Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
On Tue, 12 May 2020 23:53:52 +0800 Phake Nick wrote: > Except capacity is only one of many differences between common taxi > and motorcycle taxi. Are there any differences that can't be explained by the fact that a motorcycle taxi uses a motorcycle to carry the passengers? For example, in the United States, we've got what are called "airport shuttles". These look and act a lot like a taxi, but either the start point or the end point of the journey must be the airport -- you can't use them as general point-to-point transportation like you could a taxi. -- Mark ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard
On 13/5/20 9:28 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 13. May 2020, at 00:27, Tod Fitch wrote: Checking taginfo it seems hazard=* [1] is in use. Why not go with it? [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hazard there is also documentation. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard 'Documented' as a draft proposal over 10 years ago. A simple search on the OSMwiki would reveal nothing, so the 'documentation' is old, and hard to find. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] relations & paths
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 9:37 PM brad wrote: > OK, but it seems redundant to me. A trail/path get tagged as a path. > There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name. Why does > it need to be a route also? > Same reason all 0.11 miles of I 95 in Washington DC is part of a route. It's part of a route. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] relations & paths
OK, but it seems redundant to me. A trail/path get tagged as a path. There's a trailhead and a sign, it gets a tagged with a name. Why does it need to be a route also? On 5/12/20 11:43 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:03 PM Peter Elderson wrote: My view is that a route should have an indication on the ground. A sign, a trailhead, something. No verifiable indication whatsoever, then it's not a route. The length or the number of ways in the route does not make a difference to me. That's indeed the meaning of 'waymarked' in Waymarked Trails. If a trail has a distinguishable waymark (signage, blaze, ducks, guideposts, whatever is used in a given locale) it gets a relation. No waymark, it doesn't. Length has nothing to do with it. I'll bend the rules slightly for named routes that are listed in multiple guidebooks, because otherwise some major trails would be lost. The Benton MacKaye Trail is not waymarked in certain wilderness areas, but is described in numerous guides, named, and maintained to the extent of occasionally cutting brush, clearing blowdown, and repairing water bars on the treadway. In general, wilderness trails, even if nominally waymarked, require good navigational skills, since trail visibility may be very poor indeed. The more remote trails also don't have a lot of vegetation control or get a lot of traffic. I've occasionally gone an entire day without meeting another party - although that was often 20-30 km from anywhere you can park a car, which filters out a lot of hikers. In the US, walking and MTB trails are likely to have only a splash of paint on trees at intervals. The blue-green paint blazes seen in https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14018094576 are pretty typical. The trails that they mark range in length from a few hundred metres (short access trails leading to parking lots, campsites, views, whatever) to a few thousand km (the National Scenic Trails). In remote areas, trails might go a few hundred metres between even paint blazes; they don't have a lot of reassurance markings. More popular trails, or ones nearer the 'front country' are likely to have marks frequent enough that you're always in sight of one. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard
dog=yes|no|leashed already exists for a totally different semantic (letting dog owners know if their pet is allowed). If this goes forward I would prefer reversing thing and make it hazard=dog. That would also allow other types of hazards to be mapped. Checking taginfo it seems hazard=* [1] is in use. Why not go with it? [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hazard -- Sent from my phone, please forgive my brevity. > On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 3:16 PM, Ty S (mailto:mensaty2...@outlook.com)> wrote: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dog_hazard > > Dangerous area with dogs. > > Please discuss on the page. I will respond to emails, but I rarely check, and > it may take a bit to get back with you. > -- Floridaeditor > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Quality and the Openstreetmap value chain
May 13, 2020, 00:18 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > One in particular, roads in remote areas - yes, it's a dirt road, connecting > very small centres of population / remote "farms" (if it's still a "farm" > when it's bigger in area than some countries > ‽> ) only, so it "can't" be > important > Dirt road may be highway=trunk if it is the main road of national road system. Muddy road, not even surface=compacted is highway=primary in some region. > so it doesn't appear on OSM till you zoom right in, > is it mistagged as highway=track? Then it is a data issue, not rendering issue. > > but> it's also the > only> "main" road for 1000 k's in any direction, so > you would think that it should be shown at high level zoom? > Is it correctly mapped with proper highway tag? > Same, same with the (OSM) villages / hamlets / remote dwellings that this > road serves. A single building out in the middle of nowhere, in the OSM > universe, is too small & insignificant to be noticed, > but> that pub, with > attached service (gas) station, general store & camping ground, is also the > major point of civilisation for that 1000 k's!, so how important is it in > real life to those people who are travelling through that area? Extremely! > This is sadly a hard to resolve rendering issue. Special purpose rendering of OSM data may be helpful for such areas. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard
sent from a phone > On 13. May 2020, at 00:27, Tod Fitch wrote: > > Checking taginfo it seems hazard=* [1] is in use. Why not go with it? > > [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hazard there is also documentation. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Quality and the Openstreetmap value chain
On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 20:36, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > On 5/12/20 11:42 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Yes. Users are the ultimate measure of quality, yet they are most often > absent from our discussions. >From comments on the "contact point" thread On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 20:43, Sören alias Valor Naram wrote: > > I am a "data customer" ... But mappers are not listening to data customers I'd really like somebody to come up with simple definitions of mappers, data consumers / customers, users? OK, I map, & I then also "use" OSMand for navigation purposes, so what am I? Our history explains why: in the beginning, we had a blank map, which we > set upon filling with whatever we could Perhaps unfortunately, this was filled with a British / Western European / American view that because it's like this "here", the rest of the World must be the same, so must follow along with our set rules. Looking at the world and thinking about how we should model it should be > done with an understanding of how users want it. Agree entirely, but as we have seen a few times in recent weeks. just because "this" definition doesn't apply in UK, EU / USA, there's no reason to wipe it from the map entirely, because it very well could, & does, apply perfectly in other parts of the World. This is difficult when we have few users around and very little feedback > from downstream. So, if one has > opportunities to bring that to our knowledge, please do: I, & others, have done so a few times, to basically be told sorry, that's not how it works in OSM - these are the rules & you have to follow them. One in particular, roads in remote areas - yes, it's a dirt road, connecting very small centres of population / remote "farms" (if it's still a "farm" when it's bigger in area than some countries ‽) only, so it "can't" be important, so it doesn't appear on OSM till you zoom right in, *but* it's also the *only* "main" road for 1000 k's in any direction, so you would think that it should be shown at high level zoom? Same, same with the (OSM) villages / hamlets / remote dwellings that this road serves. A single building out in the middle of nowhere, in the OSM universe, is too small & insignificant to be noticed, *but* that pub, with attached service (gas) station, general store & camping ground, is also the major point of civilisation for that 1000 k's!, so how important is it in real life to those people who are travelling through that area? Extremely! Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Dog hazard
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Dog_hazard Dangerous area with dogs. Please discuss on the page. I will respond to emails, but I rarely check, and it may take a bit to get back with you. -- Floridaeditor ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=service, service=driveway vs highway=track
Apr 30, 2020, 19:45 by miketh...@gmail.com: > Hello, > > I have always been under the impression that the highway tag should be > based off of function. Recently I have come across a number of cases > where driveways and residential roads were tagged "highway=track" > (perhaps because they are unpaved?), e.g. [0]. Before I change these, > I wanted to check with the rest of the community. > You are right that it is a mistagging and changing it would be OK. Consider adding surface tag if it is possible. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] relations & paths
Le 12 mai 2020 19:02:24 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson a écrit : >My view is that a route should have an indication on the ground. A >sign, a >trailhead, something. No verifiable indication whatsoever, then it's >not a >route. > >The length or the number of ways in the route does not make a >difference to >me. > I'll also include 'well known' or 'commonly used' in your definition. Yves ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] relations & paths
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:03 PM Peter Elderson wrote: > My view is that a route should have an indication on the ground. A sign, a > trailhead, something. No verifiable indication whatsoever, then it's not a > route. > > The length or the number of ways in the route does not make a difference to > me. That's indeed the meaning of 'waymarked' in Waymarked Trails. If a trail has a distinguishable waymark (signage, blaze, ducks, guideposts, whatever is used in a given locale) it gets a relation. No waymark, it doesn't. Length has nothing to do with it. I'll bend the rules slightly for named routes that are listed in multiple guidebooks, because otherwise some major trails would be lost. The Benton MacKaye Trail is not waymarked in certain wilderness areas, but is described in numerous guides, named, and maintained to the extent of occasionally cutting brush, clearing blowdown, and repairing water bars on the treadway. In general, wilderness trails, even if nominally waymarked, require good navigational skills, since trail visibility may be very poor indeed. The more remote trails also don't have a lot of vegetation control or get a lot of traffic. I've occasionally gone an entire day without meeting another party - although that was often 20-30 km from anywhere you can park a car, which filters out a lot of hikers. In the US, walking and MTB trails are likely to have only a splash of paint on trees at intervals. The blue-green paint blazes seen in https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14018094576 are pretty typical. The trails that they mark range in length from a few hundred metres (short access trails leading to parking lots, campsites, views, whatever) to a few thousand km (the National Scenic Trails). In remote areas, trails might go a few hundred metres between even paint blazes; they don't have a lot of reassurance markings. More popular trails, or ones nearer the 'front country' are likely to have marks frequent enough that you're always in sight of one. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] relations & paths
My view is that a route should have an indication on the ground. A sign, a trailhead, something. No verifiable indication whatsoever, then it's not a route. The length or the number of ways in the route does not make a difference to me. Best, Peter Elderson Op di 12 mei 2020 om 18:28 schreef brad : > We had a pretty lengthy discussion last October subject:'Cycling > relation misuse' . I got the impression that a route should be more > than just a short trail. > > Are you saying that every trail should be route? > Example: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400 > > My subject line should have been route relations. > > On 5/11/20 10:23 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Waymarked Trails associates waymarks only with routes, and assumes > > that any waymarked route, from local to international, will have a > > route relation describing it. > > > > Is there a reason that you see route relations for shorter routes as > > being 'wrong'? > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:17 PM brad wrote: > >> I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short > >> trails/paths. This is wrong isn't it? Do you suppose that folks are > >> doing this to get better rendering? > >> Brad > >> > >> ___ > >> 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] relations & paths
We had a pretty lengthy discussion last October subject:'Cycling relation misuse' . I got the impression that a route should be more than just a short trail. Are you saying that every trail should be route? Example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6632400 My subject line should have been route relations. On 5/11/20 10:23 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: Waymarked Trails associates waymarks only with routes, and assumes that any waymarked route, from local to international, will have a route relation describing it. Is there a reason that you see route relations for shorter routes as being 'wrong'? On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:17 PM brad wrote: I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short trails/paths. This is wrong isn't it? Do you suppose that folks are doing this to get better rendering? Brad ___ 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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
Am Di., 12. Mai 2020 um 18:02 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > > Bottom line: more we look into this taxi business more interesting and > confusing it gets. > IMHO it is not very confusing. There are taxis, and there are various other kind of individual and mass transportation and leisure rides that are not. There are also car hire with driver, you can find them for example in Germany (Minicar) and Italy (NCC), and they are not (typically considered nor legally) taxis, although they are often operating the exact same kind of cars (brand, size, etc.). Clearly, a vaporetto stop in Venice has few in common with taxi ranks? I agree there can be edge cases, e.g. "illegal" taxis, which aren't legally taxis, but are waiting in front of some places like the main station, of some cities, and are abusively offering taxi services. Are the queueing rows of these "taxi ranks" (informally)? E.g. in Naples at the main station you can find them. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
In this context: I have just realised that at Venice Aiport there are (at least) the following services and corresponding counters and stop positions. busses to various destinations. They depart from a bus-stop area, but have different counters according to the bus company water busses (separate counter, I believe) taxi (cabs) (you just go and pick them up) shuttle minibuses (operated by a taxi company with Internet and phone booking - I am not aware of a counter in the airport) water taxies And I am sure there are more services. Add to add to the confusion on the water: looking for a tag for water taxi, I consulted the EN Wikipedia article for "water taxi", and I find the English term "water taxi" includes what I would call water busses, but in Venice that is certainly wrong - they are completely different transport methods: motoscafo are water taxicabs on wayter and vaporetto are scheduled buses on water. Another thing that EN Wikipedia tells me is that taxi=taxicab in English. Luckily enough there are no gondolas venturing out to the Airport, they are a kind of human-powered taxis on water (or at least they once had that function). Bottom line: more we look into this taxi business more interesting and confusing it gets. On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 15:10, Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 14:01, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > >> >> if they expect both to have the same main tag, yes. After a while when >> they have had their unpleasant experience and keep using crowd sourced >> maps, they will be more cautious, I agree. >> > > Or, after they have had an unpleasant experience, they will stop using > crowd- > sourced maps. > > -- > Paul > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
Except capacity is only one of many differences between common taxi and motorcycle taxi. 在 2020年5月11日週一 16:04，Marc M. 寫道： > Hello, > > Le 10.05.20 à 01:24, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > > imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the > > airport and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would > > that be equally ok, wouldn’t it matter, taxi is taxi? > > Imagine ordering a taxi and arriving in a 4-seater car when you have > a family of 8, it's the same problem, isn't it? > When I order a taxi, they ask me the number of people. > the guy won't come with a fiat 500 if I say 8 > > I don't imagine we're going to create several objects to describe > that a taxi waiting area has motorcycles, "normal" cars, vehicles > with a lot of passenger seats and vehicles with a heavy > luggage capacity. > on the ground : one traffic sign for for all variants. > > Regards, > Marc > > ___ > 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] [Talk-us] admin_level and COGs, MPOs, SPDs, Home Rule
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 8:59 AM stevea wrote: > > We in the Massachusetts local community want to have admin_level 6 > > relations for these boundaries, and I personally consider deleting them > > to be vandalism. > > Then let's hear from them and their rather precisely-described to-become > arguments, rather than you and your beliefs (nor me and my repetitions of > these). Saying that a dozen of you believe 2 + 2 = 5 (especially as 11 other > voices aren't present) doesn't make it so. Cogent, scholarly, well-presented > arguments that address the salient political and legal topics described (in > the wiki page, where this more properly belongs, though I'm glad it's getting > a hopefully final gasp of exposure here) might be able to describe why 2 + 2 > might look like 5, in a certain way, in Connecticut, because of x, y and z. > But nobody is hearing that and nobody but user:Mashin is saying so. (At > least in wiki and talk-us. Slack? That's proprietary. I avoid secret-sauce > walkie-talkies in an open data project, but that's me. I do hear that people > use it to communicate, I wouldn't know what's on it). I'm surprised at this message. My one line summary of this reply: 'Asked and answered.' You've heard in some detail from at least me - in the last few days - regarding counties in Massachusetts and boroughs in New York. (I'm not speaking to Connecticut or Rhode Island, since I don't understand their political systems as well.) For both the Massachusetts and New York cases, while the (non-)counties have ceded most legislative and executive function to a higher body, they do retain some effective local government. In New York City, the county courts still exist - the Great Consolidation had no effect on the judicial branch. The county courts in New York City are paid by the state, but that's true of all the other counties as well. In Massachusetts, counties that have been 'dissolved' continue to elect their own sheriffs and DA's - who are paid by the state, but whose jurisdiction extends to the county, as well as retaining their county courts (also paid by the state). Therefore, for the Massachusetts situation, you're saying 'lets hear the arguments' for arguments that you have not answered in public with more than an enigmatic, 'and so it goes.' Or to some extent, you're adding a new set of requirements, a specific quantum of 'home rule' - just how much, I don't grasp - that is required for `boundary=administrative`. Should `boundary=administrative` not exist at all in states whose constitutions have not been amended since 1907 to address _Hunter v City of Pittsburgh_? They may have functioning counties and cities, but municipal powers can be overruled by the higher legislature with the stroke of a pen. It would be rather an extreme position, although I suppose a consistent one, to say that if the constitution of the higher body doesn't guarantee home rule to the lower, that the lower doesn't exist; but that would have the effect of erasing county lines in all but a handful of the states. Does the subordinate body need to support all three branches of government? Does having its own judiciary, or its own elected justice department under the executive, suffice? Or must it have the power to legislate? Its own executive? What powers must the subordinate body enjoy? - Structural - Does the subordinate body have the ability to choose its form of government (within constitutional bounds), adopt and amend a charter? - Functional - Does the subordinate body have power to exercise local self-government - and is that power plenary, or limited to enumerated matters? - Fiscal - Does the subordinate unit have the power to determine its revenue sources, tax, spend, and borrow? - Personnel - Does the subordinate unit determine the employment rules and compensation of its employees? May it enter into collective bargaining agreements? Is it relevant whether a local government actually exercises all the discretionary authority with which it is endowed? (I bring to mind the extreme case of Sherrill, New York - which functions as a Village, with most services provided by the Town, but is actually a City, with a city charter, and could vote at any time to constitute a city government like any other.) You've gone beyond the (already controversial) point that 'a boundary=administrative requires home rule' into a very fine-grained debate over 'how much home rule is enough'. Moreover, you're introducing yet more complexity for data consumers. One key point for the administrative-level hierarchy is that it provides a fairly simple way to do a consistent rendering among different jurisdictions. A renderer can look at just the member ways of a boundary - which are themselves tagged boundary=administrative with the coarsest relevant admin_level. Unless it wishes to do something like shade the regions, it may remain entirely ignorant of the relations. This structure gives the benefit that a state
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 14:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > if they expect both to have the same main tag, yes. After a while when > they have had their unpleasant experience and keep using crowd sourced > maps, they will be more cautious, I agree. > Or, after they have had an unpleasant experience, they will stop using crowd- sourced maps. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
sent from a phone > On 12. May 2020, at 02:37, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > In short, is this tag "tagging for the tourist"? Those in the know > will know to check if it's a motorcycle taxi or a car taxi stand. if they expect both to have the same main tag, yes. After a while when they have had their unpleasant experience and keep using crowd sourced maps, they will be more cautious, I agree. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
On 2020-05-12 12:58, Paul Allen wrote: > On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 11:43, Sören alias Valor Naram > wrote: > >> Hey, >> >> I am a "data customer", see https://babykarte.OpenStreetMap.de . That's why >> I initiated this discussion because this is important for me. But mappers >> are not listening to data customers > > Why do you think that other mappers are not data consumers? > >> and think they know how a database works (only few of them know that and >> those come from a technical field). > > Why do you think they do not know these things? And why do you think it > relevant? Do you perhaps think that namespacing involves the creation > of a table for the namespace and that Codd's relational model applies to > namespaces? Can someone come up with a metamodel description of the use of namespacing? It would be interesting to apply it to the current set of tags including a ":" character.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 11:43, Sören alias Valor Naram wrote: > Hey, > > I am a "data customer", see https://babykarte.OpenStreetMap.de . That's > why I initiated this discussion because this is important for me. But > mappers are not listening to data customers Why do you think that other mappers are not data consumers? > and think they know how a database works (only few of them know that and > those come from a technical field). > Why do you think they do not know these things? And why do you think it relevant? Do you perhaps think that namespacing involves the creation of a table for the namespace and that Codd's relational model applies to namespaces? -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] relations & paths
sent from a phone > On 12. May 2020, at 06:24, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Waymarked Trails associates waymarks only with routes, and assumes > that any waymarked route, from local to international, will have a > route relation describing it. > > Is there a reason that you see route relations for shorter routes as > being 'wrong'? some routes may also be very short because they are still incomplete or stubs, waiting for someone to complete them. There is no requirement to add the whole route at once. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
Hey,I am a "data customer", see https://babykarte.OpenStreetMap.de . That's why I initiated this discussion because this is important for me. But mappers are not listening to data customers and think they know how a database works (only few of them know that and those come from a technical field).~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' schemeFrom: Richard Fairhurst To: Tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: I love the fact that we are now 50 messages into discussing, for the secondtime, a change that would be made ostensibly for the benefit of dataconsumers, and yet no one has asked any actual data consumers.https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_Ship_BRichard--Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Quality and the Openstreetmap value chain
On 5/12/20 11:42 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: I love the fact that we are now 50 messages into discussing, for the second time, a change that would be made ostensibly for the benefit of data consumers, and yet no one has asked any actual data consumers. Yes. Users are the ultimate measure of quality, yet they are most often absent from our discussions. Our history explains why: in the beginning, we had a blank map, which we set upon filling with whatever we could, to get the stone soup started. There were no consumers at all - so naturally our universe was supply-side entirely: the availability of data inspired usage, which came second. Nowadays, Openstreetmap is used - let's take advantage of that to improve ! Looking at the world and thinking about how we should model it should be done with an understanding of how users want it. This is difficult when we have few users around and very little feedback from downstream. So, if one has opportunities to bring that to our knowledge, please do: it is valuable information to the Openstreetmap project, information without which we cannot allocate our efforts optimally. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
On 11/05/2020 10:29, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: On 5/10/20 7:36 PM, Cj Malone wrote: I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag. Currently phone has at least 2 uses. A contact number and an incoming number for a phone box. We should split these out. If we are left with totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes and phone, where totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes is defined as incoming phone number and phone is defined as the contact number. I'm OK with that too, it's the definitions that really matter. Why should we split these out? In fact, I'm not sure how useful it is for us to tag phone numbers on phoneboxes at all. Does anyone actually use this data for something useful? This is OSM, people can map anything that is verifiable. I do map phone numbers of phoneboxes and can see various uses for this data. The number of the phonebox in the village where my grandmother lived is still ingrained on my memory, we used to phone her at the phonebox at the same time every Sunday, being able to find out the number to call someone without visiting first is useful. Taxi firms could find this useful to locate a customer who is unsure of their location. I used to let my parents know I was ready to be picked up by letting the phone at home ring twice, I had to be at a specific place for that to work. But being able to look up the location of the phonebox would have meant I could be at any phonebox. I am sure others will see other applications. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
I love the fact that we are now 50 messages into discussing, for the second time, a change that would be made ostensibly for the benefit of data consumers, and yet no one has asked any actual data consumers. https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_Ship_B Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] relations & paths
Can you give an example where you think it's wrong? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op di 12 mei 2020 om 04:17 schreef brad : > I see a lot of relations, type:route, which are only short > trails/paths. This is wrong isn't it? Do you suppose that folks are > doing this to get better rendering? > Brad > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
