Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Warin]

On 11/03/19 14:39, Sergio Manzi wrote:


On 2019-03-11 04:05, Warin wrote:


On 11/03/19 10:29, Sergio Manzi wrote:


In Italy there are five main, state-wide, police corps:

  * /Polizia di Stato/: a civil organization with civil jurisdiction
(/with several different branches dealing with specific
activities/).
  * /Carabinieri/: a military branch with military jurisdiction, but
also civil jurisdiction.
  * /Polizia penitenziaria/:  a civil organization handling prisons,
but with also other civil jurisdictions.

In the UK these are not police officers and their powers are only 
while 'acting as a prison officer' i.e. in relation to prisoners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty%27s_Prison_Service#Powers_and_structure
They are not considered 'police' by the general populace.


Not here. Automatic Google translation (/sorry, no time for good 
translation.../) from the Italian Wikipedia article 
(https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpo_di_polizia_penitenziaria):


/"//Mainly it carries out the task of managing people subjected to
restrictions or restriction of personal freedom. It also carries
out traffic police activities pursuant to art. 12 of the Highway
Code /[but TBH I never saw them acting in this capacity, mainly
handled by the Polizia Stradale (part of the Polizia di Stato) and
by the Carabinieri. smz]/, participates in the maintenance of
public order, carries out judicial police activities and public
safety even outside the prison environment, as well as all other
police forces, carries out escort activities for the protection of
institutional personalities (Minister of Justice, Undersecretaries
of State) and magistrates.//"/




  * /Guardia di finanza/: a military organization, but depending
from the Ministry of Finance, with civil jurisdiction on
financial matters.



What do you mean by "military organization'? (/Guardia di finanza)/
Are they under the command of the army/navy/air force?
Or is that the personnel structure is similar to the military 
(captains, corporals, etc)



No, they are in a very peculiar situation: they are a militarized 
organzation, but not depending from the Ministry of Defence, but the 
Ministry of Finance. English Wikipedia aricle about them is quite good 
so I refer you to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardia_di_Finanza






  * /Corpo delle capitanerie di porto - Guardia costiera/: a
military organization, roughly comparable to the US Coast Guard.



 More like the navy?

Or 'water police'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_police

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Police_Marine_Policing_Unit



They are part of the Italian Navy (Marina Militare) but their 
responsiblities are more akin of those of the "US Coast Guard". Quite 
good English Wikipedia article for them too: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corps_of_the_Port_Captaincies_%E2%80%93_Coast_Guard


Cheers!



Thanks... I have a bit of reading to do.
The world sure is a mixed up place.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-11 03:44, Warin wrote:
> On 11/03/19 10:39, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>> On 2019-03-11 00:33, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>>> On 2019-03-11 00:30, Jan S wrote:
 How about police=detention as a more generic term then?
>>> Nice!
>>>
>>> Sergio
>>
>> And this makes me think that maybe we could find something better for our 
>> ~10.000 "amenity=prison" (/go tell them inside that their hopefully 
>> temporary home is an "amenity", and see the reaction.../)
>>
>
> :))
>
> More of a landuse=prison I think. 

... or maybe landuse=detention_facility




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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-11 04:05, Warin wrote:

> On 11/03/19 10:29, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>>
>> In Italy there are five main, state-wide, police corps:
>>
>>   * /Polizia di Stato/: a civil organization with civil jurisdiction (/with 
>> several different branches dealing with specific activities/).
>>   * /Carabinieri/: a military branch with military jurisdiction, but also 
>> civil jurisdiction.
>>   * /Polizia penitenziaria/:  a civil organization handling prisons, but 
>> with also other civil jurisdictions.
>>
> In the UK these are not police officers and their powers are only while 
> 'acting as a prison officer' i.e. in relation to prisoners.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty%27s_Prison_Service#Powers_and_structure
> They are not considered 'police' by the general populace.

Not here. Automatic Google translation (/sorry, no time for good 
translation.../) from the Italian Wikipedia article 
(https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpo_di_polizia_penitenziaria):

/"//Mainly it carries out the task of managing people subjected to 
restrictions or restriction of personal freedom. It also carries out traffic 
police activities pursuant to art. 12 of the Highway Code /[but TBH I never saw 
them acting in this capacity, mainly handled by the Polizia Stradale (part of 
the Polizia di Stato) and by the Carabinieri. smz]/, participates in the 
maintenance of public order, carries out judicial police activities and public 
safety even outside the prison environment, as well as all other police forces, 
carries out escort activities for the protection of institutional personalities 
(Minister of Justice, Undersecretaries of State) and magistrates.//"/

>
>>   * /Guardia di finanza/: a military organization, but depending from the 
>> Ministry of Finance, with civil jurisdiction on financial matters.
>>
>
> What do you mean by "military organization'? (/Guardia di finanza)/
> Are they under the command of the army/navy/air force?
> Or is that the personnel structure is similar to the military (captains, 
> corporals, etc)


No, they are in a very peculiar situation: they are a militarized organzation, 
but not depending from the Ministry of Defence, but the Ministry of Finance. 
English Wikipedia aricle about them is quite good so I refer you to it: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardia_di_Finanza


>
>>   * /Corpo delle capitanerie di porto - Guardia costiera/: a military 
>> organization, roughly comparable to the US Coast Guard.
>>
>
>  More like the navy?
>
> Or 'water police'?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_police
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Police_Marine_Policing_Unit
>

They are part of the Italian Navy (Marina Militare) but their responsiblities 
are more akin of those of the "US Coast Guard". Quite good English Wikipedia 
article for them too: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corps_of_the_Port_Captaincies_%E2%80%93_Coast_Guard

Cheers!

Sergio




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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Warin]

On 11/03/19 10:29, Sergio Manzi wrote:


In Italy there are five main, state-wide, police corps:

  * /Polizia di Stato/: a civil organization with civil jurisdiction
(/with several different branches dealing with specific activities/).
  * /Carabinieri/: a military branch with military jurisdiction, but
also civil jurisdiction.
  * /Polizia penitenziaria/:  a civil organization handling prisons,
but with also other civil jurisdictions.

In the UK these are not police officers and their powers are only while 
'acting as a prison officer' i.e. in relation to prisoners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty%27s_Prison_Service#Powers_and_structure
They are not considered 'police' by the general populace.


  * /Guardia di finanza/: a military organization, but depending from
the Ministry of Finance, with civil jurisdiction on financial matters.



What do you mean by "military organization'? (/Guardia di finanza)/
Are they under the command of the army/navy/air force?
Or is that the personnel structure is similar to the military (captains, 
corporals, etc)




  * /Corpo delle capitanerie di porto - Guardia costiera/: a military
organization, roughly comparable to the US Coast Guard.




 More like the navy?

Or 'water police'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_police

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Police_Marine_Policing_Unit

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Warin]

On 11/03/19 10:39, Sergio Manzi wrote:

On 2019-03-11 00:33, Sergio Manzi wrote:

On 2019-03-11 00:30, Jan S wrote:

How about police=detention as a more generic term then?

Nice!

Sergio


And this makes me think that maybe we could find something better for 
our ~10.000 "amenity=prison" (/go tell them inside that their 
hopefully temporary home is an "amenity", and see the reaction.../)




:))

More of a landuse=prison I think.


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

[Tagging] Large areas of landuse=grass in the Netherlands

[Joseph Eisenberg]

It was recently noticed that most of the grassy rural areas around
Utrecht in the Netherlands are tagged as landuse=grass. This is
surprising, because these areas appear to be pasture or meadows, which
would be tagged as landuse=meadow, or perhaps fallow farmland with a
grass cover crop, which would normally be tagged as landuse=farmland.

Could someone with local knowledge check the tagging of these areas?

See:  https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=10/52.0322/4.7873

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> “in China some police divisions even managed to setup their own
for-profit companies, like hospitals or construction companies, that would
serve general public and compete in business environment in order to create
additional revenue stream for their police division. I don't think it would
be wise to tag them police=hospital or police=commercial either?“

I agree. In Indonesia my local police station has a public clinic,
pharmacy, daycare, church and mosque. The military base has all of these,
plus some general merchandise shops. It’s a way to improve public relations
(and perhaps make some money?). Oh, and the airfield transports goods by
cargo plane at market price.

But these businesses and services should not be tagged under a “police” key.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Phake Nick]

Is it actually a good idea to put everything under police=*? Like
prison/detainment facilities, yes in China police have some sort of
detainment facilities that can detain people for a given number of days, as
an alternative to go through juridical trial and get into actual correction
facilities, but is the difference really that big? Is it not enough to have
something like amenity=prison and operator:type=police?

Likewise, China is also building some sort of new naval base for its
coastal guard managed by their armed police unit, which are already using
ships that are at warship level and they're preparing it to fight against
forces from other countries, in this situation police=naval_base would fit
but is it really necessary to create such tag instead of simply using
military=naval_base+police=*?

Or, in China some police divisions even managed to setup their own
for-profit companies, like hospitals or construction companies, that would
serve general public and compete in business environment in order to create
additional revenue stream for their police division. I don't think it would
be wise to tag them police=hospital or police=commercial either?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 09:32, Jan S  wrote:

>
> How about police=detention as a more generic term then?
>

Yep, that covers it nicely!

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 23:32, Jan S  wrote:

How about police=detention as a more generic term then?
>

Works for me.  Having done some more digging, it seems the constant
euphemization of
English means that, these days, the cells are called a custody suite in the
UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custody_suite

So either detention or custody.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-11 00:33, Sergio Manzi wrote:
> On 2019-03-11 00:30, Jan S wrote:
>> How about police=detention as a more generic term then?
> Nice!
>
> Sergio

And this makes me think that maybe we could find something better for our 
~10.000 "amenity=prison" (/go tell them inside that their hopefully temporary 
home is an "amenity", and see the reaction.../)

Cheers,

Sergio



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-11 00:30, Jan S wrote:
> How about police=detention as a more generic term then?

Nice!

Sergio




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

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

[Jan S]

Am 10. März 2019 22:28:13 MEZ schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick 
:

>I agree, so what is the procedure for deprecating a tag?

The normal proposal procedure, only that you don't propose a new tag but the 
abolition and replacement of an existing one?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Jan S]

Am 10. März 2019 20:31:33 MEZ schrieb Paul Allen :
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 18:45, Sergio Manzi  wrote:
>
>no problem maintaing the currently defined terminology "prison" and
>> "operator", for me: as I said it was a bit of hair splitting and as I
>hit
>> the send button I also asked myself if maybe "jail" was an
>americanism (*I'm
>> Italian, I spent some time in the US but very little time in the
>UK...*).
>>
>
>The prison/jail distinction tends to be an American thing.  In the UK
>they
>mean the same
>thing and police stations (if they have detention facilities at all)
>have
>cells, not jails.  From what
>I've dug up so far, it seems only the US has this distinction.
>
>In researching this answer I also found that (according to Wiktionary)
>"gaol" used to be the preferred
>spelling in the UK and Australia until Monopoly came along and used the
>American spelling even
>in those two countries.

How about police=detention as a more generic term then?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-03-11 00:02, Warin wrote:
> On 11/03/19 09:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>>> On 10. Mar 2019, at 14:13, Paul Allen  wrote:
>>>
>>> Which of all those get mapped as police and which get mapped as military 
>>> will need to be
>>> figured out at some point.
>>
>> IMHO we should be able to map it as both (as military and as police) where 
>> it is applicable.
>>
> I think it comes down to their jurisdiction: who do they have power over?
>
> If it is the civilian population - then police
>
> If it is the military population and anyone on a military base them 
> military_police
>
> Sorry if that does not fit around the world! Please explain the local 
> situation? And then there will have to be some tagging accommodation?


In Italy there are five main, state-wide, police corps:

  * /Polizia di Stato/: a civil organization with civil jurisdiction (/with 
several different branches dealing with specific activities/).
  * /Carabinieri/: a military branch with military jurisdiction, but also civil 
jurisdiction.
  * /Polizia penitenziaria/:  a civil organization handling prisons, but with 
also other civil jurisdictions.
  * /Guardia di finanza/: a military organization, but depending from the 
Ministry of Finance, with civil jurisdiction on financial matters.
  * /Corpo delle capitanerie di porto - Guardia costiera/: a military 
organization, roughly comparable to the US Coast Guard.

Add to that several different local regional/provincial/metro polices.

Of particular interest (/for those interested in such things.../) is the 
"/Compagnia barracellare/" 
(https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnia_barracellare), operating in Sardinia 
and that, having been founded in the 1560, represent the oldest existing 
European police force.

So, essentially all Italian police forces have civil jurisdiction with only the 
Carabinieri having military jurisdiction too. If I'm not mistaken...

Sergio



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Jan S]

Am 11. März 2019 00:00:55 MEZ schrieb Paul Allen :
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 22:53, Martin Koppenhoefer
>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 10. Mar 2019, at 14:13, Paul Allen  wrote:
>> >
>> > Which of all those get mapped as police and which get mapped as
>military
>> will need to be
>> > figured out at some point.
>>
>>
>> IMHO we should be able to map it as both (as military and as police)
>where
>> it is applicable.
>>
>
>It will end up being a per-country decision (or in-country dispute). 
>And
>however it's decided, it's
>better documented.  Just to stop people asking the same question
>repeatedly
>here and in the
>forums.  So either a table on the police=* page or a link from it to a
>page
>documenting the
>local decision.

+1

I think it would have to be determined even for each facility if it is more 
police or more military in unclear cases. According to this decision, barracks 
for example could either be mapped as police=barracks and military=yes if 
they're more police-like, or military=barracks and police=yes if the military 
character is stronger. But again, that's a local decision.

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

Re: [Tagging] tags for tutor or coaching out of school

[Warin]

On 11/03/19 10:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 08:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:



Pretty sure someone was working on a proposal for exactly that
last year, & it made a lot of sense


Here you go: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative


May have stalled though?



No activity since Nov 2017 ... contributor still actively mapping.

It comes out of the rejected 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Education_2.0#Voting
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Warin]

On 11/03/19 09:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 10. Mar 2019, at 14:13, Paul Allen  wrote:

Which of all those get mapped as police and which get mapped as military will 
need to be
figured out at some point.


IMHO we should be able to map it as both (as military and as police) where it 
is applicable.


I think it comes down to their jurisdiction: who do they have power over?

If it is the civilian population - then police

If it is the military population and anyone on a military base them 
military_police

Sorry if that does not fit around the world! Please explain the local 
situation? And then there will have to be some tagging accommodation?


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

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

[Sergio Manzi]

BTW, what I incorrectly (/I knew it was wrong!/) named a "branch" of the tower 
is correctly named a "crossarm".

See: http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform=466-08-12

Cheers!

Sergio


On 2019-03-10 23:02, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> François,
>
> Thank-you for addressing the mistakes I outlined (/some still needs some 
> polishing I gues/s), but anyway (/and putting aside my reluctance to map such 
> things/) I'm afraid there is still something profoundly wrong with this 
> proposal, at its very essence.
>
> I still don't understand what are *the objects* that one is expected to map 
> with this tag.
>
> Taking as an example the first tower you depict for 
> "line_attachment=suspension" 
> (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Elbekreuzung_2_traversen_crop.jpg)
>  what are they? The tower (/BTW, shouldn't it be pylon in Brit. Eng. ?/) The 
> "/branch/" (/sorry, I'm missing the correct word.../) of the tower/pylon to 
> which the insulator sets are suspended? The rings/hooks/bolts/nuts suspending 
> the insulator sets under the "branch"? The insulator sets themselves? The 
> clamps suspending the conductors under the insulator sets?
>
> Would it be too much asking you to edit the picture by adding a red arrow 
> pointing to the object of this tag?
>
> TIA,
>
> Sergio
>
>
> On 2019-03-10 17:54, François Lacombe wrote:
>> Thank you for the time took to provide your conclusions here
>>
>> Le sam. 9 mars 2019 à 19:22, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> 
>> a écrit :
>>
>> *A) **Scope of the proposal.*
>>
>> It is badly defined. The "Definition" is given as "/Consistently 
>> defining how a power, telecom or even washing line is attached to supporting 
>> pole or tower/", a very broad definition, but then reading on I see that you 
>> state that "/This proposal is mainly dedicated for utilities network//s/". 
>> Which one should we take? With the "mainly" adjective are you indicating 
>> that you are willing to extend the scope of the proposal to different 
>> application fields later on?
>>
>> As a matter of fact I'm convinced that a generalization cannot be done 
>> in terms of tagging: "attaching" a power line to a fixed infrastructure is 
>> done with very different techniques from the "attaching" of a washing line, 
>> the suspension line of a cable car, the cables of a suspension bridge, the 
>> overhead line of an electric railway (/and I have the strong feeling tha 
>> "railways taggers" here have their own ideas on how to tag their contact 
>> lines/), etc., and therefore will require different tagging schemes.
>>
>> Since tagging is built by contributors here, yes all is extendable by 
>> further proposals.
>> It's hard to get a whole topic described in one shot so anyone will be able 
>> to propose more precise tagging for insulators for instance.
>>
>> Generalisation is made upon shared concepts. Whatever the line is, an 
>> anchorage is still an anchorage.
>> Additional keys can precise how the anchorage is made, and so on
>>
>> *B) **Inconsistency between the proposal name and the tag name.*
>>
>> Solved, proposed renamed accordingly.
>>  
>>
>> *C) **Are we really talking about "Clamps"?*
>>
>> The images you are attaching to the definition of "suspension_clamp" and 
>> "anchor_clamp" are misleading in the sense that one could easily take what 
>> in reality is a "Suspension insulator set" as a "Suspension clamp" and a 
>> "Tension insulator set" as an "anchor clamp".
>>
>> Right. Clamp term is removed from the proposal and values.
>> As the rationale stands to share concepts between power, telecom or any 
>> supported line, it's out of the scope to define insulators sets, chains and 
>> so on.
>> The point is to provide tags to make the distinguish between suspension, 
>> anchorage and shackles.
>>
>> The confusion is even more augmented by the fact that in your proposal 
>> you refer to "shackle insulators" too (IEC 471-03-09), and they are in a 
>> totally different area of the IEC standards, "Insulators", same as "pin 
>> insulators" (IEC 471-03-06).
>>
>> Shackle insulators are the basis to define shackles and how they differ from 
>> suspension and anchors/tensions.
>>
>> So, are we talking about clamps (fittings) or about insulators (/or 
>> insulator sets/) here? Because it really seemsyou are mixing under the same 
>> tag two very different kind of objects...
>>
>> We are dealing with attachments, which only involve insulators with bare 
>> power conductors.
>>
>> And BTW, how could you then tag "the real clamp" with its bolts and nuts 
>> when it comes to it?
>>
>> Keys have to be proposed for that, it's not the point of the current 
>> proposal.
>>
>> *D) Inaccurate wording. *Some examples:
>>
>>   * You state that "anchor_clamp" is "/built stronger than suspension 
>> tower//s/". Really? A clamp stronger than a tower? :-/
>>
>> You're confused in your own reading.
>> First sentence begins with "A support" 

Re: [Tagging] tags for tutor or coaching out of school

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 08:28, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Pretty sure someone was working on a proposal for exactly that last year,
> & it made a lot of sense
>

Here you go:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Education_Reform_Alternative

May have stalled though?

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 22:53, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 10. Mar 2019, at 14:13, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > Which of all those get mapped as police and which get mapped as military
> will need to be
> > figured out at some point.
>
>
> IMHO we should be able to map it as both (as military and as police) where
> it is applicable.
>

It will end up being a per-country decision (or in-country dispute).  And
however it's decided, it's
better documented.  Just to stop people asking the same question repeatedly
here and in the
forums.  So either a table on the police=* page or a link from it to a page
documenting the
local decision.

Just my opinion.

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

Re: [Tagging] tags for tutor or coaching out of school

[ael via Tagging]

On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 06:33:46PM -0400, Jmapb wrote:
> On 3/10/2019 6:16 PM, Warin wrote:
> 
> > 
> > amenity=prep_school .. umm amenity ... not something I like to use.
> > And prep_school tends to indicate preparation before going to school
> > rather than extra work on top of school.
> > 
> I agree re shop. And I'd definitely avoid "prep school" since it has an
> entirely different meaning in American English (it's a posh high school.)

And also a special meaning in British English: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparatory_school_%28United_Kingdom%29

So prep_school likely to widely misunderstood: as the default is British
English, the above meaning would be definitive.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Mar 2019, at 14:13, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Which of all those get mapped as police and which get mapped as military will 
> need to be
> figured out at some point.


IMHO we should be able to map it as both (as military and as police) where it 
is applicable.

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

Re: [Tagging] tags for tutor or coaching out of school

[Jmapb]

On 3/10/2019 6:16 PM, Warin wrote:

To me an office is more of an administration type thing. I don't think 
it should be used for an educational function.
An office=educational_institution would be for record keeping, 
admissions, teacher preparation offices - that kind of thing.


shop=* to me they sell physical things .. mostly. I don't think of 
them as educational.


amenity=prep_school .. umm amenity ... not something I like to use.
And prep_school tends to indicate preparation before going to school 
rather than extra work on top of school.


Looking at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Education_features

I think it would be good to have a tag eduction=tutoring.
That could then have sub tags for max:age/min:age etc.

That then leads into thinking on using an education key for 
schools/colleges/kindergartens etc... which might be a good thing?


I agree re shop. And I'd definitely avoid "prep school" since it has an 
entirely different meaning in American English (it's a posh high school.)


I've been tagging these as office=tutoring since it seemed to be the 
relevant tag with the most support (with amenity=tutoring in second 
place.) But I agree that office isn't ideal -- generally these places 
don't look/feel like offices, more like classrooms.


If there's a big reorg into education=* (similar to healthcare=*.. there 
have been a couple proposals for this I think) then that would 
definitely be a contender. As of now, no one would find them.


Jason


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

Re: [Tagging] tags for tutor or coaching out of school

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 08:17, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I think it would be good to have a tag eduction=tutoring.
> That could then have sub tags for max:age/min:age etc.
>
> That then leads into thinking on using an education key for
> schools/colleges/kindergartens etc... which might be a good thing?
>

Pretty sure someone was working on a proposal for exactly that last year, &
it made a lot of sense

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] tags for tutor or coaching out of school

[Warin]

On 11/03/19 01:40, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:


On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 05:17, Phake Nick  wrote:

在 2019年3月10日週日 11:04，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道：

There are a fair number of commercial tutor/coaching establishments that
provide after school hours tuition in various subjects/courses.

I have checked some of these features in Taiwan  some are tagged 
office=educational_institution, some are tagged amenity=prep_school, some are 
simply tagged as shop=yes.
A discussion on Japanese osm mailing list suggest using amenity=prep_school for 
this type of facility.
On OSM Taiwan's hackpad it's suggested that they should be tagged with both 
office=educational_institution and amenity=prep_school.

There was also a brief discussion about this in early February, see
thread starting from
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/042983.html

The findings then were also that there is no decent current tagging
scheme. There was a suggestion for office=tutoring and tutoring=*.


To me an office is more of an administration type thing. I don't think it 
should be used for an educational function.
An office=educational_institution would be for record keeping, admissions, 
teacher preparation offices - that kind of thing.

shop=* to me they sell physical things .. mostly. I don't think of them as 
educational.

amenity=prep_school .. umm amenity ... not something I like to use.
And prep_school tends to indicate preparation before going to school rather 
than extra work on top of school.

Looking at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Education_features

I think it would be good to have a tag eduction=tutoring.
That could then have sub tags for max:age/min:age etc.

That then leads into thinking on using an education key for 
schools/colleges/kindergartens etc... which might be a good thing?



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

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

[Sergio Manzi]

François,

Thank-you for addressing the mistakes I outlined (/some still needs some 
polishing I gues/s), but anyway (/and putting aside my reluctance to map such 
things/) I'm afraid there is still something profoundly wrong with this 
proposal, at its very essence.

I still don't understand what are *the objects* that one is expected to map 
with this tag.

Taking as an example the first tower you depict for 
"line_attachment=suspension" 
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Elbekreuzung_2_traversen_crop.jpg)
 what are they? The tower (/BTW, shouldn't it be pylon in Brit. Eng. ?/) The 
"/branch/" (/sorry, I'm missing the correct word.../) of the tower/pylon to 
which the insulator sets are suspended? The rings/hooks/bolts/nuts suspending 
the insulator sets under the "branch"? The insulator sets themselves? The 
clamps suspending the conductors under the insulator sets?

Would it be too much asking you to edit the picture by adding a red arrow 
pointing to the object of this tag?

TIA,

Sergio


On 2019-03-10 17:54, François Lacombe wrote:
> Thank you for the time took to provide your conclusions here
>
> Le sam. 9 mars 2019 à 19:22, Sergio Manzi mailto:s...@smz.it>> 
> a écrit :
>
> *A) **Scope of the proposal.*
>
> It is badly defined. The "Definition" is given as "/Consistently defining 
> how a power, telecom or even washing line is attached to supporting pole or 
> tower/", a very broad definition, but then reading on I see that you state 
> that "/This proposal is mainly dedicated for utilities network//s/". Which 
> one should we take? With the "mainly" adjective are you indicating that you 
> are willing to extend the scope of the proposal to different application 
> fields later on?
>
> As a matter of fact I'm convinced that a generalization cannot be done in 
> terms of tagging: "attaching" a power line to a fixed infrastructure is done 
> with very different techniques from the "attaching" of a washing line, the 
> suspension line of a cable car, the cables of a suspension bridge, the 
> overhead line of an electric railway (/and I have the strong feeling tha 
> "railways taggers" here have their own ideas on how to tag their contact 
> lines/), etc., and therefore will require different tagging schemes.
>
> Since tagging is built by contributors here, yes all is extendable by further 
> proposals.
> It's hard to get a whole topic described in one shot so anyone will be able 
> to propose more precise tagging for insulators for instance.
>
> Generalisation is made upon shared concepts. Whatever the line is, an 
> anchorage is still an anchorage.
> Additional keys can precise how the anchorage is made, and so on
>
> *B) **Inconsistency between the proposal name and the tag name.*
>
> Solved, proposed renamed accordingly.
>  
>
> *C) **Are we really talking about "Clamps"?*
>
> The images you are attaching to the definition of "suspension_clamp" and 
> "anchor_clamp" are misleading in the sense that one could easily take what in 
> reality is a "Suspension insulator set" as a "Suspension clamp" and a 
> "Tension insulator set" as an "anchor clamp".
>
> Right. Clamp term is removed from the proposal and values.
> As the rationale stands to share concepts between power, telecom or any 
> supported line, it's out of the scope to define insulators sets, chains and 
> so on.
> The point is to provide tags to make the distinguish between suspension, 
> anchorage and shackles.
>
> The confusion is even more augmented by the fact that in your proposal 
> you refer to "shackle insulators" too (IEC 471-03-09), and they are in a 
> totally different area of the IEC standards, "Insulators", same as "pin 
> insulators" (IEC 471-03-06).
>
> Shackle insulators are the basis to define shackles and how they differ from 
> suspension and anchors/tensions.
>
> So, are we talking about clamps (fittings) or about insulators (/or 
> insulator sets/) here? Because it really seemsyou are mixing under the same 
> tag two very different kind of objects...
>
> We are dealing with attachments, which only involve insulators with bare 
> power conductors.
>
> And BTW, how could you then tag "the real clamp" with its bolts and nuts 
> when it comes to it?
>
> Keys have to be proposed for that, it's not the point of the current proposal.
>
> *D) Inaccurate wording. *Some examples:
>
>   * You state that "anchor_clamp" is "/built stronger than suspension 
> tower//s/". Really? A clamp stronger than a tower? :-/
>
> You're confused in your own reading.
> First sentence begins with "A support" (referring to a tower/pole) and second 
> goes on with "it is", implying that an anchor tower is built stronger than a 
> suspension one.
> Nevertheless I rephrased the whole definition as to make it more clear.
>
>   * "/A shackle insulator may be used to hold conductors safely from 
> their support/" Isn't that the meaning of the life of *every* insulator?
>
> ... without 

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

[Warin]

On 11/03/19 00:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

On 9. Mar 2019, at 17:18, Paul Allen > wrote:



You're nit-picking
about minor problems that might be faced by autonomous vehicles 
parking slightly in the
road and giving the major problem that many spaces accessible 
directly from the north
carriage of Circonvallazione Ostiense appear to be only indirectly 
accessible from the
south carriage of Circonvallazione Ostiense via a twisted route of 
parking aisles.



they are not accessible from the north, the parking aisles are there. 
I don’t know if you can see it from aerial imagery.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8673369,12.4849657,0a,75y/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjqvvj__-eAmlT1sWnkz2tQ!2e0 



Any vehicle, autonomous or not, cannot function from mapping data alone.


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

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

[Warin]

On 11/03/19 02:46, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Mar 10, 2019, 3:22 PM by pla16...@gmail.com:

You seem to miss the point I was making.  How many people, apart
from yourself, will ever
have any interest in computing the exact area (or even the
approximate area) of a parking
areas?

On my TODO list of map-related ideas is running analysis how space is 
used for different cities.

One of first examples is space for parks vs space for parkings.


Socially, the ratio of parks + recreation areas to residential areas 
says a lot about the quality of living there. I would think that is an 
important measure.


Yes parking in proximity to those parks + recreation areas is important 
.. just not as important.



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

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 18:36, Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:

> On 3/10/19 9:11 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Mar 9, 2019, 11:16 PM by selfishseaho...@gmail.com:
>
> I'm in favour of deprecating shop=fashion because of its unclear
> meaning
>
> Based on discussion(s) it seems that there is no benefit from
> keeping this tag.
>
> I would support editors proposing to replace it by shop=clothes + clothes=*
>
> I was about to post to say that - so I support this proposal.
>
I agree, so what is the procedure for deprecating a tag?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] defining service on railway=tram

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 22:39, Jarek Piórkowski  wrote:
> Last month I wrote about defining service=* tag values for
> railway=tram ways, which were previously not defined and used somewhat
> varyingly in the wild. Thanks Mateusz for your help refining the
> definitions!
>
> I have now written
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Jarek_Pi%C3%B3rkowski/Key:service
> with a draft of new section I am suggesting to add to Key:service.
> Please feel free to edit that wiki page, or comment here on mailing
> list.

Hello,

In the spirit of being bold and keeping things relatively
uncomplicated, I have now changed Key:service to note current tagging
status for tram tracks, and add suggested interpretations of railway
service=* values:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:service=prev=1820049

Please feel free to revert this change if you strongly disagree, and
comment if you wish.

Thanks,
--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 18:45, Sergio Manzi  wrote:

no problem maintaing the currently defined terminology "prison" and
> "operator", for me: as I said it was a bit of hair splitting and as I hit
> the send button I also asked myself if maybe "jail" was an americanism (*I'm
> Italian, I spent some time in the US but very little time in the UK...*).
>

The prison/jail distinction tends to be an American thing.  In the UK they
mean the same
thing and police stations (if they have detention facilities at all) have
cells, not jails.  From what
I've dug up so far, it seems only the US has this distinction.

In researching this answer I also found that (according to Wiktionary)
"gaol" used to be the preferred
spelling in the UK and Australia until Monopoly came along and used the
American spelling even
in those two countries.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Sergio Manzi]

Hi Andy and Jan,

no problem maintaing the currently defined terminology "prison" and "operator", 
for me: as I said it was a bit of hair splitting and as I hit the send button I 
also asked myself if maybe "jail" was an americanism (/I'm Italian, I spent 
some time in the US but very little time in the UK.../).

I think the car_repair vs. vehicle_maintenance (or is it 
vehicle*_s_*_maintenance??) issue to be a little bit more important, thus...

Cheers,

Sergio


On 2019-03-10 19:07, Andy Townsend wrote:

>
> On 10/03/2019 16:02, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>> 2) More than "prison" I think "jail" would be more adequate: AFAIK police 
>> forces do not "own" prisons (long term incarceration) but only jails (short 
>> term incarceration). It is true that in some countries a dedicated police 
>> force is in charge of prisons operation, but the "ownership" of the prison 
>> is usually "the government".
>>
> That difference might confuse  - that's an American rather than a UK 
> difference, I think.  Where "jail" (or even "gaol") is used in the UK it's 
> essentially a synonym for prison.  Ireland I think has a similar usage to the 
> UK; not sure about other English-speaking jusidictions worldwide.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Andy Townsend]

On 10/03/2019 16:02, Sergio Manzi wrote:

2) More than "prison" I think "jail" would be more adequate: AFAIK police forces do not "own" 
prisons (long term incarceration) but only jails (short term incarceration). It is true that in some countries a dedicated police 
force is in charge of prisons operation, but the "ownership" of the prison is usually "the government".

That difference might confuse  - that's an American rather than a UK 
difference, I think.  Where "jail" (or even "gaol") is used in the UK 
it's essentially a synonym for prison.  Ireland I think has a similar 
usage to the UK; not sure about other English-speaking jusidictions 
worldwide.


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [Tagging] shop=clothes vs shop=fashion

[Markus]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 18:11, Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:
>
> But ultimately, I believe that shop=clothe+clothes=luxury would take
> that special case back into the fold of a logical tagging scheme... The
> fewer special cases the better !

This seems like an even better solution. (Though, we still have the
problem with the clothes=* key being used for divergent features.
Maybe pricing=luxury instead?)

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=clothes vs shop=fashion

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 3/10/19 1:30 PM, Markus wrote:

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 10:35, severin.menard via Tagging
 wrote:

shop=boutique is also one of the most confusing tags for French speaking 
people, especially in Africa as boutique is used there for another type of 
shops (the most common one: small shops selling food items): 
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GOO

I'm aware of this linguistic problem. But instead of abandoning
shop=boutique, this problem can be solved if editors correct the
French translation ("boutique de mode"?) and if renderers display an
appropriate icon (maybe a shirt and a handbag?).


That would help - I would insist on the luxury aspect, something like 
"vêtements de luxe".


But ultimately, I believe that shop=clothe+clothes=luxury would take 
that special case back into the fold of a logical tagging scheme... The 
fewer special cases the better !




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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Jan S]

>1) You're using "operator=*" to identify the particular police force to
>which a feature is related. That's in line with what we do in several
>other situations, but as we are talking about police, wouldn't be
>"corps=*" more correct?
>
>2) More than "prison" I think "jail" would be more adequate: AFAIK
>police forces do not "own" prisons (long term incarceration) but only
>jails (short term incarceration). It is true that in some countries a
>dedicated police force is in charge of prisons operation, but the
>"ownership" of the prison is usually "the government".

Thanks, Sergio.

This comes down to a fundamental question: is it better to use already 
established values for new schemes (which is what I tried to do), or is it 
preferable to introduce new, maybe more specific values (which is what Sergio's 
proposal is aimed at, if I'm right)?

Best, Jan

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=clothes vs shop=fashion

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 3/10/19 10:33 AM, severin.menard via Tagging wrote:

Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 23:16:58 +0100

From: Markus selfishseaho...@gmail.com

I'm in favour of deprecating shop=fashion because of its unclear
meaning, but i prefer to keep shop=boutique for (and only for) small
shops selling high-priced clothes and accessories.

shop=boutique is also one of the most confusing tags for French speaking 
people, especially in Africa as boutique is used there for another type of 
shops (the most common one: small shops selling food items): 
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GOO


Hello Severin ! Enock and I mentioned that here a few days ago - 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-March/043462.html




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

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

[François Lacombe]

 Thank you for the time took to provide your conclusions here

Le sam. 9 mars 2019 à 19:22, Sergio Manzi  a écrit :

> *A) **Scope of the proposal.*
>
> It is badly defined. The "Definition" is given as "*Consistently defining
> how a power, telecom or even washing line is attached to supporting pole or
> tower*", a very broad definition, but then reading on I see that you
> state that "*This proposal is mainly dedicated for utilities network**s*".
> Which one should we take? With the "mainly" adjective are you indicating
> that you are willing to extend the scope of the proposal to different
> application fields later on?
>
> As a matter of fact I'm convinced that a generalization cannot be done in
> terms of tagging: "attaching" a power line to a fixed infrastructure is
> done with very different techniques from the "attaching" of a washing line,
> the suspension line of a cable car, the cables of a suspension bridge, the
> overhead line of an electric railway (*and I have the strong feeling tha
> "railways taggers" here have their own ideas on how to tag their contact
> lines*), etc., and therefore will require different tagging schemes.
>
Since tagging is built by contributors here, yes all is extendable by
further proposals.
It's hard to get a whole topic described in one shot so anyone will be able
to propose more precise tagging for insulators for instance.

Generalisation is made upon shared concepts. Whatever the line is, an
anchorage is still an anchorage.
Additional keys can precise how the anchorage is made, and so on

*B) **Inconsistency between the proposal name and the tag name.*
>
Solved, proposed renamed accordingly.


> *C) **Are we really talking about "Clamps"?*
> The images you are attaching to the definition of "suspension_clamp" and
> "anchor_clamp" are misleading in the sense that one could easily take what
> in reality is a "Suspension insulator set" as a "Suspension clamp" and a
> "Tension insulator set" as an "anchor clamp".
>
Right. Clamp term is removed from the proposal and values.
As the rationale stands to share concepts between power, telecom or any
supported line, it's out of the scope to define insulators sets, chains and
so on.
The point is to provide tags to make the distinguish between suspension,
anchorage and shackles.

> The confusion is even more augmented by the fact that in your proposal you
> refer to "shackle insulators" too (IEC 471-03-09), and they are in a
> totally different area of the IEC standards, "Insulators", same as "pin
> insulators" (IEC 471-03-06).
>
Shackle insulators are the basis to define shackles and how they differ
from suspension and anchors/tensions.

> So, are we talking about clamps (fittings) or about insulators (*or
> insulator sets*) here? Because it really seems you are mixing under the
> same tag two very different kind of objects...
>
We are dealing with attachments, which only involve insulators with bare
power conductors.

> And BTW, how could you then tag "the real clamp" with its bolts and nuts
> when it comes to it?
>
Keys have to be proposed for that, it's not the point of the current
proposal.

*D) Inaccurate wording. *Some examples:
>
>- You state that "anchor_clamp" is "*built stronger than suspension
>tower**s*". Really? A clamp stronger than a tower? :-/
>
> You're confused in your own reading.
First sentence begins with "A support" (referring to a tower/pole) and
second goes on with "it is", implying that an anchor tower is built
stronger than a suspension one.
Nevertheless I rephrased the whole definition as to make it more clear.

>
>- "*A shackle insulator may be used to hold conductors safely from
>their support*" Isn't that the meaning of the life of *every*
>insulator?
>
> ... without any clamp, that's what I forgot to mention.

*E) Logical mishaps*
>
> In "Complex configuration", under the image of a pole with two levels of
> conductors (*3 on the higher plane, 1 below "on the right"** watching the
> image*), you state that "*Values would go from right to lef**t / top to
> down of the pole while values in each section would be given from left to
> right in the direction of the way passing by the support node*". I
> *really* don't understand what you are trying to say. Sorry for asking,
> but right and left wouldn't just swap if I watch the pole from the opposite
> side? (*and yes, as others already pointed out, semicolons have a
> different meaning in OSM tagging*)
>
Right, that was not clear at all and has been rewritten.

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – shop=fashion_accessories

[Markus]

Hi all,

I've created a proposal page for fashion accessory shops
(shop=fashion_accessories) as there is currently no official tag for
this kind of shops:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Fashion_accessory_shop

Best regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Sergio Manzi]

One more, sorry: instead of "car_repair", why not "vehicles_maintenance"? Have 
a look here (/out of curiosity.../): 
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/g15895645/nypd-fleet-mechanics/

Cheers,

Sergio


On 2019-03-10 17:02, Sergio Manzi wrote:
> Jan, after a quick look at your proposal I have a couple of minor comments:
>
> 1) You're using "operator=*" to identify the particular police force to which 
> a feature is related. That's in line with what we do in several other 
> situations, but as we are talking about police, wouldn't be "corps=*" more 
> correct?
>
> 2) More than "prison" I think "jail" would be more adequate: AFAIK police 
> forces do not "own" prisons (long term incarceration) but only jails (short 
> term incarceration). It is true that in some countries a dedicated police 
> force is in charge of prisons operation, but the "ownership" of the prison is 
> usually "the government".
>
> Both of the above are "splitting an hair in two" things, so do not be too 
> much concerned about my concerns!
>
> Good job!
>
> Sergio
>
>
>


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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Mar 2019, at 15:22, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Your example
> was unrepresentative of most parking bays in that it was large enough to have 
> an aisle so
> an autonomous vehicle would realize it is accessible;


That’s how parking between 2 carriageways works here typically, parking areas 
in the center with alternating access.
If autonomous vehicles are autonomous, they will understand whether a parking 
area is accessible to them or not, misrepresenting the carriage way as a 
parking in order to connect it to the highway way will not be sustainable (e.g. 
break when someone maps the road as area). What about mapping the carriage way 
also as an area along these parkings, thereby creating an explicit connection, 
if autonomous vehicles need this. Frankly, what you need to park is an empty 
spot, if I would have mapped all parking lanes (which I have never done and 
which are by large most of the roads anyway), it would not have helped anybody 
to find an actual space where to park. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Sergio Manzi]

Jan, after a quick look at your proposal I have a couple of minor comments:

1) You're using "operator=*" to identify the particular police force to which a 
feature is related. That's in line with what we do in several other situations, 
but as we are talking about police, wouldn't be "corps=*" more correct?

2) More than "prison" I think "jail" would be more adequate: AFAIK police 
forces do not "own" prisons (long term incarceration) but only jails (short 
term incarceration). It is true that in some countries a dedicated police force 
is in charge of prisons operation, but the "ownership" of the prison is usually 
"the government".

Both of the above are "splitting an hair in two" things, so do not be too much 
concerned about my concerns!

Good job!

Sergio





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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 10, 2019, 3:22 PM by pla16...@gmail.com:

> You seem to miss the point I was making.  How many people, apart from 
> yourself, will ever
> have any interest in computing the exact area (or even the approximate area) 
> of a parking
> areas?
>
On my TODO list of map-related ideas is running analysis how space is used for 
different cities.
One of first examples is space for parks vs space for parkings.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Jan S]

Am So., 10. März 2019 um 14:15 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

>
> Under "Rendering" you say "Typical police stations, i.e. places where one
> can get in contact
> with the police usually 24/7, should be rendered different from other
> police facilites"
>
> In my part of the UK (still running austerity measures) which is largely
> rural, the police stations
> in smaller towns are not 24/7.  They work office hours.  There is a
> special phone on the outside
> of the building that contacts the main police station (which around here
> can be up to 30 miles
> away).
>
> I know you say "usually" but I'd change that to "often."  Around here it's
> unusual for these
> stations to be 24/7.  You probably also need to mention opening_hours=* as
> a tag that
> can be used in combination.
>

Good point. That may even more often be the case in rural areas. I'll
reformulate that part. The use of opening_hours=* seemed obvious to me, but
I'll point it out.

>
> You don't discuss what to do when the domestic police are (at least
> notionally) part of the
> military.  Somebody here brought up the Italian Carabinieri.  And
> yesterday I read that the
> French Gendarmerie are part of the French military.  In the UK domestic
> police are not
> part of the military but the Ministry of Defence has various Service
> Police forces dealing
> with the protection of military bases and the behaviour of military
> personnel; it also
> has the "Ministry of Defence Police" for dealing with terrorism and
> protecting nuclear
> plants (I've simplified what they do).
>

> Which of all those get mapped as police and which get mapped as military
> will need to be
> figured out at some point.  If not on the page for police=* itself then at
> least a page documenting
> local decisions on such matters.
>

I deliberately didn't want to get into this discussion. This is something
that has to be sorted out locally. E.g. in France, I've seen that they map
the Gendarmerie as military, but the public-facing offices as
amenity=police. I think that it's essential to detemine the principal
function of an entity in each place. Does it appear principally as police
or as military? While the Gendarmerie is under the auspices of the Ministry
of Defense, it fulfils the role of a civil police in rural areas. Btw, fire
fighters in Paris and Marseille are military units, too, but no mention to
this is made in OSM.

Here in Germany, there's a military police (Feldjäger), but they're
comptent only in relation to crimes within the military or affecting
military property. They're stationed on military ground. I'd tag them as
military, not as police.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tags for tutor or coaching out of school

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 05:17, Phake Nick  wrote:
> 在 2019年3月10日週日 11:04，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道：
>> There are a fair number of commercial tutor/coaching establishments that
>> provide after school hours tuition in various subjects/courses.
>
> I have checked some of these features in Taiwan  some are tagged 
> office=educational_institution, some are tagged amenity=prep_school, some are 
> simply tagged as shop=yes.
> A discussion on Japanese osm mailing list suggest using amenity=prep_school 
> for this type of facility.
> On OSM Taiwan's hackpad it's suggested that they should be tagged with both 
> office=educational_institution and amenity=prep_school.

There was also a brief discussion about this in early February, see
thread starting from
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/042983.html

The findings then were also that there is no decent current tagging
scheme. There was a suggestion for office=tutoring and tutoring=*.

--Jarek

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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 13:44, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 10. Mar 2019, at 14:24, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > But maybe I'm wrong
> > and there are vast hordes of people interested in precise areas of
> parking spaces and almost
> > nobody actually wants to park there.
>
> people can even park on a node. And no, it does not have to be part of a
> highway.
>
>
You seem to miss the point I was making.  How many people, apart from
yourself, will ever
have any interest in computing the exact area (or even the approximate
area) of a parking
areas?  How many people will want to look for parking areas and how to
access them?

You appear to be insisting that it is more important that people be able to
compute the area of
parking areas than be able to look at a map and figure out how to access a
parking area, or
for autonomous vehicles to know that the parking area is even accessible.

I find your way of mapping such things confusing, misleading, and
unrepresentative of
accessibility.  But it's very good for calculating the area.  Except I
doubt that I will ever need
to calculate the area, and I doubt many others will, either.

Autonomous vehicles will need to figure out how to access the parking
area.  Your example
was unrepresentative of most parking bays in that it was large enough to
have an aisle so
an autonomous vehicle would realize it is accessible; the original poster's
example did
not have an aisle and therefore an autonomous vehicle would not realize
it's accessible.
But at least the autonomous vehicle would be able to calculate the exact
area of the parking
area it thinks it inaccessible, which appears to be all that matters to you.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Mar 2019, at 14:24, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> But maybe I'm wrong
> and there are vast hordes of people interested in precise areas of parking 
> spaces and almost
> nobody actually wants to park there.


people can even park on a node. And no, it does not have to be part of a 
highway.

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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 06:03, Alessandro Sarretta <
alessandro.sarre...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 09/03/19 17:18, Paul Allen wrote:om
>


> what I see on the map
>>
>

> you're totally misunderstanding the reality...
>

That's entirely possible.  Which was kinda my point.

> Those parking places in the middle of the two roads are NOT accessible
> from north, but only from south, and the map representation is saying so,
> with the only parking aisle coming from south...
>

OK.  So from the south, is the only way you can get to the parking spaces
via the parking aisle that
connects to the road?  In which case the situation there is NOT what this
particular debate is
about, which is a parking bay which has a long section contiguous with the
road and where any
of the spaces can be reached by turning off the road at the point adjacent
to the space.  Or is
the situation exactly what this debate is about, that you can turn into the
parking anywhere along
the stretch contiguous with the road?  In which case the way it is mapped
incorrectly represents
the situation in the south the same way as the north.

BTW, what's your guess as to how many times people will look at the map
trying to figure out
how to park there versus how many times people will run a query to get the
nodes and calculate
the area of parking available?  Because the only argument I've seen in
favour of doing it that
way is to get the area right, and I don't see that as being very
important.  But maybe I'm wrong
and there are vast hordes of people interested in precise areas of parking
spaces and almost
nobody actually wants to park there.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Mar 2019, at 17:18, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> You're nit-picking
> about minor problems that might be faced by autonomous vehicles parking 
> slightly in the
> road and giving the major problem that many spaces accessible directly from 
> the north
> carriage of Circonvallazione Ostiense appear to be only indirectly accessible 
> from the
> south carriage of Circonvallazione Ostiense via a twisted route of parking 
> aisles.


they are not accessible from the north, the parking aisles are there. I don’t 
know if you can see it from aerial imagery.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8673369,12.4849657,0a,75y/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sjqvvj__-eAmlT1sWnkz2tQ!2e0___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 20:51, Jan S  wrote:

>
> I'm looking forward to your comment!
>
> See the proposal at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Police_facilites
>

Under "Rendering" you say "Typical police stations, i.e. places where one
can get in contact
with the police usually 24/7, should be rendered different from other
police facilites"

In my part of the UK (still running austerity measures) which is largely
rural, the police stations
in smaller towns are not 24/7.  They work office hours.  There is a special
phone on the outside
of the building that contacts the main police station (which around here
can be up to 30 miles
away).

I know you say "usually" but I'd change that to "often."  Around here it's
unusual for these
stations to be 24/7.  You probably also need to mention opening_hours=* as
a tag that
can be used in combination.

You don't discuss what to do when the domestic police are (at least
notionally) part of the
military.  Somebody here brought up the Italian Carabinieri.  And yesterday
I read that the
French Gendarmerie are part of the French military.  In the UK domestic
police are not
part of the military but the Ministry of Defence has various Service Police
forces dealing
with the protection of military bases and the behaviour of military
personnel; it also
has the "Ministry of Defence Police" for dealing with terrorism and
protecting nuclear
plants (I've simplified what they do).

Which of all those get mapped as police and which get mapped as military
will need to be
figured out at some point.  If not on the page for police=* itself then at
least a page documenting
local decisions on such matters.

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=clothes vs shop=fashion

[Markus]

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 10:35, severin.menard via Tagging
 wrote:
>
> shop=boutique is also one of the most confusing tags for French speaking 
> people, especially in Africa as boutique is used there for another type of 
> shops (the most common one: small shops selling food items): 
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GOO

I'm aware of this linguistic problem. But instead of abandoning
shop=boutique, this problem can be solved if editors correct the
French translation ("boutique de mode"?) and if renderers display an
appropriate icon (maybe a shirt and a handbag?).

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - police=*

[Jan S]

Am So., 10. März 2019 um 04:09 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick <
graemefi...@gmail.com>:

> Good start Jan.
>
Thanks!

>
> A first few thoughts.
>
> police=naval_base sounds very dramatic & possibly a bit over the top?
> Having said that, none of the other common options seem quite right either
> eg mooring / dock / boatyard / marina? Maybe police=marine_operations /
> maritime?
>

Indeed naval_base might be a bit much. But I just wanted to copy the
military scheme as far as possible, without inventing new keys, because
marina somehow wouldn't seem fitting either. Marine_operations or maritime
sound good, but they wouldn't be fitting for river police, would they?
Police=water might be an option, though, albeit it's ambiguous, also (a
police to control water quality?).


> police=prison. Are you aware of the existing amenity=prison?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dprison
>
> I am aware of it. My thought was to have all police facilities under one
tag. Prisons are generally not run by the police, but specialized services.
Still, there are police prisons that are separate from police stations.
Here in Frankfurt, there used to be a proper police prison in its own
building (https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1591630307). It's out of use
today, though, but I imagine that the concept might still exist in other
places.

Such areas shall be tagged as landuse
>> =police
>> 
>> .
>>
>
> Nice idea! Maybe rendered as blue stripes, where =military is pink (which
> has always struck me as a bit strange! :-))
>
>
>> Typical police stations, i.e. places where one can get in contact with
>> the police usually 24/7, should be rendered different from other police
>> facilites.
>>
>
> I would suggest possibly only rendering the actual "Police stations",
> using the existing policeman icon? Everything else, possibly just tagged as
> building=yes + name=Police holding yard, so that the only "Police" icons
> you see are the Police stations that you need to visit?
>

police:name
>> 
>> =* shall be used to tag the denomination of police running the specific
>> facility
>>
>
> As Warin mentioned above, just use the existing name= & operator= tags eg
> name=Palm Beach Police Station
> operator=Queensland Police Service
>
> name=Gold Coast Water Police
> operator=Queensland Police Service
>
> name=Gold Coast Aviation Operations Centre
> operator=Australian Federal Police
> would certainly seem to work in most of our contexts - would this format
> work worldwide, especially in European countries that seem to have myriad
> Police Forces?
>
There's a lot of police forces here, indeed. Operator would be a good
option to hold the name of the police force operating the facility, just in
the sense you've mentioned. I've adapted my proposal already!


>  Btw: It's my first shot, so please be gentle with me.
>>
>
> Nerve-wracking, isn't it? :-)
>
No, for the moment it's enticing :)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] shop=clothes vs shop=fashion

[severin.menard via Tagging]

> Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2019 23:16:58 +0100
> From: Markus selfishseaho...@gmail.com
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re:
> Message-ID:
> cajj-s95rz9kbglipgfsvzftwhcsw02lpgx7h0kq3enp-iqp...@mail.gmail.com
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> I'm in favour of deprecating shop=fashion because of its unclear
> meaning, but i prefer to keep shop=boutique for (and only for) small
> shops selling high-priced clothes and accessories.

shop=boutique is also one of the most confusing tags for French speaking 
people, especially in Africa as boutique is used there for another type of 
shops (the most common one: small shops selling food items): 
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/GOO

Severin



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

Re: [Tagging] tags for tutor or coaching out of school

[Phake Nick]

I have checked some of these features in Taiwan  some are tagged
office=educational_institution, some are tagged amenity=prep_school, some
are simply tagged as shop=yes.
A discussion on Japanese osm mailing list suggest using amenity=prep_school
for this type of facility.
On OSM Taiwan's hackpad it's suggested that they should be tagged with both
office=educational_institution and amenity=prep_school.


在 2019年3月10日週日 11:04，Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 寫道：

> Hi
>
> There are a fair number of commercial tutor/coaching establishments that
> provide after school hours tuition in various subjects/courses.
>
>
> e.g.
>
> https://www.alcentres.co.uk/small-group-tuition/
>
>   https://talent-100.com.au/
>
>
> How to tag them?
>
> They are not schools in that they are not large like a true school.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] discouraging shop=fashion

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 3/10/19 9:11 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Mar 9, 2019, 11:16 PM by selfishseaho...@gmail.com:

I'm in favour of deprecating shop=fashion because of its unclear
meaning

Based on discussion(s) it seems that there is no benefit from
keeping this tag.

I would support editors proposing to replace it by shop=clothes + 
clothes=*


I was about to post to say that - so I support this proposal.

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

Re: [Tagging] discouraging shop=fashion

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 9, 2019, 11:16 PM by selfishseaho...@gmail.com:

> I'm in favour of deprecating shop=fashion because of its unclear
> meaning
>
Based on discussion(s) it seems that there is no benefit from 
keeping this tag.

I would support editors proposing to replace it by shop=clothes + clothes=*
 or other if shop=clothes is not fitting

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