Re: [Tagging] motorcycle tagging

[Allan Mustard]

To be clear, it is not my proposal and I cannot even ride a motorcycle.

The mapper making the wholesale changes, ti-lo/Rtfm,  should submit a
proposal, period, since it appears the issue involves wholesale change of
existing tags, not introduction of new tags.

It may not be a "requirement" but it is the polite or communally proper
thing to do.  If I did it, he can do it.

cheers,
apm



On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 8:01 PM Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> I have been contacted at least twice by user:ti-lo about changing the
> tagging of several motorcycle shops I've added over the years. He is a bit
> of an evangelist for the new scheme yet has always been polite while asking
> to change my tags. Recently, I checked to see if the tags were documented
> in the Wiki and learned that the "new tagging" scheme aligned with his
> recommendations. I like the scheme and have always said, sure, go ahead
> never thinking that the Wiki had been modified by him (as user:Rtfm) to
> push the scheme he favors.
>
> I don't think it's good policy to discourage mappers from coming up with a
> new tagging scheme. However, such wholesale changes should be discussed
> fully here and perhaps elsewhere but, as someone else pointed out, trying
> to get anything approved by the tagging list is a long struggle that often
> ends in stalemate. I have often been frustrated by the endless
> deliberations that occur on this list when even a relatively small change
> in tagging has been suggested.
>
> Consequently, my opinion about what to do is mixed. Certainly, a full
> discussion is warranted before going ahead.
>
> Best,
> Dave
>
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 5:48 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 06/01/19 06:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> >
>> > sent from a phone
>> >
>> >> On 5. Jan 2019, at 08:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Not mandatory in OSM ... "Any tags you like".
>> >
>> > you can use any tags you like in your mapping, but that doesn’t imply
>> “changing” tags. It is one thing adding motorcycle:* tags, and another
>> removing “old style” tags.
>> > Or changing the value of a “standard key” from something well known to
>> something “new” (not established) (provided the well known value applies
>> according to common understanding).
>>
>> Thanks for reading the words and not adding to there meaning :)
>>
>> I too do not encourage changing current tags to some other tag. Only with
>> depreciated tags would I encourage there replacement with more current tag
>> use.
>>
>> >
>> > And it doesn’t imply changing the tagging recommendations in the wiki
>> unilaterally. You can do this on your user page, but not in the common
>> space.
>> >
>> > I agree with Allan’s proposition and ask him to set up a proposal.
>>
>> Rather than 'set up a proposal' I would ask the contributor (and that is
>> not Allen) to discuss the matter here.
>>
>> Possible problems are that the contributor does not have good English
>> skills and maybe reactant to enter into that problem area combined with the
>> problem of tagging.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=taxi vehicle type

[Dave Swarthout]

In Alaska, which is largely roadless, there are countless air-taxis and
many water-taxis.

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 7:45 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 5. Jan 2019, at 01:58, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
> Alternately, we could use amenity=motorcycle_taxi and amenity=pedicab(? is
> this the British terminology?)
>
>
>
> there are also water taxis (with boats),  Venice comes to mind, but there
> are also others.
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_taxi
>
> Cheers, Martin
> ___
> 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] motorcycle tagging

[Dave Swarthout]

I have been contacted at least twice by user:ti-lo about changing the
tagging of several motorcycle shops I've added over the years. He is a bit
of an evangelist for the new scheme yet has always been polite while asking
to change my tags. Recently, I checked to see if the tags were documented
in the Wiki and learned that the "new tagging" scheme aligned with his
recommendations. I like the scheme and have always said, sure, go ahead
never thinking that the Wiki had been modified by him (as user:Rtfm) to
push the scheme he favors.

I don't think it's good policy to discourage mappers from coming up with a
new tagging scheme. However, such wholesale changes should be discussed
fully here and perhaps elsewhere but, as someone else pointed out, trying
to get anything approved by the tagging list is a long struggle that often
ends in stalemate. I have often been frustrated by the endless
deliberations that occur on this list when even a relatively small change
in tagging has been suggested.

Consequently, my opinion about what to do is mixed. Certainly, a full
discussion is warranted before going ahead.

Best,
Dave

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 5:48 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 06/01/19 06:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 5. Jan 2019, at 08:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Not mandatory in OSM ... "Any tags you like".
> >
> > you can use any tags you like in your mapping, but that doesn’t imply
> “changing” tags. It is one thing adding motorcycle:* tags, and another
> removing “old style” tags.
> > Or changing the value of a “standard key” from something well known to
> something “new” (not established) (provided the well known value applies
> according to common understanding).
>
> Thanks for reading the words and not adding to there meaning :)
>
> I too do not encourage changing current tags to some other tag. Only with
> depreciated tags would I encourage there replacement with more current tag
> use.
>
> >
> > And it doesn’t imply changing the tagging recommendations in the wiki
> unilaterally. You can do this on your user page, but not in the common
> space.
> >
> > I agree with Allan’s proposition and ask him to set up a proposal.
>
> Rather than 'set up a proposal' I would ask the contributor (and that is
> not Allen) to discuss the matter here.
>
> Possible problems are that the contributor does not have good English
> skills and maybe reactant to enter into that problem area combined with the
> problem of tagging.
>
>
> ___
> 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] amenity=taxi vehicle type

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Jan 2019, at 01:58, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> 
> Alternately, we could use amenity=motorcycle_taxi and amenity=pedicab(? is 
> this the British terminology?) 


there are also water taxis (with boats),  Venice comes to mind, but there are 
also others.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_taxi

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=taxi vehicle type

[Warin]

On 06/01/19 10:25, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

On 05.01.2019 23:55, Warin wrote:
But 'type' does not say much. Better to specify what type of 'type' 
is to be used :)


In this case it is the type of vehicle.. so taxi_vehicle= 
car/motorcycle/rickshaw/* ?


Thanks, I consider that the best idea so far!


I just don't like 'type' .. glad you like the suggested change. If it is 
the 'best suggestion' then your doing very well.




On 05.01.2019 16:13, Dolly Andriatsiferana wrote:
> wouldn't it be preferable using a different value of amenity=* or
> something else and leave amenity=taxi for "taxis"?

Using a new amenity value for a feature that we currently have about 
300x in the database
leads to further tag fragmentation. According to previous discussion 
the alternative vehicles

are indeed called motorcycle taxi etc.

So, amenity=taxi lets the data consumer evaluate individual 
transportation for hire, and taxi_vehicle specifies it in more detail.


tom

___
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] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

[Warin]

On 06/01/19 09:29, Richard wrote:

On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 08:52:58PM +, Paul Allen wrote:

noticed that there is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disabilities

This could be improved to add more details but I wonder if it would not
become too big? It looks overloaded already now.


Agreed it is overloaded ... and much of it is links to outside of OSMwiki. Not 
much use to an OSM mapper.

The page could be about those OSM tags that are relevant for Disabled features,
how to map these things .. not about 'missing tags' nor "information relevant for 
disabled persons"

Perhaps a new page - "Mapping accessibility"?
And it could start with something like "This page is_only_  to document OSM tags of 
use to map features that provide accessibility for disabled people."

The format of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway could be used as 
a good start?



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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=taxi vehicle type

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 05.01.2019 23:55, Warin wrote:

But 'type' does not say much. Better to specify what type of 'type' is to be 
used :)

In this case it is the type of vehicle.. so taxi_vehicle= 
car/motorcycle/rickshaw/* ?


Thanks, I consider that the best idea so far!

On 05.01.2019 16:13, Dolly Andriatsiferana wrote:
> wouldn't it be preferable using a different value of amenity=* or
> something else and leave amenity=taxi for "taxis"?

Using a new amenity value for a feature that we currently have about 300x in 
the database
leads to further tag fragmentation. According to previous discussion the 
alternative vehicles
are indeed called motorcycle taxi etc.

So, amenity=taxi lets the data consumer evaluate individual transportation for hire, and 
taxi_vehicle specifies it in more detail.


tom

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=taxi vehicle type

[Warin]

On 05/01/19 21:27, Tobias Knerr wrote:


On 05.01.19 02:19, Warin wrote:

On 05/01/19 10:34, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

taxi_type = car|motorcycle|rickshaw, etc,

What does 'type' add to the above?

The key taxi=* is already in use to tag access permission for taxi
vehicles, with values such as yes|no|designated|destination|permissive.


Good point!



So adding a "_type" here avoids clashing with an existing key that has a
different meaning and a different set of values.


But 'type' does not say much. Better to specify what type of 'type' is to be 
used :)

In this case it is the type of vehicle.. so taxi_vehicle= 
car/motorcycle/rickshaw/* ?


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

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle tagging

[Warin]

On 06/01/19 06:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 5. Jan 2019, at 08:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not mandatory in OSM ... "Any tags you like".


you can use any tags you like in your mapping, but that doesn’t imply 
“changing” tags. It is one thing adding motorcycle:* tags, and another removing 
“old style” tags.
Or changing the value of a “standard key” from something well known to 
something “new” (not established) (provided the well known value applies 
according to common understanding).


Thanks for reading the words and not adding to there meaning :)

I too do not encourage changing current tags to some other tag. Only with 
depreciated tags would I encourage there replacement with more current tag use.



And it doesn’t imply changing the tagging recommendations in the wiki 
unilaterally. You can do this on your user page, but not in the common space.

I agree with Allan’s proposition and ask him to set up a proposal.


Rather than 'set up a proposal' I would ask the contributor (and that is not 
Allen) to discuss the matter here.

Possible problems are that the contributor does not have good English skills 
and maybe reactant to enter into that problem area combined with the problem of 
tagging.


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

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle tagging

[Warin]

On 06/01/19 04:07, Paul Allen wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 16:33, Hufkratzer > wrote:


Oh, this was new to me; I thought the rule "Any tags you like" only
applies to adding additional tags in the database and not to changing
old tags or to rewrite the documentation. I will keep that in mind.


Yeah, I thought that too.  And it's not so much a guiding principal as 
an admission of laxity.
Nobody can stop you inventing and using any tag you want, but it is 
most certainly NOT
encouraged.  It is preferred that you discuss it here first, and go 
through a formal proposal, in
order to prevent multiple tags for the same objects and/or 
poorly-conceived tags.  We can't

stop you making tags up all by yourself, but we'd prefer it if you didn't.


There is no requirement not to use any new tag that you like. Nor is 
there a requirement to document it.


What 'we' would like is another matter.
As for 'encouragement' the proposal process and then the voting reality 
is far from any from or 'encouragement' .. more like a torture path,
look at the rejected proposals and the way that votes were cast by 
people who took no part in the discussions.


What I would like is some discussion here first. I would highly 
encourage that and have done so in the past.
Then the person can make a decision - used it and document it or make a 
formal proposal.
I no longer encourage people to the tagging list, and certainly not to 
the proposal process.




As for inventing a new tag to replace existing tagging and then going 
around changing existing
tags without consultation, that is borderline vandalism (no matter how 
well conceived your new tag
is).  And then changing the wiki to match your new scheme that you 
discussed with nobody in
order to provide a veneer of retro-active justification, I do consider 
that to be vandalism.  OSM may
be a bit anarchical, but it cannot function unless it is a consensual 
anarchy.


That was not my intent! I quote
-

On 5.1.2019 08:25, Warin wrote:
On 05/01/19 12:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Yes, should definitely be a full proposal & discussion before a major 
change is pushed through by one user.


Not mandatory in OSM ... "Any tags you like".

--
By that I mean "Not mandatory to make a full proposal & discuss before 
introducing new tags. "

I do condone the use of new tags on new entries.




I do not consider this particular advice from Warin to be helpful or 
to reflect the majority opinion.


I do not condone the replacement of tags by new tags that have not been 
discussed and resolved into one being a suitable replacement for the other.

Such discussion should take place on this tagging list  (not elsewhere!).



I hope that is clear?

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

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

[Richard]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 08:52:58PM +, Paul Allen wrote:

noticed that there is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disabilities

This could be improved to add more details but I wonder if it would not 
become too big? It looks overloaded already now.

Richard


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

[Christoph Hormann]

For understanding of the Florida physical geography - Cape Canaveral is 
located here

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4887735121

USGS topos identify another cape - unmapped in OSM - slightly northwest 
called the 'False Cape' (somewhat generic term for capes that are 
likely mistaken for the real thing from the sea) near here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5316727559

The area Cape Canaveral AFS is built on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7384620

is called Canaveral Peninsula (unmapped in OSM - see USGS topos as well) 
which is part of Merritt Island.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

[Richard]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 08:52:58PM +, Paul Allen wrote:

> You should bear in mind that requiring a wheelchair is just ONE form of
> disability that merits the
> use of special parking or other facilities.  Which is why many people would
> search for "disabled"
> rather than "wheelchair."  And why parking spaces, at least in the UK, are
> signed as "disabled
> parking" (or "anabl" in Welsh).

yes, a list of synonyms like handicapped and redirects would make things easier 
to find.
Or maybe a handicapped/disabled portal page.

I think many people start searching at the wheelchair page because it is
mentioned in many other wiki pages.

Richard



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 05 January 2019, Markus wrote:
>
> I'm aware of this. I just wanted to be be sure that i don't introduce
> a tag that overlaps with the definition of another OSM tag – in this
> case natural=cape. But as natural=cape has almost exclusively been
> used for costal extreme points, there doesn't seem to be an overlap,
> even without the requirement of an isthmus.

Yes, de facto use of natural=cape was at least until recently for a very 
narrow set of features.  And it would be good for data quality if that 
would stay this way.  Therefore it is good if there is an alternative 
in the form of natural=peninsula that can be used by mappers who want 
to map something that might be called a 'cape' or some similar term in 
a different language but that is not a natural=cape for OSM.

Accordingly it would be good if the suggestion is not: Use natural=cape 
for capes and natural=peninsula for peninsulas but if there is an 
discerning abstract definition that is language independent.

As written on the wiki natural=cape is essentially:

* seen from water: landmark at the coast to circumnavigate
* seen from land: coastal extreme point on land in a certain direction

What you will probably need to consider is how to distinguish 
natural=peninula from named parts of the coast or named coastal areas 
and if you want to include more specific coastal land forms like spits.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 05.01.2019 um 20:57 schrieb Peter Elderson:

I can see your argument.

First question: what's the harm in combining highway=trailhead and 
tourism=information? Note: I'm not asking this defensively or to 
advocate it, just want to understand where the problem lies.


First of all I think this mixes two distinct features into one as I 
described before: 1) the actual trail access, i. e. a point on the trail 
or a highway section leading to it and 2) the information infrastructure 
(information board, stele, you name it).




Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 12:23 schreef Tobias Wrede >:


I think the thought of the  old proposal was to mark the point on
a trail where to access it, hence hw=. Peter was more going in the
direction of marking the point where we find information on how to
access the trail (name, information board, sign, stele, ...),
hence tourism=information + information=.

I think we should stick to the good old OSM rule "one feature - one OSM 
element" 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element). 
Obviously, the highway access and the information can be very close by, 
but pointing again at the TOP examples I mentioned before it's not 
always the case. So I am really in favor in separating them.


Secondly, combining those makes it difficult for data consumers. Unless 
they explicitly search for the combination of highway=trailhead and 
tourism=information and treating the node separately, they might run 
into problems. A renderer could for example display all information 
boards on the map. But they might handle all highway elements before in 
their processing chain and hence ignore the second top level key tourism 
all together. In the end we would neither see the highway=trailhead nor 
the information=board on the map.


Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 20:42, Richard  wrote:

>
> because "disabled" was not mentioned very prominently in key:wheelchair
> before
> I edited it. Even though I knew "disabled" it is just one of the many
> things
> to try to search for and it simply didn't cross my mind. Btw for a computer
> scientist "disabled" rings the wrong bells.
>

You should bear in mind that requiring a wheelchair is just ONE form of
disability that merits the
use of special parking or other facilities.  Which is why many people would
search for "disabled"
rather than "wheelchair."  And why parking spaces, at least in the UK, are
signed as "disabled
parking" (or "anabl" in Welsh).

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

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

[Richard]

On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 01:51:51PM +0100, Georg Feddern wrote:
> Am 04.01.2019 um 23:22 schrieb Warin:
> >Possibly there needs to be a main wiki page for 'disabled' features
> >tagging, toilets, tactile paving, parking, access.
> >
> >On 05/01/19 07:58, Paul Allen wrote:
> >>On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 20:44, Richard  >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>looking through the wiki can't find how parking space designated
> >>for wheelchair/disabled users should be tagged?
> >>
> >>
> 
> Having a main page - and actualize it - is a really kind service.
> BTW: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wheelchair _is_ such a main
> page.

yes and I have added your valuable input there.

> But I do not understand, why people who look-and-not-found something in the
> wiki do not _search_ it.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=parking+disabled=Special:Search=default=1=43w1ocpu8z9o2545k2x9jn3vd
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=parking+wheelchair=Special:Search=default=1=bquqcdlt1bi3tzdtjohslf972

because "disabled" was not mentioned very prominently in key:wheelchair before 
I edited it. Even though I knew "disabled" it is just one of the many things 
to try to search for and it simply didn't cross my mind. Btw for a computer
scientist "disabled" rings the wrong bells.

Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 05.01.2019 o 13:06, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> natural=cape means what it is used for in OSM
> and this - at least until
>
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3452
>
> had nothing even remotely to do with peninsulas.  This meaning is 
> described on the wiki (and indeed i tried to make it reflect the actual 
> use):
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=cape


Sorry, but "piece of land" at the very heart of definition clearly
suggests area rather than node and using areas are allowed for this type
of object. In fact at high zoom level areas are basic, while nodes work
only as an approximation on lower zoom levels. You would not fit entire
Space Center if Cape Canaveral was really a node, for example. It can
only be viewed as a node when looking at the Florida scale.

All the peninsula/cape/etc. distinction is blurry "by design", because
it's how human tries to name/use the natural space, which is not
discrete in many cases:

"Peninsulas are not always named as such; one can also be a headland,
cape, island promontory, bill, point, or spit."

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula ]

We can just set some conventions, just like we do for stream/river or
monument/memorial.


-- 
"I see dead people" [Sixth Sense]



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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

I can see your argument.

First question: what's the harm in combining highway=trailhead and
tourism=information? Note: I'm not asking this defensively or to advocate
it, just want to understand where the problem lies.

Second: Separating these two keys is no problem in the Dutch situation. We
chose to use the exact location of the landmark/stele. Earlier mappers had
chosen to use the information board with a name-tag added. Some had used a
parking area or a node in the parking area with a name. Some thought the
pancake restaurant was the most important place and used that as a
location. Some used the rcn or rwn node nearby, ande some the starting node
of one of the routes. I've seen it all.

Now, in the Dutch situation, the information board is almost always within
a few meters of the landmark/stele and the waymarks/guideposts directing
the users to the routes. That makes those elements fit within one node.
There is a kind of logic in combining the tags within one one.
In other situations/countries, it would be logical to use another
combination or not combine it at all.

Unless there is an actual real problem, I see no reason to prescribe
anything here at this point. Let the mapper map as seems most fitting for
that situation/setup. If there is a real problem with the current Dutch
tagging, something actually going wrong because of it, I will repair it, as
long as we keep the a usable dataset.

I would like to first complete step one: finalize and document basic
tagging to provide consistent basic mapping and consistent data for
-searching (by name), -selecting (by tag), -listing (=filter by tag into a
table), -rendering trailheads.

Search by name works, (osm-carto shows that): check.

Select by tag works (overpass shows that): check

Listing works in principle (=overpass select): small check, because there
is currently no example. Well, I can select and list in JOSM, I think
that's an example but not for the consumers.

rendering: no check. It can easily be done  of course, it's just a POI,
but... oh well. Later.



Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 12:23 schreef Tobias Wrede :

> Am 04.01.2019 um 18:18 schrieb Peter Elderson:
>
> Let's agree to agree!
>
> Op vr 4 jan. 2019 om 16:52 schreef Kevin Kenny :
>
>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Peter Elderson 
>> wrote:
>> > I'm trying to go for the minimal tagging that supports the most of the
>> use cases. Which is a node tagged highway=trailhead. It's up to mappers /
>> communities if and how they will apply and embed that according to local,
>> regional or country-specific needs or definitions. Or maybe decide it's not
>> useful in that situation at all.
>>
>> If the definition is "a designated or customary place where a trip on
>> a trail begins or ends," I'm entirely on board.
>>
> I'm perfectly fine with this. Now an open question is still where to place
> this tag and how to combine it. The stalled hw=trailhead proposal
> specifically suggests to place a trailhead node alone or on a piece of
> highway: "A trailhead should be mapped as a node or a node that is part of
> a trail segment (i.e.,highway
> =path
> ) and should be
> tagged primarily as highway
> =trailhead
> ."
> At least I would rephrase that to something along "... or a node that is
> part of the trail segment or a highway leading to its trail(s)."
>
> More problematic is the question of combination. I'm pretty much opposed
> to giving this object two top level keys: highway=trailhead and
> tourism=information. I think the thought of the  old proposal was to mark
> the point on a trail where to access it, hence hw=. Peter was more going in
> the direction of marking the point where we find information on how to
> access the trail (name, information board, sign, stele, ...), hence
> tourism=information + information=.
>
> I would still try to separate the elements. We leave it with hw=trailhead
> + possibly a name + possibly including it in the route relation for the
> actual access point. Additionally, we map the amenities: information board,
> parking, toilets, picknick site etc. I'd welcome introducing something like
> tourism=information + information=trailhead or tourism=information +
> information=board + board_type=trailhead. Since a trailhead could be marked
> by other objects than a board the former might be more universal.
>
> For the dutch case that would mean removing the hw=trailhead from all the
> points and changing the tourism=... to something new we agree on.
>
> Tobias
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Jan 2019, at 08:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Not mandatory in OSM ... "Any tags you like".


you can use any tags you like in your mapping, but that doesn’t imply 
“changing” tags. It is one thing adding motorcycle:* tags, and another removing 
“old style” tags.
Or changing the value of a “standard key” from something well known to 
something “new” (not established) (provided the well known value applies 
according to common understanding).

And it doesn’t imply changing the tagging recommendations in the wiki 
unilaterally. You can do this on your user page, but not in the common space.

I agree with Allan’s proposition and ask him to set up a proposal.

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

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle tagging

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 16:33, Hufkratzer  wrote:

> Oh, this was new to me; I thought the rule "Any tags you like" only
> applies to adding additional tags in the database and not to changing
> old tags or to rewrite the documentation. I will keep that in mind.
>

Yeah, I thought that too.  And it's not so much a guiding principal as an
admission of laxity.
Nobody can stop you inventing and using any tag you want, but it is most
certainly NOT
encouraged.  It is preferred that you discuss it here first, and go through
a formal proposal, in
order to prevent multiple tags for the same objects and/or poorly-conceived
tags.  We can't
stop you making tags up all by yourself, but we'd prefer it if you didn't.

As for inventing a new tag to replace existing tagging and then going
around changing existing
tags without consultation, that is borderline vandalism (no matter how well
conceived your new tag
is).  And then changing the wiki to match your new scheme that you
discussed with nobody in
order to provide a veneer of retro-active justification, I do consider that
to be vandalism.  OSM may
be a bit anarchical, but it cannot function unless it is a consensual
anarchy.

I do not consider this particular advice from Warin to be helpful or to
reflect the majority opinion.

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

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle tagging

[Hufkratzer]

Oh, this was new to me; I thought the rule "Any tags you like" only 
applies to adding additional tags in the database and not to changing 
old tags or to rewrite the documentation. I will keep that in mind.


On 5.1.2019 08:25, Warin wrote:

On 05/01/19 12:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Yes, should definitely be a full proposal & discussion before a major 
change is pushed through by one user.


Not mandatory in OSM ... "Any tags you like".


___
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] Values in namespaces/prefixes/suffixes Considered Harmful - Or: Stop over-namespacing and prefix-fooling

[Markus]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 at 02:05, Stefan Keller  wrote:
>
> It's really turning processing of key-values (or key-value pairs KVP,
> entity-attribute-values EAV, dictionnaries, associative arrays, map
> collections, Hash stores/hstores) ad absurdum. In addition to the
> troubles of over-namespacing mentioned above there are following
> consequences of prefix-fooling - among others (sticking at the example
> "service:bicycle:retail=yes;service:bicycle:repair=yes;"):
>
> * Existing code to validate and cleanup values is in vain: One can't
> check with usual functions if a value is in range
> "retail,repair,second_hand".
> * Existing code to match is in vain too: Prefix-fooled keys pretend to
> have mixed cases (which they should'nt).
> * Worse, users still extend "yes/no" values to arbitrary values (which
> again makes processing unnecessarily complicated).
> * Even worse, users are encouraged to invent new sparsely used keys
> (which we can't prevent, but it's less harmful in the values).
> * Source code is flooded by boolean expressions (which would else be a
> single function) and need to be predefined in the code (instead of
> being put in values).
> * Values in namespaces/prefixes/suffixes are hard or impossible to
> search, match, count or group in computer languages, including SQL.

I'm a bit late but thank you, Stefan, for your explanation!

Regards, Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – crossing:island=*

[Markus]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 at 16:20, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
> I really like this solution, it removes one of
> conflicts in crossing tagging.

Thanks for your support!

Are there any other comments? Otherwise i'll open voting soon.

Regards, Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

https://www.google.nl/maps/@51.4398109,5.860274,3a,50.1y,252.66h,85.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smxyMZsRagjIZ1-b_02F3fA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=nl=0

Shows Natuurpoort De Peel. You see the brown oversized key which landmarks
the Natuurpoort series. You see an information board, with routing poles,
seats, and a place to get refreshments. The name is a separate board. Their
is parking space. The information baord and guideposts direct the users to
the routes, including the named hiking trail Hertogenpad.

Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 12:36 schreef Tobias Wrede :

> Am 03.01.2019 um 00:57 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> > Thanks for the comments. Please understand that the mentioned proposal
> > is not my proposal.
> >
> You were referring to it and in my opinion you tried to tweak it a bit
> too much for your purposes. But let's continue this on the other
> sub-thread. :-)
>
> >
> > To see the trails starting at one of these places you best look at
> > Nederland on waymarkedtrails. They all have multiple hiking/foot
> > routes and walking routes to hop on, and most support other modalities.
>
> I had looked at a few examples also on waymarkedtrails and often found
> no real trails nearby. e.g.:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092007#map=16/52.3836/5.6325
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=16!52.3836!5.6325
>
> or
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092027/#map=15/51.4414/5.8639
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=15!51.4414!5.8648
> (knooppuntennetwerk close by but not a named trail)
>
> The latter TOP is named "Natuurpoort De Peel". So I was wondering are
> these realy trailheads (in the sense of you can access some or several
> trails here) or are these just designated general recreation spots?
>
> Tobias
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=taxi vehicle type

[Dolly Andriatsiferana]

>
> In a way they are all related, just like buses, streetcars and subways are
> all forms of urban public transit, but I think most people do not expect a
> motorcycle when they look for a “taxi”?
>
+1
I wouldn't be comfortable to tag a station for rickshaws as amenity=taxi.
And then it renders on the map with a car icon. Unless there are stations
with mixed vehicle types (in Madagascar they always have separate dedicated
stations), wouldn't it be preferable using a different value of amenity=*
or something else and leave amenity=taxi for "taxis"?

Le sam. 5 janv. 2019 à 13:29, Tobias Knerr  a écrit :

> On 05.01.19 02:19, Warin wrote:
> > On 05/01/19 10:34, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> >> taxi_type = car|motorcycle|rickshaw, etc,
> >
> > What does 'type' add to the above?
>
> The key taxi=* is already in use to tag access permission for taxi
> vehicles, with values such as yes|no|designated|destination|permissive.
>
> So adding a "_type" here avoids clashing with an existing key that has a
> different meaning and a different set of values.
>
> ___
> 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] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

Haha, of course you can find some questionnable examples! The forst is a
very new TOP, they put it in place before the expected route changes. There
are some local routes and horse trails,  which are not recorded in OSM,
and it's part of the cycling node network. Cycling routre LF9 is there. And
access to watersports, though I wouldn't call that a "trail" unless there
are markings to follow by boat. (Other places do have canoe/rowing trails,
but I haven't seen those on this particular location.)

The "Natuurpoort" ('nature gate') is a different series from the TOPs. It
has no formal requirement as to hiking/cycling trails, but gives access to
areas we consider to be nature. The routes through the area start or pass
through this location. These include hiking trails, local trails, cycling
routes, horse routes, and sometimes other routes. Many of those are not
recorded in OSM, and there is no guarantee that any OSM route passes
through there.

The example you give is close to the cycling and hiking node networks. It
also serves the regional trail "Hertogenpad".

So both locations are actually there, including stele, information boards
and guideposts, and designed/designated and named for the purpose of
accessing various routes and trails.

If someone made a POI map or POI list for hikers and maybe a router app for
hikers, you would want these locations showed/listed/routed as well.


Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 12:36 schreef Tobias Wrede :

> Am 03.01.2019 um 00:57 schrieb Peter Elderson:
> > Thanks for the comments. Please understand that the mentioned proposal
> > is not my proposal.
> >
> You were referring to it and in my opinion you tried to tweak it a bit
> too much for your purposes. But let's continue this on the other
> sub-thread. :-)
>
> >
> > To see the trails starting at one of these places you best look at
> > Nederland on waymarkedtrails. They all have multiple hiking/foot
> > routes and walking routes to hop on, and most support other modalities.
>
> I had looked at a few examples also on waymarkedtrails and often found
> no real trails nearby. e.g.:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092007#map=16/52.3836/5.6325
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=16!52.3836!5.6325
>
> or
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092027/#map=15/51.4414/5.8639
> https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=15!51.4414!5.8648
> (knooppuntennetwerk close by but not a named trail)
>
> The latter TOP is named "Natuurpoort De Peel". So I was wondering are
> these realy trailheads (in the sense of you can access some or several
> trails here) or are these just designated general recreation spots?
>
> Tobias
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

[Georg Feddern]

Am 04.01.2019 um 23:22 schrieb Warin:
Possibly there needs to be a main wiki page for 'disabled' features 
tagging, toilets, tactile paving, parking, access.


On 05/01/19 07:58, Paul Allen wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 20:44, Richard > wrote:


looking through the wiki can't find how parking space designated
for wheelchair/disabled users should be tagged?




Having a main page - and actualize it - is a really kind service.
BTW: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wheelchair _is_ such a main 
page.


But I do not understand, why people who look-and-not-found something in 
the wiki do not _search_ it.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=parking+disabled=Special:Search=default=1=43w1ocpu8z9o2545k2x9jn3vd
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=parking+wheelchair=Special:Search=default=1=bquqcdlt1bi3tzdtjohslf972

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

[Markus]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 13:08, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
> To make this clear once again since this continues to be forgotten:  The
> meaning of tags in OSM does not necessarily have anything to do with
> the culture specific definition of the terms used for key and value
> from some dictionary.

I'm aware of this. I just wanted to be be sure that i don't introduce
a tag that overlaps with the definition of another OSM tag – in this
case natural=cape. But as natural=cape has almost exclusively been
used for costal extreme points, there doesn't seem to be an overlap,
even without the requirement of an isthmus.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 05 January 2019, Markus wrote:
>
> I originally included the requirement for an isthmus in order to have
> a clear differentiation from capes, as the broader definition of
> peninsulas without the requirement for an isthmus overlaps with the
> (broader) definition of capes, see e.g. Merriam-Webster:
>
> [...]

To make this clear once again since this continues to be forgotten:  The 
meaning of tags in OSM does not necessarily have anything to do with 
the culture specific definition of the terms used for key and value 
from some dictionary.  natural=cape means what it is used for in OSM 
and this - at least until

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3452

had nothing even remotely to do with peninsulas.  This meaning is 
described on the wiki (and indeed i tried to make it reflect the actual 
use):

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=cape

These are typical major capes:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/32532727
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2510985983
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2098928265
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4727612495
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2696775247

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] Trail register

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 05.01.2019 um 08:24 schrieb Warin:

On 05/01/19 14:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 07:23, Jmapb > wrote:


On 1/4/2019 4:10 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> Has anyone here tagged anything similar to the case I have in
mind of,
> "you must sign in/sign out/record your passage, and here's
where you
> do it?"

Personally I'd be inclined to ignore the legal thou-shalt-sign-in
aspects here and simply tag the register because it's a good
landmark.
Probably just "man_made=trail_register", keep it simple and
unambiguous.


We have a similar'ish set-up where you sometimes have to pay to take 
your car into various National Parks :-(


Err no that is a different thing entirely.
A trail register is to indicate your intention to start a walk or when 
completed that you have finished a walk. You give personal details - 
who you are, the date, when you expect to finish, possibly even ICE 
details (In Case of Emergency).


What Graeme is talking about is an entrance fee.
Similar to a car park where you have to pay at some place. 
man_made=payment_point? And link it using a site relation?


I agree. While both require you to register the intention and 
consequences are very different. Friend of mine who were canoeing on the 
Yukon many years ago told me they were required to register with the 
local police or ranger stations (don't remember exactly). So the 
register could also be an office not merely a book in a box. As such I 
also suggest to separate it from the tourism=register. I have never 
heard of registers in Kevin's sense in Austria so I am pretty sure they 
are the "I was here" type. They are pretty common there, often having 
stamps inside for you later getting a certificate showing up with a 
fully stamped booklet at the tourism office.


I would make up something new. Graem's suggestion is as good as any.

Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 03.01.2019 um 00:57 schrieb Peter Elderson:
Thanks for the comments. Please understand that the mentioned proposal 
is not my proposal.


You were referring to it and in my opinion you tried to tweak it a bit 
too much for your purposes. But let's continue this on the other 
sub-thread. :-)




To see the trails starting at one of these places you best look at 
Nederland on waymarkedtrails. They all have multiple hiking/foot 
routes and walking routes to hop on, and most support other modalities.


I had looked at a few examples also on waymarkedtrails and often found 
no real trails nearby. e.g.:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092007#map=16/52.3836/5.6325
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=16!52.3836!5.6325

or

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6141092027/#map=15/51.4414/5.8639
https://hiking.waymarkedtrails.org/#routelist?map=15!51.4414!5.8648 
(knooppuntennetwerk close by but not a named trail)


The latter TOP is named "Natuurpoort De Peel". So I was wondering are 
these realy trailheads (in the sense of you can access some or several 
trails here) or are these just designated general recreation spots?


Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

[Markus]

Thank you all for your feedback and please excuse my late reply.

On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 at 22:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
> I have concerns about the definition of peninsula that you've used "a piece 
> of land nearly surrounded by water and connected to a larger land area by an 
> isthmus, that is a narrow strip of land"
>
> I did see that definition, but most definitions of peninsula that I have 
> found don't mention the "narrow strip of land" eg peninsula:  A piece of land 
> projecting into water from a larger land mass; cape: A piece or point of 
> land, extending beyond the adjacent coast into a sea or lake; a promontory; a 
> headland.

I originally included the requirement for an isthmus in order to have
a clear differentiation from capes, as the broader definition of
peninsulas without the requirement for an isthmus overlaps with the
(broader) definition of capes, see e.g. Merriam-Webster:

'a point or extension of land jutting out into water as a peninsula or
as a projecting point'

However, it seems that natural=cape has mainly been used for costal
extreme points, so we still have a differentiation, which hopefully is
clear and objective enough.

I've updated the proposal page accordingly.

Regards, Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

[Markus]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 01:44, Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
>
I’d suggest encouraging mappers to use a node in the center of a large
peninsula, as is done for continents and seas, rather than trying to
map it as an area.

I've already added this comment in section Tagging:

'If it is unclear where the peninsula begins on the side where it is
connected to the larger land mass, it is recommended to not map it as
an area because of lack of verifiability.'

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 04.01.2019 um 18:18 schrieb Peter Elderson:

Let's agree to agree!

Op vr 4 jan. 2019 om 16:52 schreef Kevin Kenny 
mailto:kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>>:


On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 8:30 AM Peter Elderson mailto:pelder...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I'm trying to go for the minimal tagging that supports the most
of the use cases. Which is a node tagged highway=trailhead. It's
up to mappers / communities if and how they will apply and embed
that according to local, regional or country-specific needs or
definitions. Or maybe decide it's not useful in that situation at all.

If the definition is "a designated or customary place where a trip on
a trail begins or ends," I'm entirely on board.

I'm perfectly fine with this. Now an open question is still where to 
place this tag and how to combine it. The stalled hw=trailhead proposal 
specifically suggests to place a trailhead node alone or on a piece of 
highway: "A trailhead should be mapped as a node or a node that is part 
of a trail segment (i.e.,highway 
=path 
) and should be 
tagged primarily as highway 
=trailhead 
." 
At least I would rephrase that to something along "... or a node that is 
part of the trail segment or a highway leading to its trail(s)."


More problematic is the question of combination. I'm pretty much opposed 
to giving this object two top level keys: highway=trailhead and 
tourism=information. I think the thought of the  old proposal was to 
mark the point on a trail where to access it, hence hw=. Peter was more 
going in the direction of marking the point where we find information on 
how to access the trail (name, information board, sign, stele, ...), 
hence tourism=information + information=.


I would still try to separate the elements. We leave it with 
hw=trailhead + possibly a name + possibly including it in the route 
relation for the actual access point. Additionally, we map the 
amenities: information board, parking, toilets, picknick site etc. I'd 
welcome introducing something like tourism=information + 
information=trailhead or tourism=information + information=board + 
board_type=trailhead. Since a trailhead could be marked by other objects 
than a board the former might be more universal.


For the dutch case that would mean removing the hw=trailhead from all 
the points and changing the tourism=... to something new we agree on.


Tobias

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=taxi vehicle type

[Tobias Knerr]

On 05.01.19 02:19, Warin wrote:
> On 05/01/19 10:34, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>> taxi_type = car|motorcycle|rickshaw, etc,
> 
> What does 'type' add to the above?

The key taxi=* is already in use to tag access permission for taxi
vehicles, with values such as yes|no|designated|destination|permissive.

So adding a "_type" here avoids clashing with an existing key that has a
different meaning and a different set of values.

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

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

[PanierAvide]

Hello,

The french community has started months ago creating this page in order 
to list tags around disabilities, and how to practically map associated 
features (and referencing "concurrent" tags when multiple schemes exists) :


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Handicaps/R%C3%A9f%C3%A9rentiel

This is still a work in progress, but can give some ideas for creating 
such an entry page in english.


Regards,

Adrien.


Le 04/01/2019 à 23:22, Warin a écrit :
Possibly there needs to be a main wiki page for 'disabled' features 
tagging, toilets, tactile paving, parking, access.


On 05/01/19 07:58, Paul Allen wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 at 20:44, Richard > wrote:


looking through the wiki can't find how parking space designated
for wheelchair/disabled users should be tagged?

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=parking or 
capacity:disabled.  Note
carefully the definition of capacity: it is the TOTAL number of 
spaces INCLUDING disabled
spaces because an armchair mapper may be able to count parking bays 
but not discern

which (if any) are for disabled parking.

If you intend to mark actual parking spaces rather than just denote 
the car park as a whole,
see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dparking_space 
and associated

proposal.

--
Paul



___
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