Re: [Tagging] Healthcare=counselling and healthcare=psychotherapist?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 13:28, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> The healthcare wiki page has a number of subtags listed, but not all
> are well defined. In particular, the tags for behavioral health and
> psychology services are not very well organized.
>
> There is currently a list of options for more specific tags to use
> with healthcare=psychotherapy and healthcare=counseling but I don't
> believe these were every approved as part of a proposal.
>
> The most confusing option is healthcare:counselling=psychiatry
>
> Psychiatry is a medical specialty which treats serious mental health
> problems such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder through the use of
> medications. Psychiatrists are medical doctors, not counselors, so I
> think this is an incorrect tag.
>
> I would also think that it would be more appropriate to use
> "healthcare=psychology" rather than "=psychotherapy", because the
> health practitioners are licensed as clinical psychologists, and
> psychotherapy is only one type of therapy, although it is a popular
> term since the time of Freud.
>

I was wondering about this when I was tagging several psychology clinics
recently?

It appears to be a complicated answer, possibly depending on where you are
(now where have I heard that comment before? :-))

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/couch-meets-world/201107/psychiatrist-psychotherapist-whos-who-in-mental-health
says "Psychotherapist -- This is an umbrella term for any professional who
is trained to treat people for their emotional problems" which would seem
to suggest that it a one-term covers all answer?

But in Australia at least, this page
https://www.inneractions.com.au/res_whatsthedifference.php says "A
psychologist is a g up & university trained health professional ...Psychology
is regulated by the Australian Health Practitioner Registration Agency" ,
while "A psychotherapist usually has, as a minimum, an undergraduate degree
in a health related area ... Unfortunately and to the shame of all levels
of government in Australia, psychotherapy continues to be self-regulated."
which suggests that they're two very different things?

Certainly agree with you that the various wiki pages need tidying up &
clarifying

Thanks

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

[Tagging] Healthcare=counselling and healthcare=psychotherapist?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The healthcare wiki page has a number of subtags listed, but not all
are well defined. In particular, the tags for behavioral health and
psychology services are not very well organized.

There is currently a list of options for more specific tags to use
with healthcare=psychotherapy and healthcare=counseling but I don't
believe these were every approved as part of a proposal.

The most confusing option is healthcare:counselling=psychiatry

Psychiatry is a medical specialty which treats serious mental health
problems such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder through the use of
medications. Psychiatrists are medical doctors, not counselors, so I
think this is an incorrect tag.

I would also think that it would be more appropriate to use
"healthcare=psychology" rather than "=psychotherapy", because the
health practitioners are licensed as clinical psychologists, and
psychotherapy is only one type of therapy, although it is a popular
term since the time of Freud.

A wiki page for healthcare=counseling should probably be created to
explain that this tag mean to show an office of a dietitian or
nutritionist or other counselor, not for clinical psychologist or
psychiatry practices.

From the wiki page:

"Specialities for healthcare=counselling
healthcare:counselling=dietitian
healthcare:counselling=nutrition
healthcare:counselling=sexual
healthcare:counselling=pregnancy
healthcare:counselling=psychiatry"

"Specialities for healthcare=psychotherapist
Different schools and approaches of psychotherapy may be tagged using
healthcare:speciality=*. May also be used for healthcare=doctor and
other healthcare=*.
healthcare:speciality=behavior  Behavior oriented psychotherapy
healthcare:speciality=body  Body oriented psychotherapy
healthcare:speciality=depthbased on Depth psychology, e.g. Psychoanalysis
healthcare:speciality=humanisticpsychotherapy based on Humanistic 
psychology
healthcare:speciality=other psychotherapy that does not fit other
categories, e.g. Art therapy
healthcare:speciality=systemic  Systemic therapy"

See:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare#Specialities_for_healthcare.3Dcounselling

Original proposal that was approved in 2010 (includes psychotherapy
specialties but not counseling):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=1318635

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Mar 2019, at 01:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> & marked © www.berlinonline.net as well as OSM Contributors?
> 
> Can they impose their own copyright on an OSM map?


the data is copyright osm, the map rendering is their copyright. That’s the 
ODbL. You only have to share the data and can produce proprietary works from 
them.

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 09:47, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> it is literally a safe-keeping ground, but what it actually means is an
> area to store seized/confiscated objects (e.g. vehicles).
>

Ah, thanks, makes perfect sense now! - we know them as a holding-yard.

fun fact: there’s an official website and their map is OSM based:
> https://service.berlin.de/standort/121649/
>

& marked © www.berlinonline.net  as well as
OSM Contributors?

Can they impose their own copyright on an OSM map?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

>> & what's a "Sicherstellungsgelände der Polizei" ? 


fun fact: there’s an official website and their map is OSM based:
https://service.berlin.de/standort/121649/

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Mar 2019, at 00:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> 
> & what's a "Sicherstellungsgelände der Polizei" ? All Google can come up with 
> is "freezing terrain", which I'm pretty sure isn't right! 


it is literally a safe-keeping ground, but what it actually means is an area to 
store seized/confiscated objects (e.g. vehicles).

Ciao, Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] Baby-sitting

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 05:56, Jmapb  wrote:

> I'd be inclined towards childcare=yes,


Yes, that seems a better option than baby_sitting

Define ages as well?

age=0-14
min_age=
max_age=

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 04:03, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> E.g. (I guess these aren't police stations,
>

Yeah, places like this one :-) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/380771
(Or is it?)


> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23462697
>

& what's a "Sicherstellungsgelände der Polizei" ? All Google can come up
with is "freezing terrain", which I'm pretty sure isn't right!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks Andy

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 20:22, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> There are ways that are genuinely highway=raceway:
>

Just looking at it, would I be right in saying that that stretch, & the
straight / pits over to the East are pure racetrack & nothing else, but the
rest of the circuit is public roads?

but the circuit itself doesn't have that tag on it, and shouldn't have:
>

So if we took the highway=raceway tag off, but just left the relation in
place, would that be OK?

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9325885#map=16/-27.9868/153.4270

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 17:43, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> Is route marked on the ground
>

Stays partially marked - the "boxes" for the starting grid & the start /
finish line stay year round, but are redone for the race itself. The rest
of the race lane markings get painted over after the race then repainted
next year. The burnt rubber on the grid & leading into all the corners
stays though!

or at least exactly the same every year?
>

Has been the same basic layout for ~20 years now, but they've tweaked it a
few times to go down that street rather than this one, or make the curve
wider or tighter

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Baby-sitting

[Jmapb]

On 3/7/2019 6:33 PM, Sergio Manzi wrote:

On 2019-03-07 23:31, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:

How can I tag an hotel which features baby-sitting?

I think it should be something in the lines of "service:babysitting=yes" unless 
we already have something different in use...


I'd be inclined towards childcare=yes, as it reuses the amenity=childcare value 
as a key. Not a lot of support in taginfo for childcare as a key (57 hits) but 
better than service:childcare, service:babysitting, or just babysitting (all 0 
hits).

Jason


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

Re: [Tagging] Baby-sitting

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 8. März 2019 um 20:37 Uhr schrieb Philip Barnes <
p...@trigpoint.me.uk>:

> It can be a child of any age that is too young to be left alone. The legal
> age will vary by country or state but entirely possible a 14 year old could
> be babysat. Don't take the word baby too literally, technically its short
> term adhoc childcare whilst the parents go out for an evening.
>


On the other hand, actual babies require different kind of attention and
training, most hotels won't sit actual "babies", while some others might be
specialized.

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

Re: [Tagging] Baby-sitting

[Philip Barnes]

It can be a child of any age that is too young to be left alone. The legal age 
will vary by country or state but entirely possible a 14 year old could be 
babysat. Don't take the word  baby too literally, technically its short term 
adhoc childcare whilst the parents go out for an evening.

Phil (trigpoint) 

On 8 March 2019 16:36:21 GMT, Martin Koppenhoefer  
wrote:
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 7. Mar 2019, at 23:31, Cascafico Giovanni 
>wrote:
>> 
>> How can I tag an hotel which features baby-sitting?
>
>
>what does babysitting mean? Ages 0-3? 
>
>Cheers, Martin 
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 7. März 2019 um 16:52 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 14:44, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> usually areas end at their actual borders in OSM, so unless you can park
>> in the middle of the road, it should not be contained in the parking area.
>>
>
> If we usually mapped roads as areas, I'd agree with you 100%.  ...
>


Right, there's this "incompatibility" of the highway graph with the rest of
our data. There are efforts to map roads also as areas though, and sooner
or later this kind of mapping will be established (in built up areas and
particularly where the shape is not regular, so that it actually makes
sense to do it, e.g. historic town centres).



>
> But we don't normally map roads as areas.  Which is why, when a footpath
> perpendicularly
> joins a road, we extend the footpath all the way to the road itself.
>


you could split the footway and give the part that is only "virtual" and
due to our data model, a different tag. I'm doing this occasionally for
driveways (access=private only after the gate, different surface etc.)



> ...
>
> Your way, we'd have a gap between the parking area and the road when it
> renders.
>


no, just in the editor. In the rendering the parking area will probably be
on the road ;-)




>   Which
> there isn't because in reality they're conjoined and contiguous.  Your
> way, the parking area
> wouldn't be routeable.
>


of course you could route to the parking area. Every router does this all
the time. We don't add housenumbers to the road, do we?




> Your way, people would spend a lot of time mapping for the renderer by
> tweaking the parking area until it just touched the road (which renders as
> a line of non-zero
> width).
>


if someone is obsessed with highzoom street rendering he should probably
push for highway areas.



>   Only to have to change it if the road classification changes and so the
> width of the
> line representing the road changes.
>


generally our roads are thicker than they are in reality, only in the
highest zoom levels this might change to the opposite. It is impossible to
get this right in all zoom levels.



>
> You're being a purist for the editor and the data structure, you don't
> care how it renders or routes.
> Some of us are pragmatists.
>


routing is not an issue, for the rendering results _might_ look more
"clean" if you extend the parking up to the middle of the road (not that
the representation would be more accurate though), but at the cost that the
parking area will become much bigger than it actually is.

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

Re: [Tagging] Baby-sitting

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-08 17:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 7. Mar 2019, at 23:31, Cascafico Giovanni  wrote:
>>
>> How can I tag an hotel which features baby-sitting?
>
> what does babysitting mean? Ages 0-3? 
>
> Cheers, Martin 
>

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/babysitting

Ciao,

Sergio




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Pets allowed

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Fr., 8. März 2019 um 18:56 Uhr schrieb seirra blake <
sophietheopos...@yandex.com>:

> I'm guessing it depends on how specific the authority is.
>


good point. We should strive for least specific tagging restrictions
necessary to describe what we want.
pet=no (generally no animals allowed)
dog=yes (but dogs are)
bird=yes (birds as well)
parrot=no (but parrots not)
etc.

For allowances it is more difficult (as the alligator example shows,
pet=yes would likely be too permissive).

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=police

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 7. März 2019 um 01:27 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> > maintain amenity=police for public-facing police station
>
> +1 for keeping the basic tag for police stations
>


what about other police facilities that are also tagged with amenity=police
now, should they key the basic tag as well?
E.g. (I guess these aren't police stations, but I do not know them)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/33258
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23462697

We have already acquired experience with similar cases, e.g.
tourism=information was first only used for information offices.
Today they are only 3,5% of all objects with an "information" tag (and 95%
of all information=* tags are combined with tourism=* , like
tourism=information).
As a result tourism=information has become meaningless, you will look at
the information tag to see what it is about.

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

Re: [Tagging] Pets allowed

[seirra blake]

I'm guessing it depends on how specific the authority is. on the one 
hand you'd think it'd usually just be either birds or no birds however I 
imagine the distinction may still crop up. as I can't actually see any 
article saying about animals used as access tags, I imagine it's just 
tag as you see fit, and if in the future there really is any issues it 
can be handled then. I would just add to the wiki page as appropriate 
but what I gather is that most changes to tag pages outside of perhaps 
good examples of the tags 'in the wild' or support in renderers has to 
be voted on first, and considering the reaction I usually get asking 
about tagging I wouldn't feel comfortable writing a proposal, it would 
probably get shot down very quickly for one reason or another. I 
understand the need for voting and strong criticism mind you, it's just 
very daunting especially as I'm not well versed in wikis.


On 3/8/19 4:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

On 7. Mar 2019, at 22:58, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:



Presently they are tagged as per access tagging.
motor_vehicle=yes/no
horse=yes/no
dog=yes/no
ferret=yes/no
parrot=yes/no
etc



so birds should get individual tags based on family or species?
*budgerigar=yes*
*ostrich=no*
*etc?*
*
*
*
*
*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] Pets allowed

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Mar 2019, at 22:58, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Presently they are tagged as per access tagging.
> motor_vehicle=yes/no
> horse=yes/no
> dog=yes/no
> ferret=yes/no 
> parrot=yes/no
> etc


so birds should get individual tags based on family or species? 
budgerigar=yes
ostrich=no
etc?


Cheers, Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] Baby-sitting

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Mar 2019, at 23:31, Cascafico Giovanni  wrote:
> 
> How can I tag an hotel which features baby-sitting?


what does babysitting mean? Ages 0-3? 

Cheers, Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] Pets allowed

[seirra blake]

then I guess it might have to be pets? it isn't necessarily ideal, but 
it is a lot more specific than nothing at all. from what has been said 
though, it looks like pet=yes/pet=no may be more appropriate as species 
are already specified in the singular form (as well as most other access 
tags I can think of). it may be worth adding some potentially relevant 
species tags and the more generic pet tag to 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access in case it's relevant to 
someone again in the future. I'm guessing you probably need to make a 
proposal and cast voting for it first though


On 3/7/19 10:27 PM, Cascafico Giovanni wrote:

Unfortunately dataset I'm manually importing has a boolean "pets" field.
I guess if go for "dogs" it will be 9/10 right, while a generic "pets" 
99/100 (considering the alligator anomaly :-) The latter has less 
taginfo popularity, but better fits source data.


Il gio 7 mar 2019, 14:09 seirra blake > ha scritto:


while I can't see a problem with a tag for each pet, it may still
make more sense to have a pets tag and just namespace
species/related things under it similar to the access tag. use
cases I can think of:

  * pets=no | no matter what, no pets
  * pets=yes | open to all or at least most pets other than
specified examples such as...
  * pets:dogs=no | dogs that are pets are not allowed, a guide dog
does not necessarily count as a pet or at least, I don't think
of one as being a pet.
  * pets:cats=1 | only one cat allowed

this does still make it vague in the sense that if only one cat is
allowed, is it per party or per person, but this probably could be
made more specific with another tag namespaced under pets (my mind
is blank, I haven't eaten yet. however this feels like the best
approach to cover most situations). this may also be useful for
things like water-bowls/treats for pets as mentioned elsewhere
here; for example: my bank offers dog biscuits for dogs, the train
station used to offer a water-bowl as well, but I haven't put much
thought into seeing if it's there after the take over by LNER.

On 3/7/19 12:17 PM, Paul Allen wrote:

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 12:05, mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk>> wrote:

Pets is probably a bit vague, many hotels will accept pet
dogs, but are less likely  to accept cats and extremely
unlikely to my pet alligator (no I don't really own one).


Some holiday cottages accept dogs but place a limit on the number
(only one; a maximum of two; etc.)
Yes, some do accept cats, and there are many cat owners who would
love to be able to take their
cat on holiday with them.  So it would be nice if we had
something a little more flexible than
dog=yes/no.

Obviously dogs=no will only apply to pets, registered
assistance dogs are covered by the law of the country, in the
UK a hotel/pub/restaurant is not allowed to refuse assistance
dogs. I assume the same is true throughout the EU.


I believe that, in the UK, NO business can refuse assistance dogs
(but I could be wrong).  It's also
the case in the UK that non-assistance dogs are NOT legally
prohibited from pubs and
restaurants but only from food preparation areas: it's the
owner's decision as to whether or not
dogs are allowed where food is served and sold. See

https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/our-resources/kennel-club-campaigns/be-dog-friendly/

Many shops and a few restaurants in my town display a sign
somewhere saying that dogs
are allowed.

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

Re: [Tagging] Pets allowed

[seirra blake]

I never saw that in access before, but that actually makes a lot of 
sense. conditionals are somewhat underutilised where I live so I always 
forget about them, but that's a fair point


On 3/7/19 9:58 PM, Warin wrote:

On 08/03/19 00:07, seirra blake wrote:


while I can't see a problem with a tag for each pet, it may still 
make more sense to have a pets tag and just namespace species/related 
things under it similar to the access tag. use cases I can think of:


  * pets=no | no matter what, no pets
  * pets=yes | open to all or at least most pets other than specified
examples such as...
  * pets:dogs=no | dogs that are pets are not allowed, a guide dog
does not necessarily count as a pet or at least, I don't think of
one as being a pet.
  * pets:cats=1 | only one cat allowed



Presently they are tagged as per access tagging.
motor_vehicle=yes/no
horse=yes/no
dog=yes/no
ferret=yes/no
parrot=yes/no
etc

this does still make it vague in the sense that if only one cat is 
allowed, is it per party or per person, but this probably could be 
made more specific with another tag namespaced under pets (my mind is 
blank, I haven't eaten yet. however this feels like the best approach 
to cover most situations). this may also be useful for things like 
water-bowls/treats for pets as mentioned elsewhere here; for example: 
my bank offers dog biscuits for dogs, the train station used to offer 
a water-bowl as well, but I haven't put much thought into seeing if 
it's there after the take over by LNER.




Where a quantity limit applies ? dog:1= yes @ per party ???


___
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 professional cycling competitions as route=bicycle?

[Andy Townsend]

On 08/03/2019 04:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
Here's the one I was talking about 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9325885#map=16/-27.9868/153.4270


Only operates as a race track for 4 days a year - 1 practice, 1 
qualifying & 2 race days. The rest of the year it's normal public roads.



Singapore offers a better example, I suspect.  There are ways that are 
genuinely highway=raceway:


https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/297234502

but the circuit itself doesn't have that tag on it, and shouldn't have:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/421263

Best Regards,

Andy





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

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Line attachments

[François Lacombe]

Hi all

Le ven. 8 mars 2019 à 01:40, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> Let the mappers vote on if it should be in OSM by using or not using it.
> Here we should be getting the best tags, not thinking 'this is not
> something for OSM' as that is one persons view.
>

Since it's visible and verifiable there is no point to ask if it should be
in OSM or not: yes, definetly, so does bolts and nuts.
Let users use tags or not is necessary but not enough to get "the best"
tags in a way of consistency, comprhensiveness and relevancy.
We do have issues currently with different fields of knowledge defining
their own tags based on same theoretical concepts. They do not share
anything and the knowledge is finally lost since it's difficult to connect
features with environment or other objects.

That's why proposals are also a unique time to discuss how we can merge and
share concepts.

Le ven. 8 mars 2019 à 08:47, Mateusz Konieczny  a
écrit :

> What is section in "line_attachment=suspension;pin;suspension|suspension"?
>
> First one suspension;pin;suspension
> Second one suspension
>
> I would explicitly note "| separates sections" or "; separates sections"
>

Yes first and second.
i've updated the document with your suggestion, thanks

All the best

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

Re: [Tagging] Pets allowed

[Mateusz Konieczny]

If it is import data (can you link its documentation page on the OSM wiki?)
then it certainly should not add blindly "dogs" unless it was defined this way
in source data.

10% wrong is completely unacceptable for imports.


Mar 7, 2019, 11:27 PM by cascaf...@gmail.com:

> Unfortunately dataset I'm manually importing has a boolean "pets" field. 
> I guess if go for "dogs" it will be 9/10 right, while a generic "pets" 99/100 
> (considering the alligator anomaly :-) > The latter has less taginfo 
> popularity, but better fits source data.
>
> Il gio 7 mar 2019, 14:09 seirra blake <> sophietheopos...@yandex.com 
> > > ha scritto:
>
>>
>> while I can't see a problem with a tag for each pet, it may still  make 
>> more sense to have a pets tag and just namespace  species/related things 
>> under it similar to the access tag. use  cases I can think of:
>>
>> pets=no | no matter what, no pets
>> pets=yes | open to all or at least most pets other thanspecified 
>> examples such as...
>> pets:dogs=no | dogs that are pets are not allowed, a guide dogdoes 
>> not necessarily count as a pet or at least, I don't thinkof one as 
>> being a pet.
>> pets:cats=1 | only one cat allowed
>>
>> this does still make it vague in the sense that if only one cat  is 
>> allowed, is it per party or per person, but this probably could  be made 
>> more specific with another tag namespaced under pets (my  mind is blank, 
>> I haven't eaten yet. however this feels like the  best approach to cover 
>> most situations). this may also be useful  for things like 
>> water-bowls/treats for pets as mentioned elsewhere  here; for example: 
>> my bank offers dog biscuits for dogs, the train  station used to offer a 
>> water-bowl as well, but I haven't put much  thought into seeing if it's 
>> there after the take over by LNER.
>>
>> On 3/7/19 12:17 PM, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 12:05, <>>> p...@trigpoint.me.uk 
>>>   wrote:
>>>
 Pets is probably a bitvague, many hotels will accept pet dogs, 
 but are lesslikely  to accept cats and extremely unlikely to 
 my petalligator (no I don't really own one).

>>>
>>> Some holiday cottages accept dogs but place a limit onthe 
>>> number (only one; a maximum of two; etc.)
>>> Yes, some do accept cats, and there are many cat ownerswho 
>>> would love to be able to take their
>>> cat on holiday with them.  So it would be nice if we had
>>> something a little more flexible than
>>> dog=yes/no.
>>>
>>>
 Obviously dogs=no will only apply to pets, registered
 assistance dogs are covered by the law of the country, inthe 
 UK a hotel/pub/restaurant is not allowed to refuseassistance 
 dogs. I assume the same is true throughout theEU.

>>>
>>> I believe that, in the UK, NO business can refuseassistance 
>>> dogs (but I could be wrong).  It's also
>>> the case in the UK that non-assistance dogs are NOTlegally 
>>> prohibited from pubs and
>>> restaurants but only from food preparation areas: it'sthe 
>>> owner's decision as to whether or not
>>> dogs are allowed where food is served and sold.  See
>>> https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/our-resources/kennel-club-campaigns/be-dog-friendly/
>>>  
>>> 
>>>
>>> Many shops and a few restaurants in my town display asign 
>>> somewhere saying that dogs
>>> are allowed.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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