maze
There are some super famous ones in Japan in hat appear in the same field every year - I imagine there is some seasonal tag system to tag when it appears. There is also a yearly field used for making a giant pice of art. I wonder if artwork + a time or seasonal tag would work, as it appears in the same place every year. Javbw On Feb 19, 2015, at 7:02 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: maze=maize Probably too temporary for osm but they do appear every summer in the same area, moving with crop rotation. The farmer cuts paths through the maize and places a raised platform in the middle Phil (trigpoint ) On Thu Feb 19 09:48:33 2015 GMT, johnw wrote: I think it should be k kept under attraction, because a large mappable maze is certainly an interest of tourists - especially if it is part of a larger complex. Then it would be tourism=attraction attraction=maze maze=hedge or attraction:maze=hedge instead of attraction=maze + maze=hedge (so a generic maze would be attraction:maze=yes) I actually like this better. I don’t know which is better, but it certainly feels that any large maze - new or historic - is a form of attraction, so it should go into that - Especially if we are going to have a definition for special gardens in there as well. I think we can just label it historic or heritage or something if it fits for the maze http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic Other: wall, boundary_stone, well, boundary_marker, folly is a maze a “folly”? I think it is. so tourism=attraction attraction:maze=hedge historic=other Javbw On Feb 19, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 19/02/2015 8:15 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The problem with tourism=attraction attraction=maze Is that attraction is a top level tag, not a subtag of tourism=attraction. So maybe: tourism=attraction type=maze subtypes=labyrinth;hedge I'd do tourism=maze ... similar to zoo, theme park, museum, artwork. and if necessary sub tag under that .. there are lots of different types .. see wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Jolla ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:waste_collection
2015-02-18 23:09 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waste_collection I believe there are still some issues with this proposal. For one the concept is still not clear/logical with the currently suggested values IMHO you should decide whether this tag will work like waste_collection=type of collected waste or like waste_collection=type of waste collectors (object). Currently you are mixing up those two (e.g. cigarettes is a kind of waste, household_bin is a kind of object to collect waste), Secondly, the chosen generic term looses scale / size information, compared to introduced tags like waste_bin. The suggested key waste_collection=* doesn't give any information on the amount you can dispose at these places. Are these to be used on big plants/centres as well as on small bins? Then I'd expect to have another subtag to denote the size / amount of material you can dispose. E.g. for building material or earth you'd expect to be able to bring lorry loads of material, while for drugs or batteries the most common features are only accepting household quantities. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 05:57:47AM +0100, Andreas Labres wrote: On 18.02.15 14:36, Richard Z. wrote: suggest deprecating this particular value of aerialway -1 A Materialseilbahn is a special type of aerialway (Seilbahn) and should have its own value. See the picture linked in the wiki. This is not a cable car, this is not a gondola, it is a Materialseilbahn (if you don't have an english word for it, this doesn't mean it doesn't exist). try harder to find an english word for the special aerialway in the picture becuase mappers all over the world have been using this improperly to map large mining and industrial aerialways. Or - if an English word can not be found use the German word or make up something like aerialway=almbahn. for this special case. Meanwhile, key:access and usage should be usefull for all aerialways, even for the almbahn - they do allow passenger or personel transport in some cases so good is rather misleading. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:33:40PM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: amenity=elsan_point ? While it's opaque in the usa, at least it's not ambiguous. or amenity=checmical_toilet_disposal_point. My +1 wasn't for the trade name Elsan. chemical_toilet_disposal_point seems obvious and transparent to everyone everywhere? ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ?=maze
I think it should be k kept under attraction, because a large mappable maze is certainly an interest of tourists - especially if it is part of a larger complex. Then it would be tourism=attraction attraction=maze maze=hedge or attraction:maze=hedge instead of attraction=maze + maze=hedge (so a generic maze would be attraction:maze=yes) I actually like this better. I don’t know which is better, but it certainly feels that any large maze - new or historic - is a form of attraction, so it should go into that - Especially if we are going to have a definition for special gardens in there as well. I think we can just label it historic or heritage or something if it fits for the maze http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic Other: wall, boundary_stone, well, boundary_marker, folly is a maze a “folly”? I think it is. so tourism=attraction attraction:maze=hedge historic=other Javbw On Feb 19, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 19/02/2015 8:15 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The problem with tourism=attraction attraction=maze Is that attraction is a top level tag, not a subtag of tourism=attraction. So maybe: tourism=attraction type=maze subtypes=labyrinth;hedge I'd do tourism=maze ... similar to zoo, theme park, museum, artwork. and if necessary sub tag under that .. there are lots of different types .. see wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze ___ 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] ?=maze
Some forms of mazes and labyrinths 1. - part of or entire garden (often of a castle or stately home or similarly representative building), like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze#mediaviewer/File:Longleat_maze.jpg or this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze#mediaviewer/File:Hedge_Maze,_St_Louis_Botanical_Gardens_%28St_Louis,_Missouri_-_June_2003%29.jpg These are typically permanent and do last more than a few weeks IMHO could be a garden:style http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Garden_specification Not sure if this should comprise stone mazes when put in similar context, e.g. Donnafugata Castle: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5_VDLUa6b-A/T4LEVS-CuAI/Bxk/9qCCsJ9iyCM/s1600/P1110213.JPG or in this Chinese garden: http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/ruine-labyrinth-china-peking-yuanmingyuan-18665768.jpg 2. seasonal stand alone labyrinths, often made of corn, typical in southern Germany but also elsewhere, e.g. http://www.maislabyrinth-eutingen.de/bilder?page=2 one suggestion could be amenity=maze as these are dedicated mazes. 3. Finger labyrinth, engraved mazes http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth#mediaviewer/File:Duomo_Lucca_cathedrale_Lucques_labyrinthe.jpg maybe tourism=artwork and subtype(s)? 4. Labyrinth mosaics and floor pavings E.g. in portugal, Conimbriga http://www.bilder-reiseberichte.de/labyrinthe/bilder/conimbriga-portugal-03-51.jpg Or in France, Chartre http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth#mediaviewer/File:Labyrinth_at_Chartres_Cathedral.JPG ___ FWIW, I have assumed in my contributions that maze and labyrinth would be exchangeable (indeed in German they are), but the English wikipedia suggests they are not (they claim: maze=several ways through, labyrinth: just one way). cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ?=maze
2015-02-19 10:27 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: I'd do tourism=maze ... similar to zoo, theme park, museum, artwork. and if necessary sub tag under that .. there are lots of different types .. see wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze I agree. It's simple and to the point. For subtypes I would use maze_type. That would make it symmetrical with tourism=artwork + artwork_type=*. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ?=maze
2015-02-19 12:43 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: in addition to that I think any large enough maze should be mapped with highway=maze or highway=path, dead end markers and emergency exits. +1 and telephone number and capacity. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ?=maze
2015-02-19 10:20 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: The usuall OSM practice is to have one tag xxx=maze and then have a sub tag to distinguish the type of maze. Why this exception .. other than poor practice in the past? you seem to imply that there is just one way to look at the world. A=B with subtypes of B, but a wall engraving is something completely different (artwork) than a hedge or a ruin of an ancient religious site, all of which can come in the form of a maze. E.g. we are _not_ tagging man_made=metal_plate and then distinguish metal_plate=memorial metal_plate=sluice_gate metal_plate=roof metal_plate=hole_cover etc. Instead we use building=roof for all kinds of roofs and historic=memorial for some kinds of memorials, and don't care whether they are made of a metal plate or not. There are infinite ways to structure / classify / interpret the world, which are main classes and which are sub classes is something that evolves within our open tagging system. There is no usual OSM practise in a way it would determine how to classify mazes. My preference is for one tag =maze .. if a distinction is to be made between them then use a sub tag.. but there does not look to be enough of them for that to be worthwhile? So the choice for tags so far is attraction=maze ... looks too restrictive if restrained to only amusement parks. historic=maze ..looks too restrictive as new mazes would be excluded. So I'd exclude the above two. amenity=maze leisure=maze tourism=maze I'd be tossing a coin to chose between the three. to describe what kind of object? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ?=maze
maze=maize Probably too temporary for osm but they do appear every summer in the same area, moving with crop rotation. The farmer cuts paths through the maize and places a raised platform in the middle Phil (trigpoint ) On Thu Feb 19 09:48:33 2015 GMT, johnw wrote: I think it should be k kept under attraction, because a large mappable maze is certainly an interest of tourists - especially if it is part of a larger complex. Then it would be tourism=attraction attraction=maze maze=hedge or attraction:maze=hedge instead of attraction=maze + maze=hedge (so a generic maze would be attraction:maze=yes) I actually like this better. I don’t know which is better, but it certainly feels that any large maze - new or historic - is a form of attraction, so it should go into that - Especially if we are going to have a definition for special gardens in there as well. I think we can just label it historic or heritage or something if it fits for the maze http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic Other: wall, boundary_stone, well, boundary_marker, folly is a maze a “folly”? I think it is. so tourism=attraction attraction:maze=hedge historic=other Javbw On Feb 19, 2015, at 6:27 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 19/02/2015 8:15 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The problem with tourism=attraction attraction=maze Is that attraction is a top level tag, not a subtag of tourism=attraction. So maybe: tourism=attraction type=maze subtypes=labyrinth;hedge I'd do tourism=maze ... similar to zoo, theme park, museum, artwork. and if necessary sub tag under that .. there are lots of different types .. see wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maze ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods
2015-02-19 12:24 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: try harder to find an english word for the special aerialway in the picture becuase mappers all over the world have been using this improperly to map large mining and industrial aerialways. why do you think this is improper usage? The current definition reads: A cable/wire supported lift for goods. Passenger transport is usually not allowed. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ?=maze
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 06:48:33PM +0900, johnw wrote: I think it should be k kept under attraction, because a large mappable maze is certainly an interest of tourists - especially if it is part of a larger complex. Then it would be tourism=attraction attraction=maze maze=hedge or attraction:maze=hedge instead of attraction=maze + maze=hedge (so a generic maze would be attraction:maze=yes) I actually like this better. I don’t know which is better, but it certainly feels that any large maze - new or historic - is a form of attraction, so it should go into that - Especially if we are going to have a definition for special gardens in there as well. in addition to that I think any large enough maze should be mapped with highway=maze or highway=path, dead end markers and emergency exits. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 05:27:30PM +0100, Pieren wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 2:49 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:aerialway#Usage -1 I don't like such general keys like usage (or type) in general. well the key is already here and perfect fit for aerialways. Argue with the railway folks to improve or abolish it and aerialways will happilly adopt it. Basically, it could be used in all tags (e.g. highway=yes + usage=residential). It's not because it is now spread in railways that we have to repeat the same mistake (how about mixed usage ? again with the semicolon joke ?). unlike highways, aerialways and railway are closely very closely related types of tranpsort. It makes sense to reuse parts of the tagging developed by railways for aerialways in those cases where it is clearly decribing the same concept. As of mixed use, you could read the description on the page and talk page. An aerialway for goods is not the same as an aerialway for skiers. Until now, we use different values based on the different cabins/cars/lifts type. Perhaps instead of goods it could be replaced by fork or container or container_for_goods, just enhancing the existing list following the same principle. For routing purposes it would be highly desirable to have tagging valid accross all trasnportation means that are potentially relevant to routing, including and not limitted to ship lines, railways and aerialways. How is routing software supposed to know that some aerialway=goods are actually taking passengers? In principle *all* aerialways (even lifts) can be used for the transport of goods as well. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line
On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 06:55 +0900, John Willis wrote: Something so dangerous in the US for children's playgrounds were removed a long time ago, but in Japan, they still have plenty of giant steel things to play on and, on three occasions, I have found ~ 10m zip line like rides. They are in playgrounds or parks near the slides or jungle gyms. The last one I found was in a children's play park, with many different kinds of large concrete or steel playground fixtures that US cities would have demanded ripped out for liability reasons a long time ago . They have specialty support columns, two wires, with bump guards and and enclosed pulley that rides the wires, and a rope that hands down that you hold onto as it zips down the small incline. They certainly still exist in the UK, and Germany as I remember there was one next to our Saturday night bier-garten at SOTM-EU in Karlsruhe, many of us OSMers had great fun on this and other pieces of equipment. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Sanitary Dump Station
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:23:38PM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: It's clear there's on one term that's perfect. Moving on, here is: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sanitary_Dump_Station That looks fine. Although not common in UK English, it is transparent and obvious. So +1 . ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods
Am 19.02.2015 um 13:12 schrieb Andreas Labres l...@lab.at: The only alternative there is a helicopter flight... or a mule ;-) cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line
On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 06:55 +0900, John Willis wrote: Something so dangerous in the US for children's playgrounds were removed a long time ago, but in Japan, they still have plenty of giant steel things to play on and, on three occasions, I have found ~ 10m zip line like rides. They are in playgrounds or parks near the slides or jungle gyms. The last one I found was in a children's play park, with many different kinds of large concrete or steel playground fixtures that US cities would have demanded ripped out for liability reasons a long time ago . They have specialty support columns, two wires, with bump guards and and enclosed pulley that rides the wires, and a rope that hands down that you hold onto as it zips down the small incline. They certainly still exist in the UK, and Germany as I remember there was one next to our Saturday night bier-garten at SOTM-EU in Karlsruhe, many of us OSMers had great fun on this and other pieces of equipment. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line
On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 06:55 +0900, John Willis wrote: Something so dangerous in the US for children's playgrounds were removed a long time ago, but in Japan, they still have plenty of giant steel things to play on and, on three occasions, I have found ~ 10m zip line like rides. They are in playgrounds or parks near the slides or jungle gyms. The last one I found was in a children's play park, with many different kinds of large concrete or steel playground fixtures that US cities would have demanded ripped out for liability reasons a long time ago . They have specialty support columns, two wires, with bump guards and and enclosed pulley that rides the wires, and a rope that hands down that you hold onto as it zips down the small incline. They certainly still exist in the UK, and Germany as I remember there was one next to our Saturday night bier-garten at SOTM-EU in Karlsruhe, many of us OSMers had great fun on this and other pieces of equipment. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods
Richard, Those Materialseilbahnen (ropeways for goods) are typical in the Alps to supply alpine huts (where everybody can get something to eat and stay overnight) with everything that is needed. The only alternative there is a helicopter flight... On 19.02.15 12:24, Richard Z. wrote: try harder to find an english word for the special aerialway in the picture becuase mappers all over the world have been using this improperly to map large mining and industrial aerialways. I'd disagree that this is improper use. They are also Materialseilbahnen (ropeways for goods). There is no cabin for passengers but a loading platform or kind of hanging lorry. The principle is the same as with (hanging) cable cars with a track rope and a drag rope, but the technolgy is much, much simpler, as there is no passengers in potential danger. Just keep them apart, aerialway=cable_car is a ropeway for passengers, aerialway=goods is a ropeway for goods. Rendering should be a little lighter for a goods ropeway. /al ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - dump_station
On Feb 18, 2015 4:38 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 19/02/2015 8:19 AM, David Bannon wrote: Subject renamed for clarity. * leaving it as it is - easy choice * Adding dump_station to waste= - consistent with whats there now. * Adding dump_station to amenity= - easier to map (?) ...I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 11:31 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: semantically this sounds as if dump_station was a kind of waste, not a place type to put waste amenity=dump_station or man_made=dump_station would be the obvious ones. Thats a very good point Martin, a dump station is not a waste but it is an amenity. That does differentiate it from much of the the other items listed under waste=. We tend to use the name for the waste itself in many cases but, I guess because of its nature, prefer to name the facility rather than say excrement, sh**, whatever. Quite a good argument for elevating the proposed dump_station to amenity rather than waste= in my opinion. Thanks Martin David For waste= ... may be waste=black_water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_%28waste%29b May be waste=rv_black_water if needed to distinguish it from other possible black water sources? Why not KISS and tack on access=no, rv=yes in such a case? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station
On Feb 18, 2015 8:13 PM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: The French tried to prevent new words from creeping into what they consider pure French too. The most amusing of which I'm aware of makes the following names equivalent in Canada: KFC, PFK, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Poulet Frit Kentucky... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:31 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: On February 19, 2015 5:46:46 AM CST, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:33:40PM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: amenity=elsan_point ? While it's opaque in the usa, at least it's not ambiguous. or amenity=checmical_toilet_disposal_point. It's lengthy, but the clearest of any of the alternatives I have seen. The proposal now sits at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sanitary_Dump_Station ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Sanitary Dump Station
On 19/02/2015 11:01 PM, ael wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:23:38PM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: It's clear there's on one term that's perfect. Moving on, here is: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sanitary_Dump_Station That looks fine. Although not common in UK English, it is transparent and obvious. So +1 . ael ___ I've added an image. And done one minor editorial on the CDP abbreviation. The mention of Elsan as an example of a manufacture .. I think that it is like 'Asprin' - seen by the general public as _any_ headache powder. I'd avoid mentioning it here as it may confuse some? Oh .. and is it only for chemical toilets .. or can it be used for boats .. they don't seem to use the same systems? So may be they need a separate tag? Don't know. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Sanitary Dump Station
The goal of mentioning Elsan is so someone searching will find it. It's an alias. Dump Stations apply to boats also. Some require a pumpout on the dock, others you carry the toilet to the dump point, yet others there is a pump on the boat. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking
Please have a look at this feature proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage . *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Draft - Sanitary Dump Station
On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 14:00 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The goal of mentioning Elsan is so someone searching will find it. It's an alias. Do you mean in the context of the suggested brand=Elsan ? I just added a comment to the page questioning this. Dump Stations apply to boats also. Indeed it should. But adds some variables, I have added a suggestion we add description= to deal with things like that. The text might be boat use only, on board pump required, unsuitable large vehicles. I added a Rationale, potted history of this discussion. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking
Would apply to travellers flying or going on a sea voyage for some time. The parking= key looks to give information on the physical layout of the parking - underground/ground level only, multi-story etc. So may not be the best place for this information? Would not the tag maxstay give some clue? Maybe a value of 'storage' here would be best? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxstay , On 20/02/2015 9:09 AM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: Please have a look at this feature proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage. /Jan van Bekkum/ www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl http://www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking
Oh .. you want to determine if the parking is covered or not? then http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered and/or use the present values of the key parking= underground, sheds, carports, garage_boxes, multi-storey ? any other value or missing tags take as uncovered? Adds no tags .. just uses the present ones. Easy? On 20/02/2015 9:09 AM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: Please have a look at this feature proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage. /Jan van Bekkum/ www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl http://www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking
Thanks, this makes much sense. - I will update the proposal to use the key covered instead of different values for the type of storage - I will also change car to vehicle covering caravans, boats, etc. as well - I agree that amenity or shop would be better that parking as the typical characteristics differ from a regular parking and you would not choose for the facility if you look for long time parking at an airport: - Storing and retrieving is often by appointment only ( a few days in advance) - Focus is on best capacity use, not on easy access: you may not be allowed to park your vehicle yourself and it may be needed to move 5 vehicles before yours can be reached - Oten additional services are provided: disconnecting and connecting batteries, monthly starting, small service jobs - Amenity is better than shop: most shops are not delivering a service, but goods only; this is comparable with other types of parking Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 5:09:59 AM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:22 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: I think he’s trying to say that “a storage amenity” is different from a parking amenity”, because it is not something you would seek out on the map when looking for parking (even long term airport parking, i think) - but rather something you’d seek out when looking for a storage facility for your vehicle, where the vehicle spends most of it’s life parked +1 these are different. Fact is rendered maps get boiled down to simple symbols. If a [P] parking symbol on a map is to have any meaning, it has to be a lot one could actually park at. The same goes for toilets: imagine of the map was cluttered with toilet symbols most of which you could not actually use. Long term vehicle storage is not the same as parking. Parking lots break down into: 1) Public, free 2) Public, paid 3) Destination only, free 4) Destination only, paid 5) Private The gray area are nominally shoppers only destination parking lots where nobody enforces the rule. ___ 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:22 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: I think he’s trying to say that “a storage amenity” is different from a parking amenity”, because it is not something you would seek out on the map when looking for parking (even long term airport parking, i think) - but rather something you’d seek out when looking for a storage facility for your vehicle, where the vehicle spends most of it’s life parked +1 these are different. Fact is rendered maps get boiled down to simple symbols. If a [P] parking symbol on a map is to have any meaning, it has to be a lot one could actually park at. The same goes for toilets: imagine of the map was cluttered with toilet symbols most of which you could not actually use. Long term vehicle storage is not the same as parking. Parking lots break down into: 1) Public, free 2) Public, paid 3) Destination only, free 4) Destination only, paid 5) Private The gray area are nominally shoppers only destination parking lots where nobody enforces the rule. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking
I think he’s trying to say that “a storage amenity” is different from a parking amenity”, because it is not something you would seek out on the map when looking for parking (even long term airport parking, i think) - but rather something you’d seek out when looking for a storage facility for your vehicle, where the vehicle spends most of it’s life parked, instead of (illegally) in front of your house. But I think the mapping of the actual parking lot would still be done with the amenity=parking tag (access private), and the land would be landuse=retail, with a shop=storage tag? perhaps shop=vehicle_storage, because some people store boats, planes, etc, and is different than a storage locker rental, unless there is some kind of storage=*key to define what kind of storage the shop rents out (lockers, rooms, garages, vehicle parking, yes) - some storage facilities offer all of them in a single facility. Some planned neighborhoods and places with strict rules about parking on the street or in driveways often have storage parking lots in a fenced area in the neighborhood that is for the resident’s storage of large vehicles (motorhomes, etc) - not guest parking or resident parking - just perpetual oversized vehicle parking. is there someway to tag a parking lot in some way as “storage”? This kind of storage is common near military bases, where the soldiers leave their vehicles when they deploy, and the rest of their belongings are in storage - as they don’t have a home or apartment to leave their vehicle at. Often times it is not actually part of the base grounds. maybe amenity:parking=vehicle_storage ? or amenity=parking + storage=vehicle_storage . my ideas. javbw On Feb 20, 2015, at 7:45 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Oh .. you want to determine if the parking is covered or not? then http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered and/or use the present values of the key parking= underground, sheds, carports, garage_boxes, multi-storey ? any other value or missing tags take as uncovered? Adds no tags .. just uses the present ones. Easy? On 20/02/2015 9:09 AM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: Please have a look at this feature proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage. Jan van Bekkum www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl http://www.deeindervoorbij.nl/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On February 19, 2015 5:46:46 AM CST, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:33:40PM -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: amenity=elsan_point ? While it's opaque in the usa, at least it's not ambiguous. or amenity=checmical_toilet_disposal_point. My +1 wasn't for the trade name Elsan. chemical_toilet_disposal_point seems obvious and transparent to everyone everywhere? ael ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging It's lengthy, but the clearest of any of the alternatives I have seen. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Deprecating aerialway=goods
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: How is routing software supposed to know that some aerialway=goods are actually taking passengers? like roads tagged with access=no or private. Or highway=pedestrian not allowed for cars. We create simple tags for the average contributors, not to simplify routing software dev's life. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking
On 20/02/2015 1:22 PM, johnw wrote: I think he’s trying to say that “a storage amenity” is different from a parking amenity”, because it is not something you would seek out on the map when looking for parking (even long term airport parking, i think) - but rather something you’d seek out when looking for a storage facility for your vehicle, where the vehicle spends most of it’s life parked, instead of (illegally) in front of your house. But the proposal says it uses the same rendering as other amenity=parking ... But I think the mapping of the actual parking lot would still be done with the amenity=parking tag (access private), and the land would be landuse=retail, with a shop=storage tag? Some 'storage shops' here sell bags and boxes for storing stuff in.. not space for stuff to be stored in. 'Storage facilities' .. for storage of stuff would be the description here.. perhaps shop=vehicle_storage, because some people store boats, planes, etc, and is different than a storage locker rental, unless there is some kind of storage=*key to define what kind of storage the shop rents out (lockers, rooms, garages, vehicle parking, yes) - some storage facilities offer all of them in a single facility. maybe amenity:parking=vehicle_storage ? or amenity=parking + storage=vehicle_storage . my ideas. amenity=vehicle_storage? javbw Note the page mentions 'reliable storage' .. I'd think the reliability would not be assessed by OSM... nor that kind of information put in the data base ... too many problems with it. I personally have a tendency not to map those places with a poor reputation... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
