Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
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] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 04:27:23AM +0200, 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? 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. so are you happy that this http://www.bergsteigen.com/klettersteig/trentino-suedtirol/gardasee-berge/ferrata-rino-pisetta is tagged as highway=path ? Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
2015-04-24 11:34 GMT+02:00 Florian LAINEZ winner...@free.fr: 1. Describe the classes: they are not standard internationally and I think we should avoid them +1 1. Describe the local classes: not suitable worldwide as long as you have correct country / standard namespaces, you can do this and will have the information that is needed (but likely will have to be normalized by the data consumer). This seems easy for the mapper though (he can tag what he sees). 1. 2. Describe the combustible: it requires to understand the kind of fire that is suitable for an extinguisher : It can be subjective as the brakets denote in the table here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher#United_Kingdom Also we would potentially have multiple keys e.g. fire_extinguisher_class=ordinary_combustibles;flammable liquid;electricity we could have a table in the wiki that defines human readable values for the classes that you can see on the extinguisher, e.g. Comparison of fire classes American European UK Australian/Asian Fuel/heat source Class A Class A Class A Class A Ordinary combustibles Class B Class B Class B Class B Flammable liquids Class C Class C Class C Flammable gases Class C UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED Class E Electrical equipment Class D Class D Class D Class D Combustible metals Class K Class F Class F Class F Cooking oil or fat The tag name could also be more explicit, e.g. fire_extinguisher_for_fire_type or for_fire_type the values could be ordinary_combustibles (or maybe generic, normal, ordinary?), liquids, gases, electrical, metals, fat 1. Describe the kind of combustible: again it requires to understand the kind of fire that is suitable for an extinguisher again, could be a translation table in the wiki to normalize local standard to normalized human readable value 1. 2. Describe the type of powder: could be a good solution but the bad think is that we would potentially have multiple keys e.g. fire_extinguisher_class=water;foam;dry_powder the usual solution for avoiding multiple values is putting them in the key, e.g. fire_extinguisher_agent:water=yes or more linguistically correct extinguishing_agent:water=yes My choice would be 5. Describe the type of powder with the following keys: - water - foam - dry_powder - co2 - wet_chemical - class_D - halon These seem to be different types of descriptions, water, co2 and halon are describing the chemical material or group of materials foam, dry_powder, wet_chemical are describing the shape and aggregate state class_D is refering to some standard cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
Hi everyone, thanks for your feedback, I can see that the topic is much more complicated than I expected. Let's sum up our proposals: 1. Describe the classes fire_extinguisher_class=A 2. Describe the local classes fire_extinguisher_class:uk=8A 55B 75F 3. Describe the combustible fire_extinguisher_class=ordinary_combustibles 4. Describe the kind of combustible fire_extinguisher:electrical=yes or fire_extinguisher=electrical 5. Describe the type of powder fire_extinguisher_class=water 6. Describe the written label fire_extinguisher:label=black What I think of them: 1. Describe the classes: they are not standard internationally and I think we should avoid them 2. Describe the local classes: not suitable worldwide 3. Describe the combustible: it requires to understand the kind of fire that is suitable for an extinguisher : It can be subjective as the brakets denote in the table here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher#United_Kingdom Also we would potentially have multiple keys e.g. fire_extinguisher_class=ordinary_combustibles;flammable liquid;electricity 4. Describe the kind of combustible: again it requires to understand the kind of fire that is suitable for an extinguisher 5. Describe the type of powder: could be a good solution but the bad think is that we would potentially have multiple keys e.g. fire_extinguisher_class=water;foam;dry_powder 6. Describe the written label: difficult to standardise It seems that none of these solutions is perfect, which one do you think would be the best as an international standard? My choice would be 5. Describe the type of powder with the following keys: - water - foam - dry_powder - co2 - wet_chemical - class_D - halon Again, it's the only tag that describes the object itself without interpretation and that can be standardised. Of course it would require a conversion table, but either way I guess we'll have to go through this process. Have a good day 2015-04-24 8:34 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 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 -- *Florian Lainez* @overflorian http://twitter.com/overflorian ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 04:57:06AM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: 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. Sure. But the phrase where people commonly use ferrata kits means where you commonly see people using ferrata kits. It may be even a toy ferrata for children - if you see plenty of them using ferrata kits it is probably better to tag as ferrata. There are ferratas which are more than hundred years old. Nobody used ferrata kits back then, because they simply did not exist. Back to today. Some of those very olde ferratas may be called ferrata but perhaps don't really deserve to be tagged as that. Which is why I tired to formulate this cirteria. 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. it means to say you do not hang on your arms for a substantial part of the path. Ladders can and should be mapped separately so they need not to be considered here. Btw most hikers are not experienced climbers. 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. no. But if you can use the way safely only with a ferrata kit or climbing equipment it should be mapped accordingly. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:16:55AM +1000, Warin wrote: Some minor things .. overhang ? Should not 'covered' be used? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered overhang here means an additional technical difficulty of the path. Key:covered could be used in addition to that. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path
2015-04-24 11:01 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: so are you happy that this http://www.bergsteigen.com/klettersteig/trentino-suedtirol/gardasee-berge/ferrata-rino-pisetta is tagged as highway=path ? I believe this clearly isn't a path, at least not at the spot you can see on the photo linked by you above. If you are aware of such mistagging, please correct it, it's a wiki... 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
On 24.04.2015 11:01, Richard Z. wrote: On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 04:27:23AM +0200, 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? 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. so are you happy that this http://www.bergsteigen.com/klettersteig/trentino-suedtirol/gardasee-berge/ferrata-rino-pisetta is tagged as highway=path ? Yes. Of course I wouln't take a 3 year old along that ferrata, but I wouln't take a 3 year old to that whole area at all. I know of a ferrata (Frauenluckensteig) of difficulty B where average 10-year-old childs are too short to reach the next rung. One hiking path called Reißtalersteig is even easier (A) and you wouln't call it a ferrata, but one rung is hard to reach even for adults, so people put a pile of stones on the ground to reach that rung. Children or bad weather make every path more difficult and dangerous, not only ferratas. -- 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] Artist studio?
Hi I've a warehouse where a collective of artists create occasionally exhibit art work: http://www.bathartistsstudios.co.uk/ I thought artist_studio would be correct, but tag info doesn't list it in great numbers. Is there a better description? Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Artist studio?
a quick look through the shop= tag and the the amenity=studio (for audio) seems there is no good tag for that. My understanding of studios is that is where an artist creates, exhibits, and possibly sells their art. there is no documented craft=artist (as in canvas creator), but there is house painter. there is “sculptor and glaziery so it looks as if craft=artist should be created (mentioning that it is not for sclupture/glass/photo based art) but this only has 11 uses. There might also be a case to be made for amenity=art_studio - but this also has 7 uses. The studios I think of are like the ones in “Spanish Village Art Center” - very small rental studios where the artists create, show, and sell their art. https://goo.gl/maps/9cM4k Art is often a mixture of commercial (production) and retail (sales), it is tough. to categorize. craft=artist should be created (in some way). and then the decision between amenity=art_studio or shop=art_studio should be decided (I’d lean towards amenity). Javbw On Apr 24, 2015, at 10:01 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi I've a warehouse where a collective of artists create occasionally exhibit art work: http://www.bathartistsstudios.co.uk/ I thought artist_studio would be correct, but tag info doesn't list it in great numbers. Is there a better description? Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ 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] Meeting point
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Florian LAINEZ winner...@free.fr wrote: - tourism=meeting_point - meeting_point=yes - tourism=information and information=meeting_point The last one is my favourite for now ... any idea? Thanks The tourism=information + information=meeting_point has the advantage that it will render on osm-carto, but the downside that it will render on osm-carto. The connection to information is weak (weaker even that reception desk). How about place=meeting_point name=Meeting Point Place is used for all sorts of named places, both governmentally sanctioned and not. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes
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. No offence but it is more a matter of law and house rules. Smoking (a cigarette) is strongly regulated by law in Germany and only partly by operators of amenities. In the case of vaporizers its for the operator to decide. So we have amenities where it is forbidden to smoke cigarettes but allowed to use vaporizers. So I don't want to take up the cudgels for vaporizers but I also think if we tag smoking=* we should also tag for vaporizers. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Meeting point
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 17:34:54 +0200 Florian LAINEZ winner...@free.fr wrote: tourism=information It makes no sense, as this tag means Information for tourists and visitors. And meeting points is something else. I would tag it as meeting_point=yes (as it is not only for tourism). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Meeting point
Hi guys, I'd like to tag a meeting point and haven't found anything on the wiki. It's a dedicated area where the people can meet like on this picture https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By5b5Jyqg8evTEtDbjJMUi02N0E/view?usp=sharing You can find them in public areas with signs to indicate it. This is NOT an emergency assembly point as described here : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:emergency%3Dassembly_point My guesses: - tourism=meeting_point - meeting_point=yes - tourism=information and information=meeting_point The last one is my favourite for now ... any idea? Thanks -- *Florian Lainez* @overflorian http://twitter.com/overflorian ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Has the discussion settled on addr:unit + camp_site=pitch? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes
Am 24.04.2015 um 00:01 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: 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] electric zigarrettes
Am 24.04.2015 um 02:51 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com: 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
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] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
If the individual pitches are part of a campground that has a street address then in makes sense. But many campgrounds run by the US Forest Service and other state and local parks do not have street addresses even if they are located on roads. And there are backcountry campgrounds with numbered pitches where there is no highway so addr:street=* and addr:housenumber=* are impossible to specify. I consider addr:*=* tags as part of an address namespace that should all work together. Using addr:unit=* outside of the context where addr:street=* and addr:housenumber=* cannot always be used seems as bad as using ref=* for the pitch identifier. If some variation of the tagging described at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches is used the maybe camp_site:identifier=* could be used rather than ref=* or addr:unit=*. There has been a comment on this thread that the tagging there could be confusing as tourism=camp_site for the top level would imply that camp_site:*=* tags should be about the whole campground rather than an individual pitch. So I can see objections to creating a camp_site:identifier=* tag. Maybe all the tags in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches should be changed from camp_site:*=* to camp_site:pitch:*=* I haven’t noticed hierarchical name spaces in tag names to that level but don’t know a reason whey they could not be used. I would certainly be clear to any mapper or data consumer that the value being given was specific to a specific pitch in a campground. Cheers, Tod On Apr 24, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Has the discussion settled on addr:unit + camp_site=pitch? smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
seamark uses a highly hierarchical tag scheme, but it limits that project's interoperability with the rest of OSM. --- Realistically: If camp_site:identifier is used it will be a long time before it's ever rendered or routable. That's just reality. addr:housenumber has the advantage of rendering and perhaps routability today. I think that future routing software can be smart enough to work without addr:street. If the router gets you as far as a campground (or other) polygon, and within that polygon are bare addr:unit or addr:housenumber, it should be able to figure out what to do. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes
On 24/04/2015, Thorsten Alge li...@thorsten-alge.de wrote: 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. No offence but it is more a matter of law and house rules. Smoking (a cigarette) is strongly regulated by law in Germany and only partly by operators of amenities. In the case of vaporizers its for the operator to decide. So we have amenities where it is forbidden to smoke cigarettes but allowed to use vaporizers. So I don't want to take up the cudgels for vaporizers but I also think if we tag smoking=* we should also tag for vaporizers. Absolutely, wherever the rule differ between the two practices, we need to tag that. Currently e-cigarettes have managed to define themselves in a way that avoid most countries' anti-smoking laws (I expect the laws to eventually catch up, but also to be more lennient towards e-cigarettes). So the law often says nothing, and it's up to manager/owner to decide. The only time I saw somebody smoking an e-cigarette in a cafe (in a medium Irish town that has a few shops dedicated to e-cigarettes) I asked the owner what his policy was and his answer was same as classic cigarettes, I would have stoped the smoker had I seen her. Granted it's just one annecdote, but I've seen plenty of other hints that people expect the social rule to be the same for e-cigs and traditional cigs, despite the law being silent on the subject. OSM-tagging-wise, this leads me to belive that : * In the absence of specific information, the social rule is likely to be the same for both practices, and therefore smoking=* can be used as the fallback value for ecig-permited-key=*. * both practices are similar enough that it makes sense to group them in the same namespace (smoking: for obvious historical reasons). By all means, go ahead and setup a QA tool that complains about the lack of e-cigarette tags if you want. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Meeting point
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:00:34 -0700 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Florian LAINEZ winner...@free.fr wrote: - tourism=meeting_point - meeting_point=yes - tourism=information and information=meeting_point The last one is my favourite for now ... any idea? Thanks The tourism=information + information=meeting_point has the advantage that it will render on osm-carto, but the downside that it will render on osm-carto. The connection to information is weak (weaker even that reception desk). How about place=meeting_point name=Meeting Point Place is used for all sorts of named places, both governmentally sanctioned and not. name is for names, not for describing functions ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Meeting point
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:00:34 -0700 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: place=meeting_point name=Meeting Point Place is used for all sorts of named places, both governmentally sanctioned and not. name is for names, not for describing functions You're right. That should just be: place=meeting_point Perhaps, thought it really is not needed in most cases: operator=Big Convention Hall ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Meeting point
The very large train stations in Tokyo have traditional meeting points, as a popular one would be near the Hachiko statue in Shibuya. I believe they are signed. I think the meeting point has a name beyond meeting point, so would it be okay to name I of it has an actual name beyond its function (even if it is East meeting point or Exit C8 meeting point if it says that on the sign? Javbw On Apr 25, 2015, at 5:11 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 09:00:34 -0700 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: place=meeting_point name=Meeting Point Place is used for all sorts of named places, both governmentally sanctioned and not. name is for names, not for describing functions You're right. That should just be: place=meeting_point Perhaps, thought it really is not needed in most cases: operator=Big Convention Hall ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
