Re: [Tagging] Inconsistent road refs

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> There is a stretch of local highway which used to be signed with a ref,
> but no longer is. On the other hand, most of the intersecting roads still
> show that this highway has the old ref. Some other parts of the road remain
> signed.
>
> The two options for tagging seem to be ref=123 or old_ref=123.
>
> Thoughts?


 Could we get an example?  This may vary depending on context, as, for
example, there's several spots I can think of offhand that would belong to
a relation with network=US:US:Historic and ref=66, with old_ref=US 66 on
the way (where it's signed as a national historic route) or ref=I
44;OK 66, old_ref=US
66 (which isn't signed as a historic route) in my area...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage tourism=gallery

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-02-03 6:57 GMT+01:00 althio :

> In more details:
>
> For museums, including art museums (collection of works):
> tourism = museum
> + museum = art / railway / history / ...
> + art = painting / photography / ...
> [no tourism = gallery]
>


I'd prefer amenity=museum, but I see that putting it under the tourism key
is quite established so it would have to be discussed if a change would
make sense (if it hurts less to do this change one and forever or if it is
better to bear the little pain when putting tourism=museum as main tag on a
museum).

I would be more explicit with the key names, to avoid situations like
amenity=parking, parking=surface, surface=asphalt ;-)

amenity (or tourism)=museum
museum_type (or museum_for or museum:topic or ...) = art / railway /
history / war / mathematics / ...
art_form = painting / photography / sculpture / prints / 
art_genre = still_life / landscape / portrait / religious /  (if
applicable, many collections will be more diverse, but some might be
specialized)
art_style = expressionism / futurism / impressionism / mannerism / ...  (if
applicable)


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

Re: [Tagging] Inconsistent road refs

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-02-03 4:49 GMT+01:00 Paul Norman :

> There is a stretch of local highway which used to be signed with a ref,
> but no longer is. On the other hand, most of the intersecting roads still
> show that this highway has the old ref. Some other parts of the road remain
> signed.
>
> The two options for tagging seem to be ref=123 or old_ref=123.
>



why isn't it signed any more? Has the route stopped to "exist" and they
removed the signs on purpose (but just haven't finished yet hence the signs
on the crossing roads)? I would tag "old_ref" for situations where the ref
is no longer valid, but might still provide some useful information today.
E.g. in Italy a lot of roads have passed from the national operator to the
regions (admin entities), and changed their refs accordingly (e.g. SS 4 to
SR 4), and they also put some new signs here and there, but they didn't
remove a lot of the old signs, so that you can find a lot of old refs still
signposted. In this context we have tagged also old_ref to these roads.

If on the other hand the refs are still valid, but simply aren't signposted
on some stretches anymore, I would keep them in "ref".

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage tourism=gallery

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-02-02 23:17 GMT+01:00 Max :

> > both, the two examples above, as the first two  examples on the link,
> > clearly show that the word gallery has multiple meanings:
> >
> >   * Many galleries display the art prints without prices - hoping to get
> > more easily into an e-mail contact with their visitors.
> >   * The new renaissance and baroque galleries at the Waiters Art Museum,
> > Baltimore, include rooms that resemble those of a
> > seventeenth-century Dutch nobleman.
>
> I can understand where the confusion is coming from, but it is actually
> not really hard to distinguish.
>
> The art gallery is an important part of the art business. There is the
> gallerist whose job it is to find promising artists to invest in. The
> gallerist works with the artist to promote the artist and is selling the
> artworks of the artist. Usually the gallerist has a contract with the
> artist that grants the gallerist the right to represent this artist for
> a country or continent.
>
> For the layman it might be confusing that there are museums which also
> call some of their rooms a gallery, or even the whole museum is called
> gallery. This however is just because in this context gallery is used as
> a synonym for exhibition space.




+1, I completely agree and am not confused at all (I am frequently visiting
galleries myself).



> Here it is more the architectural sense
> of the word gallery, just like it can be used for things that are
> balcony like.
>


that's yet another meaning I think (might be that these spaces have
historically been used to put up paintings and that the museum usage is
coming from there, but the word is now used for a type of architectural
element independently of art being shown or not). These would likely be
tagged differently (building:part=gallery etc.) so they don't pose a
problem.




>
> If an artist says something like: "Next month I'll show my work in a
> gallery in Paris" you can safely assume that the art gallery of the
> first kind is what is referred to.
>


sure



>
> Sure, in a seruous gallery you will not find pricetags on the works. If
> you do see them, that's a sign it might be just what is described as
> shop=art in the wiki. Why? because the gallery will either have a
> separate sheet of paper with the prices and the list of works, or the
> gallerist prefers to negociate individually with the clients.
>
>

+1, typically either separate pricelists (on request) or individual
negotiation.




> So your examples are not confusing at all. That there is no price tag,
> is no indicator that it is a museum.
>


+1, I didn't mean to say these examples (btw., they're your examples, they
are the examples from your dictionary link) were confusing, I wrote they
are proving that the word "gallery" is used for different things. The
problem is that the tag "tourism=gallery" or "amenity=gallery" don't tell
you which kind of gallery is meant. Intuitively I would have said it's the
first type (gallery as part of the contemporary art discourse, works for
sale), but as the wiki defines it as the second type (museum type), it is
clear that we will have problems with this tag to know what was meant.

Maybe we can use more explicit values, e.g.
"amenity=contemporary_art_gallery" for the first type? This is admittedly
quite a long tag, but it is much more verbose about what is actually
tagged, and would lead to less wrong tagging I guess. My stance for the
museum art galleries is to tag them as museums and subtype.



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage tourism=gallery

[Max]

On 2016년 02월 03일 10:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I'd prefer amenity=museum, but I see that putting it under the tourism
> key is quite established so it would have to be discussed if a change
> would make sense (if it hurts less to do this change one and forever or
> if it is better to bear the little pain when putting tourism=museum as
> main tag on a museum).
> 
> I would be more explicit with the key names, to avoid situations like
> amenity=parking, parking=surface, surface=asphalt ;-)
> 
> amenity (or tourism)=museum
> museum_type (or museum_for or museum:topic or ...) = art / railway /
> history / war / mathematics / ...
> art_form = painting / photography / sculpture / prints / 
> art_genre = still_life / landscape / portrait / religious /  (if
> applicable, many collections will be more diverse, but some might be
> specialized)
> art_style = expressionism / futurism / impressionism / mannerism / ... 
> (if applicable)


So we are now at:
tourism=museum (nicer would be amenity, but for the sake of not changing
too much)
museum:topic= art / railway / history / war / mathematics / ...
art_form = painting / photography / sculpture / video / 
art_genre = still_life / landscape / portrait / religious /  (if
applicable, many collections will be more diverse, but some might be
specialized)
art_style = expressionism / futurism / impressionism / mannerism / ...


Additionally
amenity=contemporary_art_gallery

and
shop=art

That sounds good to me.
Maybe we should have a way to add the names of the artist this gallery
represents?

Are there any objections to this?

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