Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 24.04.2015 um 01:46 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> 
> Extinguishers are placed by the requirements of possible fires in that 
> location. So if you find one local to the fire it should be suitable for use 
> there. Thus added tagging should serve little to no purpose.


yes, it is clear that for extinguishing a fire you would rather look on the 
text on the extinguisher than on OSM. This thread is not about extinguishing 
fires but how to describe these objects if you want to

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> yes, but also there it is not the same. Around here, vaping is allowed and
> at least tolerated if not accepted socially indoors, eg in a restaurant.
> Medically, you don't inhale smoke, so there are big differences, regardless
> how healthy it is.
>

Both leave residue in the air and on surfaces.
That's an additional underlying reason for various bans.

Regardless: OSM wants to tag whatever restrictions (or lack of
restrictions) there are.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 24.04.2015 um 02:51 schrieb John Willis :
> 
> An i-phone is still considered a phone.


-1, a Mercedes is still considered a car. 

And now?

Smoking is about inhaling smoke, a telephone is about speaking remotely and a 
car is a means of transport.

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 24.04.2015 um 00:01 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo :
> 
> It's the social/medical definition that matters
> here


yes, but also there it is not the same. Around here, vaping is allowed and at 
least tolerated if not accepted socially indoors, eg in a restaurant. 
Medically, you don't inhale smoke, so there are big differences, regardless how 
healthy it is.


cheers 
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path

[johnw]

The ones in Japan ( I have seen) are chains. Some routes are easily passible 
without chains, some are beyond vertical in spots with the chain to climb. And 
grandpas were climbing them with a pair of gloves. 

occasionally there were big anchor rings used as handholds. 

For the easier and crowded routes, no one out on the mountain in Japan had any 
safety gear beyond a pair of leather gloves. 

The The upper mountain routes were all serious climbing routes, beyond the help 
of chains. Signs warning of death by falling were at the entrances to these 
upper routes. A few people with climbing harnesses, helmets, and ropes were the 
only ones on those routes. 

The lower ones - with chains, with 20m diagonal slopes or 3m vertical drops on 
the trail (and 50m vertical drops off the sides) were being climbed by people 
in sneakers and garden gloves. 

So just because there are chains, it doesn’t mean that a person would have any 
additional gear. I was just carrying 10KG of camera gear for pictures. 

Javbw


> On Apr 24, 2015, at 12:48 PM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
> 
> On 24.04.2015 05:02, Warin wrote:
>> "The essence of a modern via ferrata is a steel cable which runs along
>> the route and is periodically (every 3 to 10 metres (9.8 to 32.8 ft))
>> fixed to the rock."
> 
> So you certainly agree that this is safer than an unsecured path.
> 
> Nevertheless, a ferrata cannot be defined by the cable, because not all
> ferratas are that "modern". E.g. the Wildenauersteig has no cable but rungs.
> Some ferratas have chains instead of cables because the chains do a better
> job withstanding rockfall, and they provide a better grip.
> 
> -- 
> Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
> Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria
> 
> ___
> 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] proposal - camp_site=

[Jan van Bekkum]

Dave,
I wasn't intending to have another try at camp_type=*.

We'll leave on our next trip in less than two weeks from now, so I don't
have the time. I also will be not able to complete another voting cycle
until I'll be without decent internet again.

Furthermore I haven't seen better proposals lately for the used definitions
and wording than what is in the proposal now.

Camp_type=non_designated is intended to be used under the following
conditions:

   - Camping is legal, either because camping is allowed anywhere except...
   (like in Sweden) or because the land owner has given explicit permission
   (from my experience: police stations and mission stations in Africa)
   - The place has a practical reason to be selected for camping. This can
   be security or nearby presence of accessible amenities
   - There are not many similar places in the environment. Places *not* to
   be mapped:
  - A place you select along the road to have a spot before it gets
  dark (any other place will do in a safe country)
  - A place you select solely for its natural beauty (other places
  around; don't spoil it by sending everybody there)
  - A farmer or (African) hamlet that gave you permission to use its
  land if other farmers/hamlets will likely will do the same or if
you don't
  want to abuse the hospitality of the land owner by directing other people
  to it

I can see camp_site=basic and camp_type=non_designated got together
frequently as camp_site=* talks about available facilities and camp_type=*
talks about how the place is designated and managed

Regards,

Jan

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:12 AM John Willis  wrote:

> Seems great !
>
> Javbw
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 2015, at 9:52 AM, David Bannon 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 06:47 +0900, John Willis wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't want people to map known illegal camp sites or places they just
> happened to spend the night and think are nice but are on a farmers private
> property just to complete the map, as "map the ground truth" means mapping
> basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality.
> > Ok, I have added a section, "Legal" Camp Sites, to the proposal page. It
> > says legal only. Mappers have responsibility to ensure accurate data
> > where they are mapping ...
> >
> > Please let me know what you think.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 24.04.2015 05:02, Warin wrote:
> "The essence of a modern via ferrata is a steel cable which runs along
> the route and is periodically (every 3 to 10 metres (9.8 to 32.8 ft))
> fixed to the rock."

So you certainly agree that this is safer than an unsecured path.

Nevertheless, a ferrata cannot be defined by the cable, because not all
ferratas are that "modern". E.g. the Wildenauersteig has no cable but rungs.
Some ferratas have chains instead of cables because the chains do a better
job withstanding rockfall, and they provide a better grip.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path

[Warin]

On 24/04/2015 12:27 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:

On 24.04.2015 02:16, Warin wrote:

Via ferrata should not be lumped into path or footway .. they are very
significantly different and cannot be used in place of a path or footway.
Would you take a 3 year old along it?

Did you read the discussion tab?


Yes. Thank you. I also looked at the photos. And read the main page.

And from the wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_ferrata

"The essence of a modern via ferrata is a steel cable which runs along
the route and is periodically (every 3 to 10 metres (9.8 to 32.8 ft))
fixed to the rock."





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 23.04.2015 11:59, Richard Z. wrote:
> there were ongoing discussions concerning this subject so
> I have ammended the wiki:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata#Criteria_for_taging_as_either_via_ferrata_or_path

> "use highway=via_ferrata where people commonly use ferrata kits"

This is an individual decision. I know someone who did all ferratas
(difficulty A-E) in eastern Austria without a ferrata kit. I also saw people
using a ferrata kit on an easy ladder, and on a short wire rope that is
meant as a handrail.

There are ferratas which are more than hundred years old. Nobody used
ferrata kits back then, because they simply did not exist.

> a path is way where a hiker can walk without a ferrata kit and without 
> extensive use of arm muscles

See above. What's an "extensive use"? Experienced climbers will tell you
that they do it all by technique instead of muscle power.

> a path should be safely passable without a ferrata kit even in less than 
> optimal weather

So we need to delete all paths in high mountains, because they are neither
ferratas nor safely passable when icy.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 24.04.2015 02:16, Warin wrote:
> Via ferrata should not be lumped into path or footway .. they are very
> significantly different and cannot be used in place of a path or footway.
> Would you take a 3 year old along it?

Did you read the discussion tab? Farratas are not more difficult nor more
dangerous than other paths. Where there's a ferrata and a parallel unsecured
path in the same terrain, I would take the 3-year-old along the ferrata.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proofread

[Warin]

Editorials ...

The table of "Describing the Connection Style" ?

I'd remove 'Style' ...
And then for the table titles
key:value   Video  Description

And I'd rather that the description (text) came before the video?


The example for a 'standalone boating' has amenity=sanitary_dump_station 
too.



Describing the Connection StyleOn 24/04/2015 10:42 AM, David Bannon wrote:

Bryce, I was away and inattentive while this discussion went on, so
don't understand !

* amenity=sanitary_dump_station - Standalone facility for marine users

* waterway=sanitary_dump_station - Standalone facility for land users

Seem to be wrong way around to me !  Why is "waterway" used for land
based users ?

David


On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 17:17 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

User Xxzme wanted the recent "dump station" wiki pages reorganized.
Anyone willing to proofread?  No tagging changes were intended:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toilet_Holding_Tank_Disposal


Unfortunately this messes with the recently translated Russian French
and German
versions of the page also.  Sigh.
___
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] proposal - camp_site=

[John Willis]

Seems great !

Javbw 


> On Apr 24, 2015, at 9:52 AM, David Bannon  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 06:47 +0900, John Willis wrote:
>> 
>> I don't want people to map known illegal camp sites or places they just 
>> happened to spend the night and think are nice but are on a farmers private 
>> property just to complete the map, as "map the ground truth" means mapping 
>> basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality.
> Ok, I have added a section, "Legal" Camp Sites, to the proposal page. It
> says legal only. Mappers have responsibility to ensure accurate data
> where they are mapping ...
> 
> Please let me know what you think.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] fire extinguisher class

[John Willis]

> On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> they look at the colour.


I agree that the letter codes wouldn't be used when looking for an 
extinguisher, but it is used for managing them. The color codes are not 
universal either.  

Also, here in Japan there are hello kitty fire extinguishers. I wonder what 
fire they put out. 

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Sd55bFa_--/t9mjwszslwfxhxpqn9qu.jpg

All public extinguishers are red (with a hose). 

I've used red, black, and white ones (all dry powder) in the U.S., and in my 
basement is a sea-foam green one (that's maybe 40 years old). I think it is a 
water filled one. 

Color codes only work in certain countries or regions.

We may only need to render the extinguisher icon, but the other info can be 
useful to people checking on distribution or age, or looking to see what ones 
are mapped vs what exist (like looking for the black wall mounted one) 

Javbw. 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=

[David Bannon]

Jan, are you going to have another try at camp_type=  ?

I think the term "non-designated" was a contributor to it struggling.

Trouble is, the idea you have here is an important one but one its quite
hard to get your head around.

David


On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 05:05 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
> My understanding is that this proposal is about sites that have been
> defined as campground. The purpose of the proposal that triggered this
> discussion
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D*)
> was to cover places that have not been defined as campground, but that
> are used as such for different reasons.
> 
> 




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=

[David Bannon]

On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 06:47 +0900, John Willis wrote:

>  I don't want people to map known illegal camp sites or places they just 
> happened to spend the night and think are nice but are on a farmers private 
> property just to complete the map, as "map the ground truth" means mapping 
> basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality. 
> 
Ok, I have added a section, "Legal" Camp Sites, to the proposal page. It
says legal only. Mappers have responsibility to ensure accurate data
where they are mapping ...

Please let me know what you think.

David


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 24, 2015, at 7:01 AM, moltonel 3x Combo  wrote:
> 
> to me using
> e-cigarettes *is* smoking.

+1

An i-phone is still considered a phone. 

The rules governing e-cigs will stem from smoking in most places. 

I'm not going to include BBQs in smoking rules because it happens to generate 
smoke (some are literally "smokers"!) and cut e-cigs out because they have a 
different delivery method for addictive substances. 

The rules for Asthma inhalers (if they existed) would not be under vaporizers,  
even though both are methods of inhaling chemicals. 

I recognize that rules governing them can be different, but they are a subset 
of smoking rules. They are not as separate from smoking as the rules for if 
pets are allowed, bicycle parking or no tattoos allowed. 


Socially, vaping and smoking are exactly the same.

Javbw
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proofread

[David Bannon]

Bryce, I was away and inattentive while this discussion went on, so
don't understand !

* amenity=sanitary_dump_station - Standalone facility for marine users

* waterway=sanitary_dump_station - Standalone facility for land users 

Seem to be wrong way around to me !  Why is "waterway" used for land
based users ? 

David


On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 17:17 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> User Xxzme wanted the recent "dump station" wiki pages reorganized.
> Anyone willing to proofread?  No tagging changes were intended:
> 
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toilet_Holding_Tank_Disposal
> 
> 
> Unfortunately this messes with the recently translated Russian French
> and German
> versions of the page also.  Sigh.
> ___
> 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] Proofread

[Bryce Nesbitt]

User Xxzme wanted the recent "dump station" wiki pages reorganized.
Anyone willing to proofread?  No tagging changes were intended:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toilet_Holding_Tank_Disposal

Unfortunately this messes with the recently translated Russian French and
German
versions of the page also.  Sigh.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path

[Warin]

Some minor things ..

overhang ?   Should not 'covered' be used?

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered

Even more trivial ... Oneway .. should include the information that it is on 
the direction of the way ... -1 for reverse direction.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway


This tag should have been passed...

Via ferrata should not be lumped into path or footway .. they are very 
significantly different and cannot be used in place of a path or footway.
Would you take a 3 year old along it?


On 23/04/2015 7:59 PM, Richard Z. wrote:

Hi,

there were ongoing discussions concerning this subject so
I have ammended the wiki:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata#Criteria_for_taging_as_either_via_ferrata_or_path


Richard


___
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] fire extinguisher class

[Warin]

While fire extinguishers have various codes ...

Extinguishers are placed by the requirements of possible fires in that 
location. So if you find one local to the fire it should be suitable for 
use there. Thus added tagging should serve little to no purpose.


Sorry to be so practical but people don't look for a map when faced with 
a fire .. they look for the red triangle that signifies a fire 
extinguisher location. They then take and try to use it on the fire, no 
stopping to read codes.


===

The problem becomes one of function .. 'refurbished' units have a very 
high failure rate. If you are in that situation .. try it before you 
drag it to the fire!


The thing professional fire fighters go by is the colour ... in an 
emergency they don't stop to read the codes.. they look at the colour.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 23/04/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> you're suggesting "smoking" as a single namespace, which doesn't apply to
> vaporizers. Maybe "inhaling"?
> On the other hand, smoking is also forbidden when not inhaling... ;-)
> I think different namespaces make sense here, because they are different
> things.

I fear at this stage we can only agree to disagree : to me using
e-cigarettes *is* smoking. I don't care much for the physicist's
definition of "smoke". It's the social/medical definition that matters
here, the one that gets turned into laws and ultimately into osm tags.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=

[John Willis]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 23, 2015, at 8:40 PM, David Bannon  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 15:16 +0900, johnw wrote:
>> 
>> That’s why I thought " informal yet legal spots" would be good wording
>> to cover this, and maybe link over to the camp_type proposal here -
>> because with the wording for basic, the first thing I thought about
>> was the legality or designation of the spot, thinking it would
>> influence the camp_site= level - when it fact it is all inside the
>> camp_type proposal.
> You will have to help me here John, I don't quite see what you are
> trying to achieve. Here in AU it is, sort of, legal to camp anywhere
> that is not private property and not declared "no camping".
> 
> I see camp_site= used only where there is some substantial legal basis,
> (where that is unclear, its camp_type=).  
> 
> * In countries/places where the default is to allow camping, no sign or
> official endorsement is needed, just lack of a sign saying "no
> camping". 
> * In other countries/places, where camping is not allowed unless its so
> stated, we'd need to see that statement.
> 
> So, the term, 'legal' does have a slightly different meaning here
> depending on where you are. But if we try and define it too tightly, we
> may well end up excluding some local variation. Not sure thats a good
> idea.
> 
> Would it work better if we added a small block that talks about just
> that, how 'legal' has that slightly different meaning ? That block would
> be a good place to say camp_type might be a better tag when the legal
> status is unclear or undefined ?
> 
> David 
> 

Basic+non_designated would be a common tag set for small road or track-side 
camping spots - but often camping at them can be trespassing or not allowed, 
which varies from country to country. 

The local variation is in the "legal"part I wanted to impress upon people. 

Some countries have huge areas considered always open for camping. 

In the U.S. There are no such rules. 

Even on "public" land - it might be managed wilderness, a national park or a 
state park, and all have different uses on where camping is and isn't allowed, 
and informal camps by the roadside are often trespassing or doing environmental 
damage that the park rangers try to stop. 

"Camp in marked places only" is often noted. 

There are a lot of illegal informal camp sites in the U.S.  They would be 
informal yet legal in your country. The people using them know they are 
trespassing or not allowed to be there, but they do so anyways.

This is very true in Japan, and if you read blogs about Trekkers or road 
bikers, they often camp illegally on private property - they act in a nice 
manner, yet it is illegal to do so.

 I don't want people to map known illegal camp sites or places they just 
happened to spend the night and think are nice but are on a farmers private 
property just to complete the map, as "map the ground truth" means mapping 
basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality. 

People mapping in Sweden may not have to worry, but people in Japan would have 
to be very careful. 

Javbw. 

> 
>> I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well.
>> 
>> 
>> I think camp_type=non_designated + camp_site=basic will be used
>> together quite frequently, so reminding people of that is pretty
>> important - it lets voters know why these two proposals go together
>> well. 
>> 
>> 
>> Javbw
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] fire extinguisher class

[John Willis]

The fire type is most important, but depending on the material used, it can be 
used on several types -
So +1 for tagging the material first and foremost. 

Most common household extinguishers in the US are dry powder ABC extinguishers. 

At the bottom of the #united states section is a conversion chart - and they 
all lead back to what _type of fire_ is trying to be put out:

Regular combustibles
Liquids
Gasses
Electrical
Metals
Fats

So my US ABC extinguisher in my garage would be:

Fire_extinguisher=dry_powder
Fire_extinguisher:regular=yes
Fire_extinguisher:liquids=yes
Fire_extinguisher:gasses=yes
Fire_extinguisher:electrical=yes
Fire_extinguisher:USA_code=ABC
Fire_extinguisher:checked_date:old
Colour=white 

Optional for my extinguisher

Fire_extinguisher:cert_until:old
Fire_extinguisher:signed=no
Fire_extinguisher:metals=no
Fire_extinguisher:fats=no
Fire_extinguisher:label=no



My old ABC ones are white, so color doesn't always denote what is inside. Trees 
are no label color codes in the U.S.  The letter codes change per location, so 
noting if it is UK or NZ or US is important. 

Many fire extinguishers in public places are signed.  In Japan they have 
cabinets, cases, lockers, little stands with a sign, and ones with a cone hat 
on top to keep the dust off. They have them everywhere in public buildings, 
sitting in a corner in a little stand with a little sign on a little pole. 

http://ec.midori-anzen.com/img/goods/L/4082101826.jpg

http://media.mediatemple.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/uploader/images/signs/fire-extinguisher-operating-guide/full_nagoya-shopping-mall-fire-extinguisher-operating-guide.jpg

Cataloging the check date could be very useful to some mappers. If it doesn't 
have a pressure dial and is passed its expiration, it should be marked =old - 
as it is assumed without inspection the extinguisher is old or expired, and may 
not be reliable. If it has no pressure gauge and is expired, then it is very 
important to tag =old/expired - but having used a couple expired ones to put 
out a fire, I'm glad they were there. 

For extinguishers with visible pressure gauges, the person collecting the data 
is the checker, and therefore the data collection date is the check date, since 
it can easily be seen on many fire extinguishers if it is correctly 
pressurized. 

Certified extinguishers have a cert tag that will note the date that the 
extinguisher is certified to. People managing extinguishers might find that 
really nice to know if they want to collect the data for their uses (like a 
fire dept or something). 

Javbw 


> On Apr 24, 2015, at 3:24 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Craig Wallace  wrote:
>> In the UK, the class is not printed huge letters. They main thing they are 
>> labelled with is the contents of the extinguisher, with a coloured stripe. 
>> ie red for water, blue for powder, black for CO2.
> 
> Then tag whatever's visible if the goal is to help someone find the device:
> fire_extinguisher:label=Class B/C
> fire_extinguisher:label=Black
> Though anyone who consults their smartphone during a fire is probably missing 
> the point :-).  
> 
> Class 8A 55B 75F is for the person purchasing the device, or learning what's 
> available in a facility, not so much for during the emergency.
> ___
> 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] fire extinguisher class

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Craig Wallace 
wrote:
>
> In the UK, the class is not printed huge letters. They main thing they are
> labelled with is the contents of the extinguisher, with a coloured stripe.
> ie red for water, blue for powder, black for CO2.
>

Then tag whatever's visible if the goal is to help someone find the device:

fire_extinguisher:label=Class B/C
fire_extinguisher:label=Black

Though anyone who consults their smartphone during a fire is probably
missing the point :-).

Class 8A 55B 75F is for the person purchasing the device, or learning
what's available in a facility, not so much for during the emergency.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class

[Craig Wallace]

On 2015-04-23 18:01, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:31 AM, mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk>> wrote:

That makes much more sense,  and as you say, maps the physical
characteristics.
The letters seem like specialist knowledge that few people will be
aware of.
Phil (trigpoint )


But the letter codes are exactly what's printed in huge letters right on
the extinguisher.
That makes them easily verifiable, and instantly localized since you'd
tag what's on the ground in your country.

Class A


In the UK, the class is not printed huge letters. They main thing they 
are labelled with is the contents of the extinguisher, with a coloured 
stripe. ie red for water, blue for powder, black for CO2.


Some fire extinguishers also give more detailed specifications for the 
class etc. But this is usually not very obvious, you would have to look 
closely to spot it.
Note a fire extinguisher can be suitable for several classes of fire, 
and it may give a rating for each. eg the specification might say: 8A 
55B 75F


I think it is worth tagging both the materials in the extinguisher, and 
the class/rating where it is known. And probably worth using different 
tags for the class in each country.


eg something like this:
fire_extinguisher:material=water
fire_extinguisher:class:uk=8A 55B 75F



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 23.04.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt :
> 
> Putting the translation into OSM will help exactly zero people use the right 
> extinguisher in a real fire. 


why? There won't be a letter on the fire, so you would anyway have to make an 
adaptation to your situation.
The tags won't necessarily be what you see on a map.
The problem with classes was, that every region has their own classes, eg an 
American class B can be either class B or C in Europe while the American class 
C doesn't exist in Europe.

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addr:interpolation on highway

[Bryce Nesbitt]

The most common physical signage in the USA gives just a number range:



It would be nice to have a clutter free way to tag those, in part because
they could be collected
in bulk by drive cameras and OCR.

It's less information than an interpolation line, but still very very
useful.  Many printed maps show the
block ranges.  This is very similar to the camp ground situation, where you
might know
a number range but not the details.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:31 AM,  wrote:

> That makes much more sense,  and as you say, maps the physical
> characteristics.
> The letters seem like specialist knowledge that few people will be aware
> of.
> Phil (trigpoint )


But the letter codes are exactly what's printed in huge letters right on
the extinguisher.
That makes them easily verifiable, and instantly localized since you'd tag
what's on the ground in your country.

Class A


Putting the translation into OSM will help exactly zero people use the
right extinguisher in a real fire.  It would take
ages to agree on a scheme, and then mappers would not follow it anyway.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-04-23 0:24 GMT+02:00 moltonel 3x Combo :

> Your scheme uses exactly as many keys as mine for
> a given usecase. The only difference is that I put everything under a
> single namespace, which makes it tidyer and more discoverable.
>


you're suggesting "smoking" as a single namespace, which doesn't apply to
vaporizers. Maybe "inhaling"?
On the other hand, smoking is also forbidden when not inhaling... ;-)
I think different namespaces make sense here, because they are different
things.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class

[phil]

That makes much more sense,  and as you say, maps the physical characteristics. 

The letters seem like specialist knowledge that few people will be aware of.

Phil (trigpoint ) 

On Thu Apr 23 13:11:46 2015 GMT+0100, Florian LAINEZ wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback.
> I am not expert at all on the topic therefore I am open to describe with
> literal description.
> I just double checked in my office (in France) and couldn't find easily any
> "literal" mention. One the other way the class A and B were clearly
> mentioned.
> Therefore I think we will have to create a conversion table.
> 
> I tried to find an international standard for classes but couldn't find any.
> Therefore what if, instead of mentioning the combustible (e.g. ordinary
> combustible) we mention the powder.
> After all, in OSM we try to describe the physical elements themselves, not
> the use of them.
> 
> Therefore I propose the categories mentioned here
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher#United_Kingdom that are :
> water, foam, dry powder, Carbon dioxide (CO2), Wet chemical, Class D
> powder, Halon 1211/BCF
> An example would be fire_extinguisher_class=water instead of
> fire_extinguisher_class=ordinary_combustibles
> 
> 2015-04-23 11:57 GMT+02:00 :
> 
> > On Thu Apr 23 10:38:13 2015 GMT+0100, Florian LAINEZ wrote:
> > > Hi, it's the first time I write to this mailing list, I am a french
> > > contributor interested in train stations.
> > >
> > > I want to describe more precisely an extinguisher and I have seen the tag
> > > emergency=fire_extinguisher that is used de facto.
> > > What about adding some details regarding the type with
> > fire_extinguisher=A
> > > for an extinguisher class A?
> > >
> > > Please comment my proposal on the discussion page
> > >
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:emergency%3Dfire_extinguisher
> > > Have a good day
> > >
> > >
> > Class A, B seems a bit confusing.  I would not be able to map this without
> > reference to the wiki.
> >
> > I have just checked the office extinguishers and can instantly see one
> > powder and one foam. Neither is labelled with a letter.
> >
> > Phil (trigpoint )
> > --
> > Sent from my Jolla
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> *Florian Lainez*
> @overflorian 
>

-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] addr:interpolation on highway

[fly]

Am 23.04.2015 um 06:34 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:13 PM, John F. Eldredge 
> wrote:
> 
>> Would you need to split the road into two ways, one for the left side and
>> one for the right side, even if the roadway is not actually divided? This
>> would cause a mismatch between the rendering and what is physically present.
>>
> 
> I would not do that.
> Highway tagging is only suitable for marking the range (e.g. 101-152) not
> the side.
> That's often all that's signed, and there may not be an odd/even convention.
> 
> 
> You are right that
> normally an interpolation way demands the overhead of three parallel ways
> (centerline, left side, right side).

Please, no overlapping (overhead) ways, but the street as centre and
parallel on both sides the interpolations.

Thanks

By the way, I count interpolations only as intermediate state and it is
often not true for the whole street as you need to split them as soon as
one housenumber is missing or as soon as you have additional numbers
like alphabetical ones or 114/2.

fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class

[Florian LAINEZ]

Thanks for the feedback.
I am not expert at all on the topic therefore I am open to describe with
literal description.
I just double checked in my office (in France) and couldn't find easily any
"literal" mention. One the other way the class A and B were clearly
mentioned.
Therefore I think we will have to create a conversion table.

I tried to find an international standard for classes but couldn't find any.
Therefore what if, instead of mentioning the combustible (e.g. ordinary
combustible) we mention the powder.
After all, in OSM we try to describe the physical elements themselves, not
the use of them.

Therefore I propose the categories mentioned here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher#United_Kingdom that are :
water, foam, dry powder, Carbon dioxide (CO2), Wet chemical, Class D
powder, Halon 1211/BCF
An example would be fire_extinguisher_class=water instead of
fire_extinguisher_class=ordinary_combustibles

2015-04-23 11:57 GMT+02:00 :

> On Thu Apr 23 10:38:13 2015 GMT+0100, Florian LAINEZ wrote:
> > Hi, it's the first time I write to this mailing list, I am a french
> > contributor interested in train stations.
> >
> > I want to describe more precisely an extinguisher and I have seen the tag
> > emergency=fire_extinguisher that is used de facto.
> > What about adding some details regarding the type with
> fire_extinguisher=A
> > for an extinguisher class A?
> >
> > Please comment my proposal on the discussion page
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:emergency%3Dfire_extinguisher
> > Have a good day
> >
> >
> Class A, B seems a bit confusing.  I would not be able to map this without
> reference to the wiki.
>
> I have just checked the office extinguishers and can instantly see one
> powder and one foam. Neither is labelled with a letter.
>
> Phil (trigpoint )
> --
> Sent from my Jolla
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 

*Florian Lainez*
@overflorian 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=

[Dave Swarthout]

Good point David. Alaska has that same situation. One can camp pretty much
anywhere on public lands. With the exception of parks and native holdings,
Alaska is primarily public land.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:40 AM, David Bannon 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 15:16 +0900, johnw wrote:
>
> > That’s why I thought " informal yet legal spots" would be good wording
> > to cover this, and maybe link over to the camp_type proposal here -
> > because with the wording for basic, the first thing I thought about
> > was the legality or designation of the spot, thinking it would
> > influence the camp_site= level - when it fact it is all inside the
> > camp_type proposal.
> >
> You will have to help me here John, I don't quite see what you are
> trying to achieve. Here in AU it is, sort of, legal to camp anywhere
> that is not private property and not declared "no camping".
>
> I see camp_site= used only where there is some substantial legal basis,
> (where that is unclear, its camp_type=).
>
> * In countries/places where the default is to allow camping, no sign or
> official endorsement is needed, just lack of a sign saying "no
> camping".
> * In other countries/places, where camping is not allowed unless its so
> stated, we'd need to see that statement.
>
> So, the term, 'legal' does have a slightly different meaning here
> depending on where you are. But if we try and define it too tightly, we
> may well end up excluding some local variation. Not sure thats a good
> idea.
>
> Would it work better if we added a small block that talks about just
> that, how 'legal' has that slightly different meaning ? That block would
> be a good place to say camp_type might be a better tag when the legal
> status is unclear or undefined ?
>
> David
>
>
> > I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well.
> >
> >
> > I think camp_type=non_designated + camp_site=basic will be used
> > together quite frequently, so reminding people of that is pretty
> > important - it lets voters know why these two proposals go together
> > well.
> >
> >
> > Javbw
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=

[David Bannon]

On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 15:16 +0900, johnw wrote:

> That’s why I thought " informal yet legal spots" would be good wording
> to cover this, and maybe link over to the camp_type proposal here -
> because with the wording for basic, the first thing I thought about
> was the legality or designation of the spot, thinking it would
> influence the camp_site= level - when it fact it is all inside the
> camp_type proposal. 
> 
You will have to help me here John, I don't quite see what you are
trying to achieve. Here in AU it is, sort of, legal to camp anywhere
that is not private property and not declared "no camping".

I see camp_site= used only where there is some substantial legal basis,
(where that is unclear, its camp_type=).  

* In countries/places where the default is to allow camping, no sign or
official endorsement is needed, just lack of a sign saying "no
camping". 
* In other countries/places, where camping is not allowed unless its so
stated, we'd need to see that statement.

So, the term, 'legal' does have a slightly different meaning here
depending on where you are. But if we try and define it too tightly, we
may well end up excluding some local variation. Not sure thats a good
idea.

Would it work better if we added a small block that talks about just
that, how 'legal' has that slightly different meaning ? That block would
be a good place to say camp_type might be a better tag when the legal
status is unclear or undefined ?

David 


> I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well.
> 
> 
> I think camp_type=non_designated + camp_site=basic will be used
> together quite frequently, so reminding people of that is pretty
> important - it lets voters know why these two proposals go together
> well. 
> 
> 
> Javbw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path

[Richard Z.]

Hi,

there were ongoing discussions concerning this subject so
I have ammended the wiki:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata#Criteria_for_taging_as_either_via_ferrata_or_path


Richard


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class

[phil]

On Thu Apr 23 10:38:13 2015 GMT+0100, Florian LAINEZ wrote:
> Hi, it's the first time I write to this mailing list, I am a french
> contributor interested in train stations.
> 
> I want to describe more precisely an extinguisher and I have seen the tag
> emergency=fire_extinguisher that is used de facto.
> What about adding some details regarding the type with fire_extinguisher=A
> for an extinguisher class A?
> 
> Please comment my proposal on the discussion page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:emergency%3Dfire_extinguisher
> Have a good day
> 
> 
Class A, B seems a bit confusing.  I would not be able to map this without 
reference to the wiki.

I have just checked the office extinguishers and can instantly see one powder 
and one foam. Neither is labelled with a letter.

Phil (trigpoint )
-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-04-23 11:38 GMT+02:00 Florian LAINEZ :

> What about adding some details regarding the type with fire_extinguisher=A
> for an extinguisher class A?
>


The classification system seems to vary between different regions, see here
for a comparison table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher#United_States

I suggest to use a more literal tag like
fire_extinguisher_class=ordinary_combustibles

etc.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] fire extinguisher class

[Florian LAINEZ]

Hi, it's the first time I write to this mailing list, I am a french
contributor interested in train stations.

I want to describe more precisely an extinguisher and I have seen the tag
emergency=fire_extinguisher that is used de facto.
What about adding some details regarding the type with fire_extinguisher=A
for an extinguisher class A?

Please comment my proposal on the discussion page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:emergency%3Dfire_extinguisher
Have a good day

-- 

*Florian Lainez*
@overflorian 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 23 April 2015, Malcolm Herring wrote:
> This idea of the linear river way being along the deepest part seems
> to have been created in this thread. No such 'rule' exists, either in
> practice, nor in Wiki tagging pages. 



http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank#Old_tagging

And note this is absolutely not an unreasonable suggestion.  There are 
many rivers with strongly varying water levels where you can during dry 
season well see where the deepest part of the riverbed is while the 
riverbank polygon mapped at the median level covers a larger area.  To 
some extent this even applies to central European rivers like the 
Rhine.  You can also often infer this from where the current is 
strongest.

Nobody should feel bad about not being able to accurately place the 
waterway at the right location in some cases but the aim to do this 
where possible is a sound one.

> 3. River deltas often have channels that cross between two branches
> of the same river. The direction of the way is arbitrary.

On the contrary - this is where direction really matters since in 
contrast to elsewhere you cannot determine it from the river system 
structure.  

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging