Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

[Warin]

On 09/10/19 12:11, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 08:46, Jmapb via Tagging 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:


On 10/8/2019 6:20 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:


Bit of an awkward one, but there are pub's in Northern & Inland
Australia that white people are NOT welcome in (& I'm absolutely
certain that the same thing, & reverse, applies in many places).
Is that something that we could / should list against OSM pubs?


Personally I wouldn't consider ethnic restrictions to be a
"theme." Certainly a tagging scheme to codify the world's various
local ethnic restrictions could be developed, but the topic leaves
a bad taste in my mouth so I'm not inclined to make suggestions.


I'm also extremely hesitant about it, which is why I mentioned 
"awkward" :-(, but thought it should at least be mentioned for 
discussion? (& maybe it has been before?)




OSM does not map 'motorcycle friendly' as has been discussed before.

So mapping 'welcome' or unwelcome' could be unwelcome :)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'add=milestone'

[Jorge Aguirre]

After reading all the responses and comments made regarding this issue I would 
like to modify the originally proposed tag name ('addr=milestone’) to a new 
proposal to name it:  ‘addr=road_marker’ - which works for both the kilometer 
and mile highway location markers.

The next step will be to propose the change of the existent 'highway:milestone’ 
to a more ‘universal’ and comprehensive name - 'highway=road_marker’  this way 
completing the relation between the address and the actual marker on the road 
and is understandable for all, while not making any reference to the measuring 
units - which in most parts of the world is actually the kilometer - as can be 
seen on the image on this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units#/media/File:Metric_system_adoption_map.svg


Regards,

Jorge

> On Oct 3, 2019, at 5:00 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
> 
> Send Tagging mailing list submissions to
>   tagging@openstreetmap.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   tagging-ow...@openstreetmap.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Tagging digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone' (Agustin Rissoli)
>   2. Re: New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone' (Joseph Eisenberg)
>   3. Re: New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone' (Martin Koppenhoefer)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:54:35 -0300
> From: Agustin Rissoli 
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> I think we can add a clarification, which says that these directions are
> not exact, but usually based on the approximate position with respect to a
> milestone on the road.
> 
> Agustín
> 
> 
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 19:25:29 +0100
> From: Paul Allen 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 18:59, Agustin Rissoli  wrote:
> 
>> 
 Perfect! That is exactly what happens in real life when someone is
>> seeking an address based on location markers once the precision of the
>> distance used in addresses is low.
>> 
>> This description should be in the eventual wiki
>> 
> 
> You think?  That's a description of how somebody navigates to an address
> like that
> without a map.  Keep an eye on the odometer.  Look for "milestones."  If
> you see
> a "milestone" numbered higher than in the address, you've gone too far.
> But it's
> not how you navigate if you have a map.  Especially if the map display is
> capable
> of using GPS to show your current position.
> 
>> 
>> 
> -- 
> Paul
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:  attachments/20191002/a1dcde44/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> --
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> --
> 
> End of Tagging Digest, Vol 121, Issue 9
> ***
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 07:08:31 +0900
> From: Joseph Eisenberg 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] New tag proposal: 'addr=milestone'
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Re: “On standard [OpenStreetMap-]carto (and probably most others)
> highway=milestone doesn't render.”
> 
> There is an open issue and some rendering ideas from a year back:
> 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/3605
> 
> If anyone wants to help get historic=milestone rendered, they can help
> design a good rendering or submit a PR on github: it’s an all-volunteer,
> open-source project.
> 
> -Joseph
> 
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 9:55 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 13:26, santamariense  wrote:
>> 
>>> 
 that you should not use the term "milestone" but something like
 addr:distance or
 addr:road_marker  or whatever, because there are no milestones
>>> 
>>> addr:road_marker seems to be appropriate
>> 
>> 
>> Or something with similar meaning.  Places that use this addressing system
>> 

Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 08:46, Jmapb via Tagging 
wrote:

> On 10/8/2019 6:20 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Bit of an awkward one, but there are pub's in Northern & Inland Australia
> that white people are NOT welcome in (& I'm absolutely certain that the
> same thing, & reverse, applies in many places). Is that something that we
> could / should list against OSM pubs?
>
> Personally I wouldn't consider ethnic restrictions to be a "theme."
> Certainly a tagging scheme to codify the world's various local ethnic
> restrictions could be developed, but the topic leaves a bad taste in my
> mouth so I'm not inclined to make suggestions.
>

I'm also extremely hesitant about it, which is why I mentioned "awkward"
:-(, but thought it should at least be mentioned for discussion? (& maybe
it has been before?)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 00:36, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> the way we are dealing with these distinctions of eating and drinking
> places is mostly main tags, and subtags only for subtleties. A tiki bar
> could get amenity=bar, or maybe I’m misguided (I’m not familiar with the
> kind of place)?
>

 It serves elaborate cocktails and is themed around Polynesian culture.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiki_bar

It's a bar, just as an Irish pub is a pub, and a Cowboy bar is a bar...
We're into subtleties,
not main tags.  Possibly worth mapping so people can decide if they are
desperate enough
for alcohol to go there.  Probably not worth mapping because most pub
themes, with the
possible exception of Irish bars, tend to change themes every few years
because people
get bored with them.

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

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

[Warin]

On 07/10/19 21:00, Valor Naram wrote:

> One problem with enforcing a single tag by mappers or preprocessing
> data before putting it in the database is that if there are subtle 
distinctions they are

> forever lost.

Sven gave us a list of tags which have exact meaning. So no 
distinctions. No differences, just another names.


e.g. `phone` is the same like `contact:phone`. You could just find one 
difference: The name. And to have just the names different is a bad 
thing. In such cases we can make life a lot easier by just using one 
tag AND NOT two tags for the same purpose!




Unfortunately there will always be rebels and errors.
Making the wiki only have one tag for it is fine, that should reduce the 
number of preprocessing replacements but not eliminate it for quite some 
time.


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

Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 9. Oct 2019, at 01:02, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Other common themes are Polynesian (tiki bar), speakeasy, surfing, 
>> medical... plenty more out there I imagine. There's one bar in NYC that's 
>> themed around smashing appliances with bats.
> theme=* could work, and apply to other features. 
> But description=* can be used as well, the advantage is that this key has 
> some rendering support, though it will be less searchable than the theme=* 
> key.


the way we are dealing with these distinctions of eating and drinking places is 
mostly main tags, and subtags only for subtleties. A tiki bar could get 
amenity=bar, or maybe I’m misguided (I’m not familiar with the kind of place)? 

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Warin]

On 08/10/19 20:27, Vɑdɪm wrote:

Considering the responses it may be better to give a more definite criteria
for using this tag.

In this regard the definition of leisure=sunbathing as *any* popular place
suitable for sunbathing looks rather vague. It could be more easily also
used as a trolltag.

So, how is about using leisure=sunbathing only for designated locations?
This also would allow to simplify tagging by avoiding optional sunbathing=*
proposed earlier.

I've amended the proposal accordingly.




Humm.. don't think any place here is 'designated' for sunbathing.

Who has done this 'designation' for sunbathing?


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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. Oct 2019, at 22:08, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> So the subtlety you are referring to, is that some phone numbers routinely 
> connect to a recording instead of a human.
>  
> How about phone:recorded_message=* which would leave room for phone=* for a 
> manned line, or recorded_message=yes, which would not?


if we wanted to tag specifically that a phone number is connected to a 
recording then a specific tag would make sense, it was just an example how 
phone can cover more cases than contact:phone, by being more generic in 
meaning. I didn’t imply we should make this distinction, or that it is 
significant (in terms of number of instances), it was an example to demonstrate 
that both tags aren’t completely identical, still I am ok with treating them as 
if they were (of course you can still add your phone:recorded_message tag or 
„answerphone” or whatever, and I would support it, as I see a significant 
enough difference between a number you call and someone real replying vs. a 
number that always gets answered automatically, to consider whether that merits 
a different tag).


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

Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

[Warin]

On 09/10/19 09:45, Jmapb via Tagging wrote:


On 10/8/2019 6:20 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



I was wondering about the same thing, because you've then also got 
Country & Western, German, any & all varieties of Gay ... ?


Bit of an awkward one, but there are pub's in Northern & Inland 
Australia that white people are NOT welcome in (& I'm absolutely 
certain that the same thing, & reverse, applies in many places). Is 
that something that we could / should list against OSM pubs?


Other common themes are Polynesian (tiki bar), speakeasy, surfing, 
medical... plenty more out there I imagine. There's one bar in NYC 
that's themed around smashing appliances with bats.

theme=* could work, and apply to other features.
But description=* can be used as well, the advantage is that this key 
has some rendering support, though it will be less searchable than the 
theme=* key.


For gay bars there's a well-established `lgbtq=*` key.

Personally I wouldn't consider ethnic restrictions to be a "theme." 
Certainly a tagging scheme to codify the world's various local ethnic 
restrictions could be developed, but the topic leaves a bad taste in 
my mouth so I'm not inclined to make suggestions.




A 'restriction' could be some form of access key?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

[Jmapb via Tagging]

On 10/8/2019 6:20 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



I was wondering about the same thing, because you've then also got
Country & Western, German, any & all varieties of Gay ... ?

Bit of an awkward one, but there are pub's in Northern & Inland
Australia that white people are NOT welcome in (& I'm absolutely
certain that the same thing, & reverse, applies in many places). Is
that something that we could / should list against OSM pubs?


Other common themes are Polynesian (tiki bar), speakeasy, surfing,
medical... plenty more out there I imagine. There's one bar in NYC
that's themed around smashing appliances with bats.

For gay bars there's a well-established `lgbtq=*` key.

Personally I wouldn't consider ethnic restrictions to be a "theme."
Certainly a tagging scheme to codify the world's various local ethnic
restrictions could be developed, but the topic leaves a bad taste in my
mouth so I'm not inclined to make suggestions.

Jason

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

Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 08:06, Jmapb  wrote:

> On 10/8/2019 4:37 PM, Rory McCann wrote:
>
> What's the best way to tag an Irish pub? Not just a pub in Ireland, but
> a specifically themed "Irish Pub" (which are usually outside Ireland)?
>
> I think the idea of `theme=irish` makes some sense, and in fact there are
> many other themed amenities that could be tagged with a `theme=*` key. It's
> uncommon now, but if it becomes popular it might be picked up by software.
> Until then, of course, it will only be noticed by users who write queries
> or manually inspect the tags.
>
> In the mean time you can try something simple like `description=Irish pub`
> or even `description=Irish pub with Guinness, Smithwick's, and Tayto's`.
>
I was wondering about the same thing, because you've then also got Country
& Western, German, any & all varieties of Gay ... ?

Bit of an awkward one, but there are pub's in Northern & Inland Australia
that white people are NOT welcome in (& I'm absolutely certain that the
same thing, & reverse, applies in many places). Is that something that we
could / should list against OSM pubs?

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

[Jmapb]

On 10/8/2019 4:37 PM, Rory McCann wrote:

What's the best way to tag an Irish pub? Not just a pub in Ireland, but
a specifically themed "Irish Pub" (which are usually outside Ireland)?

There's ~300 instances of `cuisine=irish`, which would make total sense
for places which (also) serve food. Traditionally pubs in Ireland would
rarely serve food. Calling Tayto's “cuisine” is a stretch, and using the
`cuisine` tag seems weird for a bar/pub that doesn't serve any food.

I've used `theme=irish` once or twice. But I don't think anyone else
does, and it's not supported. This might be related to mapping “sports
bars” or other themed bars. In theory the `theme` of a restaurant/bar
could be different from the `cuisine` of any food/drink it serves, so it
might make sense to tag this difference.

Thoughts?


Hi Rory -- I've mapped plenty of "Irish" pubs, mainly in NYC. It's never
occurred to me that they need to be tagged as Irish -- but now I find
myself wondering "How many Irish pubs have I mapped?" and because
there's no tag for it, I have no way to query for it!

I generally use `cuisine=pub` if they serve typical pub fare, which most
here do. I don't tend to see much difference between the food served at
a nominally Irish pub and a nominally English pub. For a place that only
serves packaged food like crisps, I'd usually tag `cuisine=snack`.

I think the idea of `theme=irish` makes some sense, and in fact there
are many other themed amenities that could be tagged with a `theme=*`
key. It's uncommon now, but if it becomes popular it might be picked up
by software. Until then, of course, it will only be noticed by users who
write queries or manually inspect the tags.

In the mean time you can try something simple like `description=Irish
pub` or even `description=Irish pub with Guinness, Smithwick's, and
Tayto's`.

Happy mapping, Jason


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

[Tagging] How to map Irish pubs?

[Rory McCann]

Hi there fellow OSMers,

What's the best way to tag an Irish pub? Not just a pub in Ireland, but
a specifically themed "Irish Pub" (which are usually outside Ireland)?

There's ~300 instances of `cuisine=irish`, which would make total sense
for places which (also) serve food. Traditionally pubs in Ireland would
rarely serve food. Calling Tayto's “cuisine” is a stretch, and using the
`cuisine` tag seems weird for a bar/pub that doesn't serve any food.

I've used `theme=irish` once or twice. But I don't think anyone else
does, and it's not supported. This might be related to mapping “sports
bars” or other themed bars. In theory the `theme` of a restaurant/bar
could be different from the `cuisine` of any food/drink it serves, so it
might make sense to tag this difference.

Thoughts?

Rory

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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 20:49, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> yes , of course, sorry for stepping on your toes, I was being sarcastic to
> better make the point, but I am aware that there is some use for this (even
> around here it may occur that a house has a name but not a number).
>

Not normally a problem in iD anyway, because it has a set of fields for
entering address details.
Except when it doesn't, because the authors decided that particular type of
object shouldn't
have an address.  And even that isn't a great problem, because entering
addr: into the bare
tag area and pressing tab on the first suggestion gets the set of address
fields to appear.
Except when it doesn't because the authors decided that particular type of
object really
shouldn't have an address under any circumstances whatsoever, then you have
to enter
everything via bare tags (if you can remember the key values).

Something I found out a few hours ago when I added a watermill.  A working
watermill.  With
an address.  It seems that iD thinks watermills shouldn't have addresses
under any
circumstances whatsoever.

>
> Statistically, there are 95 million housenumbers and 690.000 housenames in
> the db as of now.
>

I'd guess a lot of those 690,000 are in Wales, going by my experience.

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

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

[Colin Smale via Tagging]

On 2019-10-08 21:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> On 8. Oct 2019, at 15:40, Colin Smale via Tagging  
> wrote: 
> 
>> In that case it makes perfect sense to consolidate onto one or the other. 
>> But if there are any perceived semantic differences, however subtle, then 
>> either we find some way to represent that using other tagging, or we accept 
>> that a certain nuance will be lost.
> 
> there could be phone numbers with automatic announcements, so "phone" will 
> still be valid, but contact:phone would not suit well. To give an example. It 
> cannot be seen from the "phone"-key that this is the case though. I'm happy 
> with loosing the subtle differences that may make  "contact:"-prefixed tags 
> slightly more specific, in exchange for more universally usable 
> "almost-equal" more generic tags without the prefix.

So the subtlety you are referring to, is that some phone numbers
routinely connect to a recording instead of a human. 

How about phone:recorded_message=* which would leave room for phone=*
for a manned line, or recorded_message=yes, which would not?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Valor Naram]

`contact:phone` and `phone` are exactly for the same purpose, no differences just different names.See https://wiki.osm.org/Key:contact~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)From: Martin Koppenhoefer To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: sent from a phoneOn 8. Oct 2019, at 15:40, Colin Smale via Tagging  wrote:In that case it makes perfect sense to consolidate onto one or the other. But if there are any perceived semantic differences, however subtle, then either we find some way to represent that using other tagging, or we accept that a certain nuance will be lost.
there could be phone numbers with automatic announcements, so “phone” will still be valid, but contact:phone would not suit well. To give an example. It cannot be seen from the “phone”-key that this is the case though. I’m happy with loosing the subtle differences that may make  “contact:”-prefixed tags slightly more specific, in exchange for more universally usable “almost-equal” more generic tags without the prefix.Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. Oct 2019, at 15:40, Colin Smale via Tagging  
> wrote:
> 
> In that case it makes perfect sense to consolidate onto one or the other. But 
> if there are any perceived semantic differences, however subtle, then either 
> we find some way to represent that using other tagging, or we accept that a 
> certain nuance will be lost.
> 

there could be phone numbers with automatic announcements, so “phone” will 
still be valid, but contact:phone would not suit well. To give an example. It 
cannot be seen from the “phone”-key that this is the case though. I’m happy 
with loosing the subtle differences that may make  “contact:”-prefixed tags 
slightly more specific, in exchange for more universally usable “almost-equal” 
more generic tags without the prefix.

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

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. Oct 2019, at 15:14, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Housename may be useless where you live but for some of us it is essential.


yes , of course, sorry for stepping on your toes, I was being sarcastic to 
better make the point, but I am aware that there is some use for this (even 
around here it may occur that a house has a name but not a number). 

Statistically, there are 95 million housenumbers and 690.000 housenames in the 
db as of now.

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

Re: [Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways

[Markus]

Hi Vɑdɪm

I don't know the situation in other countries, but in Switzerland,
pedestrian train crossing are signalised (example [1]), while
pedestrian tram crossings usually aren't (example [2]), even if the
tram runs on a reserved track (i.e. separated form the road). Thus i
think it may make sense to use a different tag for pedestrian tram
crossings.

Besides, most pedestrian tram crossing where the tram runs on the road
aren't exclusively pedestrians + trams crossings, but pedestrians +
road traffic + trams crossings, and are already tagged
highway=crossing. I think these tram crossings are best tagged as a
property on the highway=crossing node (and, if mapped, on the
footway=crossing way), e.g. crossing:tram=yes (using the already used
crossing: prefix).

[1]: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/1AnE8ii19ml0maXTr1Hokw
[2]: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/WIrjmoDPM8yTP96TfXpY9g

Regards
Markus

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

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

[Markus]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019, 11:29 marc marc,  wrote:

> Le 07.10.19 à 23:07, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> > let’s bury the contact: - prefix
>
> in this case, be logical and also propose to bury the prefix addr:
>

There's a difference between the two prefixes: several addr: tags together
form a complete address (a single addr: tag only gives part of an address),
while a single contact: tag already is a complete contact information. Thus
i think the addr: prefix makes more sense that the contact: prefix.

Regards
Markus

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

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

8 Oct 2019, 11:25 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com:

> Le 07.10.19 à 23:07, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>
>> let’s bury the contact: - prefix
>>
>
> in this case, be logical and also propose to bury the prefix addr:
>
Main difference is that contact: prefix has
an alternative that is and always was more popular.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Colin Smale via Tagging]

On 2019-10-08 13:25, Valor Naram wrote:

> A short summary of what we have so far:
> - Deprecation of `contact:phone` has some advantages: Key `phone` is used far 
> more often, Key `phone` is shorter to write and better to find in word 
> completion functions of editors like iD, Data users don't have to support two 
> methods of tagging phone numbers.
> - Deprecation of `contact:phone` has one disadvantage: It's not grouped 
> anymore and we have to solve this by creating a new wikipage which lists all 
> keys that can be used for contacting purposes (e.g. throw a contact tab like 
> the Babykarte has).

Has it therefore been determined that phone=* and contact:phone=* are
100% synonymous, and no subtle semantic differences exist between the
two? In that case it makes perfect sense to consolidate onto one or the
other. But if there are any perceived semantic differences, however
subtle, then either we find some way to represent that using other
tagging, or we accept that a certain nuance will be lost.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 22:08, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

not to speak about addr:housenumber and addr:housename (the latter is
> mostly useless
>

In some areas of the UK I've lived, all houses have numbers and a few also
have names
(which are viewed by many as an affectation).  In rural districts it is
very rare for a house
to have a number, instead it has a name.  In the town in the UK where I
currently live,
maybe 30% or more of houses have ONLY a name.  Perhaps some of those 30% had
numbers once, but if they did nobody uses them or knows them now.  I'm
pretty certain
that one a street around the corner from me, half of the houses could never
have had
numbers: the numbering sequence and the age of various houses shows this
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.08491/-4.65782
8/Caerhuan and 9/Homeleigh on Napier Street are much more recent than any
of the other
houses on Napier Street (with the exception of Y Gorlan, which probably
replaced some
earlier building).

Housename may be useless where you live but for some of us it is essential.

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

[Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways

[Vɑdɪm]

One could find two different schemes are used for this across the OSM:

#1. The most popular way is to tag the nodes with railway=crossing
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Dcrossing). There are
currently *35151* nodes like this around the world
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MVO.

It looks quite logic: a tram is an instance of a railway
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway). If someone needs to give
more specifics for such a crossing then some crossing=* tag probably is the
best bet.

#2. In certain areas we see the pedestrian crossings of tramways are tagged
with railway=tram_crossing. There are currently *1241* nodes like this
around the world https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/MVQ.

The #2 gives railway=tram + railway=tram_crossing which seems to be a
needless repetition -- a tautology. It's easy to deduce that a crossing on
the tramway track is a crossing of the tramway track, isn't it?

A rather similar dilemma exists with the highway crossings of tramways and
in a similar proportion:
#1. railway=tram + railway=level_crossing
#2. railway=tram + railway=tram_level_crossing

The OSM wiki says "Any tags you like"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like.

But I think there is a problem when someone is meticulously removing on a
large scale the scheme #1 in favour of the scheme #2, like in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/73460862. During the last couple of
months two major cities in Russia: Moscow and St. Petersburg were
"converted" like this by a couple of editors.

As far as I could see the tags railway=tram_crossing and
railway=tram_level_crossing were never officially approved or discussed,
perhaps it's time for the proponents of this scheme to come along with their
reasoning.



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

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

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

[Valor Naram]

A short summary of what we have so far:- Deprecation of `contact:phone` has some advantages: Key `phone` is used far more often, Key `phone` is shorter to write and better to find in word completion functions of editors like iD, Data users don't have to support two methods of tagging phone numbers.- Deprecation of `contact:phone` has one disadvantage: It's not grouped anymore and we have to solve this by creating a new wikipage which lists all keys that can be used for contacting purposes (e.g. throw a contact tab like the Babykarte has).~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)From: Joseph Eisenberg To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: Re: “if you want to display a tab with all the means of contact, you just have to look for contact:”That doesn’t work, because “phone=“ is much more popular and probably always will be, and  the “contact:” prefix is not used terrible consistently (is a website actually a way to contact a feature? Usually not)Keys should be designed for the convenience and ease of use by mappers, because the time of individual mappers is by far the greatest value input into Openstreetmap. Database users and developers (myself included) need to do a little more work sometimes, to give thousands of mappers a little less work and a little more fun.I support deprecating “contact:phone” and just using “phone=“
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Small list of exceptions? | Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

[Rory McCann]

On 08/10/2019 12:14, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Re: “if you want to display a tab with all the means of contact, you 
just have to look for contact:”


That doesn’t work, because “phone=“ is much more popular and probably 
always will be, and  the “contact:” prefix is not used terrible 
consistently (is a website actually a way to contact a feature? Usually not)


How about "if you want to see how all means of contact, just look at the 
contact:*=* tags, and also for the exceptions of phone, website, email, 
fax". That's it, a small list of exceptions.



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

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Re: “if you want to display a tab with all the means of contact, you just
have to look for contact:”

That doesn’t work, because “phone=“ is much more popular and probably
always will be, and  the “contact:” prefix is not used terrible
consistently (is a website actually a way to contact a feature? Usually not)

Keys should be designed for the convenience and ease of use by mappers,
because the time of individual mappers is by far the greatest value input
into Openstreetmap. Database users and developers (myself included) need to
do a little more work sometimes, to give thousands of mappers a little less
work and a little more fun.

I support deprecating “contact:phone” and just using “phone=“
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sunbathing

[Vɑdɪm]

Considering the responses it may be better to give a more definite criteria
for using this tag.

In this regard the definition of leisure=sunbathing as *any* popular place
suitable for sunbathing looks rather vague. It could be more easily also
used as a trolltag.

So, how is about using leisure=sunbathing only for designated locations?
This also would allow to simplify tagging by avoiding optional sunbathing=*
proposed earlier.

I've amended the proposal accordingly.



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

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

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

[marc marc]

Le 07.10.19 à 23:07, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> let’s bury the contact: - prefix

in this case, be logical and also propose to bury the prefix addr:

on the contrary, I believe that having a namespace to group the keys 
concerning the addr and another namespace to group the keys concerning 
the means of contact is a practical way to use the data (if you want to 
display a tab with all the means of contact, you just have to look for 
contact: without having to hard code them and having to code again the 
existence of a new social network for example)

the number of characters to write is a bad argument : focus on quality 
and not a:hn because it would be shorter to write than addr:housenumber
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging