[Tagging] still_visible_on= or maybe still_visible_in=

[Warin]

From subject [Tagging] still_visible_on=* or maybe still_visible_in=?

On 27/06/18 23:55, Richard Welty wrote:


On 6/27/18 9:52 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2018-06-27 15:38 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>:

 Sometimes it makes sense to do not fully delete OSM elements
 representing completely
 destroyed objects.

 For example, completely destroyed road should not be present in
 OSM, but it may make sense
 to keep destroyed:highway=service until it is not visible on
 various aerial images to avoid remapping
 it by armchair editors.



Generally I agree it can be helpful to state for a transition time
that something is gone but still visible in common aerial imagery.

What is a "completely destroyed road"? Can there still be the roadbed?
Drainage system / remains? Much more common than something vanishing
completely is partial removal or decay. Often, traces remain. We
should also raise awareness in this regard, so that people consider
their options carefully after discovering a discrepancy between the
ground reality and our map.

For a very specific use case there is natural=tree_stump which can
often be a good choice to convert a natural=tree into, after it was
cut. But it isn't suitable if they removed the stump as well
(encountered this just 2 days ago).

i would tend to use the existing disused: namespace for things that are
disappearing.


No.
Disused is for things that are still present and can be reactivated with little 
effort.

If it is gone .. then it is not there.

I would use the source= tag to stipulate the source of where the information 
comes from, and if necessary to state that imagery from other sources are out 
of date at this time.
I have done this a few time. I have even had to do it on stuff i started to 
change to map imagery .. only to discover other imagery had the presently maped 
stuff on it.
Use that source key. It really helps other mappers.

-
Note on subject line ...
It looks like various characters are not liked in these subject lines .. the 
same characters not liked in file names.
So I have taken out those characters in the subject line.. sorry to break the 
thread.


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging bicycle charging stations

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 28 June 2018 at 04:38, Max  wrote:

>
> but this will change soon as standardization happens.


You mean like this: https://xkcd.com/927/? :-)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower:type=suspension

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Jun 2018, at 18:20, François Lacombe  wrote:
> 
> My point isn't to totally get rid of tower:type, but to get line clamping out 
> of it and only focus on man_made=tower classification.


it is not completely clear at this point which kind of towers are to be tagged 
with man_made=tower (and tower:type) and which get dedicated tags, even less as 
some supported tower:types are not compatible with the current man_made=tower 
definition 

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging bicycle charging stations

[Johnparis]

You don't need to include all the "no" values, I'd say. Just tag what you
see (not what you don't see).

amenity=charging_station
charging:bicycle=yes

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 20:39 Max  wrote:

> On 27.06.2018 17:39, marc marc wrote:
> > Le 27. 06. 18 à 16:28, Paul Allen a écrit :
> >> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> >>>  I encountered public charging station for electric bicycles.
> >
> > did you upload the photo somewhere ?
>
>
> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ebike+pedelec+charging+station=canonical=images=images=images
>
> There is currently a plenthora of different standards on electric
> bicycles (some with identical plugs, but different polarity!), but this
> will change soon as standardization happens.
> http://www.energybus.org/Basics/What-is-EnergyBus
>
>
> > I never see a public charging station for bike.
> > what kind of the plugs are available ?
> >
> >> Should be charging:bicycle=yes,  charging:car=no,
> >
> > that look like a good idea.
> >
> >>>  I propose to use amenity=bicycle_changing_station
> >>>  (like there is amenity=bicycle_parking and amenity=parking).
> >
> > that's a bad idea since this would have the same issue as for parking
> > with cycle and motorcycle : 2 overlapping values
> >
> > Regards,
> > Marc
> > ___
> > 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] tagging bicycle charging stations

[Max]

On 27.06.2018 17:39, marc marc wrote:

Le 27. 06. 18 à 16:28, Paul Allen a écrit :

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

 I encountered public charging station for electric bicycles.


did you upload the photo somewhere ?


https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ebike+pedelec+charging+station=canonical=images=images=images

There is currently a plenthora of different standards on electric 
bicycles (some with identical plugs, but different polarity!), but this 
will change soon as standardization happens.

http://www.energybus.org/Basics/What-is-EnergyBus



I never see a public charging station for bike.
what kind of the plugs are available ?


Should be charging:bicycle=yes,  charging:car=no,


that look like a good idea.


 I propose to use amenity=bicycle_changing_station
 (like there is amenity=bicycle_parking and amenity=parking).


that's a bad idea since this would have the same issue as for parking
with cycle and motorcycle : 2 overlapping values

Regards,
Marc
___
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=shoe_repair

[Jmapb]

On 6/27/2018 4:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
it depends how we see the "craft" tag. I would see it for professions 
that require some specific knowledge and "craft"/skills, not anybody 
doing any work would qualify for it. E.g. seasonal workers in the 
harvest or warehouseman or shoe polisher or key cutter wouldn't be 
crafts according to that definition, although they will usually be 
hard working.


As of now, there are 0 occurences of craft=master_locksmith in the db.

Cheers,
Martin


I was pleasantly surprised to come across craft=key_cutter in the wiki, 
as it seems to bridge the gap between the shoe-repair key machine 
operator, who can copy a small selection of the most common keys, and a 
real locksmith shop, which sells and services many types of locks and 
safes and offers high-security key copying, lock repinning, 
installation, also often these days alarms and security systems.


Copying keys isn't a storied craft like, say brewing or blacksmithing... 
but it does require some skill. And something is, literally, being 
crafted. That it can happily coexist with shop=* is a serendipitous 
bonus of using the craft tag.


Btw, lately I'm starting to see self-service automatic key-copying 
vending machines in some shops. Do I dare call these robotic kiosks 
craftsmen? Maybe vending=key_cutter?


See https://www.key.me/kiosks

jmb

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging bicycle charging stations

[marc marc]

Le 27. 06. 18 à 16:28, Paul Allen a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> I encountered public charging station for electric bicycles.

did you upload the photo somewhere ?
I never see a public charging station for bike.
what kind of the plugs are available ?

> Should be charging:bicycle=yes,  charging:car=no,

that look like a good idea.

>> I propose to use amenity=bicycle_changing_station
>> (like there is amenity=bicycle_parking and amenity=parking).

that's a bad idea since this would have the same issue as for parking 
with cycle and motorcycle : 2 overlapping values

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

Re: [Tagging] still_visible_on=* or maybe still_visible_in=?

[Nelson A. de Oliveira]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> I decided to use still_visible_on=Bing rather than note="It is still visible
> on Bing" as with second

"note" should already encompass this:
"A note is used to inform other mappers about non-obvious information
about an element, the author's intent when creating it, or hints for
further improvement"

If people are not paying attention to the "note" tag then probably
they will not see the "still_visible_something" too.

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging bicycle charging stations

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> I encountered public charging station for electric bicycles.
>
> How this should be tagged?
>
> Currently https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%
> 3Dcharging_station
> recommends
>
> amenity=charging_station
> bicycle=yes
> scooter=no
> car=no
> truck=no
>
> what sounds like a horrible idea,
>

I agree.  But not for your reasons.  Should be charging:bicycle=yes,
charging:car=no,
etc.


> I propose to use amenity=bicycle_changing_station
> (like there is amenity=bicycle_parking and amenity=parking).
>

And then you encounter a charging station which accommodates both cars and
bicycles.  Which isn't a problem with the existing scheme:
amenity=charging_station +
car=yes + bicycle=yes.  Which isn't a problemwith a more modern version of
the existing scheme:
amenity=charging_station + charging:bicycle=yes + charging:car=yes.  Which
is
a BIG problem with your idea.  Because then you have to use
amenity=bicycle_charging_station;car_charging_station and which one gets
rendered (if any)
is up to the carto.

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

[Tagging] tagging bicycle charging stations

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I encountered public charging station for electric bicycles.
How this should be tagged?
Currently https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station 
recommends 

amenity=charging_stationbicycle=yesscooter=nocar=notruck=no
what sounds like a horrible idea, I propose to use 
amenity=bicycle_changing_station(like there is amenity=bicycle_parking and 
amenity=parking).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] åååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååååå

[Richard Welty]

On 6/27/18 9:52 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2018-06-27 15:38 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny  >:
>
> Sometimes it makes sense to do not fully delete OSM elements
> representing completely
> destroyed objects.
>
> For example, completely destroyed road should not be present in
> OSM, but it may make sense
> to keep destroyed:highway=service until it is not visible on
> various aerial images to avoid remapping
> it by armchair editors.
>
>
>
> Generally I agree it can be helpful to state for a transition time
> that something is gone but still visible in common aerial imagery.
>
> What is a "completely destroyed road"? Can there still be the roadbed?
> Drainage system / remains? Much more common than something vanishing
> completely is partial removal or decay. Often, traces remain. We
> should also raise awareness in this regard, so that people consider
> their options carefully after discovering a discrepancy between the
> ground reality and our map.
>
> For a very specific use case there is natural=tree_stump which can
> often be a good choice to convert a natural=tree into, after it was
> cut. But it isn't suitable if they removed the stump as well
> (encountered this just 2 days ago).
i would tend to use the existing disused: namespace for things that are
disappearing.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


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

Re: [Tagging] still_visible_on=* or maybe still_visible_in=?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-27 15:38 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> Sometimes it makes sense to do not fully delete OSM elements representing
> completely
> destroyed objects.
>
> For example, completely destroyed road should not be present in OSM, but
> it may make sense
> to keep destroyed:highway=service until it is not visible on various
> aerial images to avoid remapping
> it by armchair editors.
>
>

Generally I agree it can be helpful to state for a transition time that
something is gone but still visible in common aerial imagery.

What is a "completely destroyed road"? Can there still be the roadbed?
Drainage system / remains? Much more common than something vanishing
completely is partial removal or decay. Often, traces remain. We should
also raise awareness in this regard, so that people consider their options
carefully after discovering a discrepancy between the ground reality and
our map.

For a very specific use case there is natural=tree_stump which can often be
a good choice to convert a natural=tree into, after it was cut. But it
isn't suitable if they removed the stump as well (encountered this just 2
days ago).

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

Re: [Tagging] still_visible_on=* or maybe still_visible_in=?

[marc marc]

Le 27. 06. 18 à 15:38, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> completely destroyed road should not be present in OSM, but 
> it may make sense
> to keep destroyed:highway=service until it is not visible on various 
> aerial images to avoid remapping
> it by armchair editors.

> But I am unsure which version is better - still_visible_in or 
> still_visible_on?

an editor use imagery_used to tell witch imagery was used to add this info.
so why not using outdated:imagery_used to tell witch layer still contain 
objets that didn't exist anymore.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] still_visible_on=* or maybe still_visible_in=?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Sometimes it makes sense to do not fully delete OSM elements representing 
completelydestroyed objects.
For example, completely destroyed road should not be present in OSM, but it may 
make senseto keep destroyed:highway=service until it is not visible on various 
aerial images to avoid remappingit by armchair editors.
Recently I started adding also information where it is still visible -to avoid 
someone deleting suchobject just because it is not visible on currently used 
aerial images.
I decided to use still_visible_on=Bing rather than note="It is still visible on 
Bing" as with secondI start to thinking how to formulate it, which language use 
etc.
But I am unsure which version is better - still_visible_in or still_visible_on?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tower:type=suspension

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-26 0:19 GMT+02:00 François Lacombe :

> As we see that tower:type is cluttered by power values here, it would be
> great to move to a new key.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tower:type
>
> The cluttering is real : a power tower can also be used as a communication
> tower and we can't tag it.
> tower:type is too restrictive also.
>


tower:type is intended as the main reason for a tower, I believe. If
someone puts a communication device on top of a power tower, it can still
be seen as power tower without the type of tower changing (there is no
intrinsic meaning of "type" anyway, it only gets defined by the values that
are associated). Communication capabilities of the installation could get a
new tag (for the tower as a node) or antennas and things could be added.
There is a proposed relation for attaching things to nodes, and some
mappers are using "attached_to" as a tag.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Node
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/attached_to

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

[Tagging] tagging religion-based access

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Is there some established way to tag religion-based access restrictions?
For example in Morocco only Muslims may enter a typical mosque.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=shoe_repair

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-27 10:33 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> Unfortunately most 'locksmiths' simply sell locks and cut a few keys.
> If you want a good locksmith here you have to look for a 'master
> locksmith' .. these people can repair, modify locks of many discretions.
> They also are police verified .. as they make good lock pikers too.
> So if you want a true craftsman then craft=master_locksmith is the one.
>



it depends how we see the "craft" tag. I would see it for professions that
require some specific knowledge and "craft"/skills, not anybody doing any
work would qualify for it. E.g. seasonal workers in the harvest or
warehouseman or shoe polisher or key cutter wouldn't be crafts according to
that definition, although they will usually be hard working.

As of now, there are 0 occurences of craft=master_locksmith in the db.

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=shoe_repair

[Warin]

On 27/06/18 18:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



2018-06-25 21:29 GMT+02:00 Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>>:

Pardon the self-reply, but actually, this might be a case where a
shop=shoe_repair could also be tagged craft=key_cutter. Don't see
why not. jmb




To me, "key_cutter" would not seem a "craft", I would see it as a 
service a shop can offer (e.g. copies_keys=yes), but if I were to use 
the tag craft in this context, I would think about craft=locksmith 
(i.e. a specialist able to do far more work with locks than just 
copying a key). FWIW, actual usage confirms the tag craft=key_cutter ;-)


Unfortunately most 'locksmiths' simply sell locks and cut a few keys.
If you want a good locksmith here you have to look for a 'master 
locksmith' .. these people can repair, modify locks of many discretions.

They also are police verified .. as they make good lock pikers too.
So if you want a true craftsman then craft=master_locksmith is the one.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag bakery not selling bread or other bread-like products?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-27 0:26 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> I have around me a French bakery and a Bavarian bakery .. they do both
> sell 'bread' but they are different .. I think cuisine fits perfectly.
>


use it for your bakeries, still it will not be the solution in this case,
because these booths in Poland are not shop=bakery because they do not sell
bread.

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=shoe_repair

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-25 21:29 GMT+02:00 Jmapb :

> Pardon the self-reply, but actually, this might be a case where a
> shop=shoe_repair could also be tagged craft=key_cutter. Don't see why not.
> jmb
>



To me, "key_cutter" would not seem a "craft", I would see it as a service a
shop can offer (e.g. copies_keys=yes), but if I were to use the tag craft
in this context, I would think about craft=locksmith (i.e. a specialist
able to do far more work with locks than just copying a key). FWIW, actual
usage confirms the tag craft=key_cutter ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=discount

[Philip Barnes]

I would not consider Lidl or Aldi to be discount shops in the UK. They are not 
really cheaper than the other supermarkets when you compare own brand products.

Lidl in particular stocks some quite expensive luxury products that you will 
not find anywhere else, a whole Serano Ham and stand at Christmas springs to 
mind.

Costco in the UK only allows very select groups to have membership for which 
you would need to provide documentation. It is not a simple case of payment.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=391819

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 27 June 2018 00:52:06 BST, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 27/06/18 08:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>
>> On 27 June 2018 at 02:22, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've set up a propsal, please comment:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/discounter
>>
>
>>
>>
>> Sorry Martin, but to me at least, that proposal doesn't really say 
>> anything?
>>
>> Couldn't /any/ shop become a discounter, just by hanging a sign out 
>> the front "50% off everything in store"?
>>
>> & the Wiki page doesn't  help matters at all?
>>
>> The 4 examples they list for Australia are a main-stream supermarket
>& 
>> the 3 biggest department stores in the country!
>
>+1
>
>Here is an Australian discount shop 
>https://www.discountpartywarehouse.com.au/
>It does sell food .. of a sort.
>
>And the wikipedia list of UK discount shops does not include Aldi nor 
>Lidi .. so the wikipedia does not support the statements made here ..
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_discount_shops_in_the_United_Kingdom

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging