Re: [Tagging] Is there any case of valid numeric addr:housename - for example addr:housename?

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020, 09:21 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Still, even that is
>
> "Ben Tilly reports on Ten Post Office Sq, Boston MA 02109 USA - which is
> not,
> reportedly, the same as 10 Post Office Sq, Boston MA 02109 USA."
>

yes and no.

Ben is alas correct. Boston really did allow this insanity, much to the
consternation of taxi and delivery drivers. (I wonder if Ben met with the
same people there that I did ...)

They are (were?) adjacent buildings and the lobby reception/security were
very aware that lost people should be sent next door. I forget if i've ever
heard *why* they didn't just do some pair of 8, 10, 12 ... probably neither
developer would accept being not 10. *sigh* (Each could have an entirely
different street address based on the street defining its side of of the
"square". Obviously this being Boston the so-called "square" is a trapezoid
and not square, or a triangle if you include the little appendage park on
the side, but i don't think that qualifies for POSquare vanity addresses.)

(I'm not sure if this will remain true once the new construction on
P.O.Square is done.)

So housename "Ten" and housenumber "10".
>

Usually here, a vanity building name is "Pretty Fancy Place" with no
number, or "One Somewhere Place", not Ten, but this pair of buildings it's
Ten/10 Something Square.

As i understand that block an actual housenumber would be on the through
street defining the side of the square, so those might both be housename
"Ten Post Office Square" and "10 Post Office Square" and not use
housenumber. They are both fanciful names assigned by the developer, not
connected to the city street naming.

And thus neither is the 10/Ten the housename alone.

(If the new construction is replacing both 10 and Ten iirc, perhaps they'll
name the block long replacement X Post Office Square? Better would be the
real street number !!)

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

Re: [Tagging] mast / tower / communication_tower (again)

[Bill Ricker]

> only one in the Western Hemisphere,
>

I presume you're thinking of Toronto's CN Tower, but the Space Needle in
Seattle though listed as an Observation Tower has a transmitter spike on
top, so serves the same dual purposes as Fernsehturms in Germany, as TV
transmitter and tourist trap.

There are a goodly number of smaller hilltop closed, cylindrical concrete
microwave towers in USA, with protected interior stairs, built initially
for a survivable phone and classified networks, by AT and WHCA. Concrete,
tower, for antennae. But no public observation gallery.


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] GPS Altitude Re: Topographic Prominence for Peaks

[Bill Ricker]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:20 AM Colin Smale  wrote:

> On 2018-09-27 07:17, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> & when you say survey with GPS, is that accurate enough for an altitude
> reading? With my Garmin GPS (which admittedly is 10 - 15 years old, but
> *wasn't* a cheap one!), I can calibrate it in the back yard at 6m ASL, go
> for a day trip & when I get home, it displays the exact same spot as
> anything between -5 & +30m ASL :-( When out driving, I've also seen the
> altitude display change by 100s of m's instantly, when the road is
> virtually flat.
>
>
>
> GPS is not very accurate in the vertical direction, due to ...
>

and the (unclassified) GPS algorithm is intentionally optimized against
altitude accuracy, to favor horizontal accuracy, since (a) friendly
aircraft have very accurate altimeters and unfriendly projectiles don't,
and (b) other users can generally assume they are in contact with the
surface, so Altitude is the least important output, can and should be least
accurate.

If one takes a long-term average solution  of GPS posits, especially with
pro WAAF input, the GPS altitude will be approximately right eventually
(and the L/L will be spot on); this is what modern surveyors' Total
Stations and GPS Stations do. (That's ok, as the incoming discount reentry
vehicle can't take a long term average to calculate its fusing height.)

Which is why Garmin units with a Barometer option (e.g. 78sc) allow
calibrating the altimeter altitude at either a known height or a known
sea-level barometer (same as aeroplane analog altimeters are recalibrated
for each airport, done before takeoff and upon making radio contact with
destination Approach Control).
This calibration is good for several hours and maybe a hundred miles or
two, but is not good for the adjacent air-mass, whether the front moves
over the house or the car moves down the interstate.

If you calibrate a Garmin GPS Altimeter to the known height of the peak
when standing on it, it should give vaguely accurate values if you hike to
a col within sight (provided the weather doesn't drastically change in the
meantime ... in which case you should have other priorities anyway), but
you'd still get a better value counting isocline contours on a topo map, or
using a Brunton Pocket Transit to shoot the angle of site [stet] and use
old school trig with the GPS horizontal baseline.

Air Pressure reported by a GPS with barometer in a moving car is prone to
wildly noisy fluctuation besides the slow change in altitude, as Graeme
noted.
Window open/closed, Air conditioning High/Low, truck swooshes past, into
the tunnel.
With the car parked and windows open a crack, it will be as protected and
stable as a Weather Service barometer in a protected instrument shed, but
not when driving.
(Unless the car is painted white, the temperature reading will not be as
accurate :-) )

A Garmin calibratable for altitude will give better Altitude numbers than a
pure GPS using only the satellites, but only if used within its
limitations.
Moving/sealed vehicle altitude readings are not a reliable mode!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Topographic Prominence for Peaks

[Bill Ricker]

This all seems like highly specialized, technical data that is not of
general interest, as no one but peak-baggers understand the technical
definition. Many map users seeing this prominence=999m factoid would
jump to the incorrect conclusion that it was relative to where the
(lower of the) watershed(s) drains the mountain and thus a synonym for
the net rise from the valley.(Which is what i read the original post's
introductory remarks as meaning until I read further and got to the
technical definition.)

Is the OSM primary DB the right repository for this?
Have we accepted being the repository for everything that anyone wants to map?
(I don't remember hearing a change from "no".)

The definition that has Mt Everest (or K2, whichever is taller :-) )
have its "prominence" defined to sea-level and every other peak on the
combined continent is defined to a col which may or may not be
actually near is just weird. Yes Peak Baggers need some such rule to
avoid every boulder above 4000ft being defined as a Peak but is it a
useful definition for any other purpose?

Unless it's useful elsewhere, the peak baggers can extract OSM data
under the terms of the license and extend their own copy of the data
with "prominence" and other useful-to-them meta-data such as official
checklist name/number.

This Prominence definition is not a number which is signed on the peak
nor is it measured at the peak, but is derived data. Which with the
right setup, could could and should be calculated in bulk, not by
individual mappers. Which suggests to me further evidence it should be
computed and hosted at a downstream database clone that has DEMs and
mountaineer-specific rendering options.

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

Re: [Tagging] Points instead of areas

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On 7 August 2018 at 21:56, Daniel Koć  wrote:
>
>>
>> For example nobody would say that a city is a point
>
>
> I'm not disagreeing with you, but people do refer to them, & somehow even
> measure them, as points!
>
> I'm sure that you have the same situation in your country but an e.g. is
> my State capital, Brisbane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane, which
>
> covers an area of 15842 km2, but is still apparently found exactly at:
> ...
>
>
Quite so.
To measure distances between towns/cities, some point is needed.
While in theory someone wishing to do so could query for the Admin level
outline and compute the centroid, when a government entity has declared a
named point to match the Admin level boundary, it's convenient if everyone
uses the same one.

The old Boston Milestones measured distance from the entrance to town at
Boston Neck; but modern distances usually measure to the center of the
Statehouse Dome.
The US Geodetic Survey includes City, Town, and settlements among their
point data for annotating maps -- this is where the label goes when a USGS
GIS system makes a draft map, until a cartographer moves it for aesthetics.
(I rather suspect the town names on OSM.org renderings come the same way
and not from Admin level boundary ways.)

I don't know if those were imported with Tiger or imported separately, but
i think they're in OSM already.

Should we delete the USGS named town points because they don't match a
verifiable marker on the ground at that location?
No.
Let's not take ourselves so seriously that we reject open-licensed data
freely given.
The mapping ground truth dictum was a reaction to the UKOS's refusing to
open-license their taxpayer owned data; some have made a virtue of a
necessity of ground-truth field-mapping, GPS-on-bicycle, but let us rejoice
that some governments have learned the folly of the closed shop. It's not
that we Yanks are lazy arm-chair mappers, it's our US Gov did something
right for a change.
   (We did have a decade when the new weather radar data was only available
via private contracts, which helped offset the radar hardware and software
upgrades, but with the rapid growth of the WWW they sensibly chose not to
renew that contract; and likewise the National Library of Medicine
collection of Abstracts -- which i was trying to profiteer on when VP Gore
freed it. I'm glad; our marketing dept was made of fail anyway.)

If there are countries which for which open-licensed town centers aren't
available, the local mapping communities can decide what is right for them.
Postoffice, Town Hall, Centroid, Flagpole, whatever.


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hamlet is always an unincorporated place in OSM?

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Paul Allen  wrote:

> Here's how it sort of worked in the UK.
>

​In the early days of Colonial New England, town governance and church
parish borders were essentially identified.

When the sea-side town of Ipswich opened a new section of land further
inland for bigger farms and called it literally "The Hamlet," since a large
acreage with a small number of houses at the crossroads.

When The Hamlet later incorporated as a separate town (having grown, and
having different agrarian concerns than a coastal town), it took the name
"Hamilton."

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Default values for residential roads and living streets

[Bill Ricker]

> Nearly all the residential roads in my part of the world should default to 
> lanes=2.

What drives me crazy is in my neighborhood, the residential roads are
physically wide enough for 3 lanes, but with parking lanes on both
sides, and some are still signed for two-way traffic. Winds up being
like a one-lane two-way bridge ... Ooops.
And that's before snow narrows things ...


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Tagging] the smallest cathedral in the world [was: Questions on building-tag]

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> How about this one then? :-)
>
>
> http://ccheadliner.com/news/world-s-smallest-cathedral-
> about-to-close/article_156ea8a8-dbaf-11df-9bd0-001cc4c03286.html
>
>
> A Bishop lived on site & conducted services every day, so it *would* have
> been a cathedral (even though it looks like a garden shed!), so I guess it
> should be tagged that way?
>

and our Wiki even has a denomination=old_catholic which would be correct
for these schismatics.
(Which Wiki entry should, but does not yet, link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church . There are much larger
OCC sects than the one with this "cathedral".)


> As it's now closed & been de-consecrated, what should it now be tagged as
> in OSM - building_yes; historic_church, possibly with start & end dates,
> even though it's just in someone's backyard?
>

building=yes
I agree. I wouldn't have called it  building=church even while it was
consecrated by this minor splinter denomination (165 adherents), since as
you say, it's a garden shed used as a chapel and cathedra, not a basilica
with a cathedra​, with or without transept. (I would have inlcuded amenity
for worship, but no longer.)

historic_church -- for expansively small values of historic and church, but
it does rise to Wikipedia's Notability level.

The Building way or point should link either
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Pruter
or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Catholic_Church_(Pruter)
or possibly both.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] the smallest cathedral in the world [was: Questions on building-tag]

[Bill Ricker]

Ooh, historic buildings !

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:54 AM, althio  wrote:
>> Martin wrote:
> > wikipedia says: "it is known under the moniker the smallest cathedral in 
> > the world"
>
> alt_name:hr=najmanja katedrala na svijetu
> alt_name:en=smallest cathedral in the world
> alt_name:de=kleinste Kathedrale der Welt
> ;)

That looks good, since it's "known as" but isn't formally acting as
the Seat of a See.

There are interesting weeds here.

Per Wikipedia, a former Seat is a "proto-cathedral" (and building
would normally look like and be called Cathedral of XYZ) and a parish
church temporarily used as Seat until the proper cathedral is built is
a "pro-cathedral" for the duration only (and generally NOT look like
or be called cathedral).  It would take detailed historical reading to
determine which was the ancient usage here, although hypothetical
existence of a permanent "cathedra" (throne) in the fabric of the
building would tend towards "proto-" despite not being so named.
 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral  ].

[ OTOH if it still contains a "cathedra" (throne) and if a Bishop
still celebrated there on even one feast day a year, it could still be
designated by the Archdiocese as a "co-cathedral," but as there is no
Bishop of Nona/Nin -- Ninksky/Nona/Nin now being a Deanery not a
Diocese of the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Zara -- this seems
unlikely, but would be plausible still, depending on their local
traditions. but if it were a co-cathedral in church law, I would
expect to see that reflected in Wikipedia or elsewhere that Google
would find; Wikipedia only lists Konkatedrala sv. Petar Apostola as
the alternate to Katedrala Sv. Dujma (in Split), none in Zara.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-cathedral#Croatia  ]


> > I do not insist and will leave this to the local mappers to decide, 
> > obviously, but I
> > don't think it would be a problem to classify it as cathedral.

> Amen!  :)

I wouldn't argue with local mappers, agreed.

Re building=cathedral -  Our wiki says
"There are other churches as well, which were built with the same
architectural features, but they do not have or never had a bishop,
but they are called cathedrals as well. "
[ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dcathedral ]
Reading: We are not reporting on Polity & Hierarchy, but what it is
called, so it would be allowed, if called Cathedral of Saint Soandso
despite not having a bishop.

Likewise, for OSM to "round up" the various rare species
"proto-cathedral" , "pro-cathedral"  , and "co-cathedral" into
tag/value "cathedral" is not unreasonable; we are not tracking
multiple denominations' internal hierachy in real time, just their
signage.  We don't need to shard the value, building=co_cathedral
would be silly. Physically they are identical building styles, the
only difference is how long since the last visit by the bishop, not a
mappable event.

So via our "Map what's on the ground" rule, if it doesn't claim to be
a(n) (ex/proto/pro/co-)cathedral by signage, we don't use the primary
building=cathedral tag but a historical tag, an alt tag, notes, etc.

And indeed the historic plaque says "Church"="Crkva" not Cathedral.
[ 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Cross,_Nin#/media/File:Crkva_sv._Kri%C5%BEa,_Nin_-_plo%C4%8Da.jpg
]

So I'd agree building=church is correct in this case.


The heritage=2 , heritage:operator=uzkb  tags indicate it is a listed
historical/cultural building (as is not surprising).
But this does NOT indicate it is historical-interest only, only that
it is listed for preservation.

There are two remaining issues I'd defer to local mappers:

Is this is still a active church (consecrated, operated by the
Church), or is now a historic building only, having been
deconsecrated, operated by a government or heritage authority.
Hypothetically in the latter case,  the current tagging
  amenity=place_of_worship
would be wrong, as that is not the amenity currently on offer, and it
would be more tourism/history tagged.
(But building=church would still be correct, that's what the fabric
still would be.)

Assuming it is still served by prelates and still provides
amenity=place_of_worship, it should have a
 denomination=roman_catholic
tag.
(Since this is a ninth century church, I could argue that the deprecated
 denomination=catholic
would also be correct, as the church was built before there was a
distinction between denomination=roman_catholic and
denomination=greek_catholic; the Bishop of Nin went with Rome in the
Great Schism of 1054.)

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

Re: [Tagging] airstrip vs runway

[Bill Ricker]

> I see no reason why these cannot be retagged as 'runway'.

NO NO NO

'airstrip' and 'runway' are terms of art in Aviation.
The distinction is important.

While to a mapper or geographer, an 'airstrip' seems like it could be a
'runway, surface=grass, permanent=no, livestock=maybe, lights=no,
control=no, tower=no, services=no, services=ha-ha-surely-you-jest'  ,
the very words 'airstrip' and 'runway' have meaning to the users of
these services.
They aren't interchangable or subsets.
Runways are permanent and maintained, often even managed.
Former runways aren't runways.
Airstrips are more changable than seasonal watercourses.

They're different things, just as "Track" and "motorway" are both
ways, but they're not both "motorways" with different attributes.
If you don't fly or know fliers, the differences may be swamped by the
obvious similarity (thing a plane uses), but no.

Pilots of light planes and ultra-lights that operate from 'airstrips'
will avoid 'runways' because operators of 'runways' typically charge
to touch-down, park, take-off, and just about anything else.
'Airstrips'  are more likely private, use by members/arrangement only,
but also may be friendly; e.g., will let your club members use ours if
we can use yours, and not charge you for an emergency landing provided
no sheep were injured.

Pilots of  heavier "light" (general av) planes and commercial planes
that operate from 'runways' at airports expect the services that
collocate with them, expect and require the maintained surface, and
may face serious disciplinary action they land on a grass strip by
mistake.

The good news is that licensed plane pilots aren't supposed to use
unofficial charts to select landing sites.
The bad news is that in an emergency they could use OSM maps in a
Garmin to pick a new alternate alternate landing site. We should not
make a sheep-field sound like a minor airport they might reasonably
not have heard of but on whose one runway they might be able to land.
Ultralight pilots probably can use OSM-in-Garmin in-flight, its a less
regulated service, and would really appreciate 'airstrip' being a
separate category of feature from 'runway'. They are not welcome on
most runways.

My uncle's aerodrome club used to take turns mowing the airstrip until
he inherited an antique one-lunger[*] mower; now I think he takes as
much pride in getting that old thing running one more time as getting
his plane to work. :-)

[*] one-lunger: Single-cylinder, 4-cycle I.C.engine with fly-wheel.
Think "Burt and I"'s /the BlueBird II/, but on a walk-behind,
self-propelled tiller-mower, the grand-father of the snow-blower.

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

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Question on memorials v monuments thanks.
>
> How about a memorial arboretum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arboretum),
> a commemorative planted grove of trees that you can walk through & sit
> under?
>
> Does that count as a monument, or is it a memorial?
>

​As I read wiki.osm, both historic=memorial and historic=monument are
presumed man-made structures, with the latter reserved for that which is
truly "'monumental' in size".  Neither would apply to an Arboretum (even
though it's an unnatural landscape on monumental scale, it's not a
structure).  (FWIW, xref there includes man_made=obelisk and memorial=stele
)

It sounds like the wiki expects us to find the plaque or stele etc inside
the memorial arboretum and tag it as the historic=memorial,
memorial=plaque, etc. and only tag an area thus if the monumental structure
has outline worth outlining as closed area way.

​This memorial park  http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/29743732 is not an
arboretum, AFAIK, although some of the trees may have been planted trees,
it's not about the trees.  Unless I find a plaque or other marker, the wiki
is not encouraging use of either memorial or monument, although
memorial:conflict=WW1 could apply.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmonument
​http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dmemorial​

​More info on my Memorial Park area
http://fd.ema.arrl.org/SiteDetail.php?site=MemPk ​
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Way beneath overhanging cliff

[Bill Ricker]

> > Nominally layer=0 is 'ground level'. In these situations the 'ground
> level'
>
> folds back on itself - so both 'layers' are nominally 0.
>

​I think Kevin has adequately refuted that:
​

> OK, yeah, I forgot 'layer' - and I think I'd use the rule, if you look up
> to
> the zenith and see rock, you're at a layer less than zero.
>

​Hmm. I like that.
Yes, level=-1 for the lower level trail sounds better than level=+1 for the
upper here, unlike artificially elevated ways.

(reminds me of arcsine, catastrophe theory, and other math funtions of
multiple sheets.:-)
​
This obviously doesn't qualify as a tunnel since the ?north? side is open
to air; nor is it a cave, quite.  Do we have a way attribute or area
attribute for  undercut/overhang area ?

And, yeah, 'natural=cliff' is on the "to do" list. I've only recently
> started adding those, since when I render my own maps, I use
> contour lines from NED. ("Cliff" is still nice to have, since
> topographic features lurk in between the contours.)
>

​​Yes please.
The contours in Cycle Map rendering do not suggest a cliff in your original
linked location,  although  name "Escarpment Trail" does hint at it. (But
all too often, a trail is named for an *endpoint* not the view on the way,
so should be at best inconclusive.  :-)
​

Re old-school transit etc - yes, packing serious surveying gear (either
antique theodolite or modern computer/laser "total station") into the
boonies requires ​packmules, grad students, or Scouts you can pay in beef
stew, as well as a qualified operator. I'm trying to recruit some of same
for an educational, non-mapping project ...
   OTOH, a non-survey "construction-grade"  100' tape measure or rolling
wheel and either an orienteering (infantry) compass or a Boonton  "pocket
transit" (engineers/geologists) compass might be adequate to measure
heading of trail at vertical occlusion, bearing and distance along trail
from a point with good GPS posit to each occlusion point, and then to
inflection node under cover and distance between, to improve your level=-1
track.
   Alternatively, you can hunker-down with a good GPS (advanced user modes)
at each angle of the occluded trail, switch to Constellation view, and wait
until the GPS constellation gets lopsided into the narrow wedge of sky you
*can* see from there and get your best posit then. Quality will still be
low due to short baseline in sky but will be better.
​   Or try both ...

-
​73​
-
Bill
​n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:21 PM, José G Moya Y. <josem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, so you agree in reserving  war_memorial for war memorials that do not
> fit into plaque, statue and other "shape" categories?
>

​I wasn't taking a position specifically.

Since asked...

>From my point of view it's possible to be a war_memorial *and* a plaque, or
to be a war_memorial *and* a statue.  Having *:type=war-memorial attribute
for plaque and statue and whatever, and a separate war_memorial= tag for
display of obsolete donated ordnance or parts of ships with memorial
plaques does not make searching for any war-memorial near me easy. I can
include/exclude war statues from a statue search, but not search for any
type of war memorial.

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

[Bill Ricker]

> The Vietnam War Memorial is the first one in US history, to my knowledge,
to list all of the American casualties.
​
​Depending on domain of "all" ... it's the only national "all", but not the
first to list all for a smaller demographic unit than nation.

Harvard U's Memorial Hall lists all alumni who fell in the Union army,
sorted by Class year, on interior hall walls.​

Even some small town memorials ​attempted to list sons lost in Civil War,
Spanish American war, or WW1.

Even a larger town like Norwalk CT  lists all its WW1 fallen on 7 panels
below a piece of heavy artillery.
http://www.passioncompassion1418.com//Canons/ImagesCanons/France/Lourde/155Mle1877Norwalk1.jpg
  c/o
http://www.passioncompassion1418.com//Canons/ImagesCanons/France/Lourde/FC155Lm1877Norwalk.html

​We don't seem to have that monument on OSM.  If we agree on how to tag
these, I could add it, as i've been there and taken my own pictures and
waypoint.
   http://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=41.11840=-73.40806

Amusing, I found a history of how the monument and gun were once together,
then separated, each relocated separately, and finally re-united:
http://ctmonuments.net/2009/03/world-war-monument-norwalk/​
​
​(They are reunited now, at East & Park, in the Norwalk Green southern
apex.)​
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Bill Ricker]

On Jun 10, 2017 1:47 PM, "Eric H. Christensen" 
wrote:



Well, there is an NFPA color standard, IIRC, based on the flow rate of the
largest diameter fitting on the hydrant. This is slightly different than
the size of the main it is hooked to as a five-inch connection is going to
flow more than a three-inch connection on the same sized main.


As I understand it, Boston MA USA paints hydrants to distinguish the
primary hydrant mains, the High Pressure System (pumps activated by Fire
Alarm Office on request), and private hydrants located on a large property.

Boston colors do not match adjacent mural aid communities' hydrant colors,
which might be NFPA, I don't know.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Truck Parking

[Bill Ricker]

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At present I have;
>
> hgv=yes/designated and
>
> capacity:hgv=yes/number
>

​Are you asking for proposing updates to wiki, or for what ​to use on your
mapping project ?

​taginfo reports actual usage -

   - hgv=* <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hgv#overview> has myriad
   parking combinations
   <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/hgv#combinations> (use uper
   right filter *parking*)
   - hgv=yes combines with ​either service
   <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/service>=parking_aisle
   <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/service=parking_aisle> or amenity
   <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/amenity>=parking
   <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=parking>
   - hgv=designated combines with any amenity
   <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/amenity>=parking
   <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=parking>
   parking:lane:both
   <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/parking%3Alane%3Aboth>=*  parking
   <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/parking>=*  parking
   <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/parking>=surface
   <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/parking=surface>
   - ​capacity:hgv <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/capacity%3Ahgv>=*
   combines
   <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/capacity%3Ahgv#combinations>
   with ​ parking , parking_space , parking:condition ,
   parking:condition:maxstay , parking:condition:default ,
   parking:condition:time_interval, but not *amenity*=parking.
   - amenity=parking
   <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=parking#combinations>
   has hgv=no, designated, yes. But capacity:hgv not listed.



-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Spillways

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Dave Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Weir does not seem appropriate for this type of thing. There is a tag,
> waterway=spillway, that seems like a good fit - 81 uses so far.
>
> You could also add emergency=yes to the above or create a new tag,
> emergency=spillway
>

​or use surface tags to distinguish the paved from unpaved​ as we do with
roads ?



-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping freeway stub ends?

[Bill Ricker]

... I have seen examples of stubs being constructed, end up as a ghost road
for the next 3 or 4 decades, then suddenly are a thing that exists.  I 5
opened in 1963 without ramps to I 84 east initially, but stubs existed.


Yes we had a similar ghost exit on I-93 above Charles town/Somerville just
north of Boston -- in mid-air even -- that was intended to connect the
never built inner-ring. Decades later, the new bridges and tunnels of The
Big Dig connected to the ghost exit. US-1is routed via the former ghosts
iirc.

 (Originally the through-road and inner-ring were to be I-95 and I-295 or
maybe 695, but with cancellation of inner-ring and the Boston to Dedham
Great Swamp I-95 segment and deferment of Peabody I-95 connection, the I-93
designation was extended and 95 went around the built ring. Which is why we
have a 495 but no 295 and why 95 does not go through Boston as it should.)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] A place where letters & parcels are sent to be sorted so they can be delivered?

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:

> On 22 February 2017 at 19:56, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > A place where letters & parcels are sent to be sorted so they can then be
> > delivered?


​Here in USA, the two serving my area are General Mail Facility Boston and
Fields Corner Postal Annex ​

​(which is an annex to the local Fields Corner Post Office, which no longer
has route delivery operating from it, but has full window service and
Postal Boxes, which the Annex does not).
 ​
-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 10 pin Bowling Alley

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:19 PM, John Willis <jo...@mac.com> wrote:

> I realize it is a sport, played professionally, but more often than not it
> is a venue for socializing, rather than "sports". Perhaps that is why it is
> tagged separately initially.


​One could say Golf is more played socially than professionally too, with
the "19th hole" being the most popular.
Slipery slope here ...

OTOH, we used to go to the local bowling alley solely to eat, back when
they had a good restaurant with separate seating.
(And maybe a short visit to the coin arcade with the kid, which
necessitated traversing the entire bowling alley.)

​Now, are we tagging the difference between Duck ​pins and Candlepins ? :-)

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - snow removal station

[Bill Ricker]

On Jan 31, 2017 2:29 PM, "Philip Barnes"  wrote:

Not something we have in the UK, we don't get very much snow. The last
time we had snow sufficient to settle on roads was 5 years ago.

Maybe in North America


Maybe we should propose creating these on the ground in North America ...
We have the laws but likewise AFAIK no amenities
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use?

[Bill Ricker]

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 10:51 PM, John Willis <jo...@mac.com> wrote:
> Hedge is of great use in this situation

It would be a great option, but that's not what the gardeners
maintaining the traffic islands, rotary or otherwise, are planting
here.

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Tagging] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use?

[Bill Ricker]

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 3:50 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Landuse is a tag that is not about what is there - trees, shrubs, flowers,
> concrete etc ... but the USE of the area.
>
> A park is used for relaxation.
> A recreation_ground is used for recreation (physical activity). And so on.


So the the land use under discussion is green, diminutive, and
decorative yet inaccessible (or inadvisable) -- green median of a dual
carriageway, plantings in a roundabout center -- Do we have a term in
our taxonomy for that, either in landuse=* or some other, and if not,
what should it be?  is that the question ?

landuse=* may be the wrong tag. Landuse studies normally talk about
larger areas than 14m2 ... see [1] "For example a leisure=park tag may
be used to describe a park within a landuse=residential area, or for a
very large park may be the primary landuse. "


the Landuse [1] page decries landuse=grass because it's a cover not a
use, but elsewhere [2] it is documented as the appropriate tag for a
roundabout center.

So yes we have a tag in use, but there are reasons it may be wrong.

If plantings are particularly nice, i suppose it could rise to a
   leisure=garden, garden:[type,style]=*, access=no
but the average roundabout or median has a flower box or a mass of
perennials, not anything i or the maintainers of [3] would admit was a
garden.

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dgrass
[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgarden

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Tagging] fixme -- by a specific date

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Bill Ricker <bill.n1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ​Seems to me that seasonal roads should have some sort of seasonal
>> availability tag, similar to how a park gate might have dawn-to-dusk
>> availability, so that a router (possibly using a Lambertus Garmin map) to
>> get the right answer even if the download was not since the latest state
>> change. (Yes, there are some parkways through parks that are usable through
>> routes in daylight.)
>>
>>
> opening_hours=Apr 16 - Oct 31
> opening_hours=dawn - dusk
>
> opening_hours as applied to a highway is uncommon so far, but a lot of
> work was devoted to its specification: http://wiki.
> openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours/specification
>

Oh, it will work for seasonal? Great !

Re the dawn to disk parkways, i've added a NOTE - need to field check the
signage and gates to be sure of which segments. ​

(Guessing the router in my Garmin wouldn't notice anyway , but without
either live traffic data or an AVOID INTERSTATE setting no sane router
would choose that one ever. But when the sun is setting into I-93 drivers'
eyes at rush-hour, the wooded parkway is a major win for the few that know
it's there.)


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fixme -- by a specific date

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote:

> What I am after is a higher fidelity solution that also goes beyond
> 'seasonality'. What do you think?


​your proposal for a alarm-time on a fixme - for which a small bit of
programming could cause a Note to appear when due, and maybe drop an email
to the author of the fixme too ? - seems appropriate if the closure is
sufficiently indefinite ​that it needs to be ground-checked (or at least
press-release checked) that it has reopened on schedule (rather than being
late as construction often is). I can see that this is usually going to be
preferable to a change self-reverting on schedule !

​And i see access <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access>:
conditional <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:conditional>=*
includes sunrise-sunset or vice versa . ( I wonder if the nearby parkways
are so tagged. Hmm. No.  note #799410 added. Since i only use that parkway
as a rushhour bypass in the summer, I'm not certain so won't armchair it
wrong! )​

Is there a gap betwixt fixme-with-alarm, seasonal=*, and access
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access>:conditional
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:conditional>=* ​for which we
​_would_ want temporary closure to revert without a fresh survey and data
upload and without a fresh download to the renderer/router ?
​If so, we need to define the difference betwixt them.​
If not, your proposal just needs syntax (and proposals for tools to suport).


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] fixme -- by a specific date

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> When mapping seasonal closures here in Utah[1] I realized I am still
> missing a solid way to mark a road as closed for the season and then have
> some level of confidence that someone will look at it in the spring and
> 'reopen' it. More generally for someone to map a feature and somehow tag it
> as needing another look by a certain date.
>

​Seems to me that seasonal roads should have some sort of seasonal
availability tag, similar to how a park gate might have dawn-to-dusk
availability, so that a router (possibly using a Lambertus Garmin map) to
get the right answer even if the download was not since the latest state
change. (Yes, there are some parkways through parks that are usable through
routes in daylight.)



-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] railway=rail vs. railway=subway

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net>
wrote:

>
> even more so, the MBTA considers the Green line a subway even though
> it's mostly above ground. i found this remarkably confusing when i took
> it into BU for a meeting a month or so back.
>

Right. ​MBTA distinguishes their lines as Commuter Rail ("Purple"),
Commuter boat (Fast Cat), Subway (4 colors red, green orange, blue), Bus
(including trackless trolley and LNG articulated) and ​Dedicated busway &
bus-lane (Silver Line) with articulated hybrid LNG/Trolley. Subway means
the 4 line interchanges in the central 4 underground subway stations, not
that it's in a tunnel or cut-and-cover trench for the entirety of the line.
All 4 have above ground stretches.  The oddly named "Mattapan High Speed
Line" (meaning it runs express between designated stops rather than tram
style streetcar) which is still running the vintage PCCs is the only
single-mode line in the system (aside from buses) - it has tram-style
trolley cars but has a light-rail style protected ROW all the way iirc,
including only run through a (single) cemetery in the country.

​The Orange Line used to be considered Elevated even though it had a subway
section, but now it's subway even though it has cut-no-cover and reused
heavy rail ROW sections. :-)​

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] railway=rail vs. railway=subway

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> wrote:

> > ​and the way magically transforms to railway=subway at the tunnel portal?
>
> This is the real difficulty.  One approach is to tag the 3 parts
> separately, and the other is to say that if individual trains run end to
> end, then there should be consistent tagging.
>

​If a Route relation is going to go end to end, I'd think consistency would
be nice.​


>
> So I would lean to railway=light_rail for the entire line, splitting the
> difference on both sides with subway and tram.
>
> Or, it could be reasonable to tag as subway/light_rail/tram as it
> changes.  These changing points are obvious on the ground (first grade
> crossing, and end of fences to keep cars off tracks).


​I'm trying to remember if it's still using catenary power in the ​tunnel
as it did in the old days (during initial transition from trolley to
pantograph), or if the GL tunnels now have 3rd rail.


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] railway=rail vs. railway=subway

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Michael Tsang <mikl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Oh really. Boston MBTA green line is a subway line that extends onto
> > surface streets. Not full rail gauge iirc (though other lines are) and
> > neither surface or tunnel curves could handle freight cars. The surface
> > trolley portions that run down boulevard median are direct line
> extensions
> > of the tunnel line but do have grade crossings at boulevard stoplights.
> Then I think it should be railway=light_rail


​and the way magically transforms to railway=subway at the tunnel porta​l
?



-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] railway=rail vs. railway=subway

[Bill Ricker]

> . But if the tracks can
> only be used by metro trains, they should be tagged railway=subway.
>
> Metro tunnels are usually more narrow than tunnels for full sized
> passenger trains because building wide tunnels is more expensive.

> railway=subway are usually encapsulated systems which may have a
> connecting track if new vehicles are delivered and both systems have the
> same gauge. railway=subway systems don't have level crossings.

Oh really. Boston MBTA green line is a subway line that extends onto
surface streets. Not full rail gauge iirc (though other lines are) and
neither surface or tunnel curves could handle freight cars. The surface
trolley portions that run down boulevard median are direct line extensions
of the tunnel line but do have grade crossings at boulevard stoplights.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Busways

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Tijmen Stam <mailingli...@iivq.net> wrote:
> With what type of highway? :-P


Since they are Street-to-Station-to-Street, they are undeniably
Highway=Service .

It was the access=no but what about Pedestrian that reminded me that
these ways had changed access (among bigger changes)

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Tagging] Proper Tag for Not-a-Roundabout

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> From a quick look on Streetview all junctions appear to be light controlled.


Light controlled roundabouts are NOT roundabouts, right ?

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Tagging] Proper Tag for Not-a-Roundabout

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Daniel Hofmann <hofm...@mapbox.com> wrote:
>
> 4/ Not-a-Roundabout (what this post is about)
> There are situations where one of the entering road has right of way, which
> disqualifies the scenario for being classified as a roundabout. The Wiki has
> a section on these Not-a-Roundabouts:

One hopes arm-chair mappers not fluent in German will keep hands off,
or use translate.google, when they see a Note in German.

Then there's the classic roundabout / rotary / traffic circle that
straddles a state boundary in USA; in one state, vehicles already in
the rotary have right of way, and in the other state, vehicles
entering have right of way. (Even though the latter isn't scalable at
all, unless flow is strongly diurnal, it's their law from early
motoring era.) I don't recall which two states. One can hope it's
been modernized but i can't remember where to check ...

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Tagging] Busways

[Bill Ricker]

Thank you all, this thread caused me to notice my nearest mass-transit
station hadn't been re-mapped since it was rebuilt !
Fix uploaded.

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Bill Ricker <bill.n1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Re Access=no inadvertently excluding pedestrians :  signage here is
> $300 fine for unauthorized vehicles OR pedestrians in dedicated
> busway. Prohibiting Jaywalking up the busway at a station is a safety
> matter, bus driver is NOT looking for you there.
>   E.g this transit station interchange busway is correct
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8651057
> access=no,  highway=service, note=busway, oneway=yes, psv=designated
> ( since indeed it feeds a building / station and pedestrians are excluded )
>
>
> (As rebuilt, the _other_ , southern / westbound busway there has been
> recently modified to  allow pedestrian access on a sidewalk to the
> lower-level of the rebuilt station, so I may need to change that ...
> after a walkabout to double-check details ! )




-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Tagging] Busways

[Bill Ricker]

From above discussion it sounds like it should be ptv=designated not
psv, but public bus access is PSV in the EN side of wiki; PTV is only
in DE/NL wiki ??  Maybe a wiki problem there too.

On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Tijmen Stam <mailingli...@iivq.net> wrote:
> But, your explanation if highway=unclassified needing to connect to at least
> one tertiary makes the following case contradictionary:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53672494 is now mistagged as residential.
> It is a busway, sandwiched between two true residential roads. The only
> non-service road type that would apply here is unclassified, yet it can't be
> that one as being only connected to residentials :-)

I see no problem with calling that bus-only shortcut a 'service' way.
Getting too pedantic about literal definitions when we can't have
every edge case covered in every language on the wiki is delightful
but pointless pedantry.

But since it's a through-route (albeit access=psv|bus|ptv whatever) i
could accept 'unclassified' too. And that might not be an exception if
we think logically ...
 If a bus-route runs through a residential neighborhood, the
(otherwise obviously) residential streets it uses may be upgraded to
unclassified or tertiary by being the through-route or primary
ingress/egress of the neighborhood?
   (Is this mapping what is on the ground? yes.  When driving around,
seeing signage indicating a bus-route tells me this is a more major
way, and likely connects to the rest of the world somehow. Even if the
pavement isn't wider, it's been recognized as the preferred route.
Likely has stop-sign/traffic-light preference due to higher volume
too, if only because buses.)

Conversely, if the busway is a segregated lane on a  tertiary ( or
secondary or unclassified) highway, isn't it the same highway=tertiary
as the parent but with  psv=designated and/or access=bus ?  ( I guess
that'd be merely lanes:psv if separated only by paint, but would be a
separate way if separated by grass, curb/kerb, or taller
(semi)permanent physical barrier e.g. our accursed Jersey Barrier ?)

Re Access=no inadvertently excluding pedestrians :  signage here is
$300 fine for unauthorized vehicles OR pedestrians in dedicated
busway. Prohibiting Jaywalking up the busway at a station is a safety
matter, bus driver is NOT looking for you there.
  E.g this transit station interchange busway is correct
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8651057
access=no,  highway=service, note=busway, oneway=yes, psv=designated
( since indeed it feeds a building / station and pedestrians are excluded )


(As rebuilt, the _other_ , southern / westbound busway there has been
recently modified to  allow pedestrian access on a sidewalk to the
lower-level of the rebuilt station, so I may need to change that ...
after a walkabout to double-check details ! )

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Bar vs Pub vs Restaurant in the US?

[Bill Ricker]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would change "There's even strong dialect in England"to 'There are many
> dialects in England'!

Quite so.

But they do have a core standard that is to be understood by all at
least when written.
( albeit less rigorously enforced than L'Academie Francaise, moreso
than any defense of American orthodoxy.)

And as the center to which at least all Commonwealth Nations look for
linguistic authority, not at all a bad choice for a global project,
even if confusing to us Yanks.
OTOH, now that as many or more non-native learners of English will
be learning Hollywood American rather than British English, it may
perhaps do them a disservice, to have a global project hew to Brit
nomenclature, as they may be less aware of the odd gap than the native
speakers of USA and Commonwealth. ( Good luck to them finding a token
machine and timetable in a British subway ! )

But that ship has sailed, this taxonomy is mostly in EN_UK for good or ill.

In a controlled vocabulary such as this (Taxonomy, Ontology, whatever
buzzword you like), the word means what it's defined as *here* not
what it means in whatever natural language it was lifted out of
(looted, purloined, liberated) for this technical purpose.
 OSM:"roundabout" etc may (usually) be more like
EN_UK:"roundabout" than EN_US:"roundabout" etc, but it's a mistake to
think all the diverse shadings of a EN_UK word (see Camb.Dict or
Ox.Dict for how many they catalog! ) would apply in a Taxonomic usage.

( US and UK words should provide a clue, there should be
search-optimization in the wiki of course, so that one can find the
accepted synonym and it's definition and limitations in Taxonomy
, to wit ,
   boot : similar to USA term "trunk(car)", not "athletic shoe";
   for USA term "boot" see "parking enforcement" (or overshoes...)
  )

I haven't found it hard to find things in Wiki; I think the hard part
is realizing one may need to look at the wiki before picking a likely
looking word from a JOSM etc pulldown.

OTOH, mapping a point amenity and guessing wrong is better than not
mapping it at all, provided we don't get ego-invested in editwars when
someone improves the coding to conformant.

As to whether Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks are a Cafe or Fast Food, i
remember when Dunkin baked on site, but they don't any more. They
sacked Mr Time to Bake the Donuts.  :motorcycle:  :shark:  Starbucks
has real baristas, who do orders one at a time and don't wait till
(work register), but DD has clerks who push a button on a vending
machine which I could push as well as they. I think i see which is
Fast Food. Sad, since DD (and HoJo) both started a few miles south of
me. The original DD is still in operation ...

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Bar vs Pub vs Restaurant in the US?

[Bill Ricker]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Kevin Kenny
<kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What procedure do you recommend for those of us who don't have expatriate
> Britons on call?

Officially we should read the OSM wiki.

( We can also watch BBC America and/or cultivate expat Brit friends. :-)

> We Americans are, as you are well aware, entirely ignorant
> of cultures other than our own. (And would the thing be called by the same
> word in Glasgow or Cardiff as it would in London?)

Yeah, there's a reason the language is called English not British :-)
There's even strong dialect in England even before you get to Scots.
But they have a received standard that we can pretend is understood
throughout the English speaking world.


> To misquote Shaw (who, as an Irishman, could presumably take a neutral point
> of view [yeah, right!]), the US and the UK are two nations divided by their
> common language.

Or even better, misquoting Churchill misquoting Shaw to us in the provinces !

> "The Queen's English? Of course I can speak the Queens English. I was born
> in Queens."

That's a lovely contrast of quotes ! :-)


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: [Tagging] Fixed caravan site

[Bill Ricker]

 Many UK static caravan sites are not strictly residential, they have a
 planning clause prohibiting year-round occupation, so they are really
 recreational. I don't think hamlet is appropriate for a caravan site at all.


In the US, we have such recreational sites, variously called campgrounds or
RV parks, some of which have vehicles left over the off season. That's
not the topic of discussion.

We also have permanent settlements of wheels-removed mobile homes
categorized as single- and double-wides, that are more or less
self-transportable prefabricated housing.  Some of them appear as hamlets
but are commonly organized more as low-cost gated communities. Some zoning
(planning) boards discourage the use of such outside of prepared
developments exclusively such.


Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Fixed caravan site

[Bill Ricker]

Furthermore, in the US, the word 'caravan' is not used for house-trailers.
Finding a tagging that works both countries may be suboptimal for both.

Divided by a common language, etc.


-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] round and round about:how to map this?

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 8:46 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
 Something that made their heads spin, from the looks of it.

I hear the Magic Roundabouts take a little getting used to but it's
very efficient when you get used to it.

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Railway start and end dates?

[Bill Ricker]

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote:

 And you don't need start_date:railway, because you've already created
 a relation for most every railway, so put start_date on the relation.


That's an excellent suggestion from a data point of view too.

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - Bandstand

[Bill Ricker]

2012/3/11 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc

 leisure=bandstand is a good tag.


+1.


-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] unfinished railway of historic importance

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wouldn't agree with
 planned-but-abandoned features being stored except in unusual
 circumstances.


Key distinction is
 planned-but-never-built (county plat book fantasy roads),
vs built, used, then abandoned
   (subcases: over-grown / reused as bike trail / obliterated);
vs construction started, impact on the ground still quite evident, but
never in service.

The linear feature that influentially crossed the battlefield, with cut and
fill, in the Original Post is historic and still manifest on the ground,
but never achieved status of a working rail-road.

Former Railbeds, whether they never had rails or rails were recycled to
make WW2 battleships, are decidedly peculiar terrain features -- Cut and
fill to make nearly level, with very slow spiral curves.  Tagging such an
odd terrain feature's history seems quite reasonable, as those who
don't recognize it for what it was might reasonably ask Why is it Here ?

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] unfinished railway of historic importance

[Bill Ricker]

I agree with Russ here. I have more experience with abandoned RR, as
do most of us, since that 's what happened in the 20th C. ( Saddest
task in my professional life was snipping newly abandoned ways out of
my DOT GIS dataset in the 1980s.) But there are many more unfinished
RR's than we recall. Like the recent telecom boom-bust-merger cycle,
low cost RR were built by cherry picking bankrupt rivals' expensive
builds. The duplicate ways were sometimes abandoned, having been
finished and used, but often the bankrupts had many miles of
unfinished rights-of-way works-in-progress (debt without income).

   because there will never be more than a couple of uses in the
   database.

 See http://russnelson.com/unfinished-railroads.html -- there are 30 of
 them in New York State alone
 The Wikipedia article on Panic of 1873 says that 89 railroads went
 bankrupt. Since one of the causes of the Panic of 1873 was people
 building too many railroads, chances are very good that a good number
 of them were in the process of being built. Only three of my 30 died
 because of the panic, which says that there are a LOT more unfinished
 railroads out there.
 It deserves its own tag. Not that I expect renderers to render it
 differently, but it would be nice if they did, and just having a note,
 with variable prose makes it unreasonable to expect them to do it.

A standard separate tag =unfinished would actually help prospective
users of the =abandonned tag. Unfinished serves as stern warning that
conditions will change mile by mile somewhere on the line, that the
roadbed may never have been fully perfected with ties and ballast, and
may in spots not even have been cut or filled to grade. The recently
abandoned ways need relatively little work to make a walking/bike
trail compared to a way whose grading wasn't even completed in 1873,
and has been overgrown for 130 years. (Not that the odd 30 year tree
on a 20thC abandoned way will be easy to remove, but there will be
fewer per mile where ballast protected the way for a while.)

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] unfinished railway of historic importance

[Bill Ricker]

On this, I'd consult Russ Nelson, the OSM diva of failed 19thC railroads.


On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
 this is kind of an edge case, but a genuine one.

 how do you tag a never-completed railway which has significant important
 landmark value
 in the current landscape?

 there is a railway cut and fill in the Manassas National Battlefield in
 northern Virginia
 which wasn't completed 150 years ago and never will be, but it's still a
 significant feature
 of the landscape, and was of major importance in the Civil War battle of
 Second Manassas
 (so important that if the cut  fill hadn't been there, the battle might
 have been fought
 elsewhere.) it is most assuredly still physically present in the landscape;
 here is one
 of the cuts:

 http://www.flickr.com/photos/nfgusedautoparts/6921842009/in/set-72157629067291522

 none of the official railway tags in the wiki cover it. i could, i
 supposed, use railway=unbuilt
 (i've used highway=unbuilt for a couple of defunct proposals in Albany NY
 where other
 mappers used highway=proposed for projects from the 60s that never got built
 and
 never will be.) unbuilt isn't quite right, though, it was partially built
 and then failed.

 railway=failed_project

 or perhaps

 railway=cut
 railway=fill

 representing places where work was done and is detectable, but the rest of
 the work wasn't
 finished?

 any thoughts or suggestions?

 richard


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

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

Re: [Tagging] Named gates

[Bill Ricker]

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Sander Deryckere sander...@gmail.com wrote:
 I've never seen a named gate where I would want the name to be rendered.

I can immediately think of two gates that are such local or global
landmarks their names should be rendered.
http://www.cardcow.com/80793/johnson-gate-harvard-college-cambridge-massachusetts/
http://osm.org/go/ZfI4siQyI--
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Brandenburg_Gate
http://osm.org/go/0MbFCmM9--

The later has the building containing the gate and the way through the
gate named, plus a node for the tourist site, which renders.

 But
 there's no reason to change the tagging in my view. Just make a ticket and
 see if the mapnik team is willing to render those.

Right, tag for database, not for render.

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] ADR Tunnel Categories

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote:
 this information is as essential for transport companies as max weight and
 max height if they ever transport hazardous materials.

Also useful for Recreational Vehicle (aka land yachts) - some
tunnels require small natural gas or propane (cooking gas) tanks be
turned OFF at the tank, some ban all tanks.

So this is a useful attribute for a road net database that is to be
used for routing.

+1

(of course, we must be sure to source such data from appropriately
licensed source or actual signage, not from commercial hazmat atlas.)

OT - Only time in my long career that I've been paid to do GIS, I was
producing hazmat atlases of a different sort -- where was the hazmat
concentrated on the rail grid?

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:

 I would like to propose a few additions:
 landuse=residential illegal=yes:

It's a couple days early for Poison d'Avril / April Fools ? Is this serious?

Under the usual rule-of-thumb, to map what's visible on the ground
(signed or built), I'd support this where it is prominently signed as
Illegal use, in those words or similar. (Or tagged so by a suitably
free Govt GIS file.)

Anything else, an OSM member is making a value judgment and OSM is
publishing it as a fact, which has legal consequences in most
countries. OSM has a legal entity in UK which is democracy most
favorable to libel tourists, where Truth is NOT a defense. (The new
coalition gov't is looking at reform but don't bet you assets on it.)

IANAL (but have enough knowledge to be dangerous)

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] landuse:illegal and illegal:yes/no

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
 farmers do occasionally shift the boundaries between different
 crops, so like anything else on a map, this is subject to bit rot.

any till  plant farmer who doesn't rotate his crops regularly needs
to go back to Aggie school.

-- 
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] how to tag US townships?

[Bill Ricker]

Maine still has unincorporated cartesian townships with names like
Township 7 Range 4.
This is timber country with few permanent settlements.
 A few have recieved names, likely by incorporation (idk).

iirc, in Maine the legal difference between town and city is as in
Mass from which it separated, based on whether the incorporated
community was most recently chartered to have a primary executive
branch (Mayor etc) or not (Town Meeting and standing commitees). Mass
has some Towns with (elective, no longer universal membership) Town
Meetings of larger population than some Cities with Mayor and/or
City Manager plus Council.

(Universal membership town meeting was a blast when i was 18 in Maine,
straight out of Norman Rockwell's Freedom series.)

Mass also had one county disincorporated in bankruptcy. Some towns
have at least threatened to do likewise, dumping all responsibility on
enclosing jurisdiction.


On 10/21/10, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:

 Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com writes:

 Read the link you provided: In the remaining nine town or township
 states (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota,
 Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Wisconsin), there is no
 geographic overlapping of these two kinds of units. (In Wisconsin and
 the New England states they're called towns.)

 In Mass cities and towns are the same thing for this discussion.  (And I
 agree they don't overlap.)



-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Living streets in the United States

[Bill Ricker]

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
 In fact it can be called also a living zone. Mostly it is European
 thing, according to wiki.

There are not as many in US but they exist. I am aware of a pair of
ways in NYC's old Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn neighborhood that are not
yet tagged as such in Tiger Import but probably would qualify.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/5680520
# highway: residential
# name: Lafayette Walk
# tiger:cfcc: A41
# tiger:county: Kings, NY

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/5677149
# highway: residential
# name: Hamilton Walk


Houses' front doors are on the named pedestrian way / garden walk that
opens off 94th St. Rear doors are on one of three service alleys. Only
for the SE side of Lafayette is the alley usable as mews (car
parking), although the others appear wide enough for narrowest of
delivery. Residents otherwise have on-street parking on 94th St or
sensibly avail themselves of public, bicycle and ambulatory transit.

(I haven't been there so do not claim authority for retagging -- I
used Google Earth for researching uncle's uncle who lived there from
before the 1930 census until reactivated for WW2. )

Wasn't Reston VA to be built along such lines ?

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[Bill Ricker]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:12 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 How about a fire extinguisher[1]?
 I don't think this is a good idea, as they are 2 completely different 
 things...
 t... but I'd  tag them separately...

+1

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Fire_Hydrant

[Bill Ricker]

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 8:25 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote:
 Why *should* newly entered hydrants use this new precise scheme.  Voting
 hasn't even started on the proposal, it might not get approved, the FRC
 start date is today, so it might get changed.

I interpret that statement as part of the proposal to be (dis)approved.

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Oil Spill Tagging

[Bill Ricker]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Alex Wardle awar...@gmx.com wrote:
 I don't think that an oil spill should be mapped

It should be mapped, but not in the core OSM.org planet file / db.
The spill like wildfires are in the huge class of stuff that belongs
in the mashup overlays not in the Basemap.
OSM is the universal basemap, not the universal repository for all
geocoded data.

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC on two proposals: Motorway indication; Expressway indication

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:32 AM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote:
  You might be thinking, what's an expressway?  The
 short answer is, it's just like a freeway/motorway but with at-grade
 intersections.

Huh?  That's weird to me.

The only Expressway so named nearby Boston (USA) is fully
ramp-interchange-controlled-access.

The unofficial abbreviation of the South-East eXpressWAY is amusingly
almost NSFW :-)

Around here, the grade-level stop-light studded partially controlled
access trunk-plus ways are often called Parkways, even if the name
ends in Boulevard, Drive, or even Road. (Usually with more greener in
median and/or more verdeant verges than merely utilitarian
motorways, and older than WWII too.)

What really freaks me out are the few cases where an Interstate (US
national Motorways) spur meets another Interstate's ramp at a
city-street stoplight controlled grade intersection instead a ramp
around. http://osm.org/go/ZeV9lnEI . In this case one is a toll road
and the other free.



-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] wine roads in openstreetmap

[Bill Ricker]

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 4:49 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 +1. This should be tagged as type of route-relation, probably in the
 tourist-rubrique and with a winery tour-subtag.


+1

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] odd Fences { was Re: Landuse border alignment}

[Bill Ricker]

 Why would there be a fence within an unmaintained woodland?

 Fences are commonly used to demarcate ownership.
 unmaintained  unowned
+1

1) Fences indicate a FORMER or CURRENT ownership (thus plot) boundary,
OR current or former landuse boundary within one ownership, eg planted
field or pasture from meadow or woods, or between separate crops.

2) A woodland may be maintained without it being obvious to the
untrained eye.  Certain tax classes of maintained woodlot require(d)
Tree Farm signage, but not all. Sensitive selective harvesting may
enhance the natural beauty of the trees left to mature without leaving
scars on the land beyond the access 'roads' (tracks) needed by fire
services anyway.

3) Hereabouts, a lot of fences (including loose field-stone walls as
well as wire) meander through seemingly otherwise pristine woodland,
because they are older than the woodland. In colonial times, there
were few acres not under cultivation, as Crown policy or French forces
prevented westward expansion. Every tilled field was surrounded by a
rock wall composed of every stone heaved up by the frost or turned up
by the plow. Rocks have ever been our greatest crop. Later, many a
farm in the stony glacial till of New England was abandoned for better
land when it became available  e.g., the Louisiana Purchase, or for
jobs in the once expanding urban manufacturing  services sectors.

There is reportedly in Massachusetts *one* stand of actual pre
colonial, never-cut forest left. The slope prevented cultivation, and
a mapping error saved it from commercial logging clearcut : it was the
boundary parcel between two contracts, and each firm though it was
reserved for the other so left it stand. Bio-/Eco-logists were
thrilled to find this natural experiment.

There may be similar outliers in northern New England also, especially
in State  National Parks and Forests, but much of the
never-cultivated land was logged at least once.


--
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Roadside maps

[Bill Ricker]

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote:
 AFAIK everything that is written down is copyright.

that is a peculiarity of (relatively) recent 'reforms' in the US Code
(which made registration and even proper marking optional), it is not
universal.

IANAL

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)

[Bill Ricker]

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:48 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 Please don't confuse land use, what the land is used for, and land
 cover, what is the upper most covering on the ground...

Good point. landuse=forest (or tree_farm if locally defined?) is true
even for the week (or whatever) between when the clearcut harvesters
leave and the forester shows up to replant seedlings, the intent  tax
status hasn't changed.

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping historic ruins

[Bill Ricker]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:47 PM, pavithran pavithra...@gmail.com wrote:
 Does Not_being_rendered_mapnik has got anything to do with this
 article saying its controversial ?
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Druins

no the suggestion is that instead of historic=ruins one should say
historic=fort, ruins=yes

at Historic under ruins it says
 A replacement proposal can be found at Proposed_features/ruins
for ruins of historic buildings. E.g. historic=castle, ruins=yes

Since I have done some, and will likely do  more,  mapping in historic forts
[ http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Bill%20Ricker/diary/8633 , which
is not a ruins but nicely preserved ],
this tagging controversy is of interest to me, as is your fort. Where
is this fort with a well of ghee ?


-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings

[Bill Ricker]

 I think the answers will vary from different countries.

And may vary locally.  Within N miles of the sea-shore, the MASS-GIS
import includes building outlines from the NOAA airborne LIDAR coastal
survey. Tagging is quite spare :

* area: yes
* building: yes
* source: MassGIS Buildings (http://www.mass.gov/mgis/lidarbuildingfp2d.htm)

Some have POI at approximately the same location, some ought to have
names added.

(And of course, some have been built or demolished since the air survey.)

--
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?

[Bill Ricker]

On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Ed Hillsman ehills...@tampabay.rr.comwrote:

 Actually, a local fast-food chain out in Portland changed its policy about
 a year ago and now welcomes (and markets to) bicyclists to use its
 drive-through lanes.


Portland is, well, different. Let's hope we can learn to share the road so
it's safe to spread elsewhere.

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood prone areas

[Bill Ricker]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:29 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 The majority of seasonal flooding (wet season) effects northern areas
 of Australia which has generally low population, the majority of
 flooding that effect most people is due to storms or cyclones and
 other irregular events.

We get all varieties in New England (US) - Thunderstorm gully-washers,
Cyclones (Hurricanes), winter-storm-lashed ocean (Nor'easter), spring
tide, backed up storm sewers, spring melt, rain-on-snow fast melt, ice
jam, and dam break. Only one we're missing is the ash lahar, but US
RT-1 was closed near here due to mudslide recently.

A Tag for 'if a road is gonna flood, this one gets it' would be useful
in my other volunteer activity of storm spotter for the weather
service, to make places-to-check maps.
e.g. Morrisey Blvd sits on a foundation of sand and sinks below its
storm drains, at most a mere foot above the MAAT Max Astronomical
Tide,
http://osm.org/go/ZfIu2Ic3?layers=0B00FTF
and will pool rainwater between storms.

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Flood prone areas

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:44 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
 Has anyone come up with a suitable method of tagging, especially
 roads, that are prone to flooding?

they way Massachusetts was settled, the flood prone areas tend to be
tagged Village ...
flood waters just cresting here.

 Apart from flooding in various parts of Europe, parts of Australia has
 recently been flooded as well,

And North Dakota and New England, US thaw/flood season just getting
into full swing

in the case of Australia there is
 aerial imagery showing roads that were submerged:
 http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-28.0436,148.567316z=18t=hnmd=20100308

just for explicit, the Personal license there grants CC-SA use, is
that compatible with old  proposed new OSM terms?

Here in the US there is an official federal definition of Flood Prone
line, within which flood insurance disclosure is required of
Realtors(tm). Reading a single flood line from a photo - which may not
be at crest, may be an annual, a 20year, or a 50year event, will be
very low fidelity in comparison.

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Easy question: _link tags for U turn/cut throughs?

[Bill Ricker]

 i generally also set access=private for the official vehicle only u-turns.

would access=official here be an overly fussy distinction ?

--
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Tagging] Love Hotel

[Bill Ricker]

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 I think this is useful in Brazil.

I have heard of such in Tokyo as well.

Niagara Falls NY USA has motels that specialize in 'honeymoon
specials' which are rather similar but cater to longer stays and
actually presume as opposed to pretend their clientèle are married.

Motels in many commercial highway areas in the US have a reputation as
No-Tell Motels and are commonly used for assignations, as well as by
low budget commercial travelers, but are not quite so specially
equipped as the Brazilian, Tokyo, or Niagara Falls establishments
[based on reading their advertising at highway speed, haven't
inspected].

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com

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