Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-11-04 01:20, Paul Allen wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 12:10 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick  
> wrote:
> 
>> Question though (more for someone in Europe) - is a "Member of the European 
>> Parliament" elected, or just appointed by their home country? Are they a 
>> "politician" as such?
> 
> Elected.  They don't serve any useful purpose since the EU is run by 
> unelected bureaucrats, but they're 
> elected.

Paul, please keep your personal politics out of this discussion.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Warin]

On 04/11/18 11:20, Paul Allen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 12:10 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Question though (more for someone in Europe) - is a "Member of the
European Parliament" elected, or just appointed by their home
country? Are they a "politician" as such?


Elected.  They don't serve any useful purpose since the EU is run by 
unelected bureaucrats, but they're

elected.

Is there another overall term for elected people? (& yes, I can
think of quite a few terms for them, but I don't think we should
be marking any of them on the map! :-))


My local councillor is elected.  Is she counted in this scheme of 
things?  Local government is
government and getting elected is politics.  Even though it has US 
connotations, a general term

might be "representative."



office=government
government=constituency_office
or
government=politicians_office

???

Leaving is as office=government is too broad .. could encompass a 
taxation office.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - emergency=fire_alarm_box

[Stefano Maffulli]

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 1:06 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> I think you have to make it clear if it should be limited to public alarms
> on the street, or any alarm box could get the tag including those in
> buildings, and if it is the former the tag should get a different name,
> while the tag name is fine if it is intended for any fire alarm box.
>

I should have been more precise... What I mean is that we should keep the
scope of my initial proposal, that is to limit the tag to alarm boxes
placed on the street (like the wikipedia page defines them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_alarm_call_box). The term is fairly well
defined in English, there are pictures clarifying what this is supposed to
look like and there are examples on OSM already.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 4. Nov 2018, at 22:56, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

>> the tag is about land used by government.
> 
>  "Owned" or "used"?


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Nov 2018, at 11:35, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> 4. Nov 2018 06:36 by daveswarth...@gmail.com:
> I realize it can be done this way but it's a ton of work (quote: not very 
> easy) compared to making one simple edit to tag the entire collection of ways.
> 
> 
> I would not call clicking three or four times "ton of work". 
> 


actually, once there is a relation with all the elements you want to edit, it 
doesn’t make much of a difference for editing the tags of all: with the 
relation you can select them all with one click.

Cheers, Martin 




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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

[Mateusz Konieczny]

4. Nov 2018 22:52 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :


> excludes:Land owned by the government, but not used for governing (e.g. 
> national forests or parks)
>
> Sorry .. but ownership is some thing mappers may find hard to determine.
>




The point of this exclusion is that it does not matter who owns land. It only 
matters how




it is used. Maybe it can be worded better.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 at 23:44, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 4. Nov 2018, at 14:21, SelfishSeahorse 
> wrote:
> >
> > 'Land owned by the government,
>
>
> I would not insist on the ownership at all in the definition, the tag is
> about land used by government.
>

 "Owned" or "used"?

We have an office building that is fully occupied by local Council admin,
so it's definitely Govt use, but it's a leased building, not owned.

I would think that it would still be landuse=governmental, i that right?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

[Warin]

On 05/11/18 00:21, SelfishSeahorse wrote:

Hi Mateusz,

Thank you for your feedback!


"for marking government premises" sounds like replacement of office=* tag

I've changed the definition (back) to 'land used by government bodies
/ for governing'.


Current definitions "This excludes: (...) Land ''owned'' by the government" 
means that
parliament complex owned by government is not landuse=government.

I've changed this to:

'Land owned by the government, but not used for governing'

Hope it's clearer now.




definition: 'land used by government bodies for governing'.

Ok good.

excludes: parliament complex
Umm why?
Parliament formulates policies and laws for governing...
Arr you have changed it again now says

excludes:Land owned by the government, but not used for governing (e.g. 
national forests or parks)

Sorry .. but ownership is some thing mappers may find hard to determine.
Possibly better? Land administered? (or controlled?) by the government, but not 
used for governing (e.g. national forests, parks)...?


And
excludes:Law enforcement facilities (e.g. police stations, prisons)
Think the cops and prisons are part of governing are part of governing...


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - emergency=fire_alarm_box

[Stefano Maffulli]

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 5:40 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> it is exactly the same thing . I would also include those in private
> buildings, there’s no difference.
>

I can see how one would think they are the same. To a first respondent,
they have few important differences that may not be visible to non-experts.
One, they are maintained by the cities to resist major events. Two, they
are accessible to the public, outside of (collapsed?) buildings. Three, the
alarms in buildings are expected to be accessible *first* by the people in
the building: first respondents are unlikely to reach the alarms in a condo
or a bank before the people in there do (or the automatic signal goes off).

You can add alarms in private buildings but I don't see how that
information would be valuable. In san francisco, private condos, public
buildings and larger buildings are mandated to have fire alarms connected
to the fire department anyway so you'd basically map redundant information.
Not sure about other places in the world, I don't object to using the tag
outside of its scope.

and to answer Warin's comment :

you don't need a map to find them
>

Think of fire hydrants: they are usually on public land and we map them.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (consulate)

[Allan Mustard]

I think I'm going to borrow your text and make it the last version of
the proposal, then put it to a vote.  Today marks two weeks, so we can
call a vote if everybody's ready.  I go back on the road Tuesday
afternoon for a few days so will be off the grid, good time to get started.

On 11/4/2018 5:09 PM, egil wrote:
> On 2018-11-01 20:12, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 11:14 AM Allan Mustard > > wrote:
>>
>> * shift to office=diplomatic and use the existing diplomatic=*
>> additional (secondary) tag to specify whether embassy, consulate,
>> or other, then use embassy, consulate and other as additional
>> (tertiary) tags to specify further the type of diplomatic or
>> non-diplomatic mission as needed.
>>
>>
>> This is my preferred option for the following reasons:
>> 1. It reuses the existing office=* primary key, which is already in
>> use (for example, by the main OSM tile layer), as opposed to
>> introducing diplomatic=* as a primary key. Furthermore, I am in favor
>> of not having too many top-level primary keys unless they make a lot
>> of sense (like healthcare=* which is a really broad category, so it
>> makes sense to break this off as a primary key).
>> 2. It does not clutter the overused amenity=* key and allows
>> renderers and users to treat diplomatic and quasi-diplomatic objects
>> in the same way and in a simpler way as opposed to tagging
>> amenity=[embassy, consulate, ].
>> 3. The three values for the secondary tag diplomatic=[embassy,
>> consulate, other] plus adding further details to [embassy, consulate,
>> other]=* makes it easy for mappers to add the level of detail they
>> are comfortable with. If a mapper is unsure what the object is, they
>> can just tag it as office=diplomatic. Then other slightly more
>> knowledgeable mappers can specify diplomatic=*, which seems enough
>> for most casual map users. Then other really knowledgeable mappers
>> can further add [embassy, consulate, other]=* for even more detail
>> and more specialized mapping applications.
>
> +1В 
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Allan Mustard]

Exactly right.  Government has a legal monopoly on coercion, ranging
from the death penalty to collection of taxes and enforcement of the
barking dog ordinance in Fairfax County, Virginia.  Contractors do a lot
of government work (in the United States, contractors outnumber
direct-hire government employees by a ratio of 2.5:1) but their firms
are or should be tagged office=company while the government offices
where they may perform their duties should be tagged office=government.

I supervised a computer shop for two years.  One-third of my
subordinates were direct-hire government employees.  Two-thirds worked
for a private company with a government contract.  They shared offices
and were virtually interchangeable.  The corporate headquarters was
separate, and in my mind would have been tagged office=company.  My
government office building (the South Agriculture Building, largest
government office building in the District of Columbia at the time)
would have been tagged office=ministry since USDA is a Cabinet
department=ministry.

The bus company in Ashgabat is state-owned.  I have tagged its depot as
a bus depot, not as a government office.  Function to me also plays a role.

apm


On 11/4/2018 8:42 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> The activity of a prison is on behalf of a government, pursuant to a
> statutory duty of the government to administer justice. That its
> operation is outsourced to a private company doesn't change that fact.
> You can't just start your own prison - it is a state monopoly.
>
> Public transport may be a state monopoly, but sometimes it isn't. In
> the middle you have state regulation, which is the status in much of
> the UK. Anyone can start a bus company, but you need to register the
> route at least. (I think it might be a bit more complicated than
> that...) Providing free transport, well, I suppose anyone can make it
> free if they want, but the money has to come from somewhere...
>
>
> On 2018-11-04 15:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> On 4. Nov 2018, at 10:19, Allan Mustard > > wrote:
>>
>>> If it is a budget-dependent company/corporation, such as the
>>> Commodity Credit Corporation of the U.S. government, which generates
>>> no revenue of its own and relies wholly on appropriations from the
>>> U.S. Congress, yes, it should be tagged government.  As Deep Throat
>>> said, "Follow the money!"
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  
>> I find this difficult, because it implies we define what is original
>> government duty and what is not. Providing beer is apparently not a
>> government job (any more?), providing healthcare might be (?), what
>> about transportation? Is free public transportation a government
>> duty? They surely wouldn't generate (at least direct) profits, and if
>> the service isn't free it could still be financed by the government
>> and not be profitable. Similarly the providing of energy, water, the
>> treatment of waste. Europeans tend to see prisons as government
>> sites, in the US prisons are often private.
>>  
>> Ciao, Martin 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Colin Smale]

The activity of a prison is on behalf of a government, pursuant to a
statutory duty of the government to administer justice. That its
operation is outsourced to a private company doesn't change that fact.
You can't just start your own prison - it is a state monopoly. 

Public transport may be a state monopoly, but sometimes it isn't. In the
middle you have state regulation, which is the status in much of the UK.
Anyone can start a bus company, but you need to register the route at
least. (I think it might be a bit more complicated than that...)
Providing free transport, well, I suppose anyone can make it free if
they want, but the money has to come from somewhere... 

On 2018-11-04 15:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> sent from a phone 
> 
> On 4. Nov 2018, at 10:19, Allan Mustard  wrote:
> 
>> If it is a budget-dependent company/corporation, such as the Commodity 
>> Credit Corporation of the U.S. government, which generates no revenue of its 
>> own and relies wholly on appropriations from the U.S. Congress, yes, it 
>> should be tagged government.  As Deep Throat said, "Follow the money!"
> 
> I find this difficult, because it implies we define what is original 
> government duty and what is not. Providing beer is apparently not a 
> government job (any more?), providing healthcare might be (?), what about 
> transportation? Is free public transportation a government duty? They surely 
> wouldn't generate (at least direct) profits, and if the service isn't free it 
> could still be financed by the government and not be profitable. Similarly 
> the providing of energy, water, the treatment of waste. Europeans tend to see 
> prisons as government sites, in the US prisons are often private. 
> 
> Ciao, Martin  
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Nov 2018, at 10:19, Allan Mustard  wrote:
> 
> If it is a budget-dependent company/corporation, such as the Commodity Credit 
> Corporation of the U.S. government, which generates no revenue of its own and 
> relies wholly on appropriations from the U.S. Congress, yes, it should be 
> tagged government.  As Deep Throat said, "Follow the money!"
> 


I find this difficult, because it implies we define what is original government 
duty and what is not. Providing beer is apparently not a government job (any 
more?), providing healthcare might be (?), what about transportation? Is free 
public transportation a government duty? They surely wouldn’t generate (at 
least direct) profits, and if the service isn’t free it could still be financed 
by the government and not be profitable. Similarly the providing of energy, 
water, the treatment of waste. Europeans tend to see prisons as government 
sites, in the US prisons are often private.

Ciao, Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Colin Smale]

Thanks for the clear explanation, Allan! 

Although if it really has zero staff, I do wonder who employs the people
who "push the buttons" - authorising and approving payments etc. Do they
work for the Dept of Agriculture? Are they technically "contractors" to
the CCC?

On 2018-11-04 13:43, Allan Mustard wrote:

> The Commodity Credit Corporation is the U.S. equivalent of a British "crown 
> corporation".  It has no staff of its own, a board of directors that consists 
> of the senior political appointees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and 
> authority to disburse funds to farmers eligible for various government 
> programs.  It has many statutory duties and authorities to provide credit and 
> subsidies, dating back to legislation first passed in the Great Depression.  
> Programs are implemented by USDA (i.e., government) employees under these 
> authorities.  It is about as far from a commercial enterprise as one can 
> imagine--not even "pseudo-commercial"!  In WTO terms, it is the U.S. 
> government's "national paying agency" for agriculture and so by international 
> treaty is considered a government agency, even though it is incorporated in 
> Delaware as a corporation, has a board of directors, and so on.  If the CCC 
> had an office, it would be tagged office=government, but since CCC only 
> exists on paper, we
mappers don't really have to worry about it :-) On 11/4/2018 3:52 PM, Colin 
Smale wrote:
> 
> The answer will depend on whether we are talking about landuse, building, 
> office or amenity. 
> 
> Waste disposal is (in Europe) usually a statutory task, performed by a 
> commercial company on behalf of some government. If it is open to the public, 
> then the "amenity" provided is waste disposal / recycling. The landuse is 
> probably something like "waste disposal" or "industrial", similar to how 
> landfill sites might be tagged. The "office" belongs to the commercial 
> company, so that is not governmental. 
> 
> Other areas where this (outsourcing of statutory duties) is commonplace (that 
> I know of) include public transport, administration of visa applications, 
> healthcare provision, assessment of benefits claims, and operation of 
> highways/infrastructure. 
> 
> Government-owned companies like a brewery are IMHO nothing to do with the 
> execution of statutory tasks and are therefore not governmental in any way, 
> shape or form. 
> 
> In the example of the Credit Corporation, does some government organisation 
> have a statutory duty to provide credit? Or does it come under something more 
> general like "protecting the poor"? Would the government be "failing in its 
> statutory duty" if thie company disappeared? Otherwise it sounds like an 
> optional, pseudo-commercial venture which in this case happens to be 
> bankrolled by the government.
> 
> On 2018-11-04 11:13, Warin wrote: 
> 
> Where do you draw the line?
> 
> If a 'government company' has 50% of its income from a government allocation 
> and the rest from elsewhere (e.g. contracts with private 
> companies/individuals) is it 'government' or not?
> 
> On 04/11/18 20:19, Allan Mustard wrote: 
> 
> If it is a profitable company that adds to the government's coffers, such as 
> the Budvar brewery in the Czech Republic, which is government owned, I'd say 
> no.  It should be tagged as a brewery.  Same logic would apply to 
> Rosoboronexport, which is Russia's second-largest revenue earner as an arms 
> exporter.  Petronas, the Malaysian government gas and oil company, should be 
> tagged as a gas and oil company.  Same for Pemex, Petroleo Mexicano, as well 
> as the grocery stores the Bangladeshi army operates.
> 
> If it is a budget-dependent company/corporation, such as the Commodity Credit 
> Corporation of the U.S. government, which generates no revenue of its own and 
> relies wholly on appropriations from the U.S. Congress, yes, it should be 
> tagged government.  As Deep Throat said, "Follow the money!" 
> 
> apm-wa 
> On 11/4/2018 1:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> On 4. Nov 2018, at 05:54, Allan Mustard  wrote:
> 
> Paul, as Deep Throat told Bob Woodward, "Follow the money."  Who pays the 
> rent on the office and who pays the salary of the occupant?  If the filthy 
> lucre comes out of the government budget, and the office is used by someone 
> drawing a government salary (as all executives, legislators, and judges do, 
> or are supposed to, at least) then it is a government office.
> 
> what about government owned companies? Should they get a government tag?
> 
> Cheers, Martin

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

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Dave Swarthout]

Let me try to clarify what I'm saying again. Gerd writes:

If we follow Daves idea one might create a relation combining a few things
that have the same tag, e.g. all building=residential in a town, name it
something like "residential buildings" and finally remove the tags from
those buildings. I hope nobody thinks this would be a good idea.

I m would never do anything like that. If you can follow my reasoning,
you'll see that for the example you're using my argument would say that
those ways that comprise the buildings would stay on those ways and not on
the relation. That's' because the object "building" requires a way that is
tagged specifically as a building and as such, according to my reasoning,
properly belongs on the way and only on the way. If the buildings are part
of a group that is an entity, like a university for example, then create a
relation and place its name there along with whatever other tags apply to
the university as a whole; owner, website, etc., and then add the building
ways to it. The tags for the buildings, each with the tags that apply to
it, be it office, dormitory, whatever, are placed on the way only and the
buildings render as they do if even if they were not part of a relation.
One must look a little closer to determine that they're part of something
larger.

Gerd also said:

"I think Dave wants to use relations as a general method to remove
redundancy. The idea is not new and I think there similar discussions
before. I think one of the arguments against it was that many editors are
not able to handle relations good enough, I fear this is still true. I think
the same problem is on the consumer side'

Not at all. Using relations properly could indeed reduce redundancy, and
that was the goal of my editing of the Alaska pipeline, but my aim for
starting this thread was to discuss relations and learn to use them better.

Also, Gert mentioned rendering. Let me repeat what I said earlier in this
thread about rendering. Rendering, while it's an important concern for all
of us, really shouldn't be a part of this discussion. We're trying to learn
how to best use a very powerful method of mapping a complex world. Whether
or not something shows up on the map (is rendered) is not what I'm talking
about here.



On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 4:15 PM Gerd Petermann <
gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If we follow Daves idea one might create a relation combining a few things
> that have the same tag, e.g. all building=residential in a town, name it
> something like "residential buildings" and finally remove the tags from
> those buildings. I hope nobody thinks this would be a good idea.
>
> Reg. the TAP pipeline (I was the complaining user that Dave mentioned): I
> did not even know that something like a route=pipeline exists before I saw
> that Dave removed the tags from the member way. The same seems to be true
> for JOSM developers because the way is no longer rendered as a pipeline in
> JOSM.
> Well, that might be something that should be fixed in JOSM.
>
> I think Dave wants to use relations as a general method to remove
> redundancy. The idea is not new and I think there similar discussions
> before. I think one of the arguments against it was that many editors are
> not able to handle relations good enough, I fear this is still true. I
> think
> the same problem is on the consumer side:
> A renderer or routing app has to know which types of relations might
> contain
> information that has to be transferred to the members, it cannot do that
> with a simple rule like "if a way is the member of a relation, copy all
> attributes of the relation to the way". Just think about cases where a
> highway is member of several route relations.
> So, if one starts to remove tags from members because the relation repeats
> the tag he has to make sure that this is a well established method. Not
> sure
> if this is the case for pipelines?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

[Mateusz Konieczny]

4. Nov 2018 14:43 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :


>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 4. Nov 2018, at 14:21, SelfishSeahorse <>> selfishseaho...@gmail.com 
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> 'Land owned by the government, but not used for governing'
>
>
> doesn’t this make it hard to verify? I would not insist on the ownership at 
> all in the definition, the tag is about land used by government.




 This is in an exclusion list.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Nov 2018, at 14:21, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
> 
> 'Land owned by the government, but not used for governing'


doesn’t this make it hard to verify? I would not insist on the ownership at all 
in the definition, the tag is about land used by government.

Cheers,
Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - emergency=fire_alarm_box

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Nov 2018, at 01:32, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> Do we also use this tag to tag the "In case of fire, break glass" alarms eg 
> https://goo.gl/images/4qVSgc, that are found throughout public access 
> buildings eg hospitals, high rise offices, hotels, universities etc?


it is exactly the same thing . I would also include those in private buildings, 
there’s no difference. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

[SelfishSeahorse]

Hi Mateusz,

Thank you for your feedback!

> "for marking government premises" sounds like replacement of office=* tag

I've changed the definition (back) to 'land used by government bodies
/ for governing'.

> Current definitions "This excludes: (...) Land ''owned'' by the government" 
> means that
> parliament complex owned by government is not landuse=government.

I've changed this to:

'Land owned by the government, but not used for governing'

Hope it's clearer now.

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Allan Mustard]

The Commodity Credit Corporation is the U.S. equivalent of a British
"crown corporation".  It has no staff of its own, a board of directors
that consists of the senior political appointees of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, and authority to disburse funds to farmers eligible for
various government programs.  It has many statutory duties and
authorities to provide credit and subsidies, dating back to legislation
first passed in the Great Depression.  Programs are implemented by USDA
(i.e., government) employees under these authorities.  It is about as
far from a commercial enterprise as one can imagine--not even
"pseudo-commercial"!  In WTO terms, it is the U.S. government's
"national paying agency" for agriculture and so by international treaty
is considered a government agency, even though it is incorporated in
Delaware as a corporation, has a board of directors, and so on.  If the
CCC had an office, it would be tagged office=government, but since CCC
only exists on paper, we mappers don't really have to worry about it :-)

On 11/4/2018 3:52 PM, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> The answer will depend on whether we are talking about landuse,
> building, office or amenity.
>
> Waste disposal is (in Europe) usually a statutory task, performed by a
> commercial company on behalf of some government. If it is open to the
> public, then the "amenity" provided is waste disposal / recycling. The
> landuse is probably something like "waste disposal" or "industrial",
> similar to how landfill sites might be tagged. The "office" belongs to
> the commercial company, so that is not governmental.
>
> Other areas where this (outsourcing of statutory duties) is
> commonplace (that I know of) include public transport, administration
> of visa applications, healthcare provision, assessment of benefits
> claims, and operation of highways/infrastructure.
>
> Government-owned companies like a brewery are IMHO nothing to do with
> the execution of statutory tasks and are therefore not governmental in
> any way, shape or form.
>
> In the example of the Credit Corporation, does some government
> organisation have a statutory duty to provide credit? Or does it come
> under something more general like "protecting the poor"? Would the
> government be "failing in its statutory duty" if thie company
> disappeared? Otherwise it sounds like an optional, pseudo-commercial
> venture which in this case happens to be bankrolled by the government.
>
>  
>
>
> On 2018-11-04 11:13, Warin wrote:
>
>> Where do you draw the line?
>> If a 'government company' has 50% of its income from a government
>> allocation and the rest from elsewhere (e.g. contracts with private
>> companies/individuals) is it 'government' or not?
>>
>>  On 04/11/18 20:19, Allan Mustard wrote:
>>>
>>> If it is a profitable company that adds to the government's coffers,
>>> such as the Budvar brewery in the Czech Republic, which is
>>> government owned, I'd say no.  It should be tagged as a brewery. 
>>> Same logic would apply to Rosoboronexport, which is Russia's
>>> second-largest revenue earner as an arms exporter.  Petronas, the
>>> Malaysian government gas and oil company, should be tagged as a gas
>>> and oil company.  Same for Pemex, Petroleo Mexicano, as well as the
>>> grocery stores the Bangladeshi army operates.
>>>
>>> If it is a budget-dependent company/corporation, such as the
>>> Commodity Credit Corporation of the U.S. government, which generates
>>> no revenue of its own and relies wholly on appropriations from the
>>> U.S. Congress, yes, it should be tagged government.  As Deep Throat
>>> said, "Follow the money!"
>>>
>>> apm-wa
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/4/2018 1:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
 sent from a phone

> On 4. Nov 2018, at 05:54, Allan Mustard  wrote:
>
> Paul, as Deep Throat told Bob Woodward, "Follow the money."  Who pays the 
> rent on the office and who pays the salary of the occupant?  If the 
> filthy lucre comes out of the government budget, and the office is used 
> by someone drawing a government salary (as all executives, legislators, 
> and judges do, or are supposed to, at least) then it is a government 
> office.
 what about government owned companies? Should they get a government tag?

 Cheers, Martin 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> 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 - RFC - (consulate)

[egil]

On 2018-11-01 20:12, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 11:14 AM Allan Mustard > wrote:


* shift to office=diplomatic and use the existing diplomatic=*
additional (secondary) tag to specify whether embassy, consulate,
or other, then use embassy, consulate and other as additional
(tertiary) tags to specify further the type of diplomatic or
non-diplomatic mission as needed.


This is my preferred option for the following reasons:
1. It reuses the existing office=* primary key, which is already in 
use (for example, by the main OSM tile layer), as opposed to 
introducing diplomatic=* as a primary key. Furthermore, I am in favor 
of not having too many top-level primary keys unless they make a lot 
of sense (like healthcare=* which is a really broad category, so it 
makes sense to break this off as a primary key).
2. It does not clutter the overused amenity=* key and allows renderers 
and users to treat diplomatic and quasi-diplomatic objects in the same 
way and in a simpler way as opposed to tagging amenity=[embassy, 
consulate, ].
3. The three values for the secondary tag diplomatic=[embassy, 
consulate, other] plus adding further details to [embassy, consulate, 
other]=* makes it easy for mappers to add the level of detail they are 
comfortable with. If a mapper is unsure what the object is, they can 
just tag it as office=diplomatic. Then other slightly more 
knowledgeable mappers can specify diplomatic=*, which seems enough for 
most casual map users. Then other really knowledgeable mappers can 
further add [embassy, consulate, other]=* for even more detail and 
more specialized mapping applications.


+1

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Colin Smale]

The answer will depend on whether we are talking about landuse,
building, office or amenity. 

Waste disposal is (in Europe) usually a statutory task, performed by a
commercial company on behalf of some government. If it is open to the
public, then the "amenity" provided is waste disposal / recycling. The
landuse is probably something like "waste disposal" or "industrial",
similar to how landfill sites might be tagged. The "office" belongs to
the commercial company, so that is not governmental. 

Other areas where this (outsourcing of statutory duties) is commonplace
(that I know of) include public transport, administration of visa
applications, healthcare provision, assessment of benefits claims, and
operation of highways/infrastructure. 

Government-owned companies like a brewery are IMHO nothing to do with
the execution of statutory tasks and are therefore not governmental in
any way, shape or form. 

In the example of the Credit Corporation, does some government
organisation have a statutory duty to provide credit? Or does it come
under something more general like "protecting the poor"? Would the
government be "failing in its statutory duty" if thie company
disappeared? Otherwise it sounds like an optional, pseudo-commercial
venture which in this case happens to be bankrolled by the government.

On 2018-11-04 11:13, Warin wrote:

> Where do you draw the line?
> 
> If a 'government company' has 50% of its income from a government allocation 
> and the rest from elsewhere (e.g. contracts with private 
> companies/individuals) is it 'government' or not?
> 
> On 04/11/18 20:19, Allan Mustard wrote: 
> 
> If it is a profitable company that adds to the government's coffers, such as 
> the Budvar brewery in the Czech Republic, which is government owned, I'd say 
> no.  It should be tagged as a brewery.  Same logic would apply to 
> Rosoboronexport, which is Russia's second-largest revenue earner as an arms 
> exporter.  Petronas, the Malaysian government gas and oil company, should be 
> tagged as a gas and oil company.  Same for Pemex, Petroleo Mexicano, as well 
> as the grocery stores the Bangladeshi army operates.
> 
> If it is a budget-dependent company/corporation, such as the Commodity Credit 
> Corporation of the U.S. government, which generates no revenue of its own and 
> relies wholly on appropriations from the U.S. Congress, yes, it should be 
> tagged government.  As Deep Throat said, "Follow the money!" 
> 
> apm-wa 
> On 11/4/2018 1:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> On 4. Nov 2018, at 05:54, Allan Mustard  wrote:
> 
> Paul, as Deep Throat told Bob Woodward, "Follow the money."  Who pays the 
> rent on the office and who pays the salary of the occupant?  If the filthy 
> lucre comes out of the government budget, and the office is used by someone 
> drawing a government salary (as all executives, legislators, and judges do, 
> or are supposed to, at least) then it is a government office.
> 
> what about government owned companies? Should they get a government tag?
> 
> Cheers, Martin

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

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

4. Nov 2018 06:36 by daveswarth...@gmail.com :
> I realize it can be done this way but it's a ton of work (quote: not very 
> easy) compared to making one simple edit to tag the entire collection of 
> ways. 




I would not call clicking three or four times "ton of work". 


 

> I simply cannot understand why anyone would prefer this method over the much 
> easier one of merely adding or editing a tag in the relation. 




It may be slightly more easier to mass edit tags, but it is very rare operation.




It is more typical to check meaning of existing object (the most common for 
most of mappers)


or to edit parts of the entire object.




Splitting tagging into relation and individual ways is making it much harder.


 

> As for your comment:  "half of tags > is>  here, half in this > relation> "; 
> frankly that problem wouldn't exist if people were tagging relations properly 
> in the first place.
>

I referred to idea of removing tags from individual ways (like 
man_made=pipeline) andkeeping them only in relation.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

4. Nov 2018 10:14 by gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com 
:


> So, if one starts to remove tags from members because the relation repeats
> the tag he has to make sure that this is a well established method. Not sure
> if this is the case for pipelines?
>




It is not a well established method for pipelines. 

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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Warin]

Where do you draw the line?

If a 'government company' has 50% of its income from a government 
allocation and the rest from elsewhere (e.g. contracts with private 
companies/individuals) is it 'government' or not?



 On 04/11/18 20:19, Allan Mustard wrote:


If it is a profitable company that adds to the government's coffers, 
such as the Budvar brewery in the Czech Republic, which is government 
owned, I'd say no.  It should be tagged as a brewery.  Same logic 
would apply to Rosoboronexport, which is Russia's second-largest 
revenue earner as an arms exporter.  Petronas, the Malaysian 
government gas and oil company, should be tagged as a gas and oil 
company.  Same for Pemex, Petroleo Mexicano, as well as the grocery 
stores the Bangladeshi army operates.


If it is a budget-dependent company/corporation, such as the Commodity 
Credit Corporation of the U.S. government, which generates no revenue 
of its own and relies wholly on appropriations from the U.S. Congress, 
yes, it should be tagged government.  As Deep Throat said, "Follow the 
money!"


apm-wa


On 11/4/2018 1:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

sent from a phone


On 4. Nov 2018, at 05:54, Allan Mustard  wrote:

Paul, as Deep Throat told Bob Woodward, "Follow the money."  Who pays the rent 
on the office and who pays the salary of the occupant?  If the filthy lucre comes out of 
the government budget, and the office is used by someone drawing a government salary (as 
all executives, legislators, and judges do, or are supposed to, at least) then it is a 
government office.

what about government owned companies? Should they get a government tag?

Cheers, Martin




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



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Current definitions "This excludes: (...) Land ''owned'' by the government" 
means thatparliament complex owned by government is not landuse=government.
"Excludes" should be replaced by something like "This is not sufficient to 
classify as thislanduse by itself" (but in way that is understandable).

4. Nov 2018 10:59 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com 
:


> Are there any more comments on the proposal? Otherwise i'd like to start 
> voting.
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=governmental

[Mateusz Konieczny]

link: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dgovernmental 


I think that proposal is not making clear that it should be used for areas of 
land wherethis land use dominates.
"for marking government premises" sounds like replacement of office=* tag

4. Nov 2018 10:59 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com 
:


> Hello!
>
> I've made following additions to the proposal:
>
> * Addition of the new tag
> governmental=legislature/executive/judiciary for specifying the
> governmental branch.
> * Reuse of the existing tag admin_level=* for indicating the
> administrative level (country, state, municipal etc.).
>
> Are there any more comments on the proposal? Otherwise i'd like to start 
> voting.
>
> Have a nice day!
> Markus
>
> ___
> 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 - RFC - landuse=governmental

[SelfishSeahorse]

Hello!

I've made following additions to the proposal:

* Addition of the new tag
governmental=legislature/executive/judiciary for specifying the
governmental branch.
* Reuse of the existing tag admin_level=* for indicating the
administrative level (country, state, municipal etc.).

Are there any more comments on the proposal? Otherwise i'd like to start voting.

Have a nice day!
Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tramtrack on highway=

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Nov 2018, at 09:12, Nikulainen, Jukka K  
> wrote:
> 
> As Mateusz mentioned it might be better to use a more general tag for 
> tramtracks on a highway than just an access-key for bicyclists.
> 
> On the other hand, the real danger of the indents in the tracks is really 
> only applicable for bicyclists.


dangerous situations should not be mapped with access restrictions, unless the 
restrictions legally apply 


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Nov 2018, at 05:54, Allan Mustard  wrote:
> 
> Paul, as Deep Throat told Bob Woodward, "Follow the money."  Who pays the 
> rent on the office and who pays the salary of the occupant?  If the filthy 
> lucre comes out of the government budget, and the office is used by someone 
> drawing a government salary (as all executives, legislators, and judges do, 
> or are supposed to, at least) then it is a government office.


what about government owned companies? Should they get a government tag?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tramtrack on highway=

[Warin]

On 04/11/18 19:12, Nikulainen, Jukka K wrote:

Hi all!

Thank you for all for good points and special thanks to Mateusz for the 
pictures and further proposals! Sorry for the delay in my replies.

As Mateusz mentioned it might be better to use a more general tag for 
tramtracks on a highway than just an access-key for bicyclists.

On the other hand, the real danger of the indents in the tracks is really only 
applicable for bicyclists. Furthermore, although car drivers might be 
interested to know that there might be trams operating on the highway, the 
tracks are a permanent feature of the road and pose a threat to bicyclists 
_all_ the time.

But the more I think about it, the more I find myself attracted to Mateusz's 
point. Would a more general tag enjoy greater success in voting, do you think?


j

They are also a threat/dangerous to scooters and motorcycles.


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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for an office of the local representative to parliament

[Allan Mustard]

If it is a profitable company that adds to the government's coffers,
such as the Budvar brewery in the Czech Republic, which is government
owned, I'd say no.  It should be tagged as a brewery.  Same logic would
apply to Rosoboronexport, which is Russia's second-largest revenue
earner as an arms exporter.  Petronas, the Malaysian government gas and
oil company, should be tagged as a gas and oil company.  Same for Pemex,
Petroleo Mexicano, as well as the grocery stores the Bangladeshi army
operates.

If it is a budget-dependent company/corporation, such as the Commodity
Credit Corporation of the U.S. government, which generates no revenue of
its own and relies wholly on appropriations from the U.S. Congress, yes,
it should be tagged government.  As Deep Throat said, "Follow the money!"

apm-wa


On 11/4/2018 1:29 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 4. Nov 2018, at 05:54, Allan Mustard  wrote:
>>
>> Paul, as Deep Throat told Bob Woodward, "Follow the money."  Who pays the 
>> rent on the office and who pays the salary of the occupant?  If the filthy 
>> lucre comes out of the government budget, and the office is used by someone 
>> drawing a government salary (as all executives, legislators, and judges do, 
>> or are supposed to, at least) then it is a government office.
>
> what about government owned companies? Should they get a government tag?
>
> Cheers, Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag named group of named water areas?

[Gerd Petermann]

If we follow Daves idea one might create a relation combining a few things
that have the same tag, e.g. all building=residential in a town, name it
something like "residential buildings" and finally remove the tags from
those buildings. I hope nobody thinks this would be a good idea.

Reg. the TAP pipeline (I was the complaining user that Dave mentioned): I
did not even know that something like a route=pipeline exists before I saw
that Dave removed the tags from the member way. The same seems to be true
for JOSM developers because the way is no longer rendered as a pipeline in
JOSM.
Well, that might be something that should be fixed in JOSM.

I think Dave wants to use relations as a general method to remove
redundancy. The idea is not new and I think there similar discussions
before. I think one of the arguments against it was that many editors are
not able to handle relations good enough, I fear this is still true. I think
the same problem is on the consumer side:
A renderer or routing app has to know which types of relations might contain
information that has to be transferred to the members, it cannot do that
with a simple rule like "if a way is the member of a relation, copy all
attributes of the relation to the way". Just think about cases where a
highway is member of several route relations.
So, if one starts to remove tags from members because the relation repeats
the tag he has to make sure that this is a well established method. Not sure
if this is the case for pipelines?




--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tramtrack on highway=

[Nikulainen, Jukka K]

Hi all!

Thank you for all for good points and special thanks to Mateusz for the 
pictures and further proposals! Sorry for the delay in my replies.

As Mateusz mentioned it might be better to use a more general tag for 
tramtracks on a highway than just an access-key for bicyclists.

On the other hand, the real danger of the indents in the tracks is really only 
applicable for bicyclists. Furthermore, although car drivers might be 
interested to know that there might be trams operating on the highway, the 
tracks are a permanent feature of the road and pose a threat to bicyclists 
_all_ the time.

But the more I think about it, the more I find myself attracted to Mateusz's 
point. Would a more general tag enjoy greater success in voting, do you think?

Sincerely,
Jukka (Tolstoi21)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging