Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Discussion - Reception Desk
Warin, Maybe there needs to be a wiki page on the subject? Associating one feature (a 'parent') with another feature (a 'child')? More of a guide as to how OSM 'does' it? Or may be it needs to be added to some already existing guide... I would propose to word it as belongs-to. However, once again, I would separate it from the reception desk tag proposal. In most cases, we would like to be able to tag the reception location(s) on a large campus: That's where this tag is most valuable. If there are multiple organizations in a limited space, there will often be just one reception. Otherwise finding *any *reception already helps a visitor a lot. Therefore I would first go on and finalize the reception tag. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk
2015-04-01 23:51 GMT+02:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: Associating one feature (a 'parent') with another feature (a 'child')? More of a guide as to how OSM 'does' it? Or may be it needs to be added to some already existing guide... there is no clear standard method to do this. There are at least 3 concepts in use: 1. spatially: something is inside or on the border of something else 2. by tagging: e.g. operator tag, brand tag, the bicycle=use_sidepath tag, etc. This method is not explicit but typically should work. 3. with relations (and roles within relations) For this case we could either use the site relation, e.g. a reception-role with which the reception_desk gets put into relation with a site (not yet documented), or we'd use the type=provides_feature relation. For the site relation there is a proposal here (but the examples somehow contradict the idea of point 1, that a spatial relation is sufficient in cases where one object contains another) http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site For the second I couldn't find any mention in the wiki, but it is used 411 times: http://taginfo.osm.org/tags/type=provides_feature#overview Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:53 AM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: That seems very wrong, as we tag parking lots with access=private and they are still mapped and rendered. They are a camp site visited by hundreds, if not thousands of people, just a private one. +1 I think this is a rendering issue, not a tagging issue. An icon indicating a reservable site is all that's needed. Scout camps ARE landmarks often, and valid destinations, even if they don't offer services to the general public. This is completely different from mapping people's home toilets or rubbish bins. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] For your comment: New template: Unit summary
To try and make unit description consistent here is a proposed template.
This would apply to tags like ele, est_width, circumference, height, width,
maxwidth, minwidth, distance. A separate table could be made for speed
weight.
Use as follows:
{{Unit_Tagging_Length|tag_name|furlongs}}
The template is defined at:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Unit_Tagging_Length
Other unit pages include:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Units
--
This particular summary promotes the notion of human centred tagging,
with parsers left to make conversion to computer readable units. It also
promotes explicit numbers (e.g. 20 m) over implicit ones ( e.g. 20 ).
Given the variety of unit styles already in the database, this seems to be
the most pragmatic approach.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
