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

[Tomas Straupis]

2019-01-10, kt, 09:06 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė:
> coding the geometry into the db does not necessarily mean creating polygons 
> though.
> You could also store just 3 nodes and a hint that these are representing a 
> polygon, to store a triangle (for example).

  Sorry, I did not get it. How saving only vertexes is better than
having a polygon (made out of those vertexes)?

  Full geometry is required to be able to calculate label positions on
all scales. For small scales this could be a simple curved line
(calculated from polygon geometry), for large scales it could be a lot
of labels placed/scattered on the same polygon geometry and
approximating (simplifying) such polygon too much would decrease
number of labels placed or labels would be placed outside of an object
which is even worse.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Top up

[Markus]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 11:40, Daniele Santini  wrote:
>
> The proposal for mapping which shops sell prepaid top ups is now under 
> voting: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Top_up

Isn't prepaid_top_up:network= redundant because 
(e.g. PayPoint) is also a brand and thus prepaid_top_up:brand=
would suffice?

I'm sorry, i missed the second RFC after you've updated the proposal.

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

[PanierAvide]

Le 10/01/2019 à 00:19, Warin a écrit :


No - that is a terrible page.


and the work in progress at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Handicaps/R%C3%A9f%C3%A9rentiel


Much better .. but unordered.


Hopefully we are using a wiki, this could be improved by anyone for sure ;-)

Regards,

Adrien.


___
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)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Jan 2019, at 07:23, Tomas Straupis  wrote:
> 
>  In order to have correct labelling you need polygon geometry for
> peninsulas (as well as for other objects), but having them in current
> OSM database is not practical.


coding the geometry into the db does not necessarily mean creating polygons 
though. 
You could also store just 3 nodes and a hint that these are representing a 
polygon, to store a triangle (for example).




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

Re: [Tagging] Quick Building tracing question...

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Jan 2019, at 03:42, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> - map the building as a warehouse and map an attached polygon as the roof 
> (which I haven’t done yet). 


I would do it like this, or maybe map everything as a warehouse and the roof as 
building:part


Cheers, Martin 
___
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)

[Tomas Straupis]

2019-01-09, tr, 19:36 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
>> And here we're one more step closer to introducing gis layers in OSM.
>
> I have no idea how natural=peninsula tagging is related to that.

  In order to have correct labelling you need polygon geometry for
peninsulas (as well as for other objects), but having them in current
OSM database is not practical.

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

Re: [Tagging] Quick Building tracing question...

[Warin]

On 10/01/19 13:54, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 12:43, John Willis > wrote:


I am tracing and repairing existing traces of warehouses in an
industrial district.


I've recently been doing the same, John.

if I am mapping this kind of warehouses, which should I:

- map the whole structure as a warehouse


I've just traced what I can see as the visible roof area &  called it 
"building", as it's impossible to tell from an overhead image what is 
enclosed building & what is only a roof over an open area?


If you had street-level imagery that may change things?


As Graeme says - you cannot tell from satellite imagery.

building=yes on the whole lot of it. Maybe add a "note=warehouse? and 
part building=roof, layer=1"?




I am going to spend the time cleaning up UltimaSnorlax’s bad
polygons, I might a well draw them correctly the first time.


Yep! :-)

Or try to get UltimaSnorlax to fix them?



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

Re: [Tagging] Quick Building tracing question...

[John Willis]

Most of my imagery is at an angle, so I have to be careful to map the building 
footprint, but this also means I can easily see the roof overhang on most 
buildings, so it is easy for me to map most of them. 

If it was directly overhead, most of them are cantilevered roofs with very 
thick supports that are easy to spot protruding from the actual warehouse wall, 
so spotting the “roof” on most of these warehouses is pretty easy. 

Javbw


> On Jan 10, 2019, at 11:54 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick  
> wrote:
> 
> as it's impossible to tell from an overhead image what is enclosed building


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

Re: [Tagging] Quick Building tracing question...

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 12:43, John Willis  wrote:

> I am tracing and repairing existing traces of warehouses in an industrial
> district.
>

I've recently been doing the same, John.

if I am mapping this kind of warehouses, which should I:
>
> - map the whole structure as a warehouse
>

I've just traced what I can see as the visible roof area &  called it
"building", as it's impossible to tell from an overhead image what is
enclosed building & what is only a roof over an open area?

If you had street-level imagery that may change things?


> I am going to spend the time cleaning up UltimaSnorlax’s bad polygons, I
> might a well draw them correctly the first time.
>

Yep! :-)

Thanks

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

[Tagging] Quick Building tracing question...

[John Willis]

I am tracing and repairing existing traces of warehouses in an industrial 
district. 

Many of the warehouses have large (3-6m) roofs over the loading dock gates, 
making the building appear bigger. 

here is an example. 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/494766956 


if I am mapping this kind of warehouses, which should I:

- map the whole structure as a warehouse

- map on the building portion as a warehouse (as I have done)

- map the building as a warehouse and map an attached polygon as the roof 
(which I haven’t done yet). 

I am going to spend the time cleaning up UltimaSnorlax’s bad polygons, I might 
a well draw them correctly the first time. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Bryan Housel]

> On Jan 9, 2019, at 8:23 PM, Stefan Keller  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As one of the originators of this thread I'd like to second that the
> Wiki is important. It's not only a documentation tool but also a
> communication. We all need patience with Wikis and it's curation and
> users - like we e.g. have patience with when we're discussing things
> about iD presets or iD functionality (like Copy which remained
> unimplemented since 2013 - hint to Bryan :-))

Stopped reading here and Unsubscribing. 
You are not funny, and I don’t need the stress that this mailing list brings. 

Good luck with tagging & Bye 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Stefan Keller]

Hi,

As one of the originators of this thread I'd like to second that the
Wiki is important. It's not only a documentation tool but also a
communication. We all need patience with Wikis and it's curation and
users - like we e.g. have patience with when we're discussing things
about iD presets or iD functionality (like Copy which remained
unimplemented since 2013 - hint to Bryan :-))

In addition I'd like to draw your attention to my three points
expressed in my original thread entitled "Values in
namespaces/prefixes/suffixes Considered Harmful - Or: Stop
over-namespacing and prefix-fooling". IMHO we're on a critical
crossroad because of the new-style namespaces (also favored by the
unique multiCombo functionality in iD among others):
1. How to combine concepts?
2. How to group (sub-)tags?
3. How to handle multiple values?
Namespaces are an attempt to all these.

But IMHO for handling groups (2), there's the Wiki (!) - and Presets.
And for handling multiple values (3) I'd still favor semi-colon
separated as long as possible.

As said, the currently growing over-namespacing and prefix-fooling is
detrimental to the OSM schema and turns key/value ad absurdum.
Regarding (2), namespaces are not meant to group values, but to group
attributes/keys! And regarding (3), pseudo-namespaces are not stored
in one bit, in contrary: those long tag tag strings blow up e.g. the
attribute storage in Vector Tiles unnecessarily.

I've quickly analyzed Switzerland and found e.g. following
pseudo-namespaces containing significant amount of Upper-Case keys
(which is a smell of being values smuggled in keys, since keys should
be lower or unsiginificant case): service:* but also currency;*,
payment:* and fuel:*.

Here once again some considerations.

Instead of this "a hodgepodge of different ways of tagging and
potential for 100s of keys" as Simon said:
  motorcycle:tyres=yes
  service:tyres:car=yes
  service:bicycle:tyres=yes
  payment:visa=yes
  payment:notes=yes
  payment:cash:CHF=yes

All of the above could or should be this:
  sells=tyres:motorcycle;tyres:cars;tyres:bicycle
  payment=visa;notes;cash:CHF

And as a last comment: The addr-namespace is a good example of namespacing!
  addr:city=Timbuktu
  addr:housenumber=1
  addr:postcode=111
  addr:street=Main Street

But namespacing is not the only means we have to group tags: we also
have Presets and Wikis documentation!

:Stefan

Am Do., 10. Jan. 2019 um 00:43 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
> On 10/01/19 10:13, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> > On 07.01.19 16:12, Bryan Housel wrote:
> >
> >> I encourage everyone to just disregard everything that’s on the wiki and 
> >> go by what taginfo says as far as how the tags are used and what the 
> >> accepted values are.
> > The wiki is an invaluable source for understanding OSM tagging, and I
> > use it all the time during mapping and when coding software that works
> > with OSM data.
> >
> > Taginfo is an awesome resource as well, and I use it almost daily, but
> > it cannot fully replace the wiki. It tells you that foo=bar has been
> > used thousands of times, but it doesn't tell you what that tag means¹.
> > It also doesn't tell you about the conventions for its use (default
> > values, directionality, lots of other essential details). Ultimately,
> > Taginfo isn't documentation – the wiki is.
>
> +1.
>
> Taginfo does not tell me what landuse=clearing is. It only tells me there is 
> some of use of it.
>
> There is no wiki page on it so there is no help there.
>
> The next thing to do is contact the mappers.. tried that .. one response told 
> me to go to another channel - did that, nothing worth while.
>
> Contact a mapper .. no response there either ...
> Best I can do then is use my brain to think about the words and the mapping 
> context to come up with what I think they meant by it.
> My conclusion is - if it is not documented on the wiki .. it does not exist.
>
>
> >
> > Besides documenting current tagging practice, the wiki is also a useful
> > tool for coordinating and spreading new ideas (even though the specifics
> > of the process can be controversial at times). If you're not a software
> > developer or one of a few highly respected community members,
> > discussions on community channels and wiki proposals are pretty much
> > your only good options to make your genius tagging idea known to the
> > world. Without this first step, that idea is unlikely to get enough
> > traction to even show up in Taginfo to a meaningful extent: Using the
> > tag yourself only gets you so far.
>
> The wiki also help differentiate between things that are close in appearance 
> to the casual mapper.
>
> Things like a netball court can be mapped as a basketball court, until you 
> can see the difference and that is on OSM wiki pages.
>
> >
> > For all these reasons, I consider the wiki a key asset to our project.
> > As a result, I spend a lot of time improving it, as do many other
> > community members. It hurts to see that some 

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Most mosques here in Indonesia have a separate men and women’s section.
(Actually the churches do too!)
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 9:41 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 9. Jan 2019, at 19:11, Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
> >
> > I started discussion how to tag this some time ago, with
> access=adherents as the best candidate
> > to tag that
>
>
> probably also woman=no
>
> 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] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Jan 2019, at 19:11, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> I started discussion how to tag this some time ago, with access=adherents as 
> the best candidate
> to tag that


probably also woman=no

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

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Warin]

On 10/01/19 10:13, Tobias Knerr wrote:

On 07.01.19 16:12, Bryan Housel wrote:


I encourage everyone to just disregard everything that’s on the wiki and go by 
what taginfo says as far as how the tags are used and what the accepted values 
are.

The wiki is an invaluable source for understanding OSM tagging, and I
use it all the time during mapping and when coding software that works
with OSM data.

Taginfo is an awesome resource as well, and I use it almost daily, but
it cannot fully replace the wiki. It tells you that foo=bar has been
used thousands of times, but it doesn't tell you what that tag means¹.
It also doesn't tell you about the conventions for its use (default
values, directionality, lots of other essential details). Ultimately,
Taginfo isn't documentation – the wiki is.


+1.

Taginfo does not tell me what landuse=clearing is. It only tells me there is 
some of use of it.

There is no wiki page on it so there is no help there.

The next thing to do is contact the mappers.. tried that .. one response told 
me to go to another channel - did that, nothing worth while.

Contact a mapper .. no response there either ...
Best I can do then is use my brain to think about the words and the mapping 
context to come up with what I think they meant by it.
My conclusion is - if it is not documented on the wiki .. it does not exist.




Besides documenting current tagging practice, the wiki is also a useful
tool for coordinating and spreading new ideas (even though the specifics
of the process can be controversial at times). If you're not a software
developer or one of a few highly respected community members,
discussions on community channels and wiki proposals are pretty much
your only good options to make your genius tagging idea known to the
world. Without this first step, that idea is unlikely to get enough
traction to even show up in Taginfo to a meaningful extent: Using the
tag yourself only gets you so far.


The wiki also help differentiate between things that are close in appearance to 
the casual mapper.

Things like a netball court can be mapped as a basketball court, until you can 
see the difference and that is on OSM wiki pages.



For all these reasons, I consider the wiki a key asset to our project.
As a result, I spend a lot of time improving it, as do many other
community members. It hurts to see that some developers of core OSM
infrastructure seemingly value these contributions so little. To me,
people discussing and documenting our data model are a vital part of our
community. So are software developers, of course! It's my belief that
the project can only thrive if there's mutual respect between these groups.

Tobias


¹ Taginfo actually does provide a definition, but that's because it
extracts them from wiki pages.





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

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

[Warin]

On 09/01/19 21:06, althio wrote:


On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 at 00:31, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

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"?

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

For format and content, as already indicated earlier in this thread, a
good start might be:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Disabilities


No - that is a terrible page.


and the work in progress at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Handicaps/R%C3%A9f%C3%A9rentiel


Much better .. but unordered.


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

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Tobias Knerr]

On 07.01.19 16:12, Bryan Housel wrote:
> we can’t use the same key `service=*` to contain both things like `tyres` (a 
> few thousands) and `driveway` (a few millions).  Sorry, but the 
> `service=tyres` has to go.

These two different meanings of 'service=*' would not need to coexist on
the same element, so it's not impossible to use the same key. I happen
to agree that it's not a good idea, but it's not a foregone conclusion.

Therefore, it makes me a little uncomfortable that this kind of change
would be promoted through iD, instead of convincing mappers to make an
active, informed decision to switch to a new tagging scheme. I've been
silent on this recurring issue so far because, well, most of your
decisions have actually been quite reasonable, and it felt a bit silly
to object based on purely hypothetical concerns. Also, I don't feel
strongly about vehicle services in particular.

But with great power comes great responsibility, if you forgive the
stale quote. And while I'm not opposed to doing some sanity checking
(i.e. not automatically supporting poorly thought out tags just because
they are common), I do feel that the default editor on osm.org should
generally only promote clearly established tagging styles.

> I encourage everyone to just disregard everything that’s on the wiki and go 
> by what taginfo says as far as how the tags are used and what the accepted 
> values are.

The wiki is an invaluable source for understanding OSM tagging, and I
use it all the time during mapping and when coding software that works
with OSM data.

Taginfo is an awesome resource as well, and I use it almost daily, but
it cannot fully replace the wiki. It tells you that foo=bar has been
used thousands of times, but it doesn't tell you what that tag means¹.
It also doesn't tell you about the conventions for its use (default
values, directionality, lots of other essential details). Ultimately,
Taginfo isn't documentation – the wiki is.

Besides documenting current tagging practice, the wiki is also a useful
tool for coordinating and spreading new ideas (even though the specifics
of the process can be controversial at times). If you're not a software
developer or one of a few highly respected community members,
discussions on community channels and wiki proposals are pretty much
your only good options to make your genius tagging idea known to the
world. Without this first step, that idea is unlikely to get enough
traction to even show up in Taginfo to a meaningful extent: Using the
tag yourself only gets you so far.

For all these reasons, I consider the wiki a key asset to our project.
As a result, I spend a lot of time improving it, as do many other
community members. It hurts to see that some developers of core OSM
infrastructure seemingly value these contributions so little. To me,
people discussing and documenting our data model are a vital part of our
community. So are software developers, of course! It's my belief that
the project can only thrive if there's mutual respect between these groups.

Tobias


¹ Taginfo actually does provide a definition, but that's because it
extracts them from wiki pages.

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

Re: [Tagging] Creating shop=caravan

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 16:17, Mark Wagner  wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 07:54:00 +1000
> Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
> > Possibly something like caravan:type=caravan / motorhome / Winnebago /
> > camper trailer etc, but then you get to the problem of what is
> > difference between a camper van, motorhome & Winnebago?
>
> In the (US) industry, the terminology for self-propelled RVs is "Class
> A", "Class B", and "Class C":
>

Here in Australia, we don't (TTBMK) have those classes, & motorhome &
camper van are pretty interchangeable

https://www.discovery-campervans.com.au/differences.php

Motorhome - A motor vehicle built on a truck or bus chassis and designed to
serve as self-contained living quarters for recreational travel. There is
normally a divide between the cab and the living quarters behind, which
contain sleeping space, ablution and kitchen facilities.

Campervan - a van equipped as a self-contained travelling home, they are
normally smaller than a motorhome. There is generally no divide between the
cab and the living quarters. It has basic facilities for cooking, washing,
and sleeping.

Winnebago - Although a brand name for an American manufacturer of
RV's,because the brand is so popular it has become interchangeable with RV
and therefore is often used to refer to any recreational vehicle.

>
> On the non-self-propelled side of things, the split is (roughly) "Fifth
> wheel", "travel trailer", and "popup".
>

 Caravan - a mobile home or trailer, fully equipped with household
accessories and towed behind a vehicle. It is designed to be occupied as a
house would and depending on its size contains sleeping quarters, ablution
facilities and cooking facilities.

Camper Trailer - This is a trailer equipped for occupancy that is towed
behind a wheeled vehicle. Much smaller than a caravan, it normally consists
of a tent that folds out of the trailer, where other essential living items
are also packed, and facilities such as sinks and cookers are kept. A lot
of its appeal lies in its compactness and light weight.

with further split down to fixed or pop-top caravans, hard- & soft-floor
camper trailers & so on. Yes, there are also 5th wheelers, but that only
refers to the way it's connected to the tow vehicle, not the "type" of van
ie it's just a normal caravan

> The self-propelled/non-self-propelled split is important enough to be
> worth tagging.


Yes, you (& Georg earlier) are probably right there.

motorised=yes / no?

propulsion=towed / motorised?

Possibly a separate page again for shop=motorhome? (I think that would be a
good coverall term?)

It's also, at least in the US, very common for a dealer
> to sell one or the other, but not both.


But if we use a separate page, won't you have the same problem that you'll
only be able to find one or the other?

As I mentioned earlier, if we had

caravan:type=caravan / motorhome / camper_trailer

would you be able to search for the type you want?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Warin]

On 10/01/19 05:27, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Jan 8, 2019, 10:33 PM by graemefi...@gmail.com:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 23:36, Simon Poole mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote:

I'm not convinced that we really want to model such a level of
detail in the first place,

Agree with you there!

If the place is a shop=tyres, isn't that really all that OSM needs
to say?

I am fine with tagging more detailed info. But I would be equally fine 
with deleting any

outdated detailed info.



& where do we stop with extreme details?

At level where mappers are unwilling to maintain up to date information.




Some time ago I came across a section of road that, in OSM, used an old 
bridge.
That bridge had not been there for quite some time, the new one was 
evident in imagery.


Should that section of road be deleted because 'no one is maintaining 
it'???


It is a section of main highway in Australia. I think it needs to stay, 
even if the detail is wrong .. there will still be a highway through 
that area.


Shops too may come and go .. but physically the 'shop' structure remains.
So what happens when 'no one is maintaining it'? It may get out of date 
.. have incorrect information .. and when someone finds it they can 
update it.
This may get us a new mapper. Yes the map may get some abuse .. but it 
will get abuse anyway if the information is absent.


So I am for putting it in - even if it becomes stale.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Andy Townsend]

On 09/01/2019 18:35, Kevin Kenny wrote:

Are we back to trying to warp the definition so that only
Toeristich Overstappunt qualifies?

The reverse of that, actually - based on my limited knowledge of these 
in Noord Holland (which to be fair Peter said weren't typical of the 
Dutch ones) they didn't look much like trailheads to me.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Paul Allen]

First, my apologies for sending out a quoted message with no response.  I
have slapped
my own wrist.

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 20:01, Andy Townsend  wrote:

One of the problems with the wiki is that inherently "the last editor
> has the last say" - nuances felt by previous editors to be important can
> easily get lost.  Good wiki editors try very hard to avoid that problem;
> bad ones don't recognise it.  The question is - is there an
> alternative?
>

The only thing that springs to mind is a CMS like Drupal (or Joomla, or
Wordpress).  The history
and protection mechanisms may offer better visibility and fine control, but
those may also be
disadvantageous.  IMO, their visual editors are better (but that's
subjective).  The advantages
(if any) are probably too small to make the switch worthwhile.

So there's no real alternative that doesn't involve authoritarian control.
Apart from general
undesirability we don't have enough people "at the top" to handle the
workload.  And they
may not agree amongst themselves anyway.

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

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Andy Townsend]

On 09/01/2019 19:03, Bryan Housel wrote:
It’s not documentation.  It’s just a bunch of prescriptive advice by 
random people.  Most of the people involved don’t even work on 
software.  They’re just really into tagging and arguing, and I don’t 
have time for it.




At its worst its that, sure - but it's not fair to denigrate the people 
who've put a lot of effort into trying to make it into good 
documentation (off the top of my head Harry Wood is just one example of 
some of the people making a real effort here; Wolfgang from higher up 
the thread is another).


I'm also not convinced about "most of the people involved don’t even 
work on software" - writing documentation is a very different skill to 
writing software, and I've met plenty of people who are excellent at one 
and are dire at the other (and that works both ways around).


One of the problems with the wiki is that inherently "the last editor 
has the last say" - nuances felt by previous editors to be important can 
easily get lost.  Good wiki editors try very hard to avoid that problem; 
bad ones don't recognise it.  The question is - is there an 
alternative?  Obviously there are things like the help site and taginfo 
that provide parts of what used to be provided by the wiki, but better 
(and I think that the de-emphasising of the wiki on osm.org that 
happened a while ago made a lot of sense) but I can't really think of an 
alternative for info such as "with this tag this is what people have had 
to think about over the years, this (compromise) is where we are now" 
and so on.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 8:04 PM Bryan Housel  wrote:

> It’s not documentation.  It’s just a bunch of prescriptive advice by random 
> people.  Most of the  people involved don’t even work on software.  They’re 
> just really into tagging and arguing, and I don’t have time for it.

Wow, you leave me speechless. Not the attitude that I expect from a
developer of one of the major editors of OSM. Developer of editors
should write software that supports the tagging schemas defined by the
mappers, not enforce their idea of tagging based on a design decision
they made for their software (as Simon pointed out before).

m

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

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 09 January 2019, Bryan Housel wrote:
> [...] Most of the people involved don’t even work on
> software.

Despite accurate critique of dysfunctional dynamics and developments on 
the wiki i smell a software development supremacist here.

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

___
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 Wednesday 09 January 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> on second thought, if the Iberian Peninsula is already a Peninsula,
> does that invalidate all Peninsula claims on land masses protruding
> from it, or can there be cascading Peninsulas?

Of course, and you can measure the level of completeness in mapping by 
how many bays and peninsulas a coastline segment is member of.

If only someone would have warned us about this years ago... Oh wait, 
someone did:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-October/019780.html

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 18:13, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> Jan 7, 2019, 11:58 PM by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:
>


> Nonmuslims are forbidden to enter nearly all mosques in Morocco.
>
> I started discussion how to tag this some time ago, with access=adherents
> as the best candidate
> to tag that.
>

Sounds good to me.  Better than access=customers, which is about as close
as we can come
with existing values.

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

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 9, 2019, 8:03 PM by bhou...@gmail.com:

> Most of the people involved don’t even work on software.
>
I thatink that it is not a good minimal requirement 
to document existing tagging schemes or propose new ones.

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

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Bryan Housel]

> On Jan 9, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> Jan 9, 2019, 7:33 PM by bhou...@gmail.com:
> On Jan 9, 2019, at 1:18 PM, Mateusz Konieczny  > wrote:
> Jan 7, 2019, 4:12 PM by bhou...@gmail.com :
> And on “the wiki”, I have basically given up on the OSM wiki because it 
> contains so much wrong information and opinion, and I’m tired of having my 
> edits reverted. I just recently had another issue where we added a traffic 
> signal tag that was already used, and then someone edited the wiki to rant 
> about how iD is wrong and for people to not use the tag
> What is your username on wiki?
> 
> I expected it to be Bhousel but this description seems to not match 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions==500=user=Bhousel=0===
>  
> 
> Yes that is - pretty obviously - me. What it is that you are feigning 
> confusion about?
> For start, I see no edits related to traffic signals.


Yes, I did not edit the page.  (because I don’t care anymore)

Some people were upset that iD defaults normal traffic signals to have the tag 
`traffic_signals=signal`.  Here is an issue:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5016 


M!dgard was mad that I closed the issue and so he started editing the wiki to 
say that iD is wrong
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:traffic_signals=1605351
 


Minh and another editor have tried to tone down his language.  He keeps putting 
it back.

This is one of the reason why I stopped caring about the wiki..

It’s not documentation.  It’s just a bunch of prescriptive advice by random 
people.  Most of the people involved don’t even work on software.  They’re just 
really into tagging and arguing, and I don’t have time for it.



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

Re: [Tagging] A fool with a tool ... Vehicle service tags

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 3, 2019, 5:13 AM by th...@gmx.de:

> Thoughts ?
> Ideas how to fix that ?
>
Given that "fool" is strongly negative and derogatory any attempts to 
improve any situation should not have this word in the title of the thread.

Insulting people is one of the worst possible arguments.

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

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 1:28 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
(sorry, the headers are making me lose attribution here..)
someone:
> It would be nice to be able to store that info - it would allow search for 
> nearest shop
> selling motorbike tyres that would be automatic and take less than second
> rather than manual and take minutes (or hours if many close shop=tyres are 
> not selling them)
someone else:
> & where do we stop with extreme details?
Mateusz:
> At level where mappers are unwilling to maintain up to date information.

One reason that I'd tend to be wary about this level of detail about
businesses is that if it isn't widespread, it isn't useful. As soon as
it is widespread, the result is likely to be that OSM becomes a huge
repository for commercial spam of questionable quality and veracity. I
don't want to see a world where the businesses that are mapped in
detail are those that can afford to hire SEO firms and have armies of
sweatshop mappers trying to make sure they own the best keywords. (In
my more fevered imaginings, I can also see them vandalizing their
competitors' mapping, putting in totally bogus sells=* in order to get
you into the store to buy something else, and similar fraudulent
tactics.)

Business directories, chambers of commerce, and ad agencies, among
others, exist to support (and often to moderate) that sort of thing.
We don't need to take on the job.

(That said, I don't dictate to others what they may and may not map,
except that mapping things that aren't there is not acceptable.)

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

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 9, 2019, 7:33 PM by bhou...@gmail.com:

>> On Jan 9, 2019, at 1:18 PM, Mateusz Konieczny <>> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
>> >> > wrote:
>> Jan 7, 2019, 4:12 PM by >> bhou...@gmail.com >> :
>>
>>> And on “the wiki”, I have basically given up on the OSM wiki because it 
>>> contains so much wrong information and opinion, and I’m tired of having my 
>>> edits reverted.  I just recently had another issue where we added a traffic 
>>> signal tag that was already used, and then someone edited the wiki to rant 
>>> about how iD is wrong and for people to not use the tag
>>>
>> What is your username on wiki?
>>
>> I expected it to be Bhousel but this description seems to not match 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions==500=user=Bhousel=0===
>>  
>> 
>>
>>
>
> Yes that is - pretty obviously - me.  
> What it is that you are feigning confusion about?
>

For start, I see no edits related to traffic signals.

BTW, while "OSM Wiki is stupid, I should ignore it" is a feasible strategy for 
somebody
controlling one of important editors it is not going to work for a typical 
person. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:32 AM Andy Townsend  wrote:
> I'm not convinced that the things on that page
> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeristisch_Overstappunt really are
> "trailheads" in any accepted English sense ("trailhead" is mostly an
> American English concept rather than a British English one).

I thought we'd arrived at a rough consensus that a trailhead is a
designated or customary point at which a trip on a trail begins or
ends. Are we back to trying to warp the definition so that only
Toeristich Overstappunt qualifies?

I can see some value to displaying, say, a "hiking" icon at trailheads
on a map whose theme is outdoor recreation, so I'm not against tagging
them. In fact, I'd be willing sporadically to add this tag when
mapping or updating a trailhead.

If it's an American English word, then Toeristich Overstappunt strikes
me as a poor translation. We simply don't have a system like that over
here.

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

[Tagging] Proposed features/insulated - vote started

[Mateusz Konieczny]

proposal page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/insulated 


it is intended to be an alternative to power=cabble tagging scheme that promotes
using unimportant and extremely hard to survey attribute as a primary feature 
deciding whatever something should be power=line/minor_line or power=cable
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Bryan Housel]

> On Jan 9, 2019, at 1:18 PM, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> Jan 7, 2019, 4:12 PM by bhou...@gmail.com:
> And on “the wiki”, I have basically given up on the OSM wiki because it 
> contains so much wrong information and opinion, and I’m tired of having my 
> edits reverted. I just recently had another issue where we added a traffic 
> signal tag that was already used, and then someone edited the wiki to rant 
> about how iD is wrong and for people to not use the tag
> What is your username on wiki?
> 
> I expected it to be Bhousel but this description seems to not match 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions==500=user=Bhousel=0===
>  
> 
> 


Yes that is - pretty obviously - me.  
What it is that you are feigning confusion about?

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

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 8, 2019, 10:33 PM by graemefi...@gmail.com:

> On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 23:36, Simon Poole <> si...@poole.ch 
> > > wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not convinced that we really want to model such a level of  detail 
>> in the first place, 
>>
>>
> Agree with you there!
>
> If the place is a shop=tyres, isn't that really all that OSM needs to say?
>
I am fine with tagging more detailed info. But I would be equally fine with 
deleting any
outdated detailed info.

I think that this two would balance well.


> After that, isn't it up to "you" to make a simple phone call, or look at 
> their linked website, to check if they sell motorbike or bicycle tyres?
>
It would be nice to be able to store that info - it would allow search for 
nearest shop
selling motorbike tyres that would be automatic and take less than second
rather than manual and take minutes (or hours if many close shop=tyres are not 
selling them)
 

>
> & where do we stop with extreme details?
>
At level where mappers are unwilling to maintain up to date information.


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

Re: [Tagging] Facts and opinions

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 7, 2019, 4:12 PM by bhou...@gmail.com:

> And on “the wiki”, I have basically given up on the OSM wiki because it 
> contains so much wrong information and opinion, and I’m tired of having my 
> edits reverted.  I just recently had another issue where we added a traffic 
> signal tag that was already used, and then someone edited the wiki to rant 
> about how iD is wrong and for people to not use the tag
>
What is your username on wiki?

I expected it to be Bhousel but this description seems to not match 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions==500=user=Bhousel=0===
 

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 7, 2019, 11:58 PM by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:

> “You may find that a Mosque may not be happy if a non-Muslim walks in”
>
> I’m not aware of any mosques that prohibit non-Muslims
>
>
Nonmuslims are forbidden to enter nearly all mosques in Morocco.

I started discussion how to tag this some time ago, with access=adherents as 
the best candidate
to tag that.

___
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)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 9, 2019, 5:43 PM by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:

> And here we're one more step closer to introducing gis layers in OSM. 
>
I have no idea how natural=peninsula tagging is related to that. Can you 
consider using quoting,
so it is clear to what you respond?

___
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)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Jan 2019, at 16:36, Paul Allen  wrote:
> [fractal coastline]
> Good luck mapping that.


the sense of mapping natural features like peninsulas is putting toponomyns on 
the map. If nobody bothered to call a thing like this with a name, you would 
not map it.

Cheers, Martin 




___
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)

[Tomas Straupis]

And here we're one more step closer to introducing gis layers in OSM. Not
there yet, but as maps created from OSM data start aproaching cartographic
conventions, the only other way is to use other - non OSM sources.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Andy Townsend]

On 09/01/2019 15:18, Peter Elderson wrote:
The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is 
in Nederland.

..


If other trailheads (non-TOP) would be mapped, they would not get this 
particular reference.




I'm not convinced that the things on that page 
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toeristisch_Overstappunt really are 
"trailheads" in any accepted English sense ("trailhead" is mostly an 
American English concept rather than a British English one).


Why not just map the features that are there rather than choose another 
word that actually means something else?  Alternatively, pick a 
different word?


Best Regards,

Andy



___
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)

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:35 PM Phake Nick  wrote:

> I believe many time the boundary of a peninsula are politically defined,
> for instance most would often see the Iberia peninsula end at where Spain
> meet France
>

So is Andorra within or outside the Iberian peninsula?
___
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)

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 15:28, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

on second thought, if the Iberian Peninsula is already a Peninsula, does
> that invalidate all Peninsula claims on land masses protruding from it,
> or can there be cascading Peninsulas?
>

Coastline geometry is fractal.  A fact summed up with this verse:

Big peninsulas have little peninsulas protruding out from 'em,
And little peninsulas have lesser peninsulas, and so *ad infinitum*.

Good luck mapping that.

-- 
Paul
___
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)

[Phake Nick]

I believe many time the boundary of a peninsula are politically defined,
for instance most would often see the Iberia peninsula end at where Spain
meet France, Indochina peninsula's boundary will probably be the southern
border of China, and Sinai peninsula's boundary would be the current border
between Israel and Egypt.

Other time there could be natural features that separate peninsula from the
mainland it connected to, like a mountain range or a low lying corridor, or
man-made structures like canal.

However there are also situation that peninsula are separated from mainland
using simply a straight line, depend on coast direction of surrounding land.
___
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)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

on second thought, if the Iberian Peninsula is already a Peninsula, does
that invalidate all Peninsula claims on land masses protruding from it,
or can there be cascading Peninsulas?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
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)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 09.01.19 14:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> The only reasons I see for
> approving "small" peninsulas" but not big ones, are of technical nature

Yes. People will create a new "multipolygon" or "boundary" relation
containing each and every way of the Spanish coastline for every
geographic feature they can think of. Ah, surely this is part of
"Eurasia". And of "Europe". And of "Spain". And of the "Iberian
Peninsula". And the water is the "Mediterranean Sea". And ... then when
you split a piece of coastline in Spain, you've edited 25 relations
spanning half the globe.

Granted, it's a technical shortcoming, but while this exists people
should respect it.

> On a sidenote: the Iberian Peninsula is already mapped in OSM as a
> relation, and it is in Version 848 ;-)

Must...resist...urge...to...delete...

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

The wikipedia page is not a list, it is a description of what a TOP is in
Nederland. A wiki page about trailhead tagging is not the right place for
that. I think this is within the scope of the wikipedia key.
It facilitates one-click access to the wikipedia description from a
rendering of the object on a POI map or a search result. If you see
wikipedia as a dictionary, the link does not replace it but gives access to
it. If other trailheads (non-TOP) would be mapped, they would not get this
particular reference.

the website key links to the official website of the operator for a
particular region, not all trailheads. The OSM user will find all extra
information for the TOPs in that region there. I think that is correct use
of the tag. Purpose is the same as with the wikipedia key: quick access.

The url key has according to the wiki no specific purpose or limitation. I
thought this url could come in handy when using these TOPs for bicycle
route planning in Nederland. This site is currently being synchronized with
OSM, for Nederland only.
I think the use of he key is not wrong, but adding a url of one specific
application site for only one of the possible uses of the TOPs is
questionnable. I think I will remove this a soon as I am done with the
synchronization.

Op zo 6 jan. 2019 om 12:15 schreef Tobias Wrede :

> Am 03.01.2019 um 00:57 schrieb Peter Elderson:
>
>
> About the use of referencing tags. I agree this is not yet the best
> result. Wikipedia links to the dutch page for TOP's (as they are called
> here), I think that is correct. url links to a site which lists all the
> official dutch trailheads. website links to the recreational publishing
> sites of different official operators. Each province has its own operator
> (and trailhead style).  Some of those have a web page for each trailhead,
> others have a simple list, others an interactive map or search function...
> and they reorganise quite often. Permalinks? What? Never heard of...) so we
> don't link deep but refer to a list/search/map/filter page.
>
>
>
> Op wo 2 jan. 2019 om 23:43 schreef Tobias Wrede :
>
>>
>> As a side note: Looking at the examples I found that you added keys like
>> wikipedia=nl:Toeristisch Overstappunt
>> url=https://gpsfietsroutesnederland.nl/toeristische-overstappunten/
>> website=https://www.natuurpoorten.nl/
>> 
>>
>> These are all generic references that could be added to the OSM wiki
>> page. On the individual trailheads I would expect a website of the
>> specific trail.
>>
> Would you add https://www.government.nl/topics/primary-education to all
> amenity=school in the Netherlands? Or
> wikipiedia=nl:Lijst_van_hogeronderwijsinstellingen_in_Nederland for all
> amenity=university? Or wikipedia=nl:Lijst_van_rivieren_in_Nederland to all
> the rivers? Or even wikipedia=nl:Rivier?
>
> I think the Wikipedia and website links should be very specific to the
> individual object and not replace a dictionary.
>
> 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] Trailhead tagging

[Peter Elderson]

I think several valid arguments could be made, depending on what specific
example you think of. Most TOPs are one feature (<5m) sporting several
functions, by design. In that case it makes sense to add the functions as
tags to one node. In other cases it's more like a collection of spearate
features, then you would place a node or way per feature and group them
into say a site relation. In the simplest cases its just the name banner
marking the start of one trail, then you could simply add highway=trail,
information=board to that first node. In the basic tagging (just a node
tagged highway=trailhead (required), name=* (important) ) I would leave the
additional tagging open for mappers to decide on, according to local needs.

The additional tagging I used (both highway=trailhead and
tourism=information where I see the TOP in the field as one multifunctional
object)  does allow query select (overpass) and search (OSM Carto,
waymarked trails) and rendering (OSM Carto and waymarked trails).
If actual problems occur, maybe one could use secundary tags eg board=yes,
map=yes? I do look forward to better tagging consensus, _after_ documenting
with the common basic tagging agreement. For the Dutch trailhead dataset I
will personally retag the lot if a different tagging is agreed upon. In
other countries/regions I think you will find no extra tagging at all in
the trailhead dataset.

Op za 5 jan. 2019 om 21:56 schreef 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
>


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

[Marc Gemis]

I was referring to the 'organisation'.

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 2:40 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>
>
> Am Mi., 9. Jan. 2019 um 05:17 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis :
>>
>> While I was first thinking of brand like Warin, I think this is the
>> better solution. Just as, we do not map the share holders of companies
>> (even when they are other companies) on shops, man_made=works object
>> etc., we typically do not map properties of the operator (besides
>> brand).
>
>
>
>
> I am not sure which property of the kindergarten you are refering to with 
> this text, but if it is about the operator being related to a religious 
> entity I would reject the idea that this could be seen as an isolated 
> property of the operator and isn't also a property of the facility.
>
> 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] Tagging of amenity=kindergarten operated by charitable operators and organisations

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 9. Jan. 2019 um 05:17 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis :

> While I was first thinking of brand like Warin, I think this is the
> better solution. Just as, we do not map the share holders of companies
> (even when they are other companies) on shops, man_made=works object
> etc., we typically do not map properties of the operator (besides
> brand).




I am not sure which property of the kindergarten you are refering to with
this text, but if it is about the operator being related to a religious
entity I would reject the idea that this could be seen as an isolated
property of the operator and isn't also a property of the facility.

Cheers,
Martin
___
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)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 9. Jan. 2019 um 10:36 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm :

> I fear that people will otherwise with great diligence and fun tag
> things like the "Iberian Peninsula" which will not be of any use and
> just lead to more relation clutter. (Cf. discussion about bays.)





while I would not advocate either for modelling the Iberian Peninsula with
our current system (e.g. as multipolygon), I would like to express dissent
on the motion it "would not be of any use". IMHO it clearly would be
desirable to be able to map big "objects" like this in a smart way. WM has
WP records for 120 languages for the Iberian Peninsula [1], there will be
people interested in this, no? The only reasons I see for approving "small"
peninsulas" but not big ones, are of technical nature (limitations of what
we can model, and how expensive it is).

On a sidenote: the Iberian Peninsula is already mapped in OSM as a
relation, and it is in Version 848 ;-)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3870917

Cheers,
Martin




[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12837
___
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 Wednesday 09 January 2019, Markus wrote:
> >
> > * seen from water: landmark at the coast to circumnavigate
> > * seen from land: coastal extreme point on land in a certain
> > direction
>
> Couldn't 'a point to circumnavigate' lead to confusion because
> peninsulas needs to be circumnavigated too?

I don't know - that depends on how you want to define natural=peninsula.
In classic navigation you use landmarks at the coast to plot and verify 
your course.  That is what is meant with the above.

> Isn't this clear by definition? The current definition of
> natural=peninsula is 'a piece of land nearly surrounded by water or
> projecting into water from a larger land mass' while a coastal area
> is longish.

As you can see the concept of 'nearly' is pretty vague here.  The 
description for bays uses the term 'mostly' and look what this has led 
to:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4681569
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/552099079
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8399350

So if you want natural=peninsula to mean something more specific 
than 'some named land area at the coast' (like bay tagging on polygon 
meanwhile just means 'some water area near the coast a mapper wanted to 
label') you better try to make the definition somewhat clearer.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula

[Ture Pålsson]

2019-01-09 10:35, Frederik Ramm wrote
:

[ ... ]
I fear that people will otherwise with great diligence and fun tag
things like the "Iberian Peninsula" which will not be of any use and
just lead to more relation clutter. (Cf. discussion about bays.)


I mentioned the discussion of bays to a friend, who immediately said "of 
course areas with fuzzy boundaries should be mapped as a function that, 
given a point, returns 0 if the point is certainly outside the area, 1 
if it's certainly inside, and somewhere inbetween if it's in the fuzzy 
bit!"


I'd rather not be the one to implement that, though... :-)

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Top up

[Daniele Santini]

The proposal for mapping which shops sell prepaid top ups is now under
voting: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Top_up

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpooling park and ride parkings

[Holger Bruch]

I'd like to propose a new park_ride value 'hov':

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Tag:park_ride%3Dhov

Description:
Parkings where people forming a carpool can meet and riders may park
their car/motor_cycle/bike, called "carpool parking" hereafter.
I propose to extend the values for tag park_ride by 'hov' (high
occupancy vehicle) to tag such parkings.

Carpool parkings are currently tagged very differently. A specific value
would allow to render such parkings with a proper symbol and use them as
meeting points in intermodal trip planners. In contrast to using a
different tag like carpool, carpool_parking or amenity=car_pool, the
proposed tagging would fit well in the semantics of the park_ride tag:
leaving a car to ride a different transport mode.

Tags like carpool=yes, carpool=designated, hov=yes, hov=designated IMHO
should be used, where (already formed) carpools/hovs are allowed or
required, like workplace parkings reserved for high occupancy vehicles
with 2+ passengers.

Thank you for all of your comments, criticisms and suggestions
-Holger

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

Re: [Tagging] wheelchair designated parking space tagging?

[althio]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 at 00:31, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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"?
>
> The format of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway could be used 
> as a good start?

For format and content, as already indicated earlier in this thread, a
good start might be:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Disabilities
and the work in progress at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Handicaps/R%C3%A9f%C3%A9rentiel

___
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 Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 10:37, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
>
> I think we need to map peninsulas in three ways, as nodes, areas, and ways.
>
> Areas when the land border is obvious. Nodes for little ones, when you don't 
> have time to draw an area and the shape of the peninsula is obvious. Then 
> there are ways, when the peninsula is huge, or when the land border isn't 
> obvious, like the Italian peninsula or the Peninsula of India. I made a 
> proposal for mapping peninsulas as ways:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Peninsula

I find it rather counter-intuitive to map a peninsula as a way.
Besides what you propose is rather an unclosed area than a way.

But the biggest problem – the unclear borders (and thus the lack of
verifiability) – remains the same.

___
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)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 01.01.19 16:59, Markus wrote:
> Thanks for your comments so far! I've changed the proposed tag to
> natural=peninsula:

It would be great if you could make it clear that the tag should be used
for *small* peninsulas (peninsulae?) only, and is not intended as a
vehicle to catalogue everything that technically is a peninsula.

I fear that people will otherwise with great diligence and fun tag
things like the "Iberian Peninsula" which will not be of any use and
just lead to more relation clutter. (Cf. discussion about bays.)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
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 22:46, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
> 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

Couldn't 'a point to circumnavigate' lead to confusion because
peninsulas needs to be circumnavigated too? Isn't the current
distinction clear enough?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Dpeninsula#See_also

> What you will probably need to consider is how to distinguish
> natural=peninula from named parts of the coast or named coastal areas

Isn't this clear by definition? The current definition of
natural=peninsula is 'a piece of land nearly surrounded by water or
projecting into water from a larger land mass' while a coastal area is
longish.

> and if you want to include more specific coastal land forms like spits.

Good point! It might be better to tag spits separately (natural=spit
seems obvious), as they differ from peninsulas quite a lot with regard
to their shape.

Should i also propose tags for coastal areas and spits?

Regards

Markus

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – Voting – crossing:island=*

[Markus]

Hello everyone,

I'm opening voting on crossing:island=*, a tag for specifying whether a
pedestrian crossing has a refuge island:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:crossing:island

Thanks in advance for your participation in the vote.

Best regards

Markus

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