Re: [Tagging] Heliport tagging

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 21.10.2015 16:37, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):


Am 21.10.2015 um 11:36 schrieb Daniel Koć :

Helper question: what do you mean by "subtype"/"subclass" - is it 
meaningful difference or just wording?


it's the same, a subtype is the real world view on something, a
subclass could be seen as our representation of it.


It was just a helper question, you omitted the real one... =}

--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down" [A. Cohen]


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

Re: [Tagging] how to tag a "highway" that doesn't exist?

[GerdP]

Hi all,

I've contacted a few mappers and it seems that there is a need 
to keep some of the ways for the reason described by Mateusz below.

Now, as so many before, I try to find a good tag to express this.
Using a line with only a note tag is no good idea as QA tools
will not like them. IMHO the only already used tag which looks acceptable 
for this is
highway=none 
in combination with a note saying why the way is no highway
maybe combined with an explicit tag
mapping_error=yes

Does that make sense?

Gerd



Mateusz Konieczny-2 wrote
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 13:35:08 +
> Gerd Petermann 

> gpetermann_muenchen@

>  wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> forgive me if this was discussed before:
>> There seems to be a need to map highways which do not exist.
>> I understand the idea that we map highway=proposed / highway=planned
>> as this might be used to visualize a plan, I can also understand that
>> we have tags like highway=dismantled and highway=razed (which seem to
>> mean the same) but why do we have ways with
>> highway=x-residential , highway=unbuilt ,  highway=neverbuilt, and
>> several more with similar meaning ?
>> They all seem to describe ways which where once added as normal
>> highway=* to the database and later someone found out that there is
>> no highway, but did not dare to remove the way.
>> 
>> Is that meant to document something important?
>> 
>> Gerd
>> 
> 
> Purpose of such objects is to ensure that armchair mappers will not
> remap it again. Object with note=* seem better than highway=neverbuilt.
> 
> In case of low risk of remapping by armachair mappers such ways may be
> safely deleted.
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list

> Tagging@

> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/how-to-tag-a-highway-that-doesn-t-exist-tp5857111p5857582.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Tagging] Heliport tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-21 16:43 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć :

> It was just a helper question, you omitted the real one... =}



I answered it implicitly in another reply: either we redefine
aeroway=aerodrome to be more inclusive and deprecate the recently approved
aeroway=heliport tag, or we keep stuff like it is and use heliport=* for
subclasses.

Specifically for military heliports: If we don't need a special type of the
heliport feature for these, we could use military as a property:
military=yes, or as a additional main key: military=heliport, or by
overlapping a landuse=military polygon (or on the same object). If we do
want a special kind of heliport to be military (sounds more like a use
class than like a specific type), we could use heliport=military.

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

Re: [Tagging] Heliport tagging

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 21.10.2015 17:39, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):


I answered it implicitly in another reply: either we redefine
aeroway=aerodrome to be more inclusive and deprecate the recently
approved aeroway=heliport tag, or we keep stuff like it is and use
heliport=* for subclasses.


Thanks, now I understand.

However in both cases we have only the draft of the proposition page, no 
accepted aerodrome=* values. Its creator replied to me that he has no 
time to work on it and gave me permission to take it over. I am not 
aviation expert, but if somebody is interested in making 
aerodrome/heliport typology better, it's a good place to start:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Aerodrome

--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down" [A. Cohen]


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

Re: [Tagging] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

[Hubert]

I'm sorry Paul, but I still don't understand what your issue is exactly.
Do you get an error message or similar in JOSM? What do you mean by "drafting 
out the lanes"?
And in OSMAND the only "lane rendering" I know of is when you enable "Show 
lanes" for routing purposes. Is that what you mean?
Could you post a picture/screenshot of the problem?
But from what I believe to read from this correspondence, it’s seems to be a 
problem with JOSM or OSMAND and not whit the definition of the "lanes=*" key of 
the "*:lanes=*" suffix.

On 21. Oktober 2015 12:19 Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] wrote:

>Sure, when you're drafting out the lanes in JOSM or rendering them in Osmand, 
>your lane counts are >off by however many bike lanes there are if you don't 
>explicitly map them in the lanes count and tag >accordingly.


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

Re: [Tagging] Heliport tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 21.10.2015 um 13:13 schrieb johnw :
> 
> Didn’t we just vote on and approve a tag defining an heliport as a seperate 
> tag?
> 
> perhaps I am confused. 


by the wiki an aeroway=aerodrome is a place for airplanes, by the meaning of 
the word aerodrome (place for aircraft), a helicopter would be included.

We have voted for heliport as a logical tag within the tagging system we have 
established, language wise it isn't necessarily logical 

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

Re: [Tagging] Heliport tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 21.10.2015 um 11:36 schrieb Daniel Koć :
> 
> Helper question: what do you mean by "subtype"/"subclass" - is it meaningful 
> difference or just wording?


it's the same, a subtype is the real world view on something, a subclass could 
be seen as our representation of it.

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

Re: [Tagging] post_box:type values, meter in particular

[John Eldredge]

U.S. Post Offices used to have separate collection slots for stamped mail 
and metered mail (postage printed on it by a machine), but it is several 
years since I last remember seeing such. The only American usage for the 
term "franked mail" that I am aware of is that members of the United States 
Senate can send mail without having to pay postage. They just have to have 
a notice, in the same location where postage would otherwise go, that the 
mail was sent by Senator X on official business.


--
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.




On October 16, 2015 2:25:32 AM Martin Koppenhoefer  
wrote:





sent from a phone


Am 16.10.2015 um 03:16 schrieb Craig Wallace :

Sometimes known as a "business mail post box".



my suggestion would be to not use amenity=post_box but rather a different 
main tag on these like amenity=business_post_box or business_mail_post_box
It avoids misinterpretation and also make the type tag more consistent 
(shape only) rather than mixing different aspects/properties  into the same 
tag (even if currently in your context a particular shape refers to a 
particular kind of service, this does not have to be like this forever and 
everywhere)


cheers
Martin
___
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] Postindustrial Castle

[John Eldredge]

Some castles that started off as strictly defensible structures had 
nondefensible additions later, in peaceable times.


--
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.




On October 16, 2015 5:13:48 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


On 16/10/2015 7:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2015-10-16 10:02 GMT+02:00 John Willis >:

It just feels weird to tag a more modern structure never used as a
castle as a castle.

You are right - the duck test tells me it is an imposing historic
building. And yea, it looks a bit like a castle and is named
"castle" - like the disney castle - but it's style is to mimic a
castle - it was never meant to really be one. It is a rich
person's house.



You are reading "castle" as a defensive structure, aren't structures
like these castles as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Versailles (ok, that's a
palace in English, but a château in French and a Schloss in German)
and according to the historic=castle page in the wiki, these should be
tagged with castle_type=palace (or manor or stately when smaller / for
lesser nobles)


The OSM wiki page historic=castle has not been 'approved'. I regard it
as wrong ... in particular with regard to Palaces, Manors .. those are
buildings ..
Palace is mentioned in the original proposal page for building...

The dividing line between a castle and a building ..
like the difference between a memorial and a monument .. all relative.

A structure that has an outer defensive wall with an inner building that
also has defensive capabilities is a castle.

A building without defensive capabilities is not a castle.

To me Schloss Ludwigslust
, Germany is not a
castle. It is a building.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwigslust_Palace




And btw., you have not yet answered the question regarding the
Neuschwanstein case. I could name a similar example (besides the other
Ludwig II castles in Bavaria), much smaller, here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtenstein_Castle_%28W%C3%BCrttemberg%29

Appears to be a castle.

Or also this one, residence of the emperor of Germany (prussian
enclave), but not actually a defensive structure (but "fake
defensive"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenzollern_Castle


Appears to be a castle. OSM maps 'what is on the ground.. so castle?


Do you agree these are castles? This is the wiki list about castles:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:castle_type

These 19th century castles are all (or mostly) considered castles by
the Germans (actually they are either "Burg", or "Schloss",
Lichtenstein and Hohenzollern both are "Burg", the same word as for
the medieval defensive castles), but they are clearly very different
from medieval castles and never have worked as defensive structures
(neither have they been intended to be such). Here's a very small
example of an actual medieval castle:
http://www.hohen-hundersingen.de/
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burg_Hohenhundersingen


Yep all castles. Ruins.. but were castles.


 I brought this significance thing up, because that seems to be the
distinctive criterion for the three castle types "palace", "manor" and
"stately".


To me, "palace", "manor" and "stately" are buildings.. not castles.



--
___
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] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

[Paul Johnson]

Sure, when you're drafting out the lanes in JOSM or rendering them in
Osmand, your lane counts are off by however many bike lanes there are if
you don't explicitly map them in the lanes count and tag accordingly.

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 4:49 PM, Hubert  wrote:

> Hey Paul,
>
> I couldn’t find a problem with JOSM (Validator and „Lanes and Road
> Attributes“) or OsmAnd (rendering and routing bicycles and cars) on this
> [1]
> section of road where I have mapped “lanes=2” and “bicycle:lanes” with a
> “lane” count of 4, due to a weird bus stop.
> (bicycle:lanes=use_sidepath|use_sidepath|designated|no)
> Could you describe the problem a little more (osm way, error message)?
>
> Yours
> Hubert
>
> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/60809462
>
>
> ___
> 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] Heliport tagging

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 21.10.2015 0:14, johnw napisał(a):


How do we handle military Heliports?

If I change the main tag to aeroway=heliport, then the subtag of
aerodrome=military is broken, right?

Wouldn’t we need a heliport=* subtag to replicate this  
(heliport=military) ??


As far as I understand this problem, it's not yet properly resolved. On 
the aerodrome page type=* key is stroked, however type key page doesn't 
contain any discouraging notes on this, and both pages refer to 
aerodrome=* proposition (by Jgpacker). But when you read it, you'll find 
that this construction is not mentioned there:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Aerodrome#Tagging_a_military_aerodrome

So currently we have type=military advised on the aeroway=aerodrome page 
and military=airfield/landuse=military on aerodrome=* proposition page.


It would be good to make aerodrome=* proposition complete and voted to 
have more reliable tools for tagging airports. We could even add 
heliport=* there as a special kind of airport to make them coherent as 
one would expect.


--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down" [A. Cohen]


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

Re: [Tagging] Heliport tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-21 11:18 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć :

> How do we handle military Heliports?
>>
>> If I change the main tag to aeroway=heliport, then the subtag of
>> aerodrome=military is broken, right?
>>
>> Wouldn’t we need a heliport=* subtag to replicate this
>> (heliport=military) ??
>>
>
> As far as I understand this problem, it's not yet properly resolved. On
> the aerodrome page type=* key is stroked, however type key page doesn't
> contain any discouraging notes on this, and both pages refer to aerodrome=*
> proposition (by Jgpacker). But when you read it, you'll find that this
> construction is not mentioned there:
>
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Aerodrome#Tagging_a_military_aerodrome
>
> So currently we have type=military advised on the aeroway=aerodrome page
> and military=airfield/landuse=military on aerodrome=* proposition page.
>
> It would be good to make aerodrome=* proposition complete and voted to
> have more reliable tools for tagging airports. We could even add heliport=*
> there as a special kind of airport to make them coherent as one would
> expect.



I would not define an heliport as a subclass of an airport, but rather as a
subtype of an aerodrome.

IMHO, as the tag is "aerodrome" and not "airport", it would generally
include heliports (unlike the current definition in the wiki).
This way we would not have the above mentioned problems.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - aeroway=heliport

[Warin]

On 21/10/2015 9:14 AM, johnw wrote:

I have created/changed all the necessary links and pages, including main 
feature page:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:aeroway%3Dheliport

If you see something missing or needing more care, please let me know (or just 
fix it yourself).

I was just updating the tags for my two heliports, and came across an issue.

In my region we have two heliports (and no airports) - one is a common civilian 
commuter air terminal, the other is a JSDF military Heliport (named heliport).

How do we handle military Heliports?

If I change the main tag to aeroway=heliport, then the subtag of 
aerodrome=military is broken, right?


I simply use landuse=military. Usually covers the building=hanger too.

Keeps a consistent style for other things like ports, buildings ...

Some 'military' things can be used by civilians too .. like some of their 
aerodromes.



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

Re: [Tagging] Heliport tagging

[johnw]

> On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> I would not define an heliport as a subclass of an airport, but rather as a 
> subtype of an aerodrome. 


Didn’t we just vote on and approve a tag defining an heliport as a seperate tag?

perhaps I am confused. 


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

Re: [Tagging] Heliport tagging

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 10/21/2015 11:18 AM, Daniel Koć wrote:
> As far as I understand this problem, it's not yet properly resolved. On 
> the aerodrome page type=* key is stroked, however type key page doesn't 
> contain any discouraging notes on this

Well the type key page clearly recommends not using type for anything
else but a relation's type.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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