Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-06-30 11:03 GMT+02:00 Michael Tsang :

> I live in Hong Kong and the legal framework is below:
>
> The learner licence is legally required for a learner to learn to drive on
> the
> road (because driving without a licence is an offence). Once a learner has
> got
> the learner licence, he can legally drive on the road under the following
> restrictive conditions:
> - in specified times
> - with an instructor (i.e. with the corresponding instructor licence) aside
> (except motorcycles)
> - on a vehicle that the instructor can interfere the braking system (except
> motorcycles)
>
> The learner can drive on all public roads under the above restrictions,
> except
> - motorways
> - roads where a road sign forbidding learner exists (that's *exactly* why
> this
> tag is needed).
>


OK, perfect. I suggest you add all this information to the proposal (maybe
in a subsection like "3. country-specific" -> "3.1 Hong-Kong")

I agree, as signs are possible to exclude learner drivers from specific
roads, that the tag is needed.

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

Re: [Tagging] New tag

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Hans De Kryger 
wrote:

> How does everyone feel about (store_number=) for store numbers that
> companies assign their stores?
>

I generally use ref=* for the store number.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-06-30 10:23 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :

> Are you suggesting that a shop object which is coterminous with a building
> outline should get its own polygon, sharing nodes between the two?



you could do it like this, but I'd rather use a multipolygon relation to
avoid overlapping ways. Some people use nodes inside the building polygon,
you can do this, but you loose the information of spatial extent.



> Instead of disambiguating the tags with a prefix/suffix like shop:ref and
> building:ref?



yes, rather than these "disambiguations" you can use standard tags if you
have everything structured well on a geometrical and logical level. The
need for these "disambiguations" already demonstrates there is something
wrong somewhere (IMHO). Similarly, we don't need bridge_name or bridge_ref
any more, since we started to have actual bridges (man_made=bridge) and not
just indirect bridges (by stating something is on a bridge).



> It is certainly an approach which has merit, but so do other approaches
> which are currently more widely used, such as tags with a prefix/suffix or
> mapping the "shop" to a node within the building polygon.



Yes, the node within the polygon is likely more used than (exactly)
overlapping polygons and multipolygon relations (have never counted this,
just a guess). I don't think that prefixes and suffixes are more frequently
used, but it is really difficult to tell precisely. Actually everything
could be expressed with prefixes and suffixes, so if you compare
"everything" to the cases with a suffix/prefix, they are clearly a small
minority ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

[Michael Tsang]

On Wednesday 29 June 2016 16:55:08 jeffrey.rho...@geogr.uni-giessen.de wrote:
> 
> So even countries that have some kind of learner license don't necessarily
> have any restrictions on roads concerning them, hence I think the tag as a
> general tag would be problematic, since it could cause confusion in
> different countries. 
> 
> And the tag does seem a bit unneeded since in the countries it applies,
> those aren't specific restrictions as far as I know, but general ones. So
> e.g. in country x you are not permitted on Motorways with a learner
> license, hence the tag is not needed if the Motorways are correctly tagged
> as such in the first place.

I live in Hong Kong and the legal framework is below:

The learner licence is legally required for a learner to learn to drive on the 
road (because driving without a licence is an offence). Once a learner has got 
the learner licence, he can legally drive on the road under the following 
restrictive conditions:
- in specified times
- with an instructor (i.e. with the corresponding instructor licence) aside 
(except motorcycles)
- on a vehicle that the instructor can interfere the braking system (except 
motorcycles)

The learner can drive on all public roads under the above restrictions, except
- motorways
- roads where a road sign forbidding learner exists (that's *exactly* why this 
tag is needed).

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

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

Re: [Tagging] New tag

[Hans De Kryger]

I apologize, i meant i would use (ref:shop=) just realized that. Read the
tag as (ref:shop=number)

But you guys have just won me over with your point of views. Will use
(ref=) in my project, thanks!

Regards,
Hans

Regards,
Hans

On Jun 30, 2016 12:59 AM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
wrote:

>
> 2016-06-30 9:51 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>> ref=* and shop=* -- 10567
>> ref:shop:num   -- 121
>> ref:shop   --2
>>
>
>
>
> and branch_ref   -- 7
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/branch_ref#overview
>
> 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] New tag

[Colin Smale]

On 2016-06-30 09:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> If you put a ref on a shop it is clear that the ref refers to the shop. If it 
> isn't clear where the ref refers to (e.g. a building, another business or 
> amenity etc.) there is something wrong with the mapping and it combines 
> several objects from the real world into one osm object. You should then 
> separate these objects because also other tags might be ambiguous (e.g. name, 
> wikipedia. start_date).

Are you suggesting that a shop object which is coterminous with a
building outline should get its own polygon, sharing nodes between the
two? Instead of disambiguating the tags with a prefix/suffix like
shop:ref and building:ref? It is certainly an approach which has merit,
but so do other approaches which are currently more widely used, such as
tags with a prefix/suffix or mapping the "shop" to a node within the
building polygon. 

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

Re: [Tagging] New tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-06-30 9:42 GMT+02:00 Andrew Errington :

> ref=* would be better, as it's already understood by a lot of other tools
> and renderers.



+1, also, ref is already referring to a number, so ref:store:num seems
unneccessarily complicated, so even if you should opt for a more structured
tag than "ref" you should likely use "ref:shop" and not "ref:shop:num".
(Another point: "num" sounds like "numeric", but maybe a shop ref goes
something like B45T, i.e. is alphanumeric).

I have looked at taginfo usage (worldwide). These are the current numbers:

ref=* and shop=* -- 10567
ref:shop:num   -- 121
ref:shop   --2

If you put a ref on a shop it is clear that the ref refers to the shop. If
it isn't clear where the ref refers to (e.g. a building, another business
or amenity etc.) there is something wrong with the mapping and it combines
several objects from the real world into one osm object. You should then
separate these objects because also other tags might be ambiguous (e.g.
name, wikipedia. start_date).

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

Re: [Tagging] New tag

[Andrew Errington]

ref=* would be better, as it's already understood by a lot of other tools
and renderers.

Andrew
On 30 Jun 2016 16:28, "Steve Doerr"  wrote:

> On 30/06/2016 05:27, Hans De Kryger wrote:
>
> How does everyone feel about (store_number=) for store numbers that
> companies assign their stores?
>
>
> Or perhaps branch_number?
>
> --
> Steve
>
>
> --
> [image: Avast logo] 
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> 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] New tag

[Steve Doerr]

On 30/06/2016 05:27, Hans De Kryger wrote:

How does everyone feel about (store_number=) for store numbers that 
companies assign their stores?




Or perhaps branch_number?

--
Steve


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New tag

[Hans De Kryger]

(ref:shop:num) is what i plan on using. Just (ref=number) is not specific
enough to me

*Regards,*

*Hans*

On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Éric Gillet 
wrote:

> 2016-06-30 6:27 GMT+02:00 Hans De Kryger :
>
>> How does everyone feel about (store_number=) for store numbers that
>> companies assign their stores?
>>
>
> Why not use ref=* ?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging