Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

[Warin]

On 15/1/20 4:55 pm, European Water Project wrote:

Dear All,

Would it be appropriate to use the tag "seasonal" for a water fountain 
(whether tagged as "amenity=drinking_water" or "amenity = fountain and 
drinking_water = yes" )?


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seasonal


On the natural=spring page, the combination "natural=spring and 
seasonal= * " was suggested.


But the combination of drinking_water= yes or amenity=fountain with 
tag seasonal was not suggested.


Best regards,

Stuart




You could use seasonal. open_hours could be used where there are set 
dates, but seasonal if climatic conditions determine the timing.



An "amenity=fountain" is described as "A fountain for cultural / 
decorational / recreational purposes."


I would not expect any of these in my country to be fit for drinking, 
and I take the same attitude when traveling.



Some of these decorative ones are turned off seasonally - to prevent 
damage from freezing pipes, or ice damage to the decorations,


The recreational ones may also get turned off for similar reasons, not 
to mention it being too cold to get wet.



For a 'drinking fountain' there is man_made=drinking_fountain.




'



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

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:16 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And that raises another point, how would you render disused physical 
> objects???
> They should not be the same as a physical object that is 'in use', and some 
> think they should be rendered, but how is that rendering to be done?
> A good answer to that question may well see the 'standard' render take 
> action, otherwise there is no hope.


I would say that depends on the purpose of the map. A map that wants
to show buildings that were used as shop, but are now vacant/disused,
might show them very prominent.
A map showing windmills might show working windmills in black and
disused one in grey or without vanes or ...

On a general-purpose map, like osm.org, I don't know.

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

Re: [Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Since drinking fountains are man-made rather than natural features,
they usually have a date when they are turned on or off.

This can be specified with the key "opening_hours=*" - this is the
common British English term used to say "when is this this feature
open and available".

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours for details
on how this is used.

Examples:

For a drinking fountain which is turned on sometime in April and is
turned off sometime in November, you can use "opening_hours=Apr-Nov".

If the fountain or drinking fountain will be turned on April 10th and
turned off November 25th, you would use "opening_hours=Apr 10-Nov 25"

And if you have a drinking fountain which is only turned on during
certain daytime hours in the northern summer, you can use something
like "opening_hours=Jun-Aug: 6:30-18:30"

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/15/20, European Water Project  wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Would it be appropriate to use the tag "seasonal" for a water fountain
> (whether tagged as "amenity=drinking_water" or "amenity = fountain and
> drinking_water = yes" )?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seasonal
>
>
> On the natural=spring page, the combination "natural=spring and seasonal= *
> " was suggested.
>
> But the combination of drinking_water= yes or amenity=fountain with tag
> seasonal was not suggested.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart
>

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

But Deposit Refund Scheme or (sorry, not deposit return scheme) is how it’s 
most commonly known.

container_return isn’t clear whether there is a deposit, or if it’s even part 
of a reuse/recycling scheme. 

> On 14 Jan 2020, at 13:50, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> 
>> deposit_return_scheme=yes
> 
> This is trying to include too many things under one tag.
> 
> - Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> On 1/14/20, Jake Edmonds via Tagging  wrote:
>> I believe they are schemes where other items also have a deposit, such as
>> newspapers.  So rather then container_return, how about:
>> 
>> deposit_return_scheme=yes deposit_return_scheme:type=counter/machine
>> 
>> These tags can be added to shops, breweries, recycling centres, etc. Reverse
>> vending machines can also be tagged individually to be more complete.
>> 
>> Do we continue to use payment:* or switch to
>> deposit_return_scheme:cash/token/etc
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
>> 
>>> On 14 Jan 2020, at 13:05, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 14.1.2020 13.39, Sebastian Martin Dicke wrote:
 But in some shops there are checkouts, where you can give yogurt jars or
 some kinds of bottles and get the deposit refund. I know a shop, where
 yogurt jars and some kinds bottles are taken at a checkout, but other
 bottles at a reverse vending machine. Its usually one checkout in that
 shop, in the beverages department with own entree, but direct connect the
 rest of the shop via a lift.
 Maybe a tagging with
 bottle_return=yes
 bottle_return:type=machine
 for reverse vending maschines and for acceptance at checkouts
 bottle_return=yes
 bottle_return:type=checkout
 would be more accurate?
>>> 
>>> I think it's not a good idea to limit this useful tag to just bottles.
>>> Cans, bottle crates and as we can see also other containers can be
>>> returned in a reverse vending machine or a return point. So instead of
>>> bottle_return I suggest container_return respectively.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> --
>>> Jyri-Petteri Paloposki
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

[Tagging] Query regarding seasonal tag combined for outdoor water fountains.

[European Water Project]

Dear All,

Would it be appropriate to use the tag "seasonal" for a water fountain
(whether tagged as "amenity=drinking_water" or "amenity = fountain and
drinking_water = yes" )?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seasonal


On the natural=spring page, the combination "natural=spring and seasonal= *
" was suggested.

But the combination of drinking_water= yes or amenity=fountain with tag
seasonal was not suggested.

Best regards,

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

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

[Warin]

On 15/1/20 6:32 am, marc marc wrote:

Le 14.01.20 à 19:34, Markus a écrit :

If i understand it correctly, building=* values describe how the
building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now
used as a pub still remains a building=church.

I fully agree with that.
note that building:use may record the current use.
therefore building:use=vacant or =none or =no fit the request.


And I would disagree.

A building that is 'in use' is maintained.

A building that is 'disused' is not maintained, the paint work will weather, 
glass become dirty .. roof leak, locks freeze. Generally they look disheveled.

While still a building it is not the same as a building in use.

If you tag 'disused=yes' ... how is that rendered? I think it is rendered the 
same as if the tag was not there... so it is of no use for rendering in the 
'standard' map.

And that raises another point, how would you render disused physical objects???
They should not be the same as a physical object that is 'in use', and some 
think they should be rendered, but how is that rendering to be done?
A good answer to that question may well see the 'standard' render take action, 
otherwise there is no hope.



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski 
> :
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer  
>> wrote:
>> > Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural 
>> > language.
>>
>> Here's how the mappers have seen the tags in question so far,
>> according to Taginfo:
>>
>> oneway:foot=no 1267 occurrences (not all from one region)
>> [everything else on oneway:foot, foot:oneway, foot:backward and foot:forward 
>> less than 100 uses per tag]
>
> what is your interpretation of these numbers?
> Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I 
> guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no with 1267 
> occurences. Let me put this in relation to the 15 Million oneway=* and 11.6 M 
> oneway=yes. All other variants reach not even 100 global uses.
>
> IMHO with such tiny numbers we should choose a representation that best works 
> for us, rather than let us guide from statistics without a sufficiently large 
> basis.

I was mostly interested in what "tagging scheme" people have come up
with on their own, in absence of wiki/tagging list guidance. These
tags were spread across Europe (and some smattering elsewhere in the
world) so it's unlikely to be a single editor or an import driving
this. "Folksonomy" was a term for this a while back.

I agree that oneway:foot=no is a redundant tag in vast majority of
cases. However it is illustrative of how people reason about this
property and what tag name feels natural to them.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

[Markus]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 20:21, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>
> I think that the point has just been reinforced that debates over
> subtle ontologic questions, such as "is the building that the shop
> occupies a shop, or not?" are the usual outcome of this sort of
> discussion,

My point was that the different uses of disused: and disused=yes may
not be as problematical ("tagging for the renderer") as they seem, but
that there seem to be valid reasons for it.

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

[marc marc]

Le 14.01.20 à 19:34, Markus a écrit :
> If i understand it correctly, building=* values describe how the
> building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now
> used as a pub still remains a building=church.

I fully agree with that.
note that building:use may record the current use.
therefore building:use=vacant or =none or =no fit the request.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to revive a tag proposal?

[marc marc]

Le 14.01.20 à 18:33, António Madeira via Tagging a écrit :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/olive_oil_mill
> What can I do to revive this proposal and implement this tag?

for small changes :
check taginfo if another tag/value exist with the same meaning.
check if the most comment used tag/value is a good idea or not.
take over the proposal (change the name field like : original by A,
take over by B) and choose whether you want to keep the rest intact
or modify in favour of the most common existing situation.
run the RFC like any other proposal.

for big changes :
write a new proposal, keeping all that can be done to avoid
fragmentation (some may be using the previous proposal even
though it was unsuccessful).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to revive a tag proposal?

[Markus]

Hi!

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 18:35, António Madeira via Tagging
 wrote:
>
> What can I do to revive this proposal and implement this tag?

I'm unsure whether taking over the proposal is a good idea, but you
could write a new proposal (see [1]).

However, note that there is already craft=oil_mill (although not
approved), which could be used together with product=olive_oil. [2]
For big industrial oil mills you may rather want to use man_made=works
+ product=olive_oil.

[1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process
[2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Acraft%3Doil_mill

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:03 PM Markus  wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 19:44, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> > For a vacant shop, I might tag 'building=yes' for the renderer (it is
> > indeed a building, I'm not lying!) and 'disused:building=shop' or
> > 'disused:shop=*' I don't have quite as good an answer for buildings
> > that fall in the area of, 'is a structure this decrepit still a
> > building?' - and that ontologic question triggers endless debates
> > here.
>
> Is it really the shop that is disused and not the building in which
> the shop is located?

I think that the point has just been reinforced that debates over
subtle ontologic questions, such as "is the building that the shop
occupies a shop, or not?" are the usual outcome of this sort of
discussion,

A philosopher cares. A data consumer, particularly an automated one,
likely does not. Any of the above taggings result in the conclusion:
"Building here. Shop was once here, but no longer is." - thus
satisfying those who are searching for a shop and don't want to find a
closed one, those looking to navigate and being told to expect a
disused shop on the street corner, and even those searching for
disused commercial properties to redevelop.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

[Markus]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 19:44, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>
> For a vacant shop, I might tag 'building=yes' for the renderer (it is
> indeed a building, I'm not lying!) and 'disused:building=shop' or
> 'disused:shop=*' I don't have quite as good an answer for buildings
> that fall in the area of, 'is a structure this decrepit still a
> building?' - and that ontologic question triggers endless debates
> here.

Is it really the shop that is disused and not the building in which
the shop is located?

Actually, i never use disused: on businesses because it feels wrong;
either i remove them or i prefix them with was: . For example,
building=commercial + disused=yes on the area and was:shop=supermarket
+ name=* on a node within.

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] recreational vs functional routes

[joost schouppe]

Thanks for all the replies.

Just a note on verifiability; always assuming they are waymarked:

- for car routes, it's pretty obvious whether it's part of a functional
network (say A8 or E40) or a pretty network (with a nice name and a
roundabout layout)
- for cycle networks, in the cases I know, the operator has clear vision
documents as to the purpose of the network (recreation VS commuting VS
mountainbiking). When this information is not available in a
straightforward way, or it just doesn't have a specific function, you just
don't add the possible subtag.

This in itself is an argument for creating a subtag rather than new values
of the existing main classification. Since the function of the routes
overlaps between both cycle and car routes, I think I'd prefer a tag that
can be used on all route relations.

Joost

Op ma 13 jan. 2020 23:13 schreef Volker Schmidt :

> Bicycle or hiking routes in OSM that are not trailblazed have one big
> drawback: they confuse data end users (they are looking for the signs, and
> if there are none, think they have taken the wrong turn.
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020, 19:21 brad,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/12/20 4:23 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>>
>> Paris is the capital of France because it has all the main government
>> facilities: the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and most
>> ministries.
>>
>> Routes that are mapped in Openstreetmap need to be signed or marked in a
>> visible way. Otherwise every Stava user will add their favorite training
>> loop to the map as a running route or road cycling route.
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> I think this is an overreaction.There are many routes that meet the
>> wiki description (and my own reasonableness test) that are not signed or
>> marked.I do see many routes in my area that should not be routes, but
>> that is only a minor annoyance.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:02 AM Florimond Berthoux <
>> florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Asking me how do I know that Eurovelo 3 is for tourism or bicycle
>>> trekking is like asking me how do I know that Paris is the capital of
>>> France.
>>> « Is there a sign saying that Paris is the capital of France? May be we
>>> should remove that tag, don't you think?... »
>>>
>>> You don't need sign post to have a route, do you have a sign post at the
>>> intersection of those routes ?
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.1485/-4.1705
>>> I doubt that.
>>>
>>> This is how the Wiki define a route:
>>> « A *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or travel, often
>>> predetermined and publicized. Routes consist of paths taken repeatedly by
>>> people and vehicles: a ship on the North Atlantic route, a car on a
>>> numbered road, a bus on its route or a cyclist on a national route. »
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route
>>>
>>> So to paraphrase this for road biking route :
>>> « A road bicycle *route* is a customary or regular line of passage or
>>> travel, often predetermined and publicized as such. Road bicycle routes
>>> consist of paths taken repeatedly by road cyclist. »
>>>
>>> And if you don't know then don't tag it and don't manage it.
>>>
>>> Le sam. 11 janv. 2020 à 23:35, Joseph Eisenberg <
>>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>> >
>>> > >  I am not against distinguishing more types of cycling routes, I am
>>> all for it, as long as it's verifyable, mappable with clear tagging, and
>>> manageable.
>>> >
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > I started using Openstreetmap because I wanted to add touring routes
>>> > and recreational bike routes in RideWithGPS and then found out that
>>> > http://ridewithgps.com uses Openstreetmap data which I could edit. And
>>> > I get to work and take kids to school and shop by bike - I haven't
>>> > owned a car for 9 years.
>>> >
>>> > So I would love to have more information about what streets and roads
>>> > are best for getting from point A to B, and which ones are nice for
>>> > training rides and which ones are fun for tours.
>>> >
>>> > But tags have to be verifiable: if the next mapper can't confirm that
>>> > a tag as right, the data in Openstreetmap will not be maintained
>>> > properly. Subjective tags cannot work.
>>> >
>>> > I have seen this happen: before I mapped here, I used to try to
>>> > improve the bike routes in Portland Oregon for Google Maps. But since
>>> > there was no definition of a "preferred" bicycle street, and it was
>>> > hard to delete a preferred route once it was added, the bike layer was
>>> > full of disconnected segments. Some were from old city maps of bike
>>> > routes, some were based on the personal preference of the mapper, and
>>> > some were actually signed or marked on the ground, but you couldn't
>>> > tell them apart.
>>> >
>>> > If there is a sign or marking that specifies that a certain route is
>>> > designed for mountain bikes or for bike racing, then sure, you can tag
>>> > that. But most bike routes do not have anything to specify that they
>>> > are more for 

Re: [Tagging] How to revive a tag proposal?

[António Madeira]

Sorry, I didn't get your point, Andy.
The tag was used 32 times, that doesn't seem a "relatively popular" use
of the tag.
Someone using iD (newbie or not) doesn't have any idea on how to map
this structure.

I would like to make a proper wiki and add that feature to iD, but I
never done that and I would like to have more information on how to do
that first step and use what already was started with the previous proposal.


Às 14:45 de 14/01/2020, Andy Townsend escreveu:

On 14/01/2020 17:33, António Madeira via Tagging wrote:

What can I do to revive this proposal and implement this tag?


Just use the tag?

You can see existing values for "man_made" at
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/man_made#values , and you can
search in there for "mill" or "olive". "man_made=olive_oil_mill" is
actually relatively popular among "mill" values.

This won't get it automatically included on any map rendering, but if
I was doing one for Southern Europe I'd definitely consider including
something.

Best Regards,

Andy



___
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] building=disused

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:22 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
> Yes, I'm aware there are other cartos that may handle things differently.  
> But the
> standard carto is the one we use to check what we've done.

Whenever I raise a point like that, there is a chorus of 'don't tag
for the renderer.'

Sometimes, even when I propose tagging that isn't _incorrect_, but
only less precise than the tagging that someone favours.

For a vacant shop, I might tag 'building=yes' for the renderer (it is
indeed a building, I'm not lying!) and 'disused:building=shop' or
'disused:shop=*' I don't have quite as good an answer for buildings
that fall in the area of, 'is a structure this decrepit still a
building?' - and that ontologic question triggers endless debates
here.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

[Markus]

Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 19:02, Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
> JOSM warns me that "building=disuse" is deprecated, but doesn't tell
> me what to use instead.
>
> On the wiki, nether [[Key:building=disused]] nor
> [[Tag:building=disused]] exist, and [[Key:building]] says nothing aout
> how to tag "disused", "derelict" or "empty" buildings.
>
> Is JOSM correct, what's the preferred alternative, and why is there no
> easily-found documntation for this common use case?

If i understand it correctly, building=* values describe how the
building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now
used as a pub still remains a building=church.

Therefore, for a disused building, i'd leave the building=* tag and
add disused=yes. (The alternative tagging using lifecycle prefixes,
disused:building=*, isn't rendered.)

Regards

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 18:12, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> If I recall correctly, JOSM favours lifecycle prefixes
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix, so you'd tag
> `disused:building=*` or `abandoned:building=*` depending on how much
> disrepair the building has fallen into.
>

The downside of that is that, the last time I checked, standard carto
doesn't
render disused:building=*.  The last time this was discussed, some of us
suggested that disused: applied to physical objects should not stop them
being rendered.  It makes sense to no longer render
disused:amenity=place_of_worship as a place of worship but it does not make
sense to not render disused physical objects.  As I recall, the best
suggestion
anyone could come up with was use the deprecated disused=yes for
physical objects (not perfect for other reasons, but the best we have).

Yes, I'm aware there are other cartos that may handle things differently.
But the
standard carto is the one we use to check what we've done.

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

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Andy Mabbett  wrote:
>
> JOSM warns me that "building=disuse" is deprecated, but doesn't tell
> me what to use instead.
>
> On the wiki, nether [[Key:building=disused]] nor
> [[Tag:building=disused]] exist, and [[Key:building]] says nothing aout
> how to tag "disused", "derelict" or "empty" buildings.
>
> Is JOSM correct, what's the preferred alternative, and why is there no
> easily-found documntation for this common use case?

If I recall correctly, JOSM favours lifecycle prefixes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix, so you'd tag
`disused:building=*` or `abandoned:building=*` depending on how much
disrepair the building has fallen into. But take that with a grain of
salt because I'm speaking from the special kind of ignorance that
results from paying too much attention to this mailing list and the
Wiki.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

[Tagging] building=disused

[Andy Mabbett]

JOSM warns me that "building=disuse" is deprecated, but doesn't tell
me what to use instead.

On the wiki, nether [[Key:building=disused]] nor
[[Tag:building=disused]] exist, and [[Key:building]] says nothing aout
how to tag "disused", "derelict" or "empty" buildings.

Is JOSM correct, what's the preferred alternative, and why is there no
easily-found documntation for this common use case?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 16:46, Philip Barnes  wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, 14 January 2020, Paul Allen wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and
> I
> > > guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no
> > >
> >
> > It's not meaningless at all.  It says that although the road is oneway to
> > vehicular
> > traffic, pedestrians may walk in either direction.  This is not always
> the
> > case:
> > single-lane roads without a pavement may require that pedestrians only
> walk
> > in
> > the opposite direction to oneway vehicular traffic on safety grounds.
>
> Any real world/GB examples of this?
>

Nope.  But I don't need any.  Martin suggested that oneway:foot=no was
meaningless.  Your request for examples means you're asking a different
question, whether or not it is currently necessary to make it clear that
a way which is oneway for vehicular traffic is not oneway for pedestrians.

There may be no examples of its correct usage anywhere in the world.  It's
possible there may never be any such examples (but that is not something
you or I can guarantee).  That wouldn't make the tag meaningless, just
unnecessary.  The meaning of the tag is perfectly clear to most people
here; the (current) necessity for it is arguable.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to revive a tag proposal?

[Andy Townsend]

On 14/01/2020 17:33, António Madeira via Tagging wrote:

What can I do to revive this proposal and implement this tag?


Just use the tag?

You can see existing values for "man_made" at 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/man_made#values , and you can 
search in there for "mill" or "olive". "man_made=olive_oil_mill" is 
actually relatively popular among "mill" values.


This won't get it automatically included on any map rendering, but if I 
was doing one for Southern Europe I'd definitely consider including 
something.


Best Regards,

Andy



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

[Tagging] How to revive a tag proposal?

[António Madeira via Tagging]

Greetings.

In Portugal there are olive oil mills all over the place, as I'm sure
there are in Spain, Italy and Greece. Unfortunately, there's no easy way
to map them on OSM.
I found an ancient proposal for this tag, but it never went forward:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/olive_oil_mill

I contacted its author one month ago via OSM profile, but received no
answer.
What can I do to revive this proposal and implement this tag?

Regards,
António Madeira.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Philip Barnes]

On Tuesday, 14 January 2020, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
> 
> Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I
> > guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no
> >
> 
> It's not meaningless at all.  It says that although the road is oneway to
> vehicular
> traffic, pedestrians may walk in either direction.  This is not always the
> case:
> single-lane roads without a pavement may require that pedestrians only walk
> in
> the opposite direction to oneway vehicular traffic on safety grounds.

Any real world/GB examples of this?

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Jmapb]

On 1/14/2020 9:13 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:

Here's how the mappers have seen the tags in question so far,
according to Taginfo:

oneway:foot=no 1267 occurrences (not all from one region)
oneway:foot=yes 89
oneway:foot=-1, 1 occurrence

foot:oneway=no 48
foot:oneway=yes 2

foot:backward=designated 45
foot:backward=yes 41
foot:backward=no 40
foot:backward=use_sidepath (not really applicable here) 18
foot:backward=permissive 6
foot:backward=private 1

foot:forward=no 41
foot:forward=designated (not really applicable?) 36
foot:forward=use_sidepath (not really applicable) 23
foot:forward=yes 20
foot:forward=customers 4 (only customers and only one-way?)
foot:forward=destination 3 (might be Hotel California)
foot:forward=permissive 2

--Jarek


Thanks, and I'd like to add to this list:

highway=footway + oneway=* 26505
highway=footway + oneway:bicycle=* 2611
highway=footway + piste:oneway=* 1137

(Oh dear, looks like the ski mappers have chosen a different namespace
style than the bicycle mappers...)

J



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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I
> guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no
>

It's not meaningless at all.  It says that although the road is oneway to
vehicular
traffic, pedestrians may walk in either direction.  This is not always the
case:
single-lane roads without a pavement may require that pedestrians only walk
in
the opposite direction to oneway vehicular traffic on safety grounds.  The
use
of oneway:foot=no makes clear that no such restriction applies to
pedestrians
and that the onewayness of the road applies only to vehicular traffic.

We use similar schemes for access tags.  Why are you having difficulty with
this?

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 08:50, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> yes, it asks to apply the oneway restriction to foot travel, and the
> oneway restriction is: "only drive in this direction". You do not drive
> your feet, do you agree?
>
> In English, the term "oneway" or "one way" can apply to many different
things.
It can apply to vehicular traffic.  It can apply to fluid flow and it can
apply to valves
controlling fluid flow.  It can apply to mechanical devices such as
ratchets.

As it happens, in OSM, we have only widely used it for motorized vehicular
traffic even
though it can apply to other non-motorized vehicular traffic (horse and
cart, bicycle)
and to pedestrians.  We've now realized that other modes of transport can
also be oneway independent of vehicular traffic along the same way.

I see no problem in having foot:oneway (or oneway:foot) because they are not
textually the same as "oneway" whilst retaining "oneway" as implicitly
meaning
"car:oneway."  It might be nice to have an explicit car:oneway and then use
oneway to mean all modes of transport are oneway, but it's too late to make
that change (and it may be the case that although different modes of
transport
are all oneway, some are oneway in the opposite direction to others).

I think you're being overly-pedantic and insufficiently contemplative on
this.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski <
ja...@piorkowski.ca>:

> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
> > Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural
> language.
>
> Here's how the mappers have seen the tags in question so far,
> according to Taginfo:
>
> oneway:foot=no 1267 occurrences (not all from one region)
> oneway:foot=yes 89
> oneway:foot=-1, 1 occurrence
>
> foot:oneway=no 48
> foot:oneway=yes 2
>
> foot:backward=designated 45
> foot:backward=yes 41
> foot:backward=no 40
> foot:backward=use_sidepath (not really applicable here) 18
> foot:backward=permissive 6
> foot:backward=private 1
>
> foot:forward=no 41
> foot:forward=designated (not really applicable?) 36
> foot:forward=use_sidepath (not really applicable) 23
> foot:forward=yes 20
> foot:forward=customers 4 (only customers and only one-way?)
> foot:forward=destination 3 (might be Hotel California)
> foot:forward=permissive 2



what is your interpretation of these numbers?
Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I
guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no with 1267
occurences. Let me put this in relation to the 15 Million oneway=* and 11.6
M oneway=yes. All other variants reach not even 100 global uses.

IMHO with such tiny numbers we should choose a representation that best
works for us, rather than let us guide from statistics without a
sufficiently large basis.

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural language.

Here's how the mappers have seen the tags in question so far,
according to Taginfo:

oneway:foot=no 1267 occurrences (not all from one region)
oneway:foot=yes 89
oneway:foot=-1, 1 occurrence

foot:oneway=no 48
foot:oneway=yes 2

foot:backward=designated 45
foot:backward=yes 41
foot:backward=no 40
foot:backward=use_sidepath (not really applicable here) 18
foot:backward=permissive 6
foot:backward=private 1

foot:forward=no 41
foot:forward=designated (not really applicable?) 36
foot:forward=use_sidepath (not really applicable) 23
foot:forward=yes 20
foot:forward=customers 4 (only customers and only one-way?)
foot:forward=destination 3 (might be Hotel California)
foot:forward=permissive 2

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[European Water Project]

>
>
>
>1. Re:  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant
>   (Jyri-Petteri Paloposki)


> Jyri-Petteri  Yes. information regarding on whether or not a
restaurant serves "free" water to a paying customer, is not part of our
project is important and is a factor in my decision on whether or not to go
to a restaurant (when in Switzerland).

I started the proposal page, but apologize for not know how to
properly fill it out.
Please feel free to make amendments, or send me an email directly with
instructions of what I should add (or remove).

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

Best regards,

Stuart

--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 13:24:06 +0200
> From: Jyri-Petteri Paloposki 
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
> restaurant
> Message-ID: 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> On 14.1.2020 13.06, Simon Poole wrote:
> > Currently I see the usual problem that the discussion is trying to solve
> > the general problem. Is anybody actually interested in if free water is
> > dispensed in other than bring your own container/bottle scenarios?
>
> IMO this is also an interesting concept for use in bars, night clubs
> etc. – I myself try to choose establishments that provide free water at
> least when buying a drink, preferably also without buying a drink at the
> same time. In Finland it is quite usual to provide it, but since it
> isn't required, many establishments also charge for a glass of water,
> silly as it is.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Jyri-Petteri Paloposki
>
>
>
> --
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> deposit_return_scheme=yes

This is trying to include too many things under one tag.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/14/20, Jake Edmonds via Tagging  wrote:
> I believe they are schemes where other items also have a deposit, such as
> newspapers.  So rather then container_return, how about:
>
> deposit_return_scheme=yes deposit_return_scheme:type=counter/machine
>
> These tags can be added to shops, breweries, recycling centres, etc. Reverse
> vending machines can also be tagged individually to be more complete.
>
> Do we continue to use payment:* or switch to
> deposit_return_scheme:cash/token/etc
>
>
> Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone
>
>> On 14 Jan 2020, at 13:05, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki
>>  wrote:
>>
>> On 14.1.2020 13.39, Sebastian Martin Dicke wrote:
>>> But in some shops there are checkouts, where you can give yogurt jars or
>>> some kinds of bottles and get the deposit refund. I know a shop, where
>>> yogurt jars and some kinds bottles are taken at a checkout, but other
>>> bottles at a reverse vending machine. Its usually one checkout in that
>>> shop, in the beverages department with own entree, but direct connect the
>>> rest of the shop via a lift.
>>> Maybe a tagging with
>>> bottle_return=yes
>>> bottle_return:type=machine
>>> for reverse vending maschines and for acceptance at checkouts
>>> bottle_return=yes
>>> bottle_return:type=checkout
>>> would be more accurate?
>>
>> I think it's not a good idea to limit this useful tag to just bottles.
>> Cans, bottle crates and as we can see also other containers can be
>> returned in a reverse vending machine or a return point. So instead of
>> bottle_return I suggest container_return respectively.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --
>> Jyri-Petteri Paloposki
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Jake Edmonds via Tagging]

I believe they are schemes where other items also have a deposit, such as 
newspapers.  So rather then container_return, how about:

deposit_return_scheme=yes deposit_return_scheme:type=counter/machine

These tags can be added to shops, breweries, recycling centres, etc. Reverse 
vending machines can also be tagged individually to be more complete. 

Do we continue to use payment:* or switch to 
deposit_return_scheme:cash/token/etc


Sent from Jake Edmonds' iPhone

> On 14 Jan 2020, at 13:05, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 14.1.2020 13.39, Sebastian Martin Dicke wrote:
>> But in some shops there are checkouts, where you can give yogurt jars or 
>> some kinds of bottles and get the deposit refund. I know a shop, where 
>> yogurt jars and some kinds bottles are taken at a checkout, but other 
>> bottles at a reverse vending machine. Its usually one checkout in that shop, 
>> in the beverages department with own entree, but direct connect the rest of 
>> the shop via a lift.
>> Maybe a tagging with
>> bottle_return=yes
>> bottle_return:type=machine
>> for reverse vending maschines and for acceptance at checkouts
>> bottle_return=yes
>> bottle_return:type=checkout
>> would be more accurate?
> 
> I think it's not a good idea to limit this useful tag to just bottles. Cans, 
> bottle crates and as we can see also other containers can be returned in a 
> reverse vending machine or a return point. So instead of bottle_return I 
> suggest container_return respectively.
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Jyri-Petteri Paloposki
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Jyri-Petteri Paloposki]

On 14.1.2020 13.39, Sebastian Martin Dicke wrote:
But in some shops there are checkouts, where you can give yogurt jars or 
some kinds of bottles and get the deposit refund. I know a shop, where 
yogurt jars and some kinds bottles are taken at a checkout, but other 
bottles at a reverse vending machine. Its usually one checkout in that 
shop, in the beverages department with own entree, but direct connect 
the rest of the shop via a lift.


Maybe a tagging with

bottle_return=yes
bottle_return:type=machine

for reverse vending maschines and for acceptance at checkouts

bottle_return=yes
bottle_return:type=checkout

would be more accurate?


I think it's not a good idea to limit this useful tag to just bottles. 
Cans, bottle crates and as we can see also other containers can be 
returned in a reverse vending machine or a return point. So instead of 
bottle_return I suggest container_return respectively.


Best regards,
--
Jyri-Petteri Paloposki

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine/vending=bottle_return - operator=

[Sebastian Martin Dicke]

But in some shops there are checkouts, where you can give yogurt jars or
some kinds of bottles and get the deposit refund. I know a shop, where
yogurt jars and some kinds bottles are taken at a checkout, but other
bottles at a reverse vending machine. Its usually one checkout in that
shop, in the beverages department with own entree, but direct connect
the rest of the shop via a lift.

Maybe a tagging with

bottle_return=yes
bottle_return:type=machine

for reverse vending maschines and for acceptance at checkouts

bottle_return=yes
bottle_return:type=checkout

would be more accurate?


Regards

Sebastian


On 13.01.20 09:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 09:25 Uhr schrieb Jake Edmonds via Tagging
> mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>:
>
> Do you have a suggestion Martin?
>
>
>
> maybe a generic
>
> amenity=bottle_return_machine ?
>
> could be used for all kind of machines that take bottles, and amended
> with tags about the kind of bottles. It also seems easier to
> understand for non-natives (while describing more specifically the
> purpose) than "reverse vending machine".
>
> for:recycling=yes
> for:reuse=yes
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Jyri-Petteri Paloposki]

On 14.1.2020 13.06, Simon Poole wrote:
Currently I see the usual problem that the discussion is trying to solve 
the general problem. Is anybody actually interested in if free water is 
dispensed in other than bring your own container/bottle scenarios?


IMO this is also an interesting concept for use in bars, night clubs 
etc. – I myself try to choose establishments that provide free water at 
least when buying a drink, preferably also without buying a drink at the 
same time. In Finland it is quite usual to provide it, but since it 
isn't required, many establishments also charge for a glass of water, 
silly as it is.


Best regards,
--
Jyri-Petteri Paloposki

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Simon Poole]

Am 13.01.2020 um 21:23 schrieb European Water Project:
>
>
> Thanks Hauke
>
> The namespace scheme could work. It is very elegant and clean. The
> meaning of customer in container is a bit confusing... as it can be a
> paying or non paying customer. 
>
> I could see : 
> free_water = 
> free_water:container =
> free_water:table=  
>
> How long does it typically take for the tag allocation decision
> process to be completed?  Do you have an example wiki proposal page ? 

To be clear "formal" approval is completely optional, documenting what
you are using is best practice, discussing what could work and trying to
find a consensus is wise.

Currently I see the usual problem that the discussion is trying to solve
the general problem. Is anybody actually interested in if free water is
dispensed in other than bring your own container/bottle scenarios?

Simon

>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart 
>
>  
>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:57:02 +0100
> From: Hauke Stieler  >
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
>         restaurant
> Message-ID:  >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Stuart,
>
> > The proposal below does not seem optimal, but if that is what is
> decided
> > we will write wiki instructions in this manner.
> No decisions have been made so far. Currently all these mails just
> contain ideas and discussions.
>
> I'm personally a fan of the namespace scheme, the one with the ":"
> separating parts of a tag. You'll find this e.g. on addresses:
>
>         addr:street=*
>         addr:city=*
>         addr:housenumber=*
>         ...
>
> Or also for parking situations:
>
>         parking:lane=*
>         parking:lane:left=*
>         parking:condition=*
>         ...
>
> This semantic separation of a key creates a nice structure and
> organizes
> this huge collection of possible tags into groups.
>
> > I still prefer free_water_refill=yes/no  free_water_table=yes/no
> Because the beginning of these two tags are the same, for me
> personally
> it's a reason to change them into "free_water:..." tags.
>
> Using this scheme, I can also imagine the following tags (just ideas,
> the keys and values are probably not optimal):
>
> free_water=
> free_water:container=
> free_water:table=
> (maybe more...)
>
> However, in the end, there must probably be a tag proposal (a wiki
> page
> describing how the final tags should look like, what they exactly
> mean,
> when to use them, what use-cases do they have, etc.). Everybody
> can vote
> for or against the proposal, therefore it's in the end on the
> community
> to decide what tags become "official".
>
> Hauke
>
> -- next part --
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 833 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> URL:
> 
> 
>
> --
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 20:01:56 +0100
> From: European Water Project  >
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, (Martin
>         Koppenhoefer)
> Message-ID:
>        
>  >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> >
> >    2. Re:  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, (Martin Koppenhoefer)
> >
> > Martin, Italy is amazing. Apparently there are more than 100,000
> fountains in Italy. On the 24th of April, we are planning a
> fountain hunt
> in Rome with the My-D.org. We should be 20 people including locals
> (just in
> case you live there).
> re: amenity=drinking_water
> France is complicated and the lobbies have made almost all
> perfectly good
> water fountains labelled "non potable". Just across the borders in
> Switzerland and Italy all the fountains are good to drink..
>
> Price can be an incentive, but unless the waste producer pays all true
> indirect externalities the cost will always be minimal for PET.
>
>
> > 3. Re:  Tagging Free Water for cafés,  bars, (Philip Barnes)
> >
>
> >>>Philip, Yes, like the US and France. We believe that it
> should be
> that way everywhere. No one should have to create single-use waste
> to keep
> themselves hydrated.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:50:20 

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[marc marc]

> free_water:container = 

bring_your_own is very explicit.
but "provided" or "establishment" is ambiguous.
from my experience, drinking a free glass of water in a cafe is not at
all the same as receiving a container filled with water (I have never
encountered this case).
so the choice should be between values like your_own_takeaway_container
<> on_site
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 14. Jan 2020, at 10:13, European Water Project 
>  wrote:
> 
> free_water = I think allowing yes is ambiguous and can lead to confusion, but 
> if that is what is most acceptable fine.  Someone could use yes to describe 
> customers.
> 
> I would suggest
> 
> free_water =   


I agree anyone is better than yes as it’s more explicit.


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[marc marc]

Le 14.01.20 à 10:00, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> if you have to buy something in order to get "free" water, 
> it isn't free, is it? It's included.

you're right, I often make that remark in everyday life.
but in osm terminology, how would you inform the private and free
swimming pool for hotel guests ? access=customers + fee=no
or fee=included ?
nearly nobody use https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/fee=included
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[European Water Project]

 >> On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 20:52, Hauke Stieler 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > What does "must_consume" mean?
> >> >
> >>
> >> free_water=must_consume means exactly what it says.  Anybody who
> >> enters will be given free water and they MUST consume it.  Or else.  So
> >> we need a tag to specify the punishment if they refuse to consume the
> >> free water (such as being ejected, fined, or killed).
> >>
> >> Not, in my opinion, a good value for the key.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> >> -- next part --
> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >> URL: <
> >>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200113/89a75c48/attachment-0001.htm
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Message: 2
> >> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 06:49:47 +0900
> >> From: Joseph Eisenberg 
> >> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> >> 
> >> Subject: Re: [Tagging]  Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars,
> >> restaurant
> >> Message-ID:
> >>  >> co7yxdvdo+q6kusvtc-qysx...@mail.gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >>
> >> free_water_table= or free_water:table= will be confusing for places
> >> that sell take-out food and don't have tables, for examples small
> >> fast-food restaurants, convenience shops, etc.
> >>
> >> The word "customers" should be included, since what you are trying to
> >> specify is that "you can only get free water if you buy something
> >> else", and "customers" is the standard term in Openstreetmap for this
> >> idea.
> >>
> >> - Joseph Eisenberg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 09:47:32 +0100
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to
> pedestrians?
> Message-ID:
> <
> cabptjtctcc0qvwetbl19bmwpzefymqh9qzvt+wjckjakb1h...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 01:30 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
>
> > > following this logics, "oneway:foot" means the oneway restriction
> > applied to pedestrians, and the result would be no restriction, because
> > "oneway" already has no implication for pedestrian
> >
> > That "logic" is not logical. Why would another mapper or a database
> > user assume that? If I saw this tag as a mapper, it would be logical
> > to assume that the oneway restriction did indeed apply to foot travel.
> >
>
>
> yes, it asks to apply the oneway restriction to foot travel, and the oneway
> restriction is: "only drive in this direction". You do not drive your feet,
> do you agree?
>
>
>
>
> > It is the same as a database user designing a routing application or
> > renderer - you are not going to assume that a tag is meaningless
> > (unless it looks like it came from a bad import).
> >
>
>
> you will have choose the tags you will evaluate and you will likely drop
> all the rest as meaningless (for your usecase) or insignificant.
>
>
>
> >
> > (This sort of pedantic arguement is like claiming that "I don't got no
> > money" means "I have money" because it is a "double negative", but in
> > fact double negatives are extremely common in spoken languages as a
> > means of emphasis, and are perfectly "standard" in many (like Spanish,
> > Indonesian, and many dialects of English).)
> >
>
>
> this is a completely different issue, because as you state, the double
> negative is well defined in English as a means of emphasis. It would be
> different in German, where it would indeed mean I do have money. Tags,
> similar to language, depend on conventions, and for OSM tags my opinion is
> that we should not have the double negative to mean negative, because it
> seems quite confusing. In logics, "not no" means yes (or unknown etc., it
> means anything but no). Lets see tags more like a programming language and
> less like natural language.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200114/27828fc8/attachment.htm
> >
>
> --
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> --
>
> End of Tagging Digest, Vol 124, Issue 82
> 
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 22:51 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> free_water_table= or free_water:table= will be confusing for places
> that sell take-out food and don't have tables, for examples small
> fast-food restaurants, convenience shops, etc.
>
> The word "customers" should be included, since what you are trying to
> specify is that "you can only get free water if you buy something
> else", and "customers" is the standard term in Openstreetmap for this
> idea.



if you have to buy something in order to get "free" water, it isn't free,
is it? It's included. Like you get "free bread" when you buy something to
eat. Or "free table service" (if the service fee is included in the price).
Or "free bathroom usage" (for customers).

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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag oneway restriction applying to pedestrians?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 01:30 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:

> > following this logics, "oneway:foot" means the oneway restriction
> applied to pedestrians, and the result would be no restriction, because
> "oneway" already has no implication for pedestrian
>
> That "logic" is not logical. Why would another mapper or a database
> user assume that? If I saw this tag as a mapper, it would be logical
> to assume that the oneway restriction did indeed apply to foot travel.
>


yes, it asks to apply the oneway restriction to foot travel, and the oneway
restriction is: "only drive in this direction". You do not drive your feet,
do you agree?




> It is the same as a database user designing a routing application or
> renderer - you are not going to assume that a tag is meaningless
> (unless it looks like it came from a bad import).
>


you will have choose the tags you will evaluate and you will likely drop
all the rest as meaningless (for your usecase) or insignificant.



>
> (This sort of pedantic arguement is like claiming that "I don't got no
> money" means "I have money" because it is a "double negative", but in
> fact double negatives are extremely common in spoken languages as a
> means of emphasis, and are perfectly "standard" in many (like Spanish,
> Indonesian, and many dialects of English).)
>


this is a completely different issue, because as you state, the double
negative is well defined in English as a means of emphasis. It would be
different in German, where it would indeed mean I do have money. Tags,
similar to language, depend on conventions, and for OSM tags my opinion is
that we should not have the double negative to mean negative, because it
seems quite confusing. In logics, "not no" means yes (or unknown etc., it
means anything but no). Lets see tags more like a programming language and
less like natural language.

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