Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 15:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> I don't know how many of the 3500 worldwide are actually
> communications_towers bu that definition, but I'd guess not more than a
> dozen or 2?
>

Some more searching & this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_towers says that there are 58
towers over 250m, ~80 (but not all comms_towers) 200-250m & ~100 100-200m,
but quite a few of this are simple TV towers, buildings etc

Thanks

Graeme

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Oct 2018, at 21:12, bkil  wrote:
> 
> I have yet to see a restaurant that
> declines to pack my meal for takeaway=* if I can't consume it on
> premise


I believe initially the idea of this tag was takeaway=only 
then came the preset webforms.
a common combination for takeaway=yes is drive-though=no
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/takeaway=yes#combinations

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 6. Oct 2018, at 00:42, marc marc  wrote:
> 
> I see a tower, I tag a tower, another day someone will add his function.


It is not just the function. If you see a watch tower, you know it’s a watch 
tower, there might be different types, in a prison, at a border etc. but they 
are all watch towers. You won’t confuse them with water towers or tv towers or 
medieval residential towers, castle towers or bell towers, nor with observation 
towers, and not at all with lighting towers (which are masts) or with cooling 
towers of power stations, and also not with those supports for mobile network 
antennas. These are all completely different things. No expert needed.


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

Re: [Tagging] Ignore roundabout flare in counting

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 at 07:27, André Pirard  wrote:

> On 2018-10-05 20:35, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> Hi,
> is there a tag to ignore a roundabout flare in counting the exits?
>
> Is it a good idea for a navigator to ignore an exit and risk confusion?
>

But it's not an exit, it's only a driveway


> What number should it say if that's the way to go?
>

I know when I use OSMAND to go to number 25, it only tells me "You have
arrived at your destination" about 1 - 2 houses early, it doesn't tell me
"Turn right into number 25's driveway" :-)

I'd agree that if that driveway is tagged as =service =driveway, it
shouldn't appear as an exit.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[marc marc]

Le 06. 10. 18 à 00:26, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> Why not tag man_made=observation_tower / bell_tower / etc.

do you have to be an expert in towers+telecomunication+a+b+c
to put the right tag?
or is it so disturbing to do it by successive refinement ?
I see a tower, I tag a tower, another day someone will add his function.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Oct 2018, at 08:15, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> 
> Sounds sensible to me. If JOSM and ID support man_made=tower + 
> tower:type=communication with a preset, it won't be any more work than typing 
> in a single tag.


for me it made more sense to discourage the whole tower:type concept and try to 
migrate to something more specific in the main tag. 

There are just too many too different types of towers to keep some of them in 
the same category while others like water towers are still in different 
categories anyway. Why not tag man_made=observation_tower / bell_tower / etc.
For tv / radio towers, broadcasting_tower seems less ambiguous.

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

Re: [Tagging] iD Editor - unclear translations ( QA ) - 2018Oct

[Imre Samu]

extra:

Languages - sorted by FREQ of unclear translations :  ( descending )
* 61 tr
* 59 he
* 50 uk
* 40 da
* 38 it
* 36 ro
* 30 is
* 29 pl
* 27 lt
* 26 ast
* 25 ca
* 24 zh-TW
* 21 no
* 21 fi
* 20 vi
* 20 sl
* 20 ko
* 20 gl
* 20 el
* 19 lv
* 18 hr
* 18 fa
* 18 ar
* 16 sv
* 16 mk
* 16 et
* 14 sr
* 14 sk
* 14 ru
* 12 zh-HK
* 12 zh
* 12 pt-BR
* 12 pt
* 12 es
* 11 zh-CN
* 10 nl
* 10 id
* 10 de
* 10 af
*  8 ta
*  6 hu
*  6 eo
*  4 so
*  4 ja
*  4 dv
*  4 cs
*  4 bs
*  2 te
*  2 ms
*  2 ckb
*  2 bn
*  2 bg

Imre


Imre Samu  ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. 5., P,
23:00):

> Hi,
> I have created an experimental QA report about the same/unclear
> translations.
> and now about ~450 unclear translations pair detected.
>  ( same translations AND different osm keys! )
>
> if you know any language - please check!( discuss in your local osm
> list! )
>
> Current status ( you can edit the "C" column  - if you fixed )
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DNNuPjjnp6oOXLS2Wtrn__NdCtFN7wy7Lvdm7K1bES0/edit?usp=sharing
>
> comment:
>
> presetKey =  tags0+tags1+tags2 + ... tags4
> If you want to understand iD Editor presets
> *  https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/data/presets/README.md
> *
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#translating
> this is related to: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5323
>
> Example:
>
> hr Fakultetsko zemljište College Grounds amenity/college
> hr Fakultetsko zemljište University Grounds amenity/university
> hr Groblje Cemetery landuse/cemetery
> hr Groblje Graveyard amenity/grave_yard
> hr Knjižara Book Store shop/books
> hr Knjižara Stationery Store shop/stationery
> hr Krojač Tailor shop/tailor
> hr Krojač Dressmaker craft/dressmaker
> hr Odmorište Rest Area highway/rest_area
> hr Odmorište Service Area highway/services
> hr Travnjak Grassland natural/grassland
> hr Travnjak Grass landuse/grass
> hr Uspornik Speed Bump traffic_calming/bump
> hr Uspornik Speed Hump traffic_calming/hump
> hr Vinarija Wine Shop shop/wine
> hr Vinarija Winery craft/winery
> hr Zgrada fakulteta College Building building/college
> hr Zgrada fakulteta University Building building/university
>
>
>
> or
>
>
> it Campo da bocce Bowling Green leisure/pitch/bowls
> it Campo da bocce Boules/Bocce Court leisure/pitch/boules
> it Campo da gioco Sport Pitch leisure/pitch
> it Campo da gioco Recreation Ground landuse/recreation_ground
> it Capanno Shed building/shed
> it Capanno Hut building/hut
> it Cimitero Graveyard amenity/grave_yard
> it Cimitero Cemetery landuse/cemetery
> it Dormitorio Dormitory building/dormitory
> it Dormitorio Homeless Shelter amenity/social_facility/homeless_shelter
> it Foresta Wood natural/wood
> it Foresta Forest landuse/forest
> it Fotografo Photographer craft/photographer
> it Fotografo Photography Store shop/photo
> it Garage Garage building/garage
> it Garage Garages building/garages
> it Girello Play Roundabout playground/roundabout
> it Girello Basket Spinner playground/basket_spinner
> it Lavanderia Dry Cleaner shop/dry_cleaning
> it Lavanderia Laundry shop/laundry
> it Negozio Shop shop
> it Negozio Retail Building building/retail
> it Negozio di elettronica Electronics Store shop/electronics
> it Negozio di elettronica Radio/Electronic Component Store
> shop/radiotechnics
> it Sartoria Dressmaker craft/dressmaker
> it Sartoria Tailor shop/tailor
> it Scivolo Slide playground/slide
> it Scivolo Water Slide attraction/water_slide
> it Serra Greenhouse Horticulture landuse/greenhouse_horticulture
> it Serra Greenhouse building/greenhouse
> it Stadio Stadium leisure/stadium
> it Stadio Stadium Building building/stadium
> it Teleferica Goods Aerialway aerialway/goods
> it Teleferica Zip Wire playground/zipwire
> it Tombino Manhole manhole
> it Tombino Storm Drain manhole/drain
> it Vivaio Garden Center shop/garden_centre
> it Vivaio Plant Nursery landuse/plant_nursery
>
>
> Best,
>  Imre
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Ignore roundabout flare in counting

[André Pirard]

On 2018-10-05 20:35, Florian Lohoff wrote:

Hi,
is there a tag to ignore a roundabout flare in counting the exits?

Is it a good idea for a navigator to ignore an exit and risk confusion?
What number should it say if that's the way to go?

We have a roundabout with a private driveway connecting to the
roundabout. Visually you wont actually count that service road
as a valid roundabout flare but still its a connection.

A mapper now changed to a faked topology to fix the announcements
of the navigation which i reverted.

Is there tagging to let announcements ignore that flare?

Flo


___
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] iD Editor - unclear translations ( QA ) - 2018Oct

[Imre Samu]

Hi,
I have created an experimental QA report about the same/unclear
translations.
and now about ~450 unclear translations pair detected.
 ( same translations AND different osm keys! )

if you know any language - please check!( discuss in your local osm
list! )

Current status ( you can edit the "C" column  - if you fixed )
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DNNuPjjnp6oOXLS2Wtrn__NdCtFN7wy7Lvdm7K1bES0/edit?usp=sharing

comment:

presetKey =  tags0+tags1+tags2 + ... tags4
If you want to understand iD Editor presets
*  https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/data/presets/README.md
*
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#translating
this is related to: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5323

Example:

hr Fakultetsko zemljište College Grounds amenity/college
hr Fakultetsko zemljište University Grounds amenity/university
hr Groblje Cemetery landuse/cemetery
hr Groblje Graveyard amenity/grave_yard
hr Knjižara Book Store shop/books
hr Knjižara Stationery Store shop/stationery
hr Krojač Tailor shop/tailor
hr Krojač Dressmaker craft/dressmaker
hr Odmorište Rest Area highway/rest_area
hr Odmorište Service Area highway/services
hr Travnjak Grassland natural/grassland
hr Travnjak Grass landuse/grass
hr Uspornik Speed Bump traffic_calming/bump
hr Uspornik Speed Hump traffic_calming/hump
hr Vinarija Wine Shop shop/wine
hr Vinarija Winery craft/winery
hr Zgrada fakulteta College Building building/college
hr Zgrada fakulteta University Building building/university



or


it Campo da bocce Bowling Green leisure/pitch/bowls
it Campo da bocce Boules/Bocce Court leisure/pitch/boules
it Campo da gioco Sport Pitch leisure/pitch
it Campo da gioco Recreation Ground landuse/recreation_ground
it Capanno Shed building/shed
it Capanno Hut building/hut
it Cimitero Graveyard amenity/grave_yard
it Cimitero Cemetery landuse/cemetery
it Dormitorio Dormitory building/dormitory
it Dormitorio Homeless Shelter amenity/social_facility/homeless_shelter
it Foresta Wood natural/wood
it Foresta Forest landuse/forest
it Fotografo Photographer craft/photographer
it Fotografo Photography Store shop/photo
it Garage Garage building/garage
it Garage Garages building/garages
it Girello Play Roundabout playground/roundabout
it Girello Basket Spinner playground/basket_spinner
it Lavanderia Dry Cleaner shop/dry_cleaning
it Lavanderia Laundry shop/laundry
it Negozio Shop shop
it Negozio Retail Building building/retail
it Negozio di elettronica Electronics Store shop/electronics
it Negozio di elettronica Radio/Electronic Component Store
shop/radiotechnics
it Sartoria Dressmaker craft/dressmaker
it Sartoria Tailor shop/tailor
it Scivolo Slide playground/slide
it Scivolo Water Slide attraction/water_slide
it Serra Greenhouse Horticulture landuse/greenhouse_horticulture
it Serra Greenhouse building/greenhouse
it Stadio Stadium leisure/stadium
it Stadio Stadium Building building/stadium
it Teleferica Goods Aerialway aerialway/goods
it Teleferica Zip Wire playground/zipwire
it Tombino Manhole manhole
it Tombino Storm Drain manhole/drain
it Vivaio Garden Center shop/garden_centre
it Vivaio Plant Nursery landuse/plant_nursery


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

Re: [Tagging] Ignore roundabout flare in counting

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Friday, October 5, 2018, Florian Lohoff  wrote:

>
> Is there tagging to let announcements ignore that flare?
>

I think that if the driveway is tagged highway=service, this should be
enough information for the routeing engine to ignore it. Besides there
might be people that don't want the driveway to be ignored.

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

[Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Friday, October 5, 2018, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:
>
>
> I don't know how many of the 3500 worldwide are actually
> communications_towers bu that definition, but I'd guess not more than a
> dozen or 2?
>

There are already more than a dozen in the small country of Switzerland.


> I'd like to suggest that we deprecate that tag, settle on the engineering
> definition given to differentiate between masts & towers:
>
> "In structural engineering, *mast* is a vertical structure, supported by
> external guys and anchors.
> This is the only existing definite feature that could be used to
> differentiate masts and towers."
>
> & start cleaning things up.
>
> Your thoughts?
>

If this is the only common differentiation between masts and towers, then i
don't disagree using it.

However i'm wondering how many radio masts/towers have been tagged
according to the distinction latter outside vs steps/lift inside.

Besides, for people like me that are really bad at estimating height, but
still want to differentiate small mobile phone 'towers' like [1] from big
TV towers like [2], i think it would make sense to use a tag like
tower:access=inside/outside.

[1]:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mobile_Phone_Mast_near_Gore_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1703520.jpg
[2]:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aerial_view_-_Fernsehturm_St._Chrischona5.jpg

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

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

[bkil]

> I am not sure adding drinking_water on bars or pubs would do us a favor. For 
> one it might be up
> to the discretion of the current staff  how they respond to your request (and 
> could depend whether
> you have already consumed something there, know the barkeeper, are 
> accompagnied by babies or
> children, the staff has a good day or not, etc.).
>

This proposal is for tagging those premises who are *willing* to
provide free tap water unconditionally and who at the same time are
willing to advertise the said practice publicly.

There are various movements that can be joined. Also, the next
movement could very well be started on OpenStreetMap itself -
volunteers could refer to OSM when asking the owner for consent or the
owners themselves can add this information given a user friendly form.
This could also result in more mapping activity in general.

> There are also places that offer a drinking water tap with plastic cups or 
> water bottles so you can serve
> yourself without asking anybody. (e.g. first pillar here is an accessible 
> indoor fountain:
> https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/02/06/a0/ef/gelateria-palazzo-del.jpg
>  ),
> and this is quite different than having to ask the staff and depending on 
> their discretion. How will it be distinguished?
>

Well, my original proposal strives to differentiate this with
drinking_water=yes (for taps) and drinking_water=ask (if given by
staff), but you are the only one to support such a distinction up to
now. Others in this thread would like to use the same tagging for both
cases. Could you please give a bit reasoning regarding pro & contra of
making this distinction?

> Pubs and bars usually will have opening hours, while drinking_water on a 
> fountain is generally accessible 24/7.
> This can be seen from the data (combination with what), but it might be safer 
> to explicitly use distinct tagging (unsure myself).
>

If we add drinking_water=* tags to a given premise (together with
amenity=pub) on the same entity (node or area), it is expected that
the opening hour is the same. This means that if the pub is only open
between 18-24h, then we should expect that the drinking fountain will
not be accessible at noon or at any other time when the pub is closed.
If the tap resides in an open space, that means that opening_hours is
not shared between the two and they should be stored as separate
entities in OSM, one way for the area of the pub and its opening hour
(or a node somewhere within its boundaries) and another node
separately for the tap at its approximate location.

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

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

[bkil]

Thanks for the link. The situation was the same in Hungary between
1998-2009. As of 2018, it is not a legal obligation, thus it is up to
the owner to decide whether they offer tap water for free. The
reasoning is probably that overheads, dish washing and service is not
at all free, though most "mature" places "usually"  provide water if
asked nicely.

However, do observe the exact wording in the linked article:

>>All licensed premises in England and Wales are required by law to provide 
>>"free potable water" to their customers upon request.<<

This should be interpreted as drinking_water=customers, not
drinking_water=yes. As mentioned previously, we could start a table in
the wiki to document country wide defaults. It is realistic to assume
that users are able to cross check between such a table with the full
OSM geo database. This would greatly reduce redundancy.

We are badly in a need of such a mechanism anyway, because there are
many tags which are not very useful in many parts of the world. Just
looking at the forms of the iD editor, I can see many examples. One is
that public smoking has been banned or heavily restricted in Hungary
and many other countries, so amenities default to smoking=no (mostly
at designated outside areas only). I have yet to see a restaurant that
declines to pack my meal for takeaway=* if I can't consume it on
premise, but it may be different in other countries. And then let's
not open the can of worms of default road maxspeed=*
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:54 PM Philip Barnes  wrote:
>
> In GB licensed premises have to provide free drinking water.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39881236
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On 1 October 2018 10:11:08 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Am Sa., 29. Sep. 2018 um 17:33 Uhr schrieb bkil :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The best visibility for both venues and people should be via OSM
>>> itself. However, if we do not highlight these via specific tags, this
>>> visibility may be impaired. Renderers could be enhanced to highlight
>>> various tag combinations, like drinking_water on bars, restaurants,
>>> etc., though that is not ideal. Verification could also be made more
>>> difficult, because if I see drinking_water=yes on a pub, I need to
>>> first start looking for a vending machine/fountain/tap, if not found,
>>> ask for an accessible vending machine/fountain/tap from staff, if they
>>> don't know anything about those, then I ask whether they could
>>> manually refill my container.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not sure adding drinking_water on bars or pubs would do us a favor. For 
>> one it might be up to the discretion of the current staff  how they respond 
>> to your request (and could depend whether you have already consumed 
>> something there, know the barkeeper, are accompagnied by babies or children, 
>> the staff has a good day or not, etc.). There are also places that offer a 
>> drinking water tap with plastic cups or water bottles so you can serve 
>> yourself without asking anybody. (e.g. first pillar here is an accessible 
>> indoor fountain: 
>> https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/02/06/a0/ef/gelateria-palazzo-del.jpg
>>  ), and this is quite different than having to ask the staff and depending 
>> on their discretion. How will it be distinguished?
>>
>> Pubs and bars usually will have opening hours, while drinking_water on a 
>> fountain is generally accessible 24/7. This can be seen from the data 
>> (combination with what), but it might be safer to explicitly use distinct 
>> tagging (unsure myself).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>
>
> --
> 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Ignore roundabout flare in counting

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi,
is there a tag to ignore a roundabout flare in counting the exits?

We have a roundabout with a private driveway connecting to the
roundabout. Visually you wont actually count that service road
as a valid roundabout flare but still its a connection.

A mapper now changed to a faked topology to fix the announcements
of the navigation which i reverted. 

Is there tagging to let announcements ignore that flare?

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refilling a purchased drink

[Jmapb]

On 10/5/2018 1:23 PM, bkil wrote:


I agree that keeping a whole price chart up to date manually is a
tedious and error prone process yielding low added value from the
standpoint of users and OSM, so we should definitely not be doing
that. Although specifying the cost of a single representative item
(cheapest or a widely available brand of beer in a pub?) could perhaps
help categorize the venue.


Consistent with best tagging practices as I understand them:
 - It's great to tag whether something costs money or not. We have the 
"fee=" key (and "*:fee=" namespace keys) for this purpose.
 - It's sometimes helpful to tag the actual price. But there's not a 
great consensus on how to do it. Some people overload the "fee" tag with 
actual price info, some people use "fee:price=" or "fee:charge=", some 
people just use "charge=", and for toll roads people often use "toll=". 
And of course pricing structures can be quite complex, so the values 
often end up as free text description fields rather than anything parseable.

 - Adding actual price info for food/drink items is NOT done.
 - ...But, indicating the possibility of price discounts isn't entirely 
out of the question. I'm thinking of the "happy_hours" tag for bars: It 
indicates that discounted drinks are available during certain hours... 
but again, not the actual happy hour drink prices.


So applying all this to the free refills question, I'd say it's a 
reasonable thing to tag, but I'd discourage adding actual price info. 
The drink namespace structure "drink:*=*" is already in use, so offhand 
I could imagine something like

    drink:coffee=yes
    drink:coffee:free_refills=yes
or even just
    drink:coffee=yes;free_refills
If I encountered these tags, I'd know exactly what they meant. And I'd 
be happy to know it!


An alternative might be
    drink:coffee=yes
    drink:coffee:refills=free|discounted
...which would allow us to encode discounted refills rather than just 
free/not free.


However this works out, I look forward to drinking many cups of coffee. J

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Refilling a purchased drink

[bkil]

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:38 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>> Could you please clarify what policy this would violate that makes you
>> disapprove?
>
> it is basically a way of giving a discount to customers. Would you also want 
> to add special offers of your supermarket, like buy one get one free?
>

Yes I would and I usually do, see happy_hours=*
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:happy_hours

Sometimes bakeries or fast food restaurants also offer discounts
before closing every day, so they don't need to throw out food (again
as a measure to reduce waste). Some of these are posted on the wall,
but some do not advertise this practice at all and are only obvious of
you happen to be be shopping inside just half an hour before closing.

The happy hour places I know have sustained this practice for years,
so it is a very stable feature. Mapping these is a very valuable
source of information.

> Without putting the price for the first (paid) glass in relation to usual 
> prices,
>

Prices can change pretty often, like once a year or biannually, but
the practice of offering free refills is a stable feature in my
observation, so it is more feasible to map.

> the information about free refills is worthless.
> E.g. if a glass of $SOFTDRINK is sold for 5 EUR and you can get up to 2 
> refills it is still more expensive than a place where a glass of $SOFTDRINK 
> is sold for 1 EUR.
>

Yes, you are correct. However, if I'm not mistaken, it is much more
common to see places that offer unlimited refills.

Then again, I personally do not "look for" or "prefer" such places, I
wish to map these because *other* people view this as an identifying
novelty property of a restaurant.

If you are that thirsty you should probably drop by a supermarket and
grab 1l of tomato juice or find a water tap instead if you ask me. ;-)

> I am not sure there is (already) a policy, but I believe there is general 
> agreement not to tag the price structure of shops or other amenities, unless 
> it is a single fee (like for parking).
>

I agree that keeping a whole price chart up to date manually is a
tedious and error prone process yielding low added value from the
standpoint of users and OSM, so we should definitely not be doing
that. Although specifying the cost of a single representative item
(cheapest or a widely available brand of beer in a pub?) could perhaps
help categorize the venue.

> For me, this is kind of an edge case here, I would be willing to accept the 
> tag, but I can see the arguments against it.
> Cheers,
> Martin
>

Thank you for your clarification.

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

Re: [Tagging] Map a divide?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Apparently British English uses "watershed" to name the line that divides
to drainage basins, though Americans would call that a "divide":

I looked up natural=divide on Overdrive Turbo. I didn't find any uses in
Europe. In North America there were two places where the tag has been used:
the continental divide in southern Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico (not
completely finished), and the Sierra Crest along the Sierra Nevada mountain
range.

I think the Sierra Crest would make more sense as natural=mountain_range.
It's also a drainage divide, but the mountain range is certainly the more
significant feature.
The continental divide along the Rocky Mountains does have some sections
that are named mountain ranges, but other parts are along low ridges or
hills (relative to the surrounding terrain), so perhaps it makes sense ot
mark the Continental Divide.

In the previous discussion last month, there were concerns that the
watershed boundary or divide would not be possible to determine in some
places, for example flat wetlands or plains where there is no obvious
ridgeline. Natural=mountain_range doesn't share this problem. But I do
think there should be tags for ranges of hills and ridges that don't
qualify as a "mountain_range"

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 4:35 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think a 'watershed' is an area describing the catchment area that drains to 
> one point.
> A 'divide' is a single line that describes the division between 2 or more 
> watersheds.
>
> You are right in that they are all water related.
>
>
> On 05/10/18 17:20, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
> You seem to be describing a watershed, which was recently discussed.
>
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-September/039026.html
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On 4 October 2018 15:46:19 BST, Kevin Kenny 
>  wrote:
>>
>> In some maps that I render, I want to show the divide between a couple
>> of major river basins. (I have a good DEM for the area in question and
>> can derive the line readily.)
>>
>> In light of the recent thread on topographic prominence, I wonder if
>> this is sufficiently interesting information at least to push it to
>> OSM. (If not, that's fine, I have a PostGIS database and a bucket of
>> shapefiles and know what to do.)
>>
>> If it is sufficiently interesting, the question then arises: how to map/tag 
>> it?
>>
>> 'natural=ridge' comes to mind, and the divide in question has a local
>> name. (The 'Catskill Divide' separates the basins of the Hudson and
>> Delaware Rivers.) This approach appears to run into problems, as I
>> read the Wiki. I see:
>>
>>>
>>> The way should connect saddle points and peaks, and the arrows should point 
>>> upwards.
>>
>>
>> That may be all right for a ridge ascending the flank of a single
>> mountain, but what I'm talking about is the spine of a range, with the
>> ridge traversing dozens of named peaks. Even with a single mountain,
>> if there are false summits, the arrows on a single way cannot point
>> upward all the time! (And the wiki is clear that the
>>
>> Do I misread, and should the reading instead simply be that the
>> arrowhead should be higher than the arrow tail? In that case, I could
>> break the divide into two ways, with a common endpoint at the highest
>> summit in the range.
>>
>> Consider this a low-priority item. I have (or will have - there is a
>> bit of debugging yet) the data. I know how to render them. I'm happy
>> enough with a shapefile or a private PostGIS table if others aren't
>> interested.
>> --
>> Tagging mailing 
>> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> ___
> 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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - assembly_point:purpose

[Daniele Santini]

Two weeks have passed since the RFC, all problems are solved and the
proposal can finally be voted:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/assembly_point:purpose
The goal is to specify which emergency an emergency=assembly_point is
designed for.

Cheers

-- 
Daniele Santini
http://www.dsantini.it
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Warin]

On 05/10/18 17:31, Lionel Giard wrote:

I also support this simplification of definition and tags.

Is there a possibility to indicate that a tower is specifically a 
landmark with a tag of some sort without knowing the height (most of 
them are not publicly known around here) ? Because some are really 
useful for navigation (visible from a long way) while other are only 
visible from up close.


I would use the height tag .. and estimate the height.While it will not 
be precise you should be able to convey the difference between two of 
significant height differences. Of course you can place a 
source:height=visual estimation so that others can see where the height 
cam from and fine tune it if they have better data. I have done this for 
various towers, in one case I used the shadows in imagery to obtain the 
estimation from relative lengths of shadows.




I was personally using the communication_tower tag only to indicate 
that it is a landmark when it is an especially huge tower (and that 
was the only difference between a tower and this, to me).


Le ven. 5 oct. 2018 à 08:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick > a écrit :





On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Joseph Eisenberg
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>
wrote:

Sounds sensible to me. If JOSM and ID support man_made=tower +
tower:type=communication with a preset, it won't be any more
work than typing in a single tag.


Can confirm that it's preset in iD, as I've just mapped one (a
mobile phone tower) but don't know about JOSM (or anything else)?

Does this require a proposal process? How does something
become officially deprecated?


Yep, that's the other question!

Thanks

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



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



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

Re: [Tagging] Map a divide?

[Warin]

I think a 'watershed' is an area describing the catchment area that drains to 
one point.
A 'divide' is a single line that describes the division between 2 or more 
watersheds.

You are right in that they are all water related.


On 05/10/18 17:20, Philip Barnes wrote:

You seem to be describing a watershed, which was recently discussed.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-September/039026.html

Phil (trigpoint)

On 4 October 2018 15:46:19 BST, Kevin Kenny  
wrote:


In some maps that I render, I want to show the divide between a couple
of major river basins. (I have a good DEM for the area in question and
can derive the line readily.)

In light of the recent thread on topographic prominence, I wonder if
this is sufficiently interesting information at least to push it to
OSM. (If not, that's fine, I have a PostGIS database and a bucket of
shapefiles and know what to do.)

If it is sufficiently interesting, the question then arises: how to map/tag 
it?

'natural=ridge' comes to mind, and the divide in question has a local
name. (The 'Catskill Divide' separates the basins of the Hudson and
Delaware Rivers.) This approach appears to run into problems, as I
read the Wiki. I see:

The way should connect saddle points and peaks, and the arrows
should point upwards. 



That may be all right for a ridge ascending the flank of a single
mountain, but what I'm talking about is the spine of a range, with the
ridge traversing dozens of named peaks. Even with a single mountain,
if there are false summits, the arrows on a single way cannot point
upward all the time! (And the wiki is clear that the

Do I misread, and should the reading instead simply be that the
arrowhead should be higher than the arrow tail? In that case, I could
break the divide into two ways, with a common endpoint at the highest
summit in the range.

Consider this a low-priority item. I have (or will have - there is a
bit of debugging yet) the data. I know how to render them. I'm happy
enough with a shapefile or a private PostGIS table if others aren't
interested.

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Lionel Giard]

I also support this simplification of definition and tags.

Is there a possibility to indicate that a tower is specifically a landmark
with a tag of some sort without knowing the height (most of them are not
publicly known around here) ? Because some are really useful for navigation
(visible from a long way) while other are only visible from up close.

I was personally using the communication_tower tag only to indicate that it
is a landmark when it is an especially huge tower (and that was the only
difference between a tower and this, to me).

Le ven. 5 oct. 2018 à 08:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick  a
écrit :

>
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> Sounds sensible to me. If JOSM and ID support man_made=tower +
>> tower:type=communication with a preset, it won't be any more work than
>> typing in a single tag.
>>
>
> Can confirm that it's preset in iD, as I've just mapped one (a mobile
> phone tower) but don't know about JOSM (or anything else)?
>
>
>> Does this require a proposal process? How does something become
>> officially deprecated?
>>
>
> Yep, that's the other question!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Map a divide?

[Philip Barnes]

You seem to be describing a watershed, which was recently discussed.

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-September/039026.html

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 4 October 2018 15:46:19 BST, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>In some maps that I render, I want to show the divide between a couple
>of major river basins. (I have a good DEM for the area in question and
>can derive the line readily.)
>
>In light of the recent thread on topographic prominence, I wonder if
>this is sufficiently interesting information at least to push it to
>OSM. (If not, that's fine, I have a PostGIS database and a bucket of
>shapefiles and know what to do.)
>
>If it is sufficiently interesting, the question then arises: how to
>map/tag it?
>
>'natural=ridge' comes to mind, and the divide in question has a local
>name. (The 'Catskill Divide' separates the basins of the Hudson and
>Delaware Rivers.) This approach appears to run into problems, as I
>read the Wiki. I see:
>
>> The way should connect saddle points and peaks, and the arrows should
>point upwards.
>
>That may be all right for a ridge ascending the flank of a single
>mountain, but what I'm talking about is the spine of a range, with the
>ridge traversing dozens of named peaks. Even with a single mountain,
>if there are false summits, the arrows on a single way cannot point
>upward all the time! (And the wiki is clear that the
>
>Do I misread, and should the reading instead simply be that the
>arrowhead should be higher than the arrow tail? In that case, I could
>break the divide into two ways, with a common endpoint at the highest
>summit in the range.
>
>Consider this a low-priority item. I have (or will have - there is a
>bit of debugging yet) the data. I know how to render them. I'm happy
>enough with a shapefile or a private PostGIS table if others aren't
>interested.
>
>___
>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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 16:17, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> Sounds sensible to me. If JOSM and ID support man_made=tower +
> tower:type=communication with a preset, it won't be any more work than
> typing in a single tag.
>

Can confirm that it's preset in iD, as I've just mapped one (a mobile phone
tower) but don't know about JOSM (or anything else)?


> Does this require a proposal process? How does something become officially
> deprecated?
>

Yep, that's the other question!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Sounds sensible to me. If JOSM and ID support man_made=tower +
tower:type=communication with a preset, it won't be any more work than
typing in a single tag.
Does this require a proposal process? How does something become officially
deprecated?

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 00:24, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Certainly, choosing "communication tower" for both types but under
>> different keys wasn't  a solution that satisfies our requirements (reduce
>> confusion and be easily applicable while allowing to distinguish what
>> people want to distinguish).
>>
>
> I've been doing some checking & I think it could well be time to deprecate
> the whole man_made=communications_tower tag
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dcommunications_tower
>
> There's supposedly ~3500 of them worldwide, with ~200 in Australia / NZ /
> SE Asia http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/CwE
>
> Over the last few days, I've looked at 50 odd of these 200, & not one is a
> "communications_tower": "a huge tower for transmitting radio applications
> like television, radio, mobile phone or officials radio. It is often made
> from concrete and usually a far visible landmark." - & by a amazing twist,
> the one tower that I know of in Australia that does meet the criteria,
> Black Mountain Tower in Canberra https://www.blackmountaintower.com.au/,
> *isn't* listed as one!
>
> All of them I've looked at, are clearly, from aerial imagery, only a
>
>- man_made =tower
>
>- tower:type =
>communication
>
>
>
> I don't know how many of the 3500 worldwide are actually
> communications_towers bu that definition, but I'd guess not more than a
> dozen or 2?
>
> I'd like to suggest that we deprecate that tag, settle on the engineering
> definition given to differentiate between masts & towers:
>
> "In structural engineering, *mast* is a vertical structure, supported by
> external guys and anchors.
> This is the only existing definite feature that could be used to
> differentiate masts and towers."
>
> & start cleaning things up.
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging