date:20180920

> On Sep 21, 2018, at 7:28 AM, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> 
> Why should farm be tagged as landuse=religious instead of landuse=farmland 
> just because it is run by monks?

I agree. land used for farming (ie: a big field full of rice, wheat, corn, etc) 
should be tagged as farmland. 

A temple ground, with the various shrines, temples, POWs, etc, is 
landuse=religious. 

Obviously, inside a very large temple ground there are trees, gardens, shrubs, 
and maybe a little 5x5m patch of farmland for vegetables - tag those 
accordingly. they are all encompassed in the larger temple landuse. but the 
landuse ends at the logical boundary of the temple grounds - it’s fence, 
parking lot, driveway, etc. The landuse polygon is not representing what it is 
legally owned by the temple - but that the amenities inside “belong” to the 
building or the point. Sometimes that is difficult to discern - but it is 
usually mappable if you know the place you are mapping.  

Large fields surrounding the temple may be owned or operated by the temple - 
but are landuse=farmland +  operator= [religious org]. 

Similar with religious schools. My buddhist school is operated by a “business” 
representing the temple.  

the school is a school, operator=[temple business]. 

The temple nearby is landuse=religious, with it’s graveyard amenity and various 
statues, POW buildings, and a small building=house that the head monk lives in.

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

Re: [Tagging] Area of Firestations

2018-09-20 Thread Mike H

I've only mapped one station like this so far, but the area is actually
rendered on the map. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/616033018


On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:43 AM Tom Pfeifer  wrote:

> Yes of course, I've been doing this for long already.
>
> On 20.09.2018 14:06, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > Yes, just go for it. Makes perfect sense.
> >
> > Phil (trigpoint)
> >
> > On 20 September 2018 12:56:03 BST, dktue  wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I love how we map areas with amenity=school and buildings inside of
> it
> > with building=school. The same goes for amenity=hospital and
> > building=hospital.
> >
> > What I'd like to have is the same schema for firestations: They often
> > have a large area and one or multiple buildings on it.
> >
> > Should I go with amenity=fire_station for the area and
> > building=fire_station for the buildings inside of it?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > dktue
>
> ___
> 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] Emergency=levee_breach_materials

I ran into an interesting thing when mapping my local rivers. 

All of the rivers in my area have levees running 100% of their length from the 
mountains to the coast, there are probably over 1000 linear KM of earthen 
levees in the Tokyo region alone - 20mx10m levees (or bigger) along the outer 
banks of all rivers. 

the small and the large rivers in my area have emergency levee repair stations 
- hundreds of 1000kg concrete breakwater blocks (like you would see in the 
ocean), a helicopter pad, and access to dirt/gravel. 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/550873664 


They are situated on high ground, above flooding. 

After I found one, I found other collections of emergency breakwater supplies 
along my river, and there are others along the larger rivers. 

I have never seen one of these purpose-built stations before. 

I am unsure of the landuse of such a station, nor is there a good tag for it. 

I thought up Emergency=levee_breach_materials

Thoughts?

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

2018-09-20 Thread Clifford Snow

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 1:39 AM Colin Smale  wrote:

> Maybe it's just me, but I really can't understand why landuse for
> government functions needs its own tagging. The buildings are often
> indistinguishable from commercial properties - what is different is that
> the occupier is some statutory organisation. We don't tag landuse=charity,
> or landuse=private, or landuse=education, so why landuse=civic_admin? If
> you want to know who the tenant of a certain building is, let's have
> tenant=City of Blah and allow this for any building (or campus). Same
> arguments against landuse=religious. Why should farm be tagged as
> landuse=religious instead of landuse=farmland just because it is run by
> monks? Land use is the use a piece of land is put to, and not WHO is doing
> the using or WHY they are doing it. If we want to record those other
> dimensions, use different tags instead of further complicating the landuse
> mess.
>
Governments use a lot of land for administrative and civic reasons.
(Whether they own the land isn't relevant.) We tag industrial, commercial,
landfill, military, schools, religious, etc. Looking at military and
religious. Both can and do have many different type of activity. They have
office space that would otherwise be tagged commercial I suppose. Military
bases have restaurants and stores. But their overriding use is religious
and military.

Someone else commented that their are small government offices in retail
areas. If the bulk of the use is retail, it should be tagged retail.

As far as farmland run my monks - that could be a good argument to tag the
farmland as farmland and their common areas as religious.

Take a typical court house, besides court rooms, it has office space, maybe
a coffee shop, maybe a jail, police, service counters for the public
wishing to transact business. These can be multiple buildings with
overlapping functions.

Landuse=civic_admin better captures most of the public facilities landuse
better can any other alternative.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities


On 20.09.2018 16:29, José G Moya Y. wrote:

Hi!
If we start mapping refill=soft_drinks;coffee... and so on, how would you map sites where some soft 
drinks are refillable and some are not?


I am strongly against tagging the business practice how often a _paid_ glass of beverage is being 
refilled (with cheaply produced unhealthy liquids anyway). This is close to a restaurant review and 
not a geographical property.


I would support tagging the free tap-water refilling campaign as it is apparently a litter-avoiding 
idea and presumably ground-verifiable (by some sticker or so at the door?).


As a side note, I am surprised it needs such a campaign. I was never refused a filling of my water 
bottle, in various countries. Not in a pub while hiking, nor in an airport cafe (behind security 
where carrying water is not allowed).  It does not need much language either, handing the bottle and 
and a friendly look are usually self-explanatory and sufficient.


tom

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

2018-09-20 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 at 06:08, SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

> Still sure that you don't want to resurrect the proposal? :-) I will
> never be able to express my thoughts that well ...
>
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 15:46, John Willis  wrote:
>

Copy & paste works well :-)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

2018-09-20 Thread SelfishSeahorse

I couldn't agree more.

Still sure that you don't want to resurrect the proposal? :-) I will
never be able to express my thoughts that well ...

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 15:46, John Willis  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 20, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:
> >
> > But this discussion is about land usage
>
> Yes, and the Civic functions of governing a people are very different than 
> the usage of educating them, treating their health, selling them goods, and 
> manufacturing said goods. We have landuses (or at least area uses) for each.
>
> It's not about the buildings, nor the grass, but the importance people give 
> to the set activities and services performed by Civic representatives and 
> servants. That makes the location special - so it is mapped differently.
>
> We have a special name for the building they occupy, and often have large 
> multi-building complexes - with it's own name - that deserves the same level 
> of mapping granularity we give to office buildings, elementary schools, 
> malls, hospitals, industrial complexes, power stations, and transportation 
> centers.
>
> Even if all the buildings were *exactly the same* and sat on identical square 
> plots of land, owned by the same person, one after another down the street, a 
> fence separating each, with only the sign out front to denote their 
> differences - each would have it's point(s), it's building, and it's landuse 
> tagged in a different manner.
>
> I do not want to shoehorn in one type into another for no discernable reason, 
> other than "it looks like an office building" - nor does it represent the 
> "ground truth" in thousands of mappable landuses. It may not apply to your 
> area, but it sure does to mine and others around the globe - possibly in the 
> capital city of every region and country on Earth.
>
> Just because you don't feel it is necessary in your region, that is zero 
> justification for it's disapproval. There are other regions where it is 
> totally justified. OSM is flexible enough to handle all use cases if we have 
> enough categories of points, buildings, and a enough landuses to mix and 
> match to represent _all_ the types of situations, not just what you (or I) am 
> familiar with.
>
> Javbw.

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

2018-09-20 Thread SelfishSeahorse

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 10:40, Colin Smale  wrote:
> Maybe it's just me, but I really can't understand why landuse for government 
> functions needs its own tagging. The buildings are often indistinguishable 
> from commercial properties - what is different is that the occupier is some 
> statutory organisation.

It would never come to my mind to map the area where the parliament or
government meets as landuse=commercial. What kind of services should
they sell? Law? :-)

> We don't tag landuse=charity, or landuse=private, or landuse=education, so 
> why landuse=civic_admin?

Yes, i do tag landuse=education because there isn't any other land use
that fits better -- and apparently others are using it too (currently
used 489 times).

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

2018-09-20 Thread SelfishSeahorse

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 11:20, egil  wrote:
> I tend to agree with Colins arguments below, because in Sweden gov. agencies 
> are very mixed into the central spaces of cities but often not clustered 
> together in large complexes or whole areas.

Just because a tag would have no use in a specific area doesn't mean
it shouldn't be used at other places in my opinion. By the way: what
land use would you tag the perimeter of the Riksdag with?

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

Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream

2018-09-20 Thread Robert Skedgell



On 20/09/2018 13:53, Warin wrote:
>> FWIW, I worked in the highway construction business for 14 years in
>> the US.  In the industry terminology where I was, a "pipeline"
>> carrying wastewater to a treatment plant was termed a sanitary sewer,
>> and a pipeline carrying stormwater (rainwater) was called a storm sewer.
> 
> Humm.. I have always take 'sewer' to mean grey water.
> The uk Cambridge Dictionary agrees with me.
> The uk Oxford Dictionary agrees with you, and give a reference backwards.
> 
> I'll have to do some more digging (err pun).  In general I go with the
> Oxford Dictionary.

Just to make things slightly more confusing, there are a fair number of
(sometimes quite large) land drainage ditches in the east and south-east
of England where "Sewer" is part of the name. They don't fit the grey
water definition at all. e.g. 

-- 
Robert (rskedgell)


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

Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream

2018-09-20 Thread Kevin

If you're looking for a good term for the stormwater outlet, the
engineering term is "headwall" for the outlet and "catch basin" for the
inlet. I don't think either of these are  commonly used in osm.
"drain_outlet" and "drain_inlet" may be better terms and of more use
outside of stormwater infrastructure.  As for what connects the two; you
usually have a ditch, pipe, or stream. The wiki on waterways suggests that
all pipe flow is pressurized and therefore it should be waterway=drain.

https://www.surpriseaz.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1415/Common-Storm-Water-Structures

Kevin

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 11:03 PM, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:

> I've come across the desire to map a stormwater outlet at the beginning of
> a stream a few times now and have failed to find an appropriate tag to
> place on the node. These outlets are pretty common in residential areas
> where the stormwater pipes underneath the roads (obviously unmapped) direct
> their water to the lower streets and eventually enter naturally forming
> creeks that existed before the residential estate was even built.
>
> Is there something that is already commonly used that I've been unable to
> find?
>
> I've seen manhole=drain on the wiki, but that is the opposite end where
> surface water enters the stormwater system.
>
> Jono
>
> ___
> 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] maxspeed:type vs source:maxspeed // StreetComplete

In Poland legal status of road is very often unrelated to OSM tag of road.
For example one may have highway=residential inside legal urban area and 
outsidelegal urban area.

19. Sep 2018 15:25 by djakk.dj...@gmail.com :


> By the way, we should de-correlate the legal status of an highway from the 
> highway tag : with the key highway:legal_type, values : business_area or 
> residential_area or an other local legal classification. A highway=tertiary 
> could also be highway:legal_type=residential_area___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: OSM Wikibase is now live


18. Sep 2018 22:58 by yuriastrak...@gmail.com :


> Would copying short description strings be considered fair use 




depends on usage of data and your jurisdiction (in other words: legal quagmire 
not

solving anything at all)


 

> or even re-licensable under CC0?   

requires permission from all authors

 

> If not, would the community be ok to rewrite them as part of the migration to 
> the new system? 
>




rewrite of copyrighted text is not removing copyright from it
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: OSM Wikibase is now live

Are you sure that other data that will be imported from OSM database and OSM 
Wikiis not covered by copyright, data protection restrictions etc?

18. Sep 2018 18:43 by yuriastrak...@gmail.com :


> Peter, I agree it would be much easier to use OSM metadata under CC0, and I 
> might even be able to change the interface to show CC0 for the Item 
> namespace, but we may have to rewrite all of the description text. If the 
> community is OK with that undertaking (or if a short one sentence description 
> does not result in a violation), I will be happy to make that change.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: OSM Wikibase is now live

Are you aware that it would make impossible to import any data incompatible 
with CC0?
For start, import data from existing OSM Wiki would not be able to happen.
18. Sep 2018 18:37 by pe...@openstreetmap.com.br 
:


> Hi, veri good news!
> About license, can by changed to CC0 as Wikidata?
>
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

2018-09-20 Thread bkil

Yes, something like that would do, although we still need to decide
the top level key to use, let me refer to it as "drink_refill" for
now. For example:
drink_refill=coffee;pear_drink;blueberry_drink;tea_unsugared_drink;ikea_cola

Although, it depends on how common these irregular places are. In
Hungary, any kind of drink refilling is very rare, so no amount of
tagging could be considered excessive (although drink_refill=yes would
be enough for us). However, if there are millions of places around the
world with odd exceptions, we need to improve the ergonomics. If this
is the case, we could devise a scheme like:
drink_refill=non_alcoholic
drink_refill:except=coca-cola;pepsi

Or there's even the well known conditional notation:
drink_refill:conditional=yes @ non_alcoholic; no @ (coca-cola;pepsi)

If it is rare, we may still consider an informal short-hard notation like:
drink_refill=soft_drinks;coffee
drink_refill:description=except Coca-Cola and Pepsi

Do you think one of these could work?

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 4:30 PM José G Moya Y.  wrote:
>
> Hi!
> If we start mapping refill=soft_drinks;coffee... and so on, how would you map 
> sites where some soft drinks are refillable and some are not?
> As an example, in Ikea the bottled unsugared top-brand cola drink (I don't 
> remember whether it is coke zero or pepsi max) can not be refilled, where the 
> unbottled sugared own-brand cola drink can be refilled.
> Would you tag Ikea as 
> "refill=coffee;pear_drink;blueberry_drink;tea_unsugared_drink;cola_sugared_drink"?
>
>
> El jue., 20 sept. 2018 14:25, bkil  escribió:
>>
>> Thanks for your local insights. I believe that the UK program called
>> "Refill" used the word in a different meaning as well, hence the key
>> `free_refill=*` could lead to confusion in the future.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refill_(scheme)
>>
>> Listing the semicolon-separated list of refillable beverages in the
>> value part of the tags sounds like a good idea.
>>
>> I like your take with `drinking_water=customers`, let me update my
>> proposal to this one.
>>
>> My original idea was to add `drinking_water=yes` as well to such
>> shops, but has received chilling responses so far.
>>
>> And do you think that a note to users may be warranted, like
>> `drinking_water:description="on request"`? A potential barrier may be
>> a tourist who does not speak the local language. She could definitely
>> use an unattended water tap either inside or outside the pub, but may
>> have trouble describing to the staff that she wants water but only the
>> free, non-mineral, non-carbonated variant so it will be free. They
>> could mix up the intention with the `owncup` campaign where you get a
>> discount when using your own cup/container for your orders. I imagine
>> pubs would gladly refill with premium content "by accident" in many
>> such cases, or at least I know countries where this would be
>> commonplace. I'll add this case to the description.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:32 AM Joseph Eisenberg
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > I see that the suggestions about "free refills" are included here because 
>> > there was some confusion about the use of "free_refill=yes" in central 
>> > Europe. The English word "refill" implies that it is the second time 
>> > something has been filled. Thus a customer may request that their glass be 
>> > filled again with the same beverage.
>> >
>> > I'd suggest a separate proposal page to discuss the free_refill=yes tag.
>> >
>> > In North America, free beverage refills are limited to "soft drinks" (aka 
>> > fizzy drinks / pop / soda / cola depending on dialect), tea and brewed 
>> > coffee. Alcoholic beverages, espresso and specialty coffee drinks, and 
>> > other specialty beverage are usually excluded. I don't recall every seeing 
>> > free refills of lemonade or fruit juice.
>> >
>> > So it would be sufficient to have free_refill=coffee/tea/soft_drink/yes/no 
>> > free_refill=yes would imply that all customers can get free refills on 
>> > coffee, tea and soft drinks, if all are offered. Or at a cafe that only 
>> > serves coffee and tea, free_refill=yes would mean free refills on coffee 
>> > and tea (since soft drinks are not available)
>> >
>> > Some places only offer refills for free on one category. For example, a 
>> > cafe or "diner" may only offer free refills of brewed coffee, while a fast 
>> > food restaurant often offers free refills of "soft drinks" but not coffee. 
>> > In this case the specific free_refill=coffee or free_refill=soft_drink 
>> > would be used.
>> >
>> > I don't think it is necessary to use a more complicated namespaced tag, 
>> > such as free_refill:coffee=yes, though that could be an alternative.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:00 AM Joseph Eisenberg 
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I’d suggest keeping it simple by using existing tags when possible.
>> >>
>> >> If a cafe or shop gives out free water for customers, tag the shop or 
>> >> cafe with “drinking_water=customers”. If

Re: [Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

2018-09-20 Thread André Pirard


On 2018-09-20 17:16, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:55 AM André Pirard > wrote:


Belgium speaks 3 official languages and their very official
borders *have been* mapped.
This subject was presented several times on this list and "raised"
a total lack of interest.
Especially regarding the need to define a language boundary type.
The most similar country regarding languages is Switzerland.
But they did not care to define borders, AFAIK.
Same for USA, Canada, etc.


"Did not care to define" is an odd way of putting it. USA cannot map 
official language borders because USA has no official language or 
languages. The majority language is, obviously, US English, but there 
is no legislation making it official nor requiring government business 
to be transacted in English. We also have a long and ugly history of 
nationalists suppressing minority languages, but generally speaking, 
the laws that the nationalists claim to be enforcing do not exist. 
"English as official language" legislation has been introduced in 
virtually every session of the Congress, and has never passed. The 
movement to make English official goes all the way back to 1780, even 
before the war of American independence was concluded.
Your comment is very friendly and welcome, but, unless each and every 
case is like what you say, let us first keep the discussion to whether 
OSM should implement language borders and how.

Best regards / meilleurs voeux / (sorry, I don't speak Flemish)
How nice, but what even most French typing persons cannot do is 
correctly type "vœux".
Not supported by Windows. Ubuntu/Debian.Linux/Unix are needed to type 
 o e ;-)


Пока ;-)
I suppose one could tag 'official languages' of  US jurisdictions that 
sort of have them. Until recently, California and Massachusetts had 
laws on the books requiring public schools to teach classes only in 
English. (Arizona still does, but California and Massachusetts 
repealed their laws in the last couple of years and have reinstated 
bilingual education.) Dade County, Florida had a well-publicized local 
law that forbade transportation signage in any language but English, 
requiring Spanish-language signs to be taken down. About half the 
states have laws requiring that the edicts of government must be 
published in English (but not requiring that it be used to the 
exclusion of other languages). Nebraska's legislation after the First 
World War had the effect, briefly, of banning all foreign-language 
instruction in the state's schools (and Heaven help those who wished 
to prepare for travel abroad!).


It is true that in the US, one can expect to find street signs in 
English (augmented possibly with one or more minority languages), but 
that is usually a matter of practicality rather than formal policy.


I suppose that one could also, as an example, draw an official 
language border around the Navajo Nation and indicate that Diné bizaad 
and Spanish, as well as English, are official languages of its 
government, but that again opens the whole debate about how to 
domestic dependent nations, and it is accurate to state that I don't 
care to reopen that debate today.


Best regards / meilleurs voeux / (sorry, I don't speak Flemish)

Kevin



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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

2018-09-20 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 9:55 AM André Pirard 
wrote:

> Belgium speaks 3 official languages and their very official borders *have
> been* mapped.
> This subject was presented several times on this list and "raised" a total
> lack of interest.
> Especially regarding the need to define a language boundary type.
> The most similar country regarding languages is Switzerland.
> But they did not care to define borders, AFAIK.
> Same for USA, Canada, etc.
>

"Did not care to define" is an odd way of putting it. USA cannot map
official language borders because USA has no official language or
languages. The majority language is, obviously, US English, but there is no
legislation making it official nor requiring government business to be
transacted in English. We also have a long and ugly history of nationalists
suppressing minority languages, but generally speaking, the laws that the
nationalists claim to be enforcing do not exist. "English as official
language" legislation has been introduced in virtually every session of the
Congress, and has never passed. The movement to make English official goes
all the way back to 1780, even before the war of American independence was
concluded.

I suppose one could tag 'official languages' of  US jurisdictions that sort
of have them. Until recently, California and Massachusetts had laws on the
books requiring public schools to teach classes only in English. (Arizona
still does, but California and Massachusetts repealed their laws in the
last couple of years and have reinstated bilingual education.) Dade County,
Florida had a well-publicized local law that forbade transportation signage
in any language but English, requiring Spanish-language signs to be taken
down. About half the states have laws requiring that the edicts of
government must be published in English (but not requiring that it be used
to the exclusion of other languages). Nebraska's legislation after the
First World War had the effect, briefly, of banning all foreign-language
instruction in the state's schools (and Heaven help those who wished to
prepare for travel abroad!).

It is true that in the US, one can expect to find street signs in English
(augmented possibly with one or more minority languages), but that is
usually a matter of practicality rather than formal policy.

I suppose that one could also, as an example, draw an official language
border around the Navajo Nation and indicate that Diné bizaad and Spanish,
as well as English, are official languages of its government, but that
again opens the whole debate about how to domestic dependent nations, and
it is accurate to state that I don't care to reopen that debate today.

Best regards / meilleurs voeux / (sorry, I don't speak Flemish)

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Toll Gantry

2018-09-20 Thread Zack LaVergne

Tom, I’ll try to address most of your points below


Zack LaVergne  |  Kaart   | Software Developer |  
501.690.0584  |  z...@kaartgroup.com  


KAART CONFIDENTIAL

This message (including attachments if any) is for the private use of the 
addressee only and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you 
have received this message by mistake please notify the sender by return e-mail 
and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Any unauthorized 
use or dissemination of this message, and any attachments in whole or in part 
is strictly prohibited.

> On Sep 20, 2018, at 5:29 AM, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> 
> On 20.09.2018 07:28, Warin wrote:
>> On 20/09/18 09:26, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>>> 
>>> First, how much of a delay is added by the routing engines, have you 
>>> investigated this? If so, this would be a few seconds once-per trip, not 
>>> every 500m like a traffic light. Thus the difference on the calculated 
>>> overall travel time would be insignificant.
>> An old toll both was where I'd have to stop, dig out some money, hand it 
>> over, wait for any change, then I could go on. 30 seconds to 1 minute unless 
>> I drop the money.
>> I think these are all gone now on highways and bridges. They still exist and 
>> are in use for some National Park entries, possibly some parking places.
I have done the research and for example, OSRM (the most prominent routing 
engine for OSM data) adds a minimum 15 second penalty per toll booth and in my 
research I recall (but can’t remember which one) adds a similar penalty for any 
`barrier=*` tag. Driving in Johannesburg, ZA with their new system 
, there is a toll gantry 
between every exit on all of the motorways around the city.  If all of them are 
tagged as `barrier=toll_booth` and therefore incurred a 15 second penalty each, 
the routing engine could potentially pick a longer route depending on the 
router setup (shortest time vs shortest distance).
> 
> It's a while since I have seen them in the US for bridge toll, you would 
> through a couple of quarters in a funnel-shaped basket, thus a bit faster. 
> But yes, there is a delay, but not so often on your trip that it has 
> significant impact on your travel time.
> 
> The main advantage of free-flow systems is that you have no breaking that 
> causes a congestion behind you.
> 
>>> Second, the problems described would be more easily and more elegantly 
>>> solved with subtagging the existing barrier=toll_booth, instead of 
>>> inventing a new first level tag. Subtagging preserves backward 
>>> compatibility, while a new tag has to be implemented everywhere,
>> But a toll gantry has no stopping, nor slowing down. A very different beast, 
>> with the ones around here the vehicle is meant to have an electronic device 
>> that the toll thing responds with and the payment is deducted automatically. 
>> If you don't have one of these electronic do dads then you get a letter .. 
>> with a higher fee. Don't know that "toll both" is how they should be tagged 
>> from a human conceptual view point rather than the practical computing one.
> 
> All fine, just we don't need a new high-level tag for that. You can add all 
> free-flow properties, payment methods, average delay times, etc to the 
> existing one. I'm always in favour of some level of structure instead of 
> blatant duck tagging.
I would normally agree that sub-tagging is a better way to go but that wouldn’t 
suffice in this case. I do think that there should be some structured, 
documented sub-tags for `barrier=toll_booth` specifically that describe the 
different options at at toll both structure; but that’s a discussion for a 
later time. This is a different beast.  

The first big issue is that there is physically no barrier in regards to a 
`toll_gantry` where there is in the case of a `toll_booth`. Not tagging for the 
renderer or even software, a `barrier=*` tag doesn’t accurately describe this 
feature.
The big problem with adding sub-tags is that there would have to be a major 
software addition for almost all routing engines to be able to accommodate the 
sub tags of a `barrier=toll_booth`. 

The benefits of this tag are that it more accurately represents what is 
physically on the road and (as a side effect of changing the tag) no software 
change needs to happen to allow accurate time estimates. 

I hope this helps clear things up. Thanks!
> 
> tom
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 

Zack

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

2018-09-20 Thread José G Moya Y .

Hi!
If we start mapping refill=soft_drinks;coffee... and so on, how would you
map sites where some soft drinks are refillable and some are not?
As an example, in Ikea the bottled unsugared top-brand cola drink (I don't
remember whether it is coke zero or pepsi max) can not be refilled, where
the unbottled sugared own-brand cola drink can be refilled.
Would you tag Ikea as
"refill=coffee;pear_drink;blueberry_drink;tea_unsugared_drink;cola_sugared_drink"?


El jue., 20 sept. 2018 14:25, bkil  escribió:

> Thanks for your local insights. I believe that the UK program called
> "Refill" used the word in a different meaning as well, hence the key
> `free_refill=*` could lead to confusion in the future.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refill_(scheme)
>
> Listing the semicolon-separated list of refillable beverages in the
> value part of the tags sounds like a good idea.
>
> I like your take with `drinking_water=customers`, let me update my
> proposal to this one.
>
> My original idea was to add `drinking_water=yes` as well to such
> shops, but has received chilling responses so far.
>
> And do you think that a note to users may be warranted, like
> `drinking_water:description="on request"`? A potential barrier may be
> a tourist who does not speak the local language. She could definitely
> use an unattended water tap either inside or outside the pub, but may
> have trouble describing to the staff that she wants water but only the
> free, non-mineral, non-carbonated variant so it will be free. They
> could mix up the intention with the `owncup` campaign where you get a
> discount when using your own cup/container for your orders. I imagine
> pubs would gladly refill with premium content "by accident" in many
> such cases, or at least I know countries where this would be
> commonplace. I'll add this case to the description.
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:32 AM Joseph Eisenberg
>  wrote:
> >
> > I see that the suggestions about "free refills" are included here
> because there was some confusion about the use of "free_refill=yes" in
> central Europe. The English word "refill" implies that it is the second
> time something has been filled. Thus a customer may request that their
> glass be filled again with the same beverage.
> >
> > I'd suggest a separate proposal page to discuss the free_refill=yes tag.
> >
> > In North America, free beverage refills are limited to "soft drinks"
> (aka fizzy drinks / pop / soda / cola depending on dialect), tea and brewed
> coffee. Alcoholic beverages, espresso and specialty coffee drinks, and
> other specialty beverage are usually excluded. I don't recall every seeing
> free refills of lemonade or fruit juice.
> >
> > So it would be sufficient to have
> free_refill=coffee/tea/soft_drink/yes/no free_refill=yes would imply that
> all customers can get free refills on coffee, tea and soft drinks, if all
> are offered. Or at a cafe that only serves coffee and tea, free_refill=yes
> would mean free refills on coffee and tea (since soft drinks are not
> available)
> >
> > Some places only offer refills for free on one category. For example, a
> cafe or "diner" may only offer free refills of brewed coffee, while a fast
> food restaurant often offers free refills of "soft drinks" but not coffee.
> In this case the specific free_refill=coffee or free_refill=soft_drink
> would be used.
> >
> > I don't think it is necessary to use a more complicated namespaced tag,
> such as free_refill:coffee=yes, though that could be an alternative.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:00 AM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I’d suggest keeping it simple by using existing tags when possible.
> >>
> >> If a cafe or shop gives out free water for customers, tag the shop or
> cafe with “drinking_water=customers”. If it’s for anyone,
> “drinking_water=yes” is currently used. I don’t see a need for a new tag
> “drinking_water=ask”
> >>
> >> If there is a drinking fountain, water tap or bottle refill station in
> a shopping mall or building that has opening_hours, just use
> amenity=drinking_water plus opening_hours=* on the node. Man_made=water_tap
> or =drinking_fountain or =water_well can also be added to the same node for
> more detail.
> >>
> >> I believe amenity=drinking_water implies no fee, and public access, so
> these characteristics do not require explicit tagging
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 8:57 PM bkil  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to discuss three related proposals and two separate ones that
> >>> can be confused with the others. In all the below cases, the
> >>> availability is tied to the opening_hours of the containing POI.
> >>>
> >>> Five separate proposals could have been created, but I feel that the
> >>> concepts and words describe these are so close, it is best to have a
> >>> good overview.
> >>>
> >>> I'm open to suggestions both related to the tags themselves and how we
> >>> should structure and document this proposal in the wiki.
> >>>
>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Toll Gantry

2018-09-20 Thread Paul Johnson

For the ones you have to stop at, try adding highway=traffic_signals or
highway=stop, it's pretty rare to find toll barriers that expect you to
stop to not have one or both.  For at speed ones, just don't add the stop
or signals that don't exist.

As for toll gantries not requiring you to slow down, Kansas Turnpike would
like you to hold its beer

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018, 00:30 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20/09/18 09:26, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> > On 19.09.2018 19:31, Jonathon McClung wrote:
> >> The issue is mostly with how the current standard (as stated here
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dtoll_booth
> >> ) impacts
> >> routing. This is said on the proposal page here "Many current routing
> >> softwares add a delay to trip time when encountering the tag barrier
> >> =toll_booth
> >> .
> >> However, the delay on these more modern toll collection systems is
> >> significantly less; not requiring the driver to stop in most cases.
> >> In effect, this means that many drivers will be routed onto a slower
> >> route.” This is the major difference. Of course the way itself should
> >> be tagged toll=yes. This is a clean way to a) show where the toll
> >> begins and b) give the routing software something to account for on
> >> the way.
> >
> > First, how much of a delay is added by the routing engines, have you
> > investigated this? If so, this would be a few seconds once-per trip,
> > not every 500m like a traffic light. Thus the difference on the
> > calculated overall travel time would be insignificant.
> An old toll both was where I'd have to stop, dig out some money, hand it
> over, wait for any change, then I could go on. 30 seconds to 1 minute
> unless I drop the money.
> I think these are all gone now on highways and bridges. They still exist
> and are in use for some National Park entries, possibly some parking
> places.
>
> >
> > Second, the problems described would be more easily and more elegantly
> > solved with subtagging the existing barrier=toll_booth, instead of
> > inventing a new first level tag. Subtagging preserves backward
> > compatibility, while a new tag has to be implemented everywhere,
>
> But a toll gantry has no stopping, nor slowing down. A very different
> beast, with the ones around here the vehicle is meant to have an
> electronic device that the toll thing responds with and the payment is
> deducted automatically. If you don't have one of these electronic do
> dads then you get a letter .. with a higher fee. Don't know that "toll
> both" is how they should be tagged from a human conceptual view point
> rather than the practical computing one.
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping language borders, tagging offical languages?

2018-09-20 Thread André Pirard


  
  
Hi,

Yes, only official languages should be mapped.
They're difficult enough already to be verified "on the ground" in a
survey.
Belgium speaks 3 official languages and their very official borders
have been mapped.
This subject was presented several times on this list and "raised" a
total lack of interest.
Especially regarding the need to define a language boundary type.
The most similar country regarding languages is Switzerland.
But they did not care to define borders, AFAIK.
Same for USA, Canada, etc.

Meilleures salutations,
Beste groeten,
Bestem Gruß,
Best regards,



  

  André.

  




  


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

Re: [Tagging] Area of Firestations


Yes of course, I've been doing this for long already.

On 20.09.2018 14:06, Philip Barnes wrote:

Yes, just go for it. Makes perfect sense.

Phil (trigpoint)

On 20 September 2018 12:56:03 BST, dktue  wrote:

Hello,

I love how we map areas with amenity=school and buildings inside of it
with building=school. The same goes for amenity=hospital and
building=hospital.

What I'd like to have is the same schema for firestations: They often
have a large area and one or multiple buildings on it.

Should I go with amenity=fire_station for the area and
building=fire_station for the buildings inside of it?

Cheers,
dktue


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

Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream

2018-09-20 Thread Paul Allen

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'll have to do some more digging (err pun).
>

Sounds like hard work.  I'd just go through the motions.

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

Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream

2018-09-20 Thread Warin

On 20/09/18 21:53, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:

From: Jonathon Rossi 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Thanks everyone. Apologies in advance for the long reply.

@Graeme I see you tagged the node with
man_made=drain_outlet+substance=rainwater. In your example it makes 
sense
to map the underground pipe because you know exactly where it is, but 
I'd

hate for these to start rendering in the future and bits of incomplete
pipes (a few metres long) start showing up drawing over streets.

The wiki for man_made=pipeline
 says it is
meant for "major" pipelines, which these aren't really apply:

By using pipeline are we abusing that tag? Dictionary.com's 
definition of

pipeline also indicates that a network of pipes isn't a pipeline. I too
don't view the reticulated water network of pipes a pipeline, however 
there
would generally be a pipeline going from a water treatment plant to a 
water
reservoir/storage tank; and in the same way the network of sewerage 
drains
aren't a pipeline, but you could have a pressurised or gravity 
pipeline to

move sewage to a treatment plant.

Mark's suggestion to use man_made=sewer didn't sound right to me 
because I

always view sewers as for wastewater which must go to a treatment plant
before entering waterways. Dictionary.com seems to agree, the values for
manhole=*  also 
agree, this

OSM tagging proposal also agrees
,
however Wikipedia seems to indicate some people refer to stormwater 
drains

as sewers too, this might be a location thing because I found some
indication that some cities have a combined waste and rain water drain
(these obviously won't directly connect to a waterway).
substance=rainwater;sewage works though.

[...]

FWIW, I worked in the highway construction business for 14 years in 
the US.  In the industry terminology where I was, a "pipeline" 
carrying wastewater to a treatment plant was termed a sanitary sewer, 
and a pipeline carrying stormwater (rainwater) was called a storm sewer.

Humm.. I have always take 'sewer' to mean grey water.
The uk Cambridge Dictionary agrees with me.
The uk Oxford Dictionary agrees with you, and give a reference backwards.

I'll have to do some more digging (err pun).  In general I go with the 
Oxford Dictionary.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Free drinking water by private entities

2018-09-20 Thread bkil

Thanks for your local insights. I believe that the UK program called
"Refill" used the word in a different meaning as well, hence the key
`free_refill=*` could lead to confusion in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refill_(scheme)

Listing the semicolon-separated list of refillable beverages in the
value part of the tags sounds like a good idea.

I like your take with `drinking_water=customers`, let me update my
proposal to this one.

My original idea was to add `drinking_water=yes` as well to such
shops, but has received chilling responses so far.

And do you think that a note to users may be warranted, like
`drinking_water:description="on request"`? A potential barrier may be
a tourist who does not speak the local language. She could definitely
use an unattended water tap either inside or outside the pub, but may
have trouble describing to the staff that she wants water but only the
free, non-mineral, non-carbonated variant so it will be free. They
could mix up the intention with the `owncup` campaign where you get a
discount when using your own cup/container for your orders. I imagine
pubs would gladly refill with premium content "by accident" in many
such cases, or at least I know countries where this would be
commonplace. I'll add this case to the description.

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:32 AM Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
>
> I see that the suggestions about "free refills" are included here because 
> there was some confusion about the use of "free_refill=yes" in central 
> Europe. The English word "refill" implies that it is the second time 
> something has been filled. Thus a customer may request that their glass be 
> filled again with the same beverage.
>
> I'd suggest a separate proposal page to discuss the free_refill=yes tag.
>
> In North America, free beverage refills are limited to "soft drinks" (aka 
> fizzy drinks / pop / soda / cola depending on dialect), tea and brewed 
> coffee. Alcoholic beverages, espresso and specialty coffee drinks, and other 
> specialty beverage are usually excluded. I don't recall every seeing free 
> refills of lemonade or fruit juice.
>
> So it would be sufficient to have free_refill=coffee/tea/soft_drink/yes/no 
> free_refill=yes would imply that all customers can get free refills on 
> coffee, tea and soft drinks, if all are offered. Or at a cafe that only 
> serves coffee and tea, free_refill=yes would mean free refills on coffee and 
> tea (since soft drinks are not available)
>
> Some places only offer refills for free on one category. For example, a cafe 
> or "diner" may only offer free refills of brewed coffee, while a fast food 
> restaurant often offers free refills of "soft drinks" but not coffee. In this 
> case the specific free_refill=coffee or free_refill=soft_drink would be used.
>
> I don't think it is necessary to use a more complicated namespaced tag, such 
> as free_refill:coffee=yes, though that could be an alternative.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 10:00 AM Joseph Eisenberg 
>  wrote:
>>
>> I’d suggest keeping it simple by using existing tags when possible.
>>
>> If a cafe or shop gives out free water for customers, tag the shop or cafe 
>> with “drinking_water=customers”. If it’s for anyone, “drinking_water=yes” is 
>> currently used. I don’t see a need for a new tag “drinking_water=ask”
>>
>> If there is a drinking fountain, water tap or bottle refill station in a 
>> shopping mall or building that has opening_hours, just use 
>> amenity=drinking_water plus opening_hours=* on the node. Man_made=water_tap 
>> or =drinking_fountain or =water_well can also be added to the same node for 
>> more detail.
>>
>> I believe amenity=drinking_water implies no fee, and public access, so these 
>> characteristics do not require explicit tagging
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 8:57 PM bkil  wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to discuss three related proposals and two separate ones that
>>> can be confused with the others. In all the below cases, the
>>> availability is tied to the opening_hours of the containing POI.
>>>
>>> Five separate proposals could have been created, but I feel that the
>>> concepts and words describe these are so close, it is best to have a
>>> good overview.
>>>
>>> I'm open to suggestions both related to the tags themselves and how we
>>> should structure and document this proposal in the wiki.
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Free_drinking_water_by_private_entities
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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 Proposal - Voting - Toll Gantry

2018-09-20 Thread Andrew Harvey

>In light of the fact that some roads will be missing the tag toll=yes, routing 
>software will have to be updated to avoid highway=toll_gantry if the user is 
>trying to avoid tolls entirely.

Just a note about this point, there can be barrier=toll_booth's or
highway=toll_gantry's which only toll based on mode of transport or
based on destination, so it would be wrong to avoid one of those when
the user requests to avoid tolls unless there is a
toll=yes/toll:mode:yes on the way.
On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 01:55, Jonathon McClung  wrote:
>
> Hello OSM Tagging List!
>
> Two weeks have come and gone and now the proposal for highway=toll_gantry is 
> up for vote!
>
> Please visit 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Toll_Gantry and cast 
> your vote. If you missed this proposal the first time, still have concerns, 
> or still have questions, please join the discussion. Otherwise, we look 
> forward to seeing your votes!
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Jonathon McClung  |  Kaart  |  jonat...@kaartgroup.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] Area of Firestations

2018-09-20 Thread Philip Barnes

Yes, just go for it. Makes perfect sense.

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 20 September 2018 12:56:03 BST, dktue  wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I love how we map areas with amenity=school and buildings inside of it 
>with building=school. The same goes for amenity=hospital and 
>building=hospital.
>
>What I'd like to have is the same schema for firestations: They often 
>have a large area and one or multiple buildings on it.
>
>Should I go with amenity=fire_station for the area and 
>building=fire_station for the buildings inside of it?
>
>Cheers,
>dktue
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
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

[Tagging] Area of Firestations

2018-09-20 Thread dktue


Hello,

I love how we map areas with amenity=school and buildings inside of it 
with building=school. The same goes for amenity=hospital and 
building=hospital.


What I'd like to have is the same schema for firestations: They often 
have a large area and one or multiple buildings on it.


Should I go with amenity=fire_station for the area and 
building=fire_station for the buildings inside of it?


Cheers,
dktue

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

Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream

2018-09-20 Thread EthnicFood IsGreat

From: Jonathon Rossi 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Stormwater outlet into stream
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Thanks everyone. Apologies in advance for the long reply.

@Graeme I see you tagged the node with
man_made=drain_outlet+substance=rainwater. In your example it makes sense
to map the underground pipe because you know exactly where it is, but I'd
hate for these to start rendering in the future and bits of incomplete
pipes (a few metres long) start showing up drawing over streets.

The wiki for man_made=pipeline
 says it is
meant for "major" pipelines, which these aren't really apply:

By using pipeline are we abusing that tag? Dictionary.com's definition of
pipeline also indicates that a network of pipes isn't a pipeline. I too
don't view the reticulated water network of pipes a pipeline, however there
would generally be a pipeline going from a water treatment plant to a water
reservoir/storage tank; and in the same way the network of sewerage drains
aren't a pipeline, but you could have a pressurised or gravity pipeline to
move sewage to a treatment plant.

Mark's suggestion to use man_made=sewer didn't sound right to me because I
always view sewers as for wastewater which must go to a treatment plant
before entering waterways. Dictionary.com seems to agree, the values for
manhole=*  also agree, this
OSM tagging proposal also agrees
,
however Wikipedia seems to indicate some people refer to stormwater drains
as sewers too, this might be a location thing because I found some
indication that some cities have a combined waste and rain water drain
(these obviously won't directly connect to a waterway).
substance=rainwater;sewage works though.

[...]

FWIW, I worked in the highway construction business for 14 years in the 
US.  In the industry terminology where I was, a "pipeline" carrying 
wastewater to a treatment plant was termed a sanitary sewer, and a 
pipeline carrying stormwater (rainwater) was called a storm sewer.

Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

2018-09-20 Thread Colin Smale

On 2018-09-20 12:22, John Willis wrote:

>> On Sep 20, 2018, at 5:39 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:
>> 
>> Maybe it's just me, but I really can't understand why landuse for government 
>> functions needs its own tagging. The buildings are often indistinguishable 
>> from commercial properties
> 
> Why does what the buildings look like matter?

That is yet another dimension - architectural style. But why is
"government" a specific case of "land use"? It is actually referring to
the activity carried on within. 

> Many parks are indistinguishable from natural=grassland or landuse=farmland, 
> but we make the distinction.

There could be areas which are all three at once. At a macro scale, part
of a farm, but a field to which the public has controlled access. 

> In many places, a city hall is a very different place than an ordinary office 
> building - even if we don't care that much about them.

If you are talking about architectural style, I agree. You can always
find examples to show this, and I am sure there are examples which show
the opposite as well. But this discussion is about land usage, and
whether a government office is any different to any other office in
terms of the usage of the land.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?


On 20.09.2018 11:19, egil wrote:

In Sweden government agencies are actually not allowed to own the properties 
they use.


Well, but we tag the _use_, not the _ownership_.
So if they have long-running tenancy, they use it this way.

tom

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Toll Gantry

On 20.09.2018 07:28, Warin wrote:

On 20/09/18 09:26, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

First, how much of a delay is added by the routing engines, have you investigated this? If so,
this would be a few seconds once-per trip, not every 500m like a traffic light. Thus the
difference on the calculated overall travel time would be insignificant.
An old toll both was where I'd have to stop, dig out some money, hand it over, wait for any change,
then I could go on. 30 seconds to 1 minute unless I drop the money.
I think these are all gone now on highways and bridges. They still exist and are in use for some
National Park entries, possibly some parking places.

It's a while since I have seen them in the US for bridge toll, you would through a couple of
quarters in a funnel-shaped basket, thus a bit faster. But yes, there is a delay, but not so often
on your trip that it has significant impact on your travel time.

The main advantage of free-flow systems is that you have no breaking that causes a congestion behind
you.

Second, the problems described would be more easily and more elegantly solved with subtagging the
existing barrier=toll_booth, instead of inventing a new first level tag. Subtagging preserves
backward compatibility, while a new tag has to be implemented everywhere,

But a toll gantry has no stopping, nor slowing down. A very different beast, with the ones around
here the vehicle is meant to have an electronic device that the toll thing responds with and the
payment is deducted automatically. If you don't have one of these electronic do dads then you get a
letter .. with a higher fee. Don't know that "toll both" is how they should be tagged from a human
conceptual view point rather than the practical computing one.

All fine, just we don't need a new high-level tag for that. You can add all free-flow properties,
payment methods, average delay times, etc to the existing one. I'm always in favour of some level of
structure instead of blatant duck tagging.

tom

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

Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposal: Default Langauge Format

2018-09-20 Thread Marc Gemis

what about Aix-la-Chapelle (French) or Aken (Dutch) for Aachen in
Germany ? At least the destination signs in Flanders show "Aken
(Aachen)".
Or destinations "Parijs" signs for Paris (still +200 km to go) in Flanders.

For satnavs this does not matter, you just have to follow the
destination they tell you to follow. If you are using a map, it's
different of course. But is that a reason to add the name in  multiple
languages to the map ?

m


p.s. Luckily you didn't follow the exit signs for Lille while driving
in Flanders, otherwise you would have ended up here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1282972
On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:12 PM djakk djakk  wrote:
>
> Hello !
>
> I have in mind my trouble when driving back from Amsterdam toward France. I 
> knew I had to pass through Lille but I did not see it on the directional 
> signs. (No gps device back in the days ;-) ) I understood at last close to 
> the border that the Rijsel I saw all the time on the signs means Lille >_<
>
> Rijsel is not used in France. But it would be very useful to display it on a 
> map as it it used only several kilometers from the city.
>
>
> djakk
>
>
> Le mer. 19 sept. 2018 à 09:57, Jo  a écrit :
>>
>> Every street in Brussels HAS a name:fr tag. They also ALL have a name:nl tag.
>>
>> An IPA representation also needs information about the language it is for. A 
>> name, even spelled with the exact same characters will be pronounced 
>> differently by a French speaker compared to a Ducht speaker. Sometimes very 
>> differently, sometimes it's simply a matter of which syllable to stress.
>>
>> Polyglot
>>
>> Op wo 19 sep. 2018 om 04:43 schreef Joseph Eisenberg 
>> :
>>>
>>> Paul,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your comments.
>>> Have you read the complete Proposal page? Perhaps I need to improve the 
>>> wording to clarify some of your concerns
>>>
> >”I'd rather have local languages mapped rather than the language the 
> >renderer 'should' use.”
>
> By recording each name in a separate “name:=*” tag, database users 
> and map makers will be able to pick the best name for their audience.


 The best name for the audience is the one which matches the signage.  It 
 does me no good to see an English
 translation of a Russian street sign.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is true if your database use case is rendering a map for a local 
>>> audience. That's why the Openstreetmap Carto style renders names this way.
>>> This proposal will not change the way names are rendered on the standard 
>>> map, except in the rare case where, for example, "name:fr=*" is present on 
>>> a feature in France but the "name=*" tag is missing. In this case it will 
>>> now render properly.
>>>
>>> But not all names are street or shop names. There are internationally know 
>>> features, like Mt Everest and the Yellow River, which have well-known names 
>>> in many names, which are quite different than the locally used name. Take a 
>>> look at the current rendering of Nepal or China. The Openstreetmap Carto 
>>> style is useful if you are in Nepal and want to find a sign point you 
>>> towards Mt Everest, but a person sitting at their computer in Brazil will 
>>> have trouble finding the mountain on the standard map style.
>>>
>>> The French style already renders names in French preferentially, but this 
>>> loses the information about the locally used name. I agree that this is a 
>>> problem!
>>> But with the current use of names, it's not possible to make an 
>>> international map style that shows French names and the locally name at the 
>>> same time.
>>> If you try to render "name:fr=*" and "name=*" together, you'll render the 
>>> French name twice for every street in Brussels
>>>

 The only thing the map should render is the name as it is displayed on 
 signage.
>>>
>>>
>>> For local routing yes, for Openstreetmap Carto yes, but all applications? 
>>> Not always
>>>

 It would also be useful if the IPA characters representing how a local 
 would pronounce that name is present so applications could feed that
 to text-to-speech.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes! IPA is a great idea. I believe "name:ipa=*" could work for this. Want 
>>> to write up a proposal? :-)
>>>

 It is also somewhat useful, for multilingual signage, to use name:xx and 
 name:yy to hold the individual
 language components of that name.
>>>
>>>
>>> You've got it! That's exactly what we want to encourage. If every street in 
>>> Brussels has name:fr=xx and name:nl=yy, the French map style could render 
>>> both.
>>> ( Or being the French, they might just render "name:fr=yy", but 
>>> there's nothing to be done about that. )


> The local name still needs to be specified so that database users know 
> what name or names are actually used “on the ground” vs foreign names. 
> The default language format tag makes this possible, but separates this 
> function from the name=* tag. And the proposal includes a

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

2018-09-20 Thread Paul Allen

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:

But if you’ve seen an America “civic center” or an Indonesian regency
> office, they are quite distinct from commercial offices. American offices
> and those in developing countries often seem to be trying to waste as much
> money as possible on huge plazas, landscaping, and extravagant
> architecture, while nearby commercial offices are sedate and sensibly
> rectangular.
>

In the UK too, if one bothers to look at the administrative centre of a
county council.  The architecture may not be as
extravagant, but they certainly fill a large area with one or more large
buildings.

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

> On Sep 20, 2018, at 5:39 PM, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> Maybe it's just me, but I really can't understand why landuse for government 
> functions needs its own tagging. The buildings are often indistinguishable 
> from commercial properties

Why does what the buildings look like matter? 

Hospitals look like office buildings. So do schools. We differentiate their 
tagging based on *what we call it and what is expected (regionally) inside*. We 
wouldn't tag a regional hospital or a university as an office park because the 
"buildings look the same". 

Many parks are indistinguishable from natural=grassland or landuse=farmland, 
but we make the distinction. 

In many places, a city hall is a very different place than an ordinary office 
building - even if we don't care that much about them. 

Javbw. 

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse for government offices ?

2018-09-20 Thread Joseph Eisenberg

It sounds this tag will not be used in Sweden. It may not be much use in
England either.

But if you’ve seen an America “civic center” or an Indonesian regency
office, they are quite distinct from commercial offices. American offices
and those in developing countries often seem to be trying to waste as much
money as possible on huge plazas, landscaping, and extravagant
architecture, while nearby commercial offices are sedate and sensibly
rectangular.

American cities often have separate zoning laws for these areas too.

I’ll probably still recommend that the Openstreetmap-Carto style render
this in the same color as commercial landuse, for simplicity. But the
Humanitarian style might want to show civic_admin differently, because they
already emphasize government offices

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 6:20 PM egil  wrote:

> In Sweden government agencies are actually not allowed to own the
> properties they use.
>
> Therefore they have long term tenant contracts with required minimum level
> of building maintenance, etc.
>
> These properties are owned by large private real estate giants buying and
> selling from each other.
>
> The owners see the agency as a tenant, nothing more. If the agency moves
> the owner finds any other tenant to rent out the space to.
>
> I tend to agree with Colins arguments below, because in Sweden gov.
> agencies are very mixed into the central spaces of cities but often not
> clustered together in large complexes or whole areas.
>
> Cheers
>
> Egil
> On 9/20/18 10:39 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> Maybe it's just me, but I really can't understand why landuse for
> government functions needs its own tagging. The buildings are often
> indistinguishable from commercial properties - what is different is that
> the occupier is some statutory organisation. We don't tag landuse=charity,
> or landuse=private, or landuse=education, so why landuse=civic_admin? If
> you want to know who the tenant of a certain building is, let's have
> tenant=City of Blah and allow this for any building (or campus). Same
> arguments against landuse=religious. Why should farm be tagged as
> landuse=religious instead of landuse=farmland just because it is run by
> monks? Land use is the use a piece of land is put to, and not WHO is doing
> the using or WHY they are doing it. If we want to record those other
> dimensions, use different tags instead of further complicating the landuse
> mess.
>
>
>
>
> On 2018-09-20 08:25, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> On 20/09/18 03:57, John Willis wrote:
>
>
> ... Retail is always wrong. Commercial is a crutch.
>
>
> In your part of the world, perhaps.  Elsewhere, this isn't guaranteed to
> be the case.  Certainly here in the UK many formerly "civic" services have
> been privatised and are run for out-and-out commercial gain; others are run
> as commercial entities owned by the government or non-governmental third
> sector organisations.  What this means is that people will need to pick the
> landuse that works best for them in their local area - to say that
> something is "always wrong" is, in OSM, almost always wrong(!).
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://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] landuse for government offices ?