Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[Erkin Alp Güney]

Maglev is intended for HST usage. Monorail is usually intended for urban
commutes. Different uses, different tagging. Maglev needs to render
prominently, urban monorail does not.


18-09-2017 07:54 tarihinde Holger Jeromin yazdı:
> Currently we have world wide one disused, one active test rail and
>  one commercial route.
>
> You should look at the tagging of these rails and discuss problems
>  with it.
>
> Last time i checked they were tagged as =monorail. 
>
> Your main point on the wiki is the incompatible rail for maglevs.
>  But the same is valid for all monorails. 
>
Yours, faithfully
Erkin Alp

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[Holger Jeromin]

Erkin Alp Güney  Wrote in message:
> > Another is magnetic levitation trains, this one having completed its
>> draft quickly. This brings railway=maglev tag and its associated
>> rendering. 
>> 
> Resent as per listmaster's request.
> 

Currently we have world wide one disused, one active test rail and
 one commercial route.

You should look at the tagging of these rails and discuss problems
 with it.

Last time i checked they were tagged as =monorail. 

Your main point on the wiki is the incompatible rail for maglevs.
 But the same is valid for all monorails. 

-- 
Holger


Android NewsGroup Reader
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/


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

Re: [Tagging] Access by permit

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> I'm trying to tag some stocked fishing ponds that reside on a military
> reservation in Alaska, Fort Greely. The ponds are stocked by the
> Alaska Department of Fish & Game but require a special permit for access.
> This is from the Department of Fish & Game website:
>
> These lakes are on military land. A permit is required to legally access
> these lakes. For Army land a Recreational Access Permit (RAP) is required.
>
> access=permissive isn't quite right nor is access=private.
>
> While we're at it, I've tagged these lakes with fishing=yes (869
> instances) but Taginfo shows many objects with fishing=permit (38
> instances) along with other values. Is the fishing=permit tag enough to
> clarify the situation? There is also a tag fishing=stocked (141 instances)
> that I would prefer to use but then the access issue must be treated in
> some other way.
>

I think I'm the culprit with fishing=permit. I tagged the instances and
proposed the tag I used in:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access%3Dpermit

The proposal was NOT well received - I'd go so far as to say, 'unanimously
rejected by everyone that commented on it'. Many users of 'tagging'
informed me that there was no significant difference between 'permit' and
'private', and absolutely nobody on 'tagging' supported the proposal.  I
don't have time at the moment to find the discussion on the mailing list,
but
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/access%3Dpermit
is an example of the sort of comments I received. It appears that you're
the first person other than me to think that 'access=private' doesn't cover
the case.

I suspect that we're therefore both wrong, but I have heard absolutely no
counterproposal other than to tag 'access=private' and consider permit
regimes to be Out of Scope.

For me, and apparently for you, there's a big difference between 'this land
is private', and 'access to this land requires certain formalities to be
complied with, but permission is ordinarily granted.' But i appear to be
imagining that the difference is important, since nobody else on the planet
sees it.

I simply haven't troubled yet to retag the New York City watershed lands
that require users to apply for a free permit on the web site, as being
'access=no' or 'access=private', because it makes no sense to me given that
the permit is free and routinely issued to all applicants. Moreover, I need
some distinction between the access classes, since I render them
differently on trail maps that I produce. That said, when I mentioned that
I cannot render the two things differently unless there is some tag
distinguishing them, I got several replies asserting that was 'tagging for
the renderer.' Apparently I don't understand what that means, either - I
had previously thought that it meant asserting a tag that was not true in
order to have something look good in the default rendering on
openstreetmap.org.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Access by permit

[Dave Swarthout]

I'm trying to tag some stocked fishing ponds that reside on a military
reservation in Alaska, Fort Greely. The ponds are stocked by the
Alaska Department of Fish & Game but require a special permit for access.
This is from the Department of Fish & Game website:

These lakes are on military land. A permit is required to legally access
these lakes. For Army land a Recreational Access Permit (RAP) is required.

access=permissive isn't quite right nor is access=private.

While we're at it, I've tagged these lakes with fishing=yes (869 instances)
but Taginfo shows many objects with fishing=permit (38 instances) along
with other values. Is the fishing=permit tag enough to clarify the
situation? There is also a tag fishing=stocked (141 instances) that I would
prefer to use but then the access issue must be treated in some other way.

Suggestions?

Thanks in advance.

Dave
-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Setting a preferred routing

[Dave Swarthout]

I'm so enamored of the new ESRI imagery I had forgotten to check *all* the
available imagery in that area. Thanks, Hans.

It appears that not only has some of the old pavement been removed but
there is no bridge over the small stream anymore. The highway isn't even
continuous. I'll check with Will to see if he knows for sure if that bridge
is gone.

Either way, the problem is solved.

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> The old hwy looks like it is being torn apart in a few area looking at the
> Digital Globe standard imagery. Track may be more appropriate.
>
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Hans De Kryger  > wrote:
>
>> DigitalGlobe Standard Imagery has the new road. Also we have a more up to
>> date map than Google in that area 
>>
>> *Regards,*
>>
>> *Hans*
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick <
>> graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> How about =proposed?
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:proposed
>>>
>>> "For roads to be removed, use *proposed:highway*=no. This is understood
>>> by (at least) ITO's Transport Construction
>>>  map."
>>>
>>> "
>>>
>>>- a further tag could be added to illustrate the expected beginning
>>>of construction and planned opening date.
>>>
>>> e.g. construction_start_expected
>>> 
>>> =-MM-DD construction_end_expected
>>> 
>>> =-MM-DD"
>>>
>>> I don't know what that would do to routing - I'd guess that you could
>>> still force your GPS to go that way, but it wouldn't automatically pick it?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Graeme
>>>


>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

[Marc Gemis]

I'm pretty sure this was discussed in the past on this mailing list.
Is there a descend way to search in the tagging archive, it would
interesting to see what was discussed then.


m.

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Selfish Seahorse
 wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> The current situation of how public outdoor and indoor swimming pool
> facilities are tagged is not ideal. There is no dedicated tag, so they
> are all tagged differently: e.g. as water parks, sports centres,
> swimming pools, recreation grounds or parks. However, these tags all
> define something else: Water parks are amusement parks, not meant for
> swimming as a sport; sports centres are facilities 'where a range of
> sports take place' (this tag is especially inappropriate for smaller
> outdoor swimming pool facilities); swimming pool should only be used
> for the pool itself (water area); and recreation grounds and parks
> have nothing to do with swimming. Some images for comparision:
>
> * Outdoor swimming pool facility:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schwimmbad_Grins_01.jpg
> * Indoor swimming pool facility:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hallenbad_Huetteldorf_02.JPG
> * Sports centre:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20141101_Sportzentrum_Nord,_Coesfeld_(07328).jpg
> * Water park 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lido_de_Jesolo,_Aqualandia,_panorama_-_panoramio.jpg
>
> The lack of a dedicated tag and the different tagging prevents
> searching for nearby swimming pool facilities. Furthermore, it is not
> possible to distinguish between indoor and outdoor swimming pool
> facilities.
>
> It might make sense to create a new tag leisure=swimming_facility with
> a sub-tag swimming_facility=outdoor/indoor. What are your opinions?
>
> Kind regards
>
> SelfishSeahorse
>
> ___
> 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] Setting a preferred routing

[Clifford Snow]

The old hwy looks like it is being torn apart in a few area looking at the
Digital Globe standard imagery. Track may be more appropriate.

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Hans De Kryger 
wrote:

> DigitalGlobe Standard Imagery has the new road. Also we have a more up to
> date map than Google in that area 
>
> *Regards,*
>
> *Hans*
>
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  > wrote:
>
>> How about =proposed?
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:proposed
>>
>> "For roads to be removed, use *proposed:highway*=no. This is understood
>> by (at least) ITO's Transport Construction
>>  map."
>>
>> "
>>
>>- a further tag could be added to illustrate the expected beginning
>>of construction and planned opening date.
>>
>> e.g. construction_start_expected
>> 
>> =-MM-DD construction_end_expected
>> 
>> =-MM-DD"
>>
>> I don't know what that would do to routing - I'd guess that you could
>> still force your GPS to go that way, but it wouldn't automatically pick it?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Setting a preferred routing

[Hans De Kryger]

DigitalGlobe Standard Imagery has the new road. Also we have a more up to
date map than Google in that area 

*Regards,*

*Hans*

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> How about =proposed?
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:proposed
>
> "For roads to be removed, use *proposed:highway*=no. This is understood
> by (at least) ITO's Transport Construction
>  map."
>
> "
>
>- a further tag could be added to illustrate the expected beginning of
>construction and planned opening date.
>
> e.g. construction_start_expected
> 
> =-MM-DD construction_end_expected
> 
> =-MM-DD"
>
> I don't know what that would do to routing - I'd guess that you could
> still force your GPS to go that way, but it wouldn't automatically pick it?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>>
>>
> ___
> 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] Setting a preferred routing

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

How about =proposed?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:proposed

"For roads to be removed, use *proposed:highway*=no. This is understood by
(at least) ITO's Transport Construction 
 map."

"

   - a further tag could be added to illustrate the expected beginning of
   construction and planned opening date.

e.g. construction_start_expected

=-MM-DD construction_end_expected

=-MM-DD"

I don't know what that would do to routing - I'd guess that you could still
force your GPS to go that way, but it wouldn't automatically pick it?

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: [Tagging] Setting a preferred routing

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> I came across an interesting routing problem the other day. A section of
> the Richardson Highway in Alaska was relocated in 2015 by the Alaska DOT in
> anticipation of erosion or flooding by the nearby Delta River. However, the
> old highway is still present, is still paved, and is shorter than the new
> highway that replaced it. OSM mapper Will Lenz classified the old highway
> as a track to "persuade" his GPS's routing algorithm into using the new
> section. See the following changeset and the conversation I had with Will
> here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47049836.
>
> Clearly, the old highway is not a track using the Wiki's definition. I
> might be tempted to tag it as highway=unclassified, or perhaps service, but
> none of these solutions is ideal. Will's idea works but is not, strictly
> speaking, proper.
>

It rather depends on why a router should avoid it. Is it posted 'no thru
traffic' while still being the only route to somewhere? (In which case
'access=destination' might cover it.)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Setting a preferred routing

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> Hi,
> I came across an interesting routing problem the other day. A section of
> the Richardson Highway in Alaska was relocated in 2015 by the Alaska DOT in
> anticipation of erosion or flooding by the nearby Delta River. However, the
> old highway is still present, is still paved, and is shorter than the new
> highway that replaced it. OSM mapper Will Lenz classified the old highway
> as a track to "persuade" his GPS's routing algorithm into using the new
> section. See the following changeset and the conversation I had with Will
> here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47049836.
>
> Clearly, the old highway is not a track using the Wiki's definition. I
> might be tempted to tag it as highway=unclassified, or perhaps service, but
> none of these solutions is ideal. Will's idea works but is not, strictly
> speaking, proper.
>
> From the imagery, it certainly would fit the highway=unclassified. Since
the new road isn't visible, do you know if the old road is paved up to the
primary road on both ends? If it is, then yes, its an unclassified road.

It might help routers to have add maxspeed. (Does Alaska even have a max
speed limit?)

Clifford



-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Setting a preferred routing

[Dave Swarthout]

Hi,
I came across an interesting routing problem the other day. A section of
the Richardson Highway in Alaska was relocated in 2015 by the Alaska DOT in
anticipation of erosion or flooding by the nearby Delta River. However, the
old highway is still present, is still paved, and is shorter than the new
highway that replaced it. OSM mapper Will Lenz classified the old highway
as a track to "persuade" his GPS's routing algorithm into using the new
section. See the following changeset and the conversation I had with Will
here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/47049836.

Clearly, the old highway is not a track using the Wiki's definition. I
might be tempted to tag it as highway=unclassified, or perhaps service, but
none of these solutions is ideal. Will's idea works but is not, strictly
speaking, proper.

How then should one tag such a way?

AlaskaDave

-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks for clarification re "types" of training schools.

Carrying on along the driving side of things but diverging a bit - how
about flying & boating training schools? It was  mentioned that for driver
training, the school only teaches the student how to drive, then they must
go to the Transport Dept office for their practical & theory tests. For
flying & boating (at least in Australia), the schools also do all the
testing (to Govt standards) & decide whether the student has passed.

Same sort of thing for Scuba diving - you have dedicated Scuba diving
schools to train & qualify new divers - education or sport?


Thanks

Graeme


On 17 September 2017 at 19:11, Erkin Alp Güney 
wrote:

>
> I do not know of any jurisdiction where a driving school is entitled to
> license a driver by itself. These examinations are government regulated
> otherwise driving schools would just skip the practical portion of
> driver education and try to license an incompetent driver just for more
> profit.
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 17.09.2017 20:08, marc marc wrote:

Le 17. 09. 17 à 18:20, Selfish Seahorse a écrit :

a sub-tag swimming_facility=outdoor/indoor


existing indoor=yes/no is not enough ?
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/indoor#values


Both are in use:
* indoor=yes/no
* outdoor=yes/no

They are in use for other sports as well, e.g. a climbing gym can have the hall (indoor) and a wall 
outside (outdoor).


tom

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

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

[marc marc]

Le 17. 09. 17 à 18:20, Selfish Seahorse a écrit :
> a sub-tag swimming_facility=outdoor/indoor

existing indoor=yes/no is not enough ?
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/indoor#values
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

[José G Moya Y .]

Yes, please!!

It's inconsistent to have a tag to mark the outdoor area surrounding a
sports swimming pool or a water park and no tag to mark the outdoor area
around a not-for-sports, not-theme-park swimming pool. I said that in the
swimming pool discusion.

If you have a tag for the facility, you can map the access/entrance to the
facility.

Yours,

José

El 17/9/2017 18:56, "Martin Koppenhoefer"  escribió:

>
>
> 2017-09-17 18:20 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse :
>
>>
>> The lack of a dedicated tag and the different tagging prevents
>> searching for nearby swimming pool facilities. Furthermore, it is not
>> possible to distinguish between indoor and outdoor swimming pool
>> facilities.
>>
>
>
> Thank you for bringing swimming pools up. I agree the current
> documentation does not go much into the details of what is tagged how
> (hence there is not much detail in the map in general).
> there is leisure=swimming_pool, but you are right there could be space for
> a swimming_facility. Typically I think they are tagged as sports_centres
> with sport=swimming and other subtags (e.g. "covered"). There's also
> leisure=water_park.
>
> see also here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%
> 3Dswimming_pool
>
> I am not sure about different typologies of swimming pools, but I think it
> is interesting to know, e.g. kids pool, length of pool, jumping pool, etc.
>
>
>
>>
>> It might make sense to create a new tag leisure=swimming_facility with
>> a sub-tag swimming_facility=outdoor/indoor. What are your opinions?
>>
>
>
> there are facilities that offer both, indoor and outdoor swimming, some
> only in some periods of the year (in central Europe), others all year long
> (still in central Europe, with heated outdoor pools). There are also
> thermal baths, both for recreative and for medical use, and as "facilities"
> or naturally occurring and without any kind of "facility".
>
> Outdoor facilities are also natural sometimes, e.g. at rivers and lakes,
> and might be tagged differently. At the sea there are beach resorts which
> might have swimming pools as well.
>
> 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] Swimming pool facilities

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-09-17 18:20 GMT+02:00 Selfish Seahorse :

>
> The lack of a dedicated tag and the different tagging prevents
> searching for nearby swimming pool facilities. Furthermore, it is not
> possible to distinguish between indoor and outdoor swimming pool
> facilities.
>


Thank you for bringing swimming pools up. I agree the current documentation
does not go much into the details of what is tagged how (hence there is not
much detail in the map in general).
there is leisure=swimming_pool, but you are right there could be space for
a swimming_facility. Typically I think they are tagged as sports_centres
with sport=swimming and other subtags (e.g. "covered"). There's also
leisure=water_park.

see also here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dswimming_pool

I am not sure about different typologies of swimming pools, but I think it
is interesting to know, e.g. kids pool, length of pool, jumping pool, etc.



>
> It might make sense to create a new tag leisure=swimming_facility with
> a sub-tag swimming_facility=outdoor/indoor. What are your opinions?
>


there are facilities that offer both, indoor and outdoor swimming, some
only in some periods of the year (in central Europe), others all year long
(still in central Europe, with heated outdoor pools). There are also
thermal baths, both for recreative and for medical use, and as "facilities"
or naturally occurring and without any kind of "facility".

Outdoor facilities are also natural sometimes, e.g. at rivers and lakes,
and might be tagged differently. At the sea there are beach resorts which
might have swimming pools as well.

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

[Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

[Selfish Seahorse]

Hi everyone

The current situation of how public outdoor and indoor swimming pool
facilities are tagged is not ideal. There is no dedicated tag, so they
are all tagged differently: e.g. as water parks, sports centres,
swimming pools, recreation grounds or parks. However, these tags all
define something else: Water parks are amusement parks, not meant for
swimming as a sport; sports centres are facilities 'where a range of
sports take place' (this tag is especially inappropriate for smaller
outdoor swimming pool facilities); swimming pool should only be used
for the pool itself (water area); and recreation grounds and parks
have nothing to do with swimming. Some images for comparison:

* Outdoor swimming pool facility:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schwimmbad_Grins_01.jpg
* Indoor swimming pool facility:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hallenbad_Huetteldorf_02.JPG
* Sports centre:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20141101_Sportzentrum_Nord,_Coesfeld_(07328).jpg
* Water park 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lido_de_Jesolo,_Aqualandia,_panorama_-_panoramio.jpg

The lack of a dedicated tag and the different tagging prevents
searching for nearby swimming pool facilities. Furthermore, it is not
possible to distinguish between indoor and outdoor swimming pool
facilities.

It might make sense to create a new tag leisure=swimming_facility with
a sub-tag swimming_facility=outdoor/indoor. What are your opinions?

Regards

SelfishSeahorse

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

[Tagging] Swimming pool facilities

[Selfish Seahorse]

Hi everyone

The current situation of how public outdoor and indoor swimming pool
facilities are tagged is not ideal. There is no dedicated tag, so they
are all tagged differently: e.g. as water parks, sports centres,
swimming pools, recreation grounds or parks. However, these tags all
define something else: Water parks are amusement parks, not meant for
swimming as a sport; sports centres are facilities 'where a range of
sports take place' (this tag is especially inappropriate for smaller
outdoor swimming pool facilities); swimming pool should only be used
for the pool itself (water area); and recreation grounds and parks
have nothing to do with swimming. Some images for comparision:

* Outdoor swimming pool facility:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schwimmbad_Grins_01.jpg
* Indoor swimming pool facility:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hallenbad_Huetteldorf_02.JPG
* Sports centre:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20141101_Sportzentrum_Nord,_Coesfeld_(07328).jpg
* Water park 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lido_de_Jesolo,_Aqualandia,_panorama_-_panoramio.jpg

The lack of a dedicated tag and the different tagging prevents
searching for nearby swimming pool facilities. Furthermore, it is not
possible to distinguish between indoor and outdoor swimming pool
facilities.

It might make sense to create a new tag leisure=swimming_facility with
a sub-tag swimming_facility=outdoor/indoor. What are your opinions?

Kind regards

SelfishSeahorse

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17. Sep 2017, at 10:52, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
> 
> . If we were to reform
> the tagging system, my ideal solution would be a "type"/"thing"/"class"
> key that is used for the main tag of all features.


the downside with this approach is that many things are kind of a mixture of 
basic things/concepts, so this would lead to a lot more of different main 
features, as if you could create them by combination.

E.g. hotel and restaurant are combinable today (up to a certain point, 
sometimes you still have to split things into several objects due to different 
properties they have, that you want to map).

Maybe we could overcome this problem in your proposal by adding combination 
relations, that e.g. say: these 2 (basic) objects are the same business / part 
of this complex object, with the same name, operator, parking lot, etc.

You can have entrance=yes exit=emergency on the same object and don't have to 
decide whether it's mostly an entrance or an emergency exit.


> Other than this
> unlikely step, the next best solution is continued use of amenity as a
> catch-all for most features.


+1, I agree there's no point in moving universities or schools away from 
amenity, and there's generally no such thing as a "crowded" key (what is 
frequently brought up for amenity with the proposal to move things from amenity 
to other keys).

For dataconsumers it can make things easier when there's different keys at a 
toplevel, e.g. if you're only interested in streets you can reasonably filter 
them by looking at the presence of a highway key (you'll still get a bit more 
than streets), similarly for railways or waterways and areas. Or buildings. etc.

It's nothing we couldn't solve, you'd have to look at other tags and find the 
same things, but any system will have to decide how to deal with many special 
cases (due to the complexity of the world), and a shift to a system with 
basically a "main object tag" and k/v properties for the rest will not lead to 
something simpler (if it wants to differentiate all these cases), it would only 
be different (shifting the doubt from one tag to another).

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[Erkin Alp Güney]

> Another is magnetic levitation trains, this one having completed its
> draft quickly. This brings railway=maglev tag and its associated
> rendering. 
> 
Resent as per listmaster's request.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Erkin,

Am 17.09.2017 um 07:54 schrieb Erkin Alp Güney:
> Two RFCs by me are ready. One of them are education reform(actually
> delayed a bit). This brings education key instead of amenity=school.
> Full proposal at
> 
> Another is magnetic levitation trains, this one having completed its
> draft quickly. This brings railway=maglev tag and its associated
> rendering. 
> 

Could you please write two separate emails to the mailing list for two
proposals (i.e. write an additional email for your maglev proposal)?
Otherwise there is not clear distinction between the propoals in the thread.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[Colin Smale]

I would suggest there needs to be a separation between the school as an 
organisation, a campus, a building, and the courses provided. Here in NL there 
are many mixed colleges, which provide statutory education to kids  (16+), 
adult academic education and vocational training. Such colleges often have 
multiple locations, and do not always offer everything at all locations. 
Multiple schools can be overseen by a common board of governors as well.
Driving schools have an office for the administration, but the actual education 
is delivered elsewhere - on the road, or in some classrooms in the case of 
theory education. The examinations take place in yet another location, which 
has nothing to do with the driving schools - it is operated by a government 
agency.

IMHO the structure of the tagging scheme should reflect the real world, unless 
we agree that certain distinctions are not relevant to OSM, as we can then 
agree to simplify the model. The exact spelling or choice of word is of 
secondary importance.

//colin

On 17 September 2017 11:05:02 CEST, "Erkin Alp Güney"  
wrote:
>I have partly inspired by Turkish standardized education institution
>identification guide. Most of the school kinds mentioned, except
>universities, including ministry itself has distinct color codes
>identifying what kind of education institution they are (for example,
>all secondary schools have to use signs with yellow backgrounds). Since
>renders can only display data that are already in database, we have to
>identify these subtypes somehow using data model if we want them to be
>able to render differently. Another use case, you are going to be able
>to search for all education ministries in the world by simple tag
>search
>for education=administrative or all driving schools in the world by
>similar search for education=driving with this new scheme. Previously
>impractical.
>
>
>17-09-2017 11:52 tarihinde Tobias Knerr yazdı:
>> In my opinion, and speaking broadly, the job of the OSM tagging
>system
>> is to answer two questions:
>>
>> - What kind of feature is this?
>> - What properties does this feature have?
>
>> Contrary to this, some mappers (and your proposal) prefer to use the
>> superfluous key as a makeshift category system. I feel that's the
>wrong
>> way to go, though: How to best group features into categories depends
>on
>> the application you have in mind, and providing a categorization is
>not
>> any more the tagging system's job than making rendering style
>decisions
>> is. OSM data tells you that there is an education ministry in that
>> location. Whether that feature is filed under the "education",
>"office"
>> or "government" heading is an application developer's responsibility,
>> and should be of no concern for the OSM data model.
>>
>> tl;dr: Keys are not categories.
>Yours, faithfully
>Erkin Alp
>
>
>___
>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] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[Erkin Alp Güney]

These are applied educational research centers and should be tagged 
"education=applied_education". Completely different from a cram school.
I do not know of any jurisdiction where a driving school is entitled to
license a driver by itself. These examinations are government regulated
otherwise driving schools would just skip the practical portion of
driver education and try to license an incompetent driver just for more
profit.


17-09-2017 12:01 tarihinde José G Moya Y. yazdı:
> Thanks for your response, Erkin. The idea of putting driving license
> and some speciality schools under "cram" schools came from the fact
> that, despite of needind a special license, in my country (Spain)
> these centers do not make exams, they only prepare for an official
> exam done by the government. But I think you're right.
>
> In this tagging list someone asked about farm schools (private
> education centers that teach enviromental concerns to kids). Similar
> to these, there are also "enviromental education" or "environment
> interpretation"  centers (public education centers put inside parks or
> natural parks that make some environment-related teaching). 
> How would you classsify farm schools and environmental education centers?
>
>
Yours, faithfully
Erkin Alp

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[Erkin Alp Güney]

I have partly inspired by Turkish standardized education institution
identification guide. Most of the school kinds mentioned, except
universities, including ministry itself has distinct color codes
identifying what kind of education institution they are (for example,
all secondary schools have to use signs with yellow backgrounds). Since
renders can only display data that are already in database, we have to
identify these subtypes somehow using data model if we want them to be
able to render differently. Another use case, you are going to be able
to search for all education ministries in the world by simple tag search
for education=administrative or all driving schools in the world by
similar search for education=driving with this new scheme. Previously
impractical.


17-09-2017 11:52 tarihinde Tobias Knerr yazdı:
> In my opinion, and speaking broadly, the job of the OSM tagging system
> is to answer two questions:
>
> - What kind of feature is this?
> - What properties does this feature have?

> Contrary to this, some mappers (and your proposal) prefer to use the
> superfluous key as a makeshift category system. I feel that's the wrong
> way to go, though: How to best group features into categories depends on
> the application you have in mind, and providing a categorization is not
> any more the tagging system's job than making rendering style decisions
> is. OSM data tells you that there is an education ministry in that
> location. Whether that feature is filed under the "education", "office"
> or "government" heading is an application developer's responsibility,
> and should be of no concern for the OSM data model.
>
> tl;dr: Keys are not categories.
Yours, faithfully
Erkin Alp


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[José G Moya Y .]

Thanks for your response, Erkin. The idea of putting driving license and
some speciality schools under "cram" schools came from the fact that,
despite of needind a special license, in my country (Spain) these centers
do not make exams, they only prepare for an official exam done by the
government. But I think you're right.

In this tagging list someone asked about farm schools (private education
centers that teach enviromental concerns to kids). Similar to these, there
are also "enviromental education" or "environment interpretation"  centers
(public education centers put inside parks or natural parks that make some
environment-related teaching).
How would you classsify farm schools and environmental education centers?

Another


El 17/9/2017 10:44, "Erkin Alp Güney"  escribió:

That was a leftover from previous proposal. Edited proposal page to
reflect that all educational institutions are covered.


17-09-2017 09:26 tarihinde marc marc yazdı:
> Le 17. 09. 17 à 07:54, Erkin Alp Güney a écrit :
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=
Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative
> +1 for good inventory work
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=
Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative#Features_
not_covered_by_this_proposal
> you said that driving school is not covered by this proposal.
> but a little further, you talk about the tag education=driving
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=
Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative#Abandoned
> a typo (min_age <> max_age)
> the same typo a little further in "Additional tags" section
> ___
> 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[Tobias Knerr]

On 17.09.2017 07:54, Erkin Alp Güney wrote:
> This brings education key instead of amenity=school.

In my opinion, and speaking broadly, the job of the OSM tagging system
is to answer two questions:

- What kind of feature is this?
- What properties does this feature have?

The first question can usually be answered by a single word, such as
"university" or "driving school". The second is more naturally answered
with key-value pairs: The "name" is "Foobar University", the "website"
is "http://example.com; and so on.

So while our key-value tags lend themselves well to the second job, they
are a bit of an awkward fit for the first job. We need to put something
in the key even though it does not add any meaningful information. An
education=university would not be any different from an
amenity=university – all the information is already there in the value.

My preferred response to this situation is to minimize the significance
and required brain space for this vestigial key. If we were to reform
the tagging system, my ideal solution would be a "type"/"thing"/"class"
key that is used for the main tag of all features. Other than this
unlikely step, the next best solution is continued use of amenity as a
catch-all for most features.

Contrary to this, some mappers (and your proposal) prefer to use the
superfluous key as a makeshift category system. I feel that's the wrong
way to go, though: How to best group features into categories depends on
the application you have in mind, and providing a categorization is not
any more the tagging system's job than making rendering style decisions
is. OSM data tells you that there is an education ministry in that
location. Whether that feature is filed under the "education", "office"
or "government" heading is an application developer's responsibility,
and should be of no concern for the OSM data model.

tl;dr: Keys are not categories.

Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[Erkin Alp Güney]

That was a leftover from previous proposal. Edited proposal page to
reflect that all educational institutions are covered.


17-09-2017 09:26 tarihinde marc marc yazdı:
> Le 17. 09. 17 à 07:54, Erkin Alp Güney a écrit :
>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative
> +1 for good inventory work
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative#Features_not_covered_by_this_proposal
> you said that driving school is not covered by this proposal.
> but a little further, you talk about the tag education=driving
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative#Abandoned
> a typo (min_age <> max_age)
> the same typo a little further in "Additional tags" section
> ___
> 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] Fwd: Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[Erkin Alp Güney]

17-09-2017 11:16 tarihinde Erkin Alp Güney yazdı:
> Driving school is a government-recognized education institution and
> usually they have a monopoly in driving education. Hence they are
> considered specialty schools, not cram-schools. However, due to
> commonality, they need a separate tag. We can do in-depth tagging of
> driving schools if this proposal is accepted. Which classes of driving
> licenses they are entitled to train etc. Exam preparation schools come
> in different varieties. Some are just regular secondary or
> post-secondary schools with special curriculum. That variety perform
> cramming but are regular schools necessary to engage higher levels in
> educations(wikipedia:
> ). The
> other variety you mentioned, one whose sole function is prepare for
> exams with no other academic objective (the important bit, they cram but
> no academic return is expected) are considered cram schools in this
> proposal. Fine arts schools and crafts schools are not considered cram
> schools because they have different goals to cram schools. Consider if
> your school has a similar role to Japanese "juku"s if you get in doubt
> whether to tag a school "education=cram-school".
>
>
> 17-09-2017 09:41 tarihinde José G Moya Y. yazdı:
>> Just a question. A school where you prepare exams to get a position in
>> a bank, in the government or in the police is also a "cram school"?
>> And why a school where you prepare an exam to get a driving license is
>> not?
>>
>>
>> Yours,
> Yours, faithfully
> Erkin Alp


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[Erkin Alp Güney]

They go under education=specialty. education=vocational is intended for
post-secondary vocational schools. Regarding other question, yes, you
can tag specialty=* or vocation=* to denote which subjects are trained,
however, I do not think OSM database can cope with a generic
university's whole swath of specialties. Therefore, specialty and
vocation taggings should only be used with specialty schools, vocational
schools and cram-schools.


17-09-2017 09:42 tarihinde Graeme Fitzpatrick yazdı:
> Looks good Erkin
>
> Question, thanks.
>
> We have Security Training "schools" (companies to train private
> security guards) & also Language Schools (usually to teach English to
> non-English speakers).
>
> Would these come under =speciality, or possibly =vocational?
>
> Would it be possibly be an idea to also then include an additional
> tag: speciality / vocational=* (eg Security; English language etc)?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Looks good Erkin

Question, thanks.

We have Security Training "schools" (companies to train private security
guards) & also Language Schools (usually to teach English to non-English
speakers).

Would these come under =speciality, or possibly =vocational?

Would it be possibly be an idea to also then include an additional tag:
speciality / vocational=* (eg Security; English language etc)?

Thanks

Graeme


On 17 September 2017 at 15:54, Erkin Alp Güney 
wrote:

> Two RFCs by me are ready. One of them are education reform(actually
> delayed a bit). This brings education key instead of amenity=school.
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[José G Moya Y .]

Hi, Erick.

I'm just a newbie in tagging, but I find a reason for keeping school and
university at the "amenity" tag. These educative institutions are often
easy to spot (they span over an entire building and in many cases they have
a campus or playground), while other "education" institutions or businesses
in your proposal usually span over a small office inside a building.
Schools and universities can work as points of reference in places where
street names or numbers are difficult to spot (that's why I map electric
poles in open field: they are points of reference).

This said, I find your classification of educational businesses useful, and
I think that adding additional tags to already mappped schools is easy,
because your categories are probably easier to understand than ISCED.

Just a question. A school where you prepare exams to get a position in a
bank, in the government or in the police is also a "cram school"? And why a
school where you prepare an exam to get a driving license is not?


Yours,
José Moya
Spain

El 17/9/2017 7:56, "Erkin Alp Güney"  escribió:

> Two RFCs by me are ready. One of them are education reform(actually
> delayed a bit). This brings education key instead of amenity=school.
> Full proposal at
>  Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative>
> Another is magnetic levitation trains, this one having completed its
> draft quickly. This brings railway=maglev tag and its associated
> rendering.
>  Magnetic_levitaiton_train>
>
> Yours, faithfully
> Erkin Alp
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposals - RFC for multiple features - Education Reform - Magnetic Levitation Trains

[marc marc]

Le 17. 09. 17 à 07:54, Erkin Alp Güney a écrit :

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative

+1 for good inventory work

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative#Features_not_covered_by_this_proposal
you said that driving school is not covered by this proposal.
but a little further, you talk about the tag education=driving

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative#Abandoned
a typo (min_age <> max_age)
the same typo a little further in "Additional tags" section
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging