[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I would like to formally request comments on the proposal for
amenity=motorcycle_taxi:

"A place where motorcycle taxis wait for passengers"

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dmotorcycle_taxi

In many countries, motorcycles for hire are much more common than
automobile taxis.

In these places, motorcycle drivers wait at stands, often with a small
shelter, and they can be hired to take one or more passengers to
various destinations. A fare is paid for a one-way trip. The passenger
usually rides behind the driver. In some countries two or even three
passengers can be carried on one motorcycle "taxi".

Motorcycle taxis are also known as "motos" or "bike taxi", or by other
local names, such as "ojek" here in Indonesia and in Singapore,
"boda-boda" in Uganda, and "okada" in Nigeria.

While some have proposed using amenity=taxi plus additional tags for
motorcycle taxi stands, this is quite confusing for travelers who
generally expect a "taxi" to be 4-wheeled motorcar capable of carrying
4 people and luggage. So a different tag is proposed to avoid
confusion and more precisely tag these features.

- Joseph Eisenberg

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

Re: [Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I've created a page for Key:dual_carriageway based on existing usage
in the database:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:dual_carriageway

On 2/20/20, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> I updated the Key:expressway page to have a global focus, rather than
> being United-States-specific.
>
> But I noticed that the key:expressway is currently used in 2 different
> ways.
>
> While all expressways are major roads designed for high-speed motor
> vehicle traffic, they are not often "motorroad=yes", because most
> States allow motorcycles and pedestrians on all roads that are not
> motorways (and western States allow bicycles on rural motorways even).
>
> The defining characteristics are:
> 1) The max speed and design speed are relatively high (usually 60 kmh
> in urban areas or greater in rural areas)
> 2) A) They have limited access to adjacent properties
> OR
> B) They have grade-separated interchanges with major junctions.
> 3) They are dual carriageway (divided) highways
>
> While many "expressways" in the United States fit all of these
> characteristics, many only fit 2)A) or 2)B) but not both.
>
> We already have "max_speed=", but it would be better if there were
> more specific tags to describe these three properties:
>
> A) Limited access: there are no or very few service roads or driveways
> B) Grade separation: there are no stop lights or stop signs (or
> roundabouts) at junctions, instead the roads cross at different
> levels, with link roads / ramps to connect them.
> C) Dual carriagway: the two directions of travel are divided by a
> barrier or median area.
>
> So initial ideas;
>
> A) a new tag "limited_access=yes/no" - or is there a better term in
> British English for a road which doesn't have service roads like
> driveways, or only very rare intersections with service roads? This
> needs a proposal.
>
> B) Use the tag "grade_separated=yes/no" for roads that generally do
> not have any at-grade intersections with stop lights, stop signs or
> roundabouts or similar. Used only 97 times:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/grade_separated so should need
> a new proposal.
>
> This property can be seen by looking at all crossing or intersecting
> roads and interpreting layer= and bridge= and tunnel= tags, but that
> is quite hard to get right, so having mappers add this tag would help
> with quality control and make it much easier for database users.
>
> C): I noticed that the tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no" and
> "type=dual_carriageway" have been used in a few limited areas. These
> have been used several thousand times
> (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/grade_separated) but only in a
> few places, so a new proposal is still a good idea.
>
> This property is also mapped by drawing two separate ways and adding
> oneway=yes, but it is not easy for a computer algorithim to properly
> interpret these geometries as "two parts of a single road" without a
> tag like "dual_carriageway=yes", especially if there the name= and
> ref= are not identical for each direction.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>

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

[Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I updated the Key:expressway page to have a global focus, rather than
being United-States-specific.

But I noticed that the key:expressway is currently used in 2 different ways.

While all expressways are major roads designed for high-speed motor
vehicle traffic, they are not often "motorroad=yes", because most
States allow motorcycles and pedestrians on all roads that are not
motorways (and western States allow bicycles on rural motorways even).

The defining characteristics are:
1) The max speed and design speed are relatively high (usually 60 kmh
in urban areas or greater in rural areas)
2) A) They have limited access to adjacent properties
OR
B) They have grade-separated interchanges with major junctions.
3) They are dual carriageway (divided) highways

While many "expressways" in the United States fit all of these
characteristics, many only fit 2)A) or 2)B) but not both.

We already have "max_speed=", but it would be better if there were
more specific tags to describe these three properties:

A) Limited access: there are no or very few service roads or driveways
B) Grade separation: there are no stop lights or stop signs (or
roundabouts) at junctions, instead the roads cross at different
levels, with link roads / ramps to connect them.
C) Dual carriagway: the two directions of travel are divided by a
barrier or median area.

So initial ideas;

A) a new tag "limited_access=yes/no" - or is there a better term in
British English for a road which doesn't have service roads like
driveways, or only very rare intersections with service roads? This
needs a proposal.

B) Use the tag "grade_separated=yes/no" for roads that generally do
not have any at-grade intersections with stop lights, stop signs or
roundabouts or similar. Used only 97 times:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/grade_separated so should need
a new proposal.

This property can be seen by looking at all crossing or intersecting
roads and interpreting layer= and bridge= and tunnel= tags, but that
is quite hard to get right, so having mappers add this tag would help
with quality control and make it much easier for database users.

C): I noticed that the tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no" and
"type=dual_carriageway" have been used in a few limited areas. These
have been used several thousand times
(https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/grade_separated) but only in a
few places, so a new proposal is still a good idea.

This property is also mapped by drawing two separate ways and adding
oneway=yes, but it is not easy for a computer algorithim to properly
interpret these geometries as "two parts of a single road" without a
tag like "dual_carriageway=yes", especially if there the name= and
ref= are not identical for each direction.

- Joseph Eisenberg

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

[Michael Reichert]

Hi,

Am 19.02.20 um 12:45 schrieb Jez Nicholson:
> In general, are these signs physically on the camera, or are they in the
> vicinity? If so, should they be tagged objects in their own account?

In supermarkets and other shops, I do not map surveillance cameras
individually. Instead, I just put surveillance=indoor to the node or way
representing the shop. I do not know if that is a my special tagging
habit nobody else follows but it would be helpful to be able to express
"this place has surveillance cameras and a/no sign".

Best regards

Michael




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

[Joseph Eisenberg]

My concern is still that it might be hard to translate "donation in
kind" from English into some languages, and that people with limited
English vocabulary might not understand the phrase.

Automated translations by Google from "donation in kind" gets this:

Spanish: "donación en especie"
- literally "donation in species/type/kind" which also appears to be
used as a legal term about goods/services

Indonesian: "sumbangan dalam bentuk barang" - "donation in the form of goods"
- rather formal but intelligible, though services are not mentioned

Those are the other languages that I know. Other languages:

German: "Sachspende"

Dutch: "donatie in natura" literally "donation in nature", from French?

French: "don en nature" - literally "gift in nature/kind" which seem
to be a phrase

So "donation in kind" will work for western European languages (and
Indonesian), though it would be nice if someone can check how it works
in Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, etc.

However, "donation of goods" works as well or better in most of these languages:

"Donation of goods" translates to:
= "sumbangan barang" (Indonesian)
= "donación de bienes" (Spanish)
= "don de biens" (French)
= "donatie van goederen" (Dutch)
= "Spende von Waren" (German)

Those seem clearer to me; they are pretty much literal phrases that
mean "donation of objects with value".

Also, the phrase "donation of goods" in English is easier to
understand, since it does not require interpreting an unusual use of
the noun "kind", which usually means "class, sort, variety or type of
something" in modern English, except in the phrase "in kind".

- Joseph Eisenberg

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

[Steve Doerr]

On 19/02/2020 09:11, Philip Barnes wrote:


In kind is not the phrase we would use, we would call it a donation.


A donation could be money (probably the most common type) or something 
else. If I wanted to distinguish the latter from the former, I might 
well choose to talk of a 'donation in kind'. It's not what one might 
call a 'fixed expression', such as one might expect to find in a 
dictionary, but it's an obvious collocation based on the documented 
meanings of 'donation' and 'in kind'.


--

Steve


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 19 feb 2020, alle ore 04:31, Victor/tuxayo  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> > In countries where the public must be notified of surveillance cameras, the 
> > following tags could be used on the node:
> >
> > tourism=information
> > information=board
> > board_type=surveillance


-1, these signs clearly aren’t within the scope of information boards for 
tourists. I am not opposing to map them, but not like this.

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

[Peter Elderson]

I think a warning sign is legally required in Nederland. I don't think it's
very useful to register the absence or presence of mandatory warning signs
in OSM. If it is not there, report it to whoever is supposed to maintain or
enforce it. If you want to register incidents to make a stand, an
ushahidi-type of register is better I think.

For the cams themselves I see a use case, but the presence or absence of a
sign does not seem relevant to me.

The overall camera situation is very dynamic, so I do see a problem with
coverage, quality, maintenance and actuality.

Best, Peter Elderson


Op wo 19 feb. 2020 om 12:54 schreef John Sturdy :

> On the ones I've noticed in Cambridge, they are either on the lower part
> of the pole supporting the camera, or, for building-mounted cameras, on the
> wall below the camera.  (The cameras are well above head height, and
> notices on them would not be readable unless very large.)
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:48 AM Jez Nicholson 
> wrote:
>
>> In general, are these signs physically on the camera, or are they in the
>> vicinity? If so, should they be tagged objects in their own account?
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, 10:54 John Sturdy,  wrote:
>>
>>> Whatever the concensus in another discussion was, I think that double
>>> negatives will risk confusion, and that *:signed=yes and *:signed=no seems
>>> to be a reasonable proposal.
>>>
>>> I have noticed that some but not all of the surveillance cameras (city
>>> council, I believe) in Cambridge (UK) have signs.
>>>
>>> __John
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:13 AM marc marc 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Le 19.02.20 à 04:29, Victor/tuxayo a écrit :
 > Coincidentally there was a recent discussion[2] about these signs in
 the
 > french mailing list (talk-fr) which lead to adding the following
 section
 > in the page
 > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=surveillance

 I warn that this addition does not reflect the discussion that took
 place on talk-fr, but is "self-declared as consensus"
 more than half of the opinions are that a regulatory sign of this kind
 is not tourist information (imho I think it is closer to a sign that
 announces a pedestrian crossing or a maxspeed zone)
 ___
 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

[John Sturdy]

On the ones I've noticed in Cambridge, they are either on the lower part of
the pole supporting the camera, or, for building-mounted cameras, on the
wall below the camera.  (The cameras are well above head height, and
notices on them would not be readable unless very large.)

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:48 AM Jez Nicholson 
wrote:

> In general, are these signs physically on the camera, or are they in the
> vicinity? If so, should they be tagged objects in their own account?
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, 10:54 John Sturdy,  wrote:
>
>> Whatever the concensus in another discussion was, I think that double
>> negatives will risk confusion, and that *:signed=yes and *:signed=no seems
>> to be a reasonable proposal.
>>
>> I have noticed that some but not all of the surveillance cameras (city
>> council, I believe) in Cambridge (UK) have signs.
>>
>> __John
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:13 AM marc marc 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 19.02.20 à 04:29, Victor/tuxayo a écrit :
>>> > Coincidentally there was a recent discussion[2] about these signs in
>>> the
>>> > french mailing list (talk-fr) which lead to adding the following
>>> section
>>> > in the page
>>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=surveillance
>>>
>>> I warn that this addition does not reflect the discussion that took
>>> place on talk-fr, but is "self-declared as consensus"
>>> more than half of the opinions are that a regulatory sign of this kind
>>> is not tourist information (imho I think it is closer to a sign that
>>> announces a pedestrian crossing or a maxspeed zone)
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

[Jez Nicholson]

In general, are these signs physically on the camera, or are they in the
vicinity? If so, should they be tagged objects in their own account?

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020, 10:54 John Sturdy,  wrote:

> Whatever the concensus in another discussion was, I think that double
> negatives will risk confusion, and that *:signed=yes and *:signed=no seems
> to be a reasonable proposal.
>
> I have noticed that some but not all of the surveillance cameras (city
> council, I believe) in Cambridge (UK) have signs.
>
> __John
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:13 AM marc marc 
> wrote:
>
>> Le 19.02.20 à 04:29, Victor/tuxayo a écrit :
>> > Coincidentally there was a recent discussion[2] about these signs in the
>> > french mailing list (talk-fr) which lead to adding the following section
>> > in the page
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=surveillance
>>
>> I warn that this addition does not reflect the discussion that took
>> place on talk-fr, but is "self-declared as consensus"
>> more than half of the opinions are that a regulatory sign of this kind
>> is not tourist information (imho I think it is closer to a sign that
>> announces a pedestrian crossing or a maxspeed zone)
>> ___
>> 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] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

[John Sturdy]

Whatever the concensus in another discussion was, I think that double
negatives will risk confusion, and that *:signed=yes and *:signed=no seems
to be a reasonable proposal.

I have noticed that some but not all of the surveillance cameras (city
council, I believe) in Cambridge (UK) have signs.

__John

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:13 AM marc marc 
wrote:

> Le 19.02.20 à 04:29, Victor/tuxayo a écrit :
> > Coincidentally there was a recent discussion[2] about these signs in the
> > french mailing list (talk-fr) which lead to adding the following section
> > in the page
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=surveillance
>
> I warn that this addition does not reflect the discussion that took
> place on talk-fr, but is "self-declared as consensus"
> more than half of the opinions are that a regulatory sign of this kind
> is not tourist information (imho I think it is closer to a sign that
> announces a pedestrian crossing or a maxspeed zone)
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging the presence or absence of signs for surveillance cameras

[marc marc]

Le 19.02.20 à 04:29, Victor/tuxayo a écrit :
> Coincidentally there was a recent discussion[2] about these signs in the
> french mailing list (talk-fr) which lead to adding the following section
> in the page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=surveillance

I warn that this addition does not reflect the discussion that took
place on talk-fr, but is "self-declared as consensus"
more than half of the opinions are that a regulatory sign of this kind
is not tourist information (imho I think it is closer to a sign that
announces a pedestrian crossing or a maxspeed zone)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

[Philip Barnes]

On Wednesday, 19 February 2020, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> OK, so "in-kind" is usually referring to a type of payment, in good or
> services, rather than a type of donation.
> 
> I'm sure the charity shops have to account the value of donated
> second-hand clothes as "in-kind" donation income for tax purposes, but
> that's not how an oridinary British person would talk about donating
> some used books or toys, right?

In kind is not the phrase we would use, we would call it a donation.

Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/19/20, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> > Hi Joseph
> > In British English the phrase has the same meaning as you describe.
> >
> > The most common usage is in taxation terms when an employee receives a
> > benefit that is not money. Examples can be a cars, housing.
> >
> > My reaction to this proposal was the same as yours, they are describing a
> > charity shop.
> >
> > Phil (trigpoint)
> >
> > On Tuesday, 18 February 2020, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> >> While "in-kind donation" is an English phrase, it is not commonly used
> >> and it also includes donations of services, rather than just goods.
> >>
> >> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_kind "in kind refers to goods,
> >> services, and transactions not involving money or not measured in
> >> monetary terms."
> >>
> >> "In Kind: consisting of something (such as goods or commodities) other
> >> than money" (Merriam-Webster) - also says "first known usage 1973".
> >>
> >> "In Kind: (of payment) given in the form of goods or services and not
> >> money" or "If you do something in kind, you do the same thing to
> >> someone that they have just done to you." (Cambridge)
> >>
> >> This might be difficult for mappers to understand, unless this phrase
> >> is more common in British English than it appears (I'm an American
> >> English speaker).
> >>
> >> I believe this proposal is focused on donations of things: physical
> >> objects which have some value, also known as "goods," "items",
> >> "stuff", "things", like those that you can commonly give away at a
> >> second_hand shop or charity shop.
> >>
> >> If that is the case, a better tag might be something like
> >> "goods_donation=", "second_hand_donation=",
> >> "donation=second_hand_goods" or something with one of those other
> >> common words for objects.
> >>
> >> But perhaps the key should include the type of things, since mostly
> >> people will say "donate used clothes", "donate used books" or "donate
> >> used furniture" rather than talking about all possible objects:
> >> internet searches for those specific phrases find more results.
> >>
> >> - Joseph Eisenberg
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Sent from my Sailfish device
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

[Joseph Eisenberg]

OK, so "in-kind" is usually referring to a type of payment, in good or
services, rather than a type of donation.

I'm sure the charity shops have to account the value of donated
second-hand clothes as "in-kind" donation income for tax purposes, but
that's not how an oridinary British person would talk about donating
some used books or toys, right?

Joseph Eisenberg



On 2/19/20, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> Hi Joseph
> In British English the phrase has the same meaning as you describe.
>
> The most common usage is in taxation terms when an employee receives a
> benefit that is not money. Examples can be a cars, housing.
>
> My reaction to this proposal was the same as yours, they are describing a
> charity shop.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
> On Tuesday, 18 February 2020, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> While "in-kind donation" is an English phrase, it is not commonly used
>> and it also includes donations of services, rather than just goods.
>>
>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_kind "in kind refers to goods,
>> services, and transactions not involving money or not measured in
>> monetary terms."
>>
>> "In Kind: consisting of something (such as goods or commodities) other
>> than money" (Merriam-Webster) - also says "first known usage 1973".
>>
>> "In Kind: (of payment) given in the form of goods or services and not
>> money" or "If you do something in kind, you do the same thing to
>> someone that they have just done to you." (Cambridge)
>>
>> This might be difficult for mappers to understand, unless this phrase
>> is more common in British English than it appears (I'm an American
>> English speaker).
>>
>> I believe this proposal is focused on donations of things: physical
>> objects which have some value, also known as "goods," "items",
>> "stuff", "things", like those that you can commonly give away at a
>> second_hand shop or charity shop.
>>
>> If that is the case, a better tag might be something like
>> "goods_donation=", "second_hand_donation=",
>> "donation=second_hand_goods" or something with one of those other
>> common words for objects.
>>
>> But perhaps the key should include the type of things, since mostly
>> people will say "donate used clothes", "donate used books" or "donate
>> used furniture" rather than talking about all possible objects:
>> internet searches for those specific phrases find more results.
>>
>> - Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my Sailfish device
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

[Philip Barnes]

Hi Joseph
In British English the phrase has the same meaning as you describe.

The most common usage is in taxation terms when an employee receives a benefit 
that is not money. Examples can be a cars, housing.

My reaction to this proposal was the same as yours, they are describing a 
charity shop.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Tuesday, 18 February 2020, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> While "in-kind donation" is an English phrase, it is not commonly used
> and it also includes donations of services, rather than just goods.
> 
> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_kind "in kind refers to goods,
> services, and transactions not involving money or not measured in
> monetary terms."
> 
> "In Kind: consisting of something (such as goods or commodities) other
> than money" (Merriam-Webster) - also says "first known usage 1973".
> 
> "In Kind: (of payment) given in the form of goods or services and not
> money" or "If you do something in kind, you do the same thing to
> someone that they have just done to you." (Cambridge)
> 
> This might be difficult for mappers to understand, unless this phrase
> is more common in British English than it appears (I'm an American
> English speaker).
> 
> I believe this proposal is focused on donations of things: physical
> objects which have some value, also known as "goods," "items",
> "stuff", "things", like those that you can commonly give away at a
> second_hand shop or charity shop.
> 
> If that is the case, a better tag might be something like
> "goods_donation=", "second_hand_donation=",
> "donation=second_hand_goods" or something with one of those other
> common words for objects.
> 
> But perhaps the key should include the type of things, since mostly
> people will say "donate used clothes", "donate used books" or "donate
> used furniture" rather than talking about all possible objects:
> internet searches for those specific phrases find more results.
> 
> - Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[European Water Project]

Hi Again,

In addition to the previous email regarding voting outcome, I think it is
worth discussing the suggestion of  Kovposch to make refill a namespace and
use the word network.

This would change the second tag of the tag pair to
drinking_water:refill:network=network-name1;network-name2;network-name3;

Does anyone have an opinion on this? I personally prefer this namespace
convention because of I find it more generic and I find the word "network"
clearer than "scheme".

Best regards,

Stuart

On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 at 09:27, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> The proposal for tagging bars, restaurants, cafés, kiosks, which refill
> water bottles for free as part of a refill scheme or as an independent
> passes with 13 positive votes and three abstentions.  Please note, that to
> be tagged drinking_water:refill = yes, it is imperative that a sign is
> evident so that the tag is verifiable.
>
> The tag that has been voted positively takes into account the clear
> preference for delimiting individual scheme names with semicolons - which
> is common with other tags.
>
>
>- drinking_water:refill
>
> 
>=yes
>
> 
>/drinking_water:refill
>
> 
>=no
>
> 
>- drinking_water:refill_scheme
>
> 
>=scheme-name
>
> 
>1; scheme-name
>
> 
>2;scheme-name3;
>
>
> Can someone please guide me on next steps ?
>
>
>- Create the permanent feature description page:
>
>
>- A new page for the feature should be created and the relevant map 
> features
>template
> (depending
>on whether it is a key, a value, or a relation) should be applied. Follow
>the standard set by the Key:highway
> key and its values.
>- Add a link back to the proposal by using the *statuslink* parameter
>of the feature template.
>- Add a link to the permanent feature page in the proposal page using 
> Template:Approved
>feature link
>.
>- Archive the proposal using Template:Archived proposal
>.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart
>
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 14:43, European Water Project <
> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joseph,
>>
>> Understood.
>>
>> I will start a discussion on the proposal amendment/tweek after the vote
>> finishes tomorrow.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 13:23, Joseph Eisenberg <
>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > For 2) What is the best way to proceed?
>>>
>>> Make another proposal to discuss that particular tag.
>>>
>>> - Joseph Eisenberg
>>>
>>> On 2/17/20, European Water Project 
>>> wrote:
>>> > Tomorrow is the last day of voting.  The proposal has positive support
>>> ..
>>> > 10 + and 2 Abs
>>> >
>>> > There are two comments which are worth noting :
>>> >
>>> > 1 . It seems there is a strong preference for semicolon delimited
>>> scheme
>>> > names as a preferred alternative to refill_scheme = multiple. Untess
>>> there
>>> > are voiced objections, I will amend the proposal after the final vote
>>> to
>>> > take this into consideration.
>>> >
>>> > 2. Kovposch
>>> > <
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kovposch=edit=1
>>> >
>>> > suggested
>>> > making refill a namespace and changing refill_scheme to refill:network.
>>> > Intutitvely, this suggestion seems to be a good one, because of its
>>> more
>>> > generic nature. I also prefer the word "network" to "scheme" ...
>>> >
>>> > For 2) What is the best way to proceed ? It wouldn't be right to just
>>> > change the tag to something people haven't actually voted on.
>>> >
>>> > Best regards,
>>> >
>>> > Stuart
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 18:47, European Water Project <
>>> > europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hi Martin,
>>> >>
>>> >> If it is clear that there is drinking water available for refill for
>>> >> everyone there is no need to be part of a scheme.
>>> >>
>>> >> Best regards,
>>> >>
>>> >> Stuart
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 18:40, Martin Koppenhoefer
>>> >> 
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

[European Water Project]

Dear All,

The proposal for tagging bars, restaurants, cafés, kiosks, which refill
water bottles for free as part of a refill scheme or as an independent
passes with 13 positive votes and three abstentions.  Please note, that to
be tagged drinking_water:refill = yes, it is imperative that a sign is
evident so that the tag is verifiable.

The tag that has been voted positively takes into account the clear
preference for delimiting individual scheme names with semicolons - which
is common with other tags.


   - drinking_water:refill
   

   =yes
   

   /drinking_water:refill
   

   =no
   

   - drinking_water:refill_scheme
   

   =scheme-name
   

   1; scheme-name
   

   2;scheme-name3;


Can someone please guide me on next steps ?


   - Create the permanent feature description page:


   - A new page for the feature should be created and the relevant map features
   template 
(depending
   on whether it is a key, a value, or a relation) should be applied. Follow
   the standard set by the Key:highway
    key and its values.
   - Add a link back to the proposal by using the *statuslink* parameter of
   the feature template.
   - Add a link to the permanent feature page in the proposal page
using Template:Approved
   feature link
   .
   - Archive the proposal using Template:Archived proposal
   .


Best regards,

Stuart

On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 14:43, European Water Project <
europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Joseph,
>
> Understood.
>
> I will start a discussion on the proposal amendment/tweek after the vote
> finishes tomorrow.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Stuart
>
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 at 13:23, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
>
>> > For 2) What is the best way to proceed?
>>
>> Make another proposal to discuss that particular tag.
>>
>> - Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> On 2/17/20, European Water Project 
>> wrote:
>> > Tomorrow is the last day of voting.  The proposal has positive support
>> ..
>> > 10 + and 2 Abs
>> >
>> > There are two comments which are worth noting :
>> >
>> > 1 . It seems there is a strong preference for semicolon delimited scheme
>> > names as a preferred alternative to refill_scheme = multiple. Untess
>> there
>> > are voiced objections, I will amend the proposal after the final vote to
>> > take this into consideration.
>> >
>> > 2. Kovposch
>> > <
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kovposch=edit=1
>> >
>> > suggested
>> > making refill a namespace and changing refill_scheme to refill:network.
>> > Intutitvely, this suggestion seems to be a good one, because of its more
>> > generic nature. I also prefer the word "network" to "scheme" ...
>> >
>> > For 2) What is the best way to proceed ? It wouldn't be right to just
>> > change the tag to something people haven't actually voted on.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Stuart
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 18:47, European Water Project <
>> > europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Martin,
>> >>
>> >> If it is clear that there is drinking water available for refill for
>> >> everyone there is no need to be part of a scheme.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >>
>> >> Stuart
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 18:40, Martin Koppenhoefer
>> >> 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 16:58 Uhr schrieb European Water Project <
>> >>> europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>:
>> >>>
>>  I think they do need a sign or it is impossible to objectively map
>>  whether a bar will refill a bottle of water for free for anyone (ie
>>  paying
>>  or non-paying customer).
>> 
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I think if they provide a water tap in the customer area with a
>> >>> "drinking
>> >>> water" sign, it is perfectly ok and does not need more explanation.
>> >>> Like in the linked photo above:
>> >>>
>> https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g187791-d1023845-i49797540-Palazzo_del_Freddo_Giovanni_Fassi-Rome_Lazio.html
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>> Martin
>> >>>
>> >>> ___
>> >>> Tagging mailing list
>> >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> >>>