Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Walter Nordmann]

Hi,

Am 01.09.2017 um 00:54 schrieb Viking:

I think we should find a solution also for 10% of hydrants that don't have a 
type/pressure/water_source, or we will never have a definitive solution.
Considering that in some countries pressurized hydrants are not 
distuinguishable from not pressurized ones, I'm starting to think that the only 
way is to revert to the previous approach and define:
- hydrant: a device with couplings used to take water, pressurized or not. 
pressure=* will distinguish among them. water_source=* can complete the 
information.
- suction point: a place to park the fire engine and put down your hoses and 
pump.

sounds good for me. keep it simple.

Anyway fire_hydrant:type=pond should be deprecated in favour of 
water_source=pond.

i agree.

i could not follow the whole discussion. and therefore two "stupid" 
questions:


when you say "hydrant", you meen "emergency=fire_hydrant"  ok?
and the substag fire_hydrant:type will specify the subtypes 
(underground, pillar, ...)  ok?


i can and would like to accept any solution, which goes this simple way.

regards
walter, aka wambacher

btw: 
https://wambachers-osm.website/emergency/#zoom=14=50.10973=8.09932=Openstreetmap.org%20Grayscale=FFTTTFFF 
trying to visualize the existing tagging. would like to get it simpler.


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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[Viking]

@Francois
rating:water -1. It is not intuitive. Against simplicity that we are trying to 
achieve.

@Marc
flow_rate should be used for the nominal flow capacity. This is enough for 
firefightening purposes and it is the only data normally declared by water 
companies. For example [0] specifies standard test conditions to measure 
nominal flow rate. In this sense flow_rate is more appropriate.

I think we should find a solution also for 10% of hydrants that don't have a 
type/pressure/water_source, or we will never have a definitive solution.
Considering that in some countries pressurized hydrants are not 
distuinguishable from not pressurized ones, I'm starting to think that the only 
way is to revert to the previous approach and define:
- hydrant: a device with couplings used to take water, pressurized or not. 
pressure=* will distinguish among them. water_source=* can complete the 
information.
- suction point: a place to park the fire engine and put down your hoses and 
pump.
I would prefer to have only pressurized hydrants in emergency=fire_hydrant, but 
there are too many cases that can't be easily handled.
Anyway fire_hydrant:type=pond should be deprecated in favour of 
water_source=pond.

[0] http://www.nwwsd.org/media/4591/AppendixB.pdf

Best regards,
Alberto


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] shop=fashion shop=boutique

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 31.08.2017 o 18:09, Dave F pisze:
shop=boutique. Shops in my locale who describe themselves as 
'boutiques' ("for the discerning and stylish woman.") are primarily 
based around clothing, but often have a side-lines of other products, 
such as jewellery, handbags, beauty products & even homeware. Would 
shop=clothes. clothes=boutique clarify?


It's the same word, just nested, so it doesn't help, because we still 
don't know what it really means. =}


If we think that accessories are the core feature, it probably won't fit 
in clothes anyway, but it's not clear yet. It's also interesting how 
being an outlet and selling second hand or handmade items relates to 
boutique.


Thanks for sharing your 2 cents!

--
"Probably it's an eternal problem - too many chiefs, too few Indians" [O. 
Muzalyev]


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

Re: [Tagging] shop=fashion shop=boutique

[Dave F]

My 2 cents

shop=fashion is subjective & wide ranging. Remember when some considered 
the shell suit the thing to be seen in? it needs deprecating.


shop=boutique. Shops in my locale who describe themselves as 'boutiques' 
("for the discerning and stylish woman.") are primarily based around 
clothing, but often have a side-lines of other products, such as 
jewellery, handbags, beauty products & even homeware. Would 
shop=clothes. clothes=boutique clarify?


shop=shoes is a standalone shop & should not be amalgamated into 
'clothes'. Point out a shop with shoes in the window & ask "What's 
that"? 99% of people will say "it's a shoe shop".


 DaveF


On 31/08/2017 13:07, marc marc wrote:

Le 30. 08. 17 à 19:19, Daniel Koć a écrit :

deprecate shop=fashion

I agree that shop=fashion is a "no meaning" tag


shop=boutique as part of making things clear in this field.

for shop=boutique, I think you are wrong.
A shop=boutique (except from the translation+wiki being corrected)
is something totally different from a shop=clothes.
You can define the additional tags needed to have a shop=boutique
(handmade, high range), but even so, in my opinion it is not
enough to move all shop=boutique to shop=clothes.
I think that shop=boutique must continue to exist

  > My feeling is that my wallet will know the difference
  > between shop clothes and boutique.
  > Shop boutique relates to shop clothes like restaurant
  > relates to fast food
I agree with that for shop=boutique

but can your wallet, your wife or a fashion addict explain
a difference between shop=fashion and shop=clothes
If all shop=fashion are also shop=clothes and vice versa,
perhaps the merger is usefull

  >> a member of
  >> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haute_couture#Liste_des_membres
  >> or same for worldwide shop
  > Shop types are not members of anything like that

I think that in France, the term "haute couture" is protected,
in the same way that you can not claim to be an architect
without formalities in certain countries. I'll check that out.
Of course on a world level, it must be more flexible but there are
still some notions that makes that Wallmark had no shop=boutique
department even if it creates a ray of high quality handmade

  > what about tagging exclusive/luxury goods? Do we need it?
all your additional tag are useull and I agree to create them.
but even so, I do not think shop=boutique must be depreciated
___
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] shop=fashion shop=boutique

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 31.08.2017 o 14:44, Daniel Koć pisze:

"small shopping outlet, especially one that specializes in elite and 
fashionable items like clothing and accessories."


Important questions to decide:
- Can a boutique sell second hand items - or just the new ones?
- What about "hand made" - is it the core property of boutique or just 
an option?

- What other hints would be useful for a mapper?


Propositions:
- elite -> luxury
- accesories -> clothing accesories (bags, shoes, jewellery etc.)

I think the "outlet" concept should be explained using these informations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlet_store

We should also answer these questions:
- is every boutique an outlet or is it not required?
- if there are no accesories, just elegant clothes, is it still boutique 
or just a shop=clothes?

- do we need the outlet=* tag?

--
"Probably it's an eternal problem - too many chiefs, too few Indians" [O. 
Muzalyev]


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

Re: [Tagging] shop=fashion shop=boutique

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 31.08.2017 o 14:07, marc marc pisze:


for shop=boutique, I think you are wrong.
A shop=boutique (except from the translation+wiki being corrected)
is something totally different from a shop=clothes.
You can define the additional tags needed to have a shop=boutique
(handmade, high range), but even so, in my opinion it is not
enough to move all shop=boutique to shop=clothes.
I think that shop=boutique must continue to exist


OK, it's possible, but _how_ is it different then? How can we 
tune/replace the current definition to make it easier to recognize, 
because we have some problems with showing the difference:


"small shopping outlet, especially one that specializes in elite and 
fashionable items like clothing and accessories."


Important questions to decide:
- Can a boutique sell second hand items - or just the new ones?
- What about "hand made" - is it the core property of boutique or just 
an option?

- What other hints would be useful for a mapper?

--
"Probably it's an eternal problem - too many chiefs, too few Indians" [O. 
Muzalyev]


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

Re: [Tagging] shop=fashion

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 31.08.2017 o 06:57, Marc Gemis pisze:


No only that, a boutique usually sells more than just clothes
(jewellery, handbags, ...) and I assume you get a more personal
service as well than in the shop=clothes of large chains.
I don't understand the reason for having fashion, but even I know when
to use boutique (I think).


The whole point is finding good enough definition. shop=fashion seems to be 
doomed, because we have no idea how it's different from shop=clothes, but if we 
can show differences for shop=boutique, we can decide if it should be 
deprecated or just update wiki.

Definition needs to have core properties which allow to classify shop type, but 
may also contain hints (optional secondary properties). How would you describe 
it then?


And for me a shoe store is not a clothes stores. That does not mean


For me too - I don't propose to deprecate it. It's easy to define and 
popular enough. It can be just extended with subtags like shoes:for=* 
and similar and this is all I propose.



Unless you change your proposal to just changing shop=fashion (and I
still haven't seen really good arguments for that change -- and no, a
few male mappers that do not understand the current wiki definition is
not a good reason) my vote will be against your proposal.


I want to use the input from discussion to update this proposition 
eventually, but we're still talking, so no rush.


But definition is a universal tool - no matter what 
sex/gender/age/nationality/profession you are, it should be easy to say 
if it's a car shop or motorcycle shop for example, even if you're not 
interested in the subject.


--
"Probably it's an eternal problem - too many chiefs, too few Indians" [O. 
Muzalyev]


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

Re: [Tagging] shop=fashion shop=boutique

[Marc Gemis]

>
>  > My feeling is that my wallet will know the difference
>  > between shop clothes and boutique.
>  > Shop boutique relates to shop clothes like restaurant
>  > relates to fast food
> I agree with that for shop=boutique
>
> but can your wallet, your wife or a fashion addict explain
> a difference between shop=fashion and shop=clothes
> If all shop=fashion are also shop=clothes and vice versa,
> perhaps the merger is usefull
>

As I wrote elsewhere, I don't understand the need for the
shop=fashion. But that's just me.

m.

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

Re: [Tagging] Fire hydrants vs suction_point

[marc marc]

Le 28. 08. 17 à 00:18, Viking a écrit :

About flow_rate and capacity. The number indicated on the hydrant
is IMHO a capacity, it is the maximum that the hydrant is able to do.
The flow rate will depend on the use. In this sense it comes closer
to capacity (like the maximum parking space) rather than the flow of
a river (average value, not the maximum "capacity" of a river).
But this detail of vocabulary may not be very important.

about "pond will be deprecated"
>> Currently a contributor can create a emergency=fire_hydrant.
>> It's right, it is usable if you don't care about pressure (for example if 
>> you have anyway 
>> a pump with you). Another day, another contributor will add additional 
>> information.
> And if we divide emergency=fire_hydrant from emergency=suction_point what 
> changes? Nothing.
The big difference is if you don't have a pump, TODAY you can
avoid all hydrants that have no tag type/pressure/water_source.

Your proposal changes the current meaning since you want
that hydrant mean "always with pressure"

10% of hydrants in France don't have a type/pressure/water_source
tag and the current meaning is "maybe with pressure, maybe not"
a lot of them are classified as pressure=suction, the most common
value in France, this shows that this is a common case.
If you decide tomorrow to change their meaning, error rate
with "unknown pressure" will be significant. This is a regression.

I thing it is important :
- either to have a solution for those 10%
- either to remove the "meaning change" from the proposal
and talk this point separately to have a unanimous consensus
with the current proposal.
The sentence "pond will be deprecated" could be removed or change
to "fire_hydrant=pond is controversial, some believe it is needed
to not spit hydrant depending on the pressure, some believe
that it should be replaced by emergency=suction_point.
In both case, add water_source=pond."
What do you think of this ?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=fashion shop=boutique

[marc marc]

Le 30. 08. 17 à 19:19, Daniel Koć a écrit :
> deprecate shop=fashion
I agree that shop=fashion is a "no meaning" tag

> shop=boutique as part of making things clear in this field.

for shop=boutique, I think you are wrong.
A shop=boutique (except from the translation+wiki being corrected)
is something totally different from a shop=clothes.
You can define the additional tags needed to have a shop=boutique 
(handmade, high range), but even so, in my opinion it is not
enough to move all shop=boutique to shop=clothes.
I think that shop=boutique must continue to exist

 > My feeling is that my wallet will know the difference
 > between shop clothes and boutique.
 > Shop boutique relates to shop clothes like restaurant
 > relates to fast food
I agree with that for shop=boutique

but can your wallet, your wife or a fashion addict explain
a difference between shop=fashion and shop=clothes
If all shop=fashion are also shop=clothes and vice versa,
perhaps the merger is usefull

 >> a member of
 >> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haute_couture#Liste_des_membres
 >> or same for worldwide shop
 > Shop types are not members of anything like that

I think that in France, the term "haute couture" is protected,
in the same way that you can not claim to be an architect
without formalities in certain countries. I'll check that out.
Of course on a world level, it must be more flexible but there are
still some notions that makes that Wallmark had no shop=boutique 
department even if it creates a ray of high quality handmade

 > what about tagging exclusive/luxury goods? Do we need it?
all your additional tag are useull and I agree to create them.
but even so, I do not think shop=boutique must be depreciated
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] RFC: Defaults are paramount, abandoning Proposed_features/ is a HUGE mistake

[André Pirard]

Hi,

Examples: either each road is tagged with *maxspeed*=*
 speed limit and
*driving_side*=* 
or there are defaults.
I'm reviving this remark because the examples are numerous:

  * The Belgian Flemish community wants to tag *maxspeed*=*
 on every road
instead of using a default. Is this a new specification and where is
it written? Must that now be done in every country?
  * The current language= proposition wants to do it without defining
defaults. Really? language= on every name= ?
  * Other examples are maxheight in tunnels. Osmose just accused me of
someone else's omitting maxheight. It shouldn't be necessary if it's
the default, that is if there is no sign for it, but Osmose likes to
yell just in case.
  * countless etc.

Please choose.

Either the defaults are in the OSM database and it takes just a
routinely map fetch to get them all updated timely,
or each other router (GPS) writer implements them each their own way
from various random other files. It's not well clear how contributors ca
update all those files instead of OSM and it typically needs a full
software update for each little default change, depending on writer's
availability.

Please choose.

There is a Proposed_features/Defaults
 that
puts the defaults in OSM and it's an EXTREMELY HUGE mistake to have
marked such a paramount good work as abandoned because nobody continued
the work.  For the sake of OSM, especially routing, please reopen it.
I don't claim that it is the good solution but I do claim we should work
on such a default database *in priority*.

I didn't analyze it in full depth, but I have the following remarks:
- Why not allow the def keyword in the border relation itself? But it
could be called zzdef to cluster at the key end.
- If a separate relation is preferred, it should be pointed at by a
"defaults" role in the corresponding border or other relations so that
it can be found.
- to ease scanning a border tree upwards, a "parent" relation should
exist in border relations.

In hope of a well structured OSM,

Cheers

André.




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