Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - tag "motorcycle friendly" for accomodations

[David Bannon]

On 07/03/17 20:58, Thilo Haug wrote:

...

I'm not really sure about which issue you talk in the 2nd part of your 
message "not actual rules",
do you refer to my entry in the proposal about a "code of conduct" ? 
...


Thilo, what I was suggesting is that you need to receive the list 
messages, read them, understand the ideas behind them. That cannot 
happen if you try to block all messages other than your own topic (or 
unsubscribe). Or think of them as spam.




"own data, as an overlay" doesn't make sense to me in this case,


OK, then thats not a suitable solution for you.


Didn't understand what you mean with "digest approach" ?

I thought you mentioned getting the list communications via digest 
instead of directly receiving what you call spam. If not, sorry for the 
distraction.


David





Cheers,
Thilo


Am 07.03.2017 um 04:15 schrieb David Bannon:

On 07/03/17 04:55, Thilo Haug wrote:

..

I (accidentally) unsubscribed because of the "spam" coming in,
means I didn't get just messages regarding the topic.

Thilo, perhaps thats the underlying problem here ?  You read the 
rules on the wiki, complied with what you understood and now, I guess 
feel as if you are being treated a bit unfairly ? However, I doubt 
that any proposal has succeeded where the proposer has not been a 
member of this list, been actively reading the messages at least and 
probably been contributing as well.


The truth is that not all the "rules" are on the wiki, there is a 
huge quantity of community knowledge, not actual rules, and much of 
it is accessible via this list. We have a large number of very 
experienced  database, rendering, mapping, cultural experts who live 
here (no, I'm not one!). They comment on a proposal and help a 
proposal comply with the OSM culture. Their "rules" are not written 
down as the document would run to 100's pages and we'd never agree on 
the content. Written rules have to cover every possible situation. 
Too hard.


This list is very welcoming, always open to new ideas and not, in any 
way, locked into particular policies. Within the list you will find 
widely differing views but always respect for others.


To solve your problem Thilo, you could do a number of things. 
Firstly, tags in OSM do not need be approved. I, personally don't 
recommend unapproved tags but lots will disagree with me. 
Alternatively, its relatively easy to put your own data, as an 
overlay, onto an OSM map. Keep you data privately or put it into one 
of the public POI databases. But really, I strongly recommend you 
keep trying as you are, refine and improve your proposal with the 
help of the mailing list, understand why OSM "rules" are what they 
are. You can then make a good tag, one that can be used around the 
world and rendered on lots of maps.


By the way, I would not recommend the digest approach, I found it 
harder to assign time to. Digest users, when replying, often seem to 
forget to change the message title and are not always taken seriously :-)


David




Am 06.03.2017 um 18:09 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:


2017-03-06 17:46 GMT+01:00 Michael Reichert <naka...@gmx.net 
<mailto:naka...@gmx.net>>:


Hi Martin and others,

Am 2017-03-06 um 17:37 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> yes, that wording is unfortunate, because in most/many OSM
mailing lists
> messages never get approved. I am myself admin of a very
small regional ML
> and from time to time there are periods where a lot of spam
arrives, I can
> imagine checking held back messages in the big lists would be
a lot of work
> (and mostly consist in rejecting spam). You would also have
to do it daily,
> because after some time many messages will seem out of context.

I have changed the wording of the wiki page Proposal_Process
today to
stress the necessity to subscribe the Tagging mailing list.
Feel free to
modify/revert it if you don't like it.



As you name me in person: I was not referring to the wording in the 
wiki but the wording of the mailing list autoresponder message in 
case someone not subscribed sends a message (and from the reply 
might get to the impression that it will pass, which it in fact 
almost never does for any of the OSM lists).


Cheers,
Martin


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


--

Thilo Haug
Bismarckstr.37
72764 Reutlingen

Mobil: +49 177 3185856


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




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


--

Thilo Haug
Bismarckstr.37
72764 Reutlingen

Mobil: +49 177 

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - tag "motorcycle friendly" for accomodations

[David Bannon]

On 07/03/17 04:55, Thilo Haug wrote:

..

I (accidentally) unsubscribed because of the "spam" coming in,
means I didn't get just messages regarding the topic.

Thilo, perhaps thats the underlying problem here ?  You read the rules 
on the wiki, complied with what you understood and now, I guess feel as 
if you are being treated a bit unfairly ?   However, I doubt that any 
proposal has succeeded where the proposer has not been a member of this 
list, been actively reading the messages at least and probably been 
contributing as well.


The truth is that not all the "rules" are on the wiki, there is a huge 
quantity of community knowledge, not actual rules, and much of it is 
accessible via this list. We have a large number of very experienced  
database, rendering, mapping, cultural experts who live here (no, I'm 
not one!). They comment on a proposal and help a proposal comply with 
the OSM culture. Their "rules" are not written down as the document 
would run to 100's pages and we'd never agree on the content. Written 
rules have to cover every possible situation. Too hard.


This list is very welcoming, always open to new ideas and not, in any 
way, locked into particular policies. Within the list you will find 
widely differing views but always respect for others.


To solve your problem Thilo, you could do a number of things. Firstly, 
tags in OSM do not need be approved. I, personally don't recommend 
unapproved tags but lots will disagree with me. Alternatively, its 
relatively easy to put your own data, as an overlay, onto an OSM map. 
Keep you data privately or put it into one of the public POI databases. 
But really, I strongly recommend you keep trying as you are, refine and 
improve your proposal with the help of the mailing list, understand why 
OSM "rules" are what they are. You can then make a good tag, one that 
can be used around the world and rendered on lots of maps.


By the way, I would not recommend the digest approach, I found it harder 
to assign time to. Digest users, when replying, often seem to forget to 
change the message title and are not always taken seriously :-)


David




Am 06.03.2017 um 18:09 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:


2017-03-06 17:46 GMT+01:00 Michael Reichert >:


Hi Martin and others,

Am 2017-03-06 um 17:37 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> yes, that wording is unfortunate, because in most/many OSM
mailing lists
> messages never get approved. I am myself admin of a very small
regional ML
> and from time to time there are periods where a lot of spam
arrives, I can
> imagine checking held back messages in the big lists would be a
lot of work
> (and mostly consist in rejecting spam). You would also have to
do it daily,
> because after some time many messages will seem out of context.

I have changed the wording of the wiki page Proposal_Process today to
stress the necessity to subscribe the Tagging mailing list. Feel
free to
modify/revert it if you don't like it.



As you name me in person: I was not referring to the wording in the 
wiki but the wording of the mailing list autoresponder message in 
case someone not subscribed sends a message (and from the reply might 
get to the impression that it will pass, which it in fact almost 
never does for any of the OSM lists).


Cheers,
Martin


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


--

Thilo Haug
Bismarckstr.37
72764 Reutlingen

Mobil: +49 177 3185856


___
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] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - tag "motorcycle friendly" for accomodations

[David Bannon]

Maybe its time someone put a note on the proposal page saying that the 
author is posting to the list but does not appear to be receiving 
messages from it ?


In case its a language issue, could that message be in German and 
English perhaps ?


David


On 06/03/17 05:17, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone

On 4 Mar 2017, at 16:50, Thilo Haug > wrote:



Please check where this mail has been gone, reason :
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-March/031403.html



maybe you haven't been subscribed with the email address from which it 
was sent by the time it was sent? You should have gotten an automatic 
reply in this case.



cheers,
Martin


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


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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=vending_machine and vending=public_transport_plans?

[David Bannon]

On 18/02/17 18:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

...a 'ticket' could be 'single use, with the option of a return journey, for a 
set distance or place'.
...a 'card' could be 'multiple use, no set time or distance, limited by the 
amount on the card'?
...a 'pass' could be for a planned trip over a set route?


I suggest not to get into this level of detail, as this is quite volatile data, 
and there are often lots of different options
Yes, I strongly agree Martin. A far better approach would be to include 
a link to an authoritative source.  Just about all of these services 
have their own website. And its someones job to keep the information 
current !


Please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:website

David

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

Re: [Tagging] self-service laudry machines a camp and caravan sites

[David Bannon]

I would think shop=laundry means there is  some sort of service provided 
at the campsite that involves someone else actually doing your laundry 
for you for a fee.


As you say, thats not the same thing as having machines available at a 
camp for you to do your laundry. I would prefer something like 
laundry=yes|no|fee.


David



On 08/02/17 20:28, Volker Schmidt wrote:

I see on the wiki page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site
the option
shop=laundry

This does not seem to be appropriate to map caravan sites that offer 
self-service coin-operated washing machines or dryers (and it seems 
not to be in use anyway).


Is there a common scheme that I have overlooked?



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


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - dog toilets

[David Bannon]

Thanks Joost, I'd prefer option one or four. wrt lack of porcelain, the 
term "toilet" can also be used to refer to the room where the porcelain 
thing is located. So dog_toilet seems quite accurate.


But dog* or pet* ?  I do see people traveling with a cat but would be 
very surprised if a cat was comfortable using a doggy smelling place. I 
cannot image any other pet being very keen either. So rather than your 
99% dog use, I'd suggest its 100% dog for practical purposes.  Anyone's 
experience different ?


David


On 20/01/17 19:36, joost schouppe wrote:

Hi,

There were some previous discussions on how we could tag designated 
areas for dogs to urinate/defecate. They are quite common, but 
unfortunately there are many different tags going around for lack of 
documentation.


I have added a section to an old proposal page with these options 
(also links to the previous discussions I know of here). I'm not sure 
how we can get the comments here to translate to reducing the proposal 
to just one tagging option? Maybe have a pre-vote?


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

Description:
This is an area designated for pets (dogs) urinate and excrete. Unlike 
dog_park label, the main objective of the area is not that dogs play. 
It is usually small and fenced areas, but can also just be a 
designated patch of grass by the side of the road. It is known as 
pee-can in some countries.




Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap  | 
Twitter  | LinkedIn 
 | Meetup




___
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] dog toilets

[David Bannon]

I would find it very hard to support "potty_area". A potty is a 
container used by small children during toilet training, what has that 
got to do with dogs ?


David


On 10/11/16 01:24, joost schouppe wrote:

Hi,

Many cities have special little areas which are specifically meant to 
be used as a toilet area for dogs.


They look like this:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2420/844/320/Hondentoilet.jpg

There is a proposal for this:

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

It proposes amenity=potty_area (used about 50 times) . But there is 
also the (more descripitve?) tag dog_toilet (used about 30 times).


It should be pretty straightforward to merge these two tags. But 
before starting to contact people, I'd like to hear your opinion on 
the merits of both tags.



--
Joost @
Openstreetmap  | 
Twitter  | LinkedIn 
 | Meetup 




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


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

[David Bannon]

Sven, your approach makes sense assuming people only look at maps of 
their own country. Yes, I agree its respectful to people living in a non 
english speaking country but really does not address a much larger problem.


As a native English speaker, I often turn to OSM to help me understand 
some of the global issues around at present. But even now, many of the 
place names are rendered in local language, quite unreadable to me. As 
has been suggested, a database of names in every conceivable language 
would be a ideal, then a renderer can deliver a map readable in an 
appropriate language. That does sound like wikidata 


So, I suggest its possible your solution improves a small aspect of a 
larger problem but just perhaps also makes that larger problem even worse ?


David


On 26/10/16 02:02, Sven Geggus wrote:

Hello,

in our localized German map style we try to render Country names in German
with local name in parenthesis.

This works fine for a lot of countries. An example would be Thailand:
Thailand (ประเทศไทย)

or (more readable for westerners) France:
Frankreich (France)

Unfortunately there are some countries where this will not work:

Ägypten (Egypt مصر)

So this is where the tagging discussion starts.

I consider this a bad example of tagging for the renderer.

English is not an official language of Egypt thus the string "Egypt" is
simply invalid in the countries name tag.

What I consider valid would be the countires name in all of its official
langages.

Thus the right one would be:
Ägypten (مصر)

So I propose a correction of all country names to names into official langages 
of
the respective countries only and to remove all english names.

Any objectives?

Sven




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

Re: [Tagging] Help required on tagging a "wadi"

[David Bannon]

On 06/09/16 08:08, Tod Fitch wrote:

There are places in the desert southwest of the United States where the place 
you drive is exactly the water course. And these can extend for miles. Saying 
that one feature on the ground needs to OSM objects because they have different 
properties is bogus: It is one object, you drive on it 99.9% of the time, and 
it carries water 0.1% of the time (percentages arbitrary here and will vary 
from one instance to the next).


"needs to be separate OSM objects  bogus" ?  No, sorry Tod, 
I disagree. The water course is made by a rain event. The road is 
something we have made, in practice just by driving along there in this 
case. Both the road and the water course will change over time but 
possibly independently of each other.   A example close to my heart is 
the road to the Finke Gorge National Park, N.T. AU. About 15 to 20Km 
from memory. When I first used it, it was almost all through the dry 
river bed. Over time, some parts are now along the banks and around 
obstacles. The road is referred to on maps and in National Park rules 
(etc), the waterway is defined by water flow, governed by the occasional 
rain  event. They have a different history, a different use and a 
different future.


David


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

Re: [Tagging] Help required on tagging a "wadi"

[David Bannon]

On 05/09/16 04:34, Greg Wickham wrote:
In Saudi Arabia a wadi is a mostly dry riverbed that carries water 
very infrequently (maybe a couple of times year).

..

Would these tags be ok for a: “sandy bottomed wadi; 4wd only"
waterway = wadi
intermittent = yes
highway = track
tracktype = grade4
4wd_only = yes
surface = unpaved


Greg, I think you have the tags right but I'd rather see the waterway 
and highway mapped as separate ways, even if they superimpose. While 
they may be in the same place, they are different things.  If the wadi 
is like what we see here in Oz, its probably pretty wide and may be best 
mapped as an area rather than a line, that way, the highway way would be 
more distinguishable. And we need be realistic about their position and 
accept they move.


David





Suggestions welcome.

   -Greg

--


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


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (midwife)

[David Bannon]

David, I am very sorry to only comment after you have gone to the vote, 
very rude of me !


But I have been away, quite remote and very poor internet access, big 
backlog of unread mail.


David, my partner is a midwife but of the "specialist nurse" variety. 
What concerns us is how this tag will be used in parts of the world that 
have a different midwife model. Here in Australia, midwives generally 
work from, typically, hospitals or clinics and offer a reduced range of 
services.


I think some advice needs to be given in the proposal on how to use it 
in places that don't fit your description. Either


* "don't use it" or

* "use it but map users need be aware that services may not be as 
described."


I suspect the first is a better option.

David

On 23/08/16 06:29, David Picard wrote:

The vote is open for :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/midwife

___
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] State parks and state forests: specific tagging question, general mapping philosophy

[David Bannon]

On 27/07/16 12:59, Kevin Kenny wrote:
.

 How about we make a deal that when the "correct" tagging actually 
becomes visible on at least one layer of the main site, I go back and 
remove the "legacy" tagging, which can be done with a mechanical edit?
Kevin, I share your frustration but suggest that is the wrong approach. 
Image Feature A is correctly rendered but not so Feature B.  We won't 
encourage the rendering mob to render B by tagging everything as A.


Might be worth your while looking at how others are using the data, 
OsmAnd do a great job of rendering some of the detail found in the 
database. And make a pretty attractive looking map at the same time. 
There are lots of other 'consumers' of OSM data.


David


___
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] Proposal to Change Road Classification, Road Surface, Road Condition, and Add Number of Lanes

[David Bannon]

Wow Alberto, you have put a lot of thought into this. I agree its needed 
and think the model would serve us a lot better than the way its done 
now. But I see a couple of problems, first, we have a huge data set 
using the existing model. Very hard to change that. Secondly, I suspect 
not all contributers to OSM are familiar with the sort of roads that 
have prompted your proposal. So, wide spread support may be a bit hard 
to find.


But I'd be the last to suggest you give up something just because its 
impossible !


So, lets pick it over.

Firstly, maybe your categories might need to be a bit finer grained.  
For example, the jump, in Rural, 3 Tertiary and 4 Unclassified is too 
big. I live on a rural road, its not a connecting road and it is owned 
and maintained (occasionally) by the Municipality.  So its definitely a 
public access road but not one a routing engine should consider (except 
start and end stages of course). Such roads are very common.


I am not sure I like the classification you use for C Road Condition. It 
seems a bit too focused on maintenance models rather than providing an 
indication of how a traveler might find it. I suggest what a map (or 
whatever) user wants to know is "should I use this road ?". And that, of 
course, is dependent on vehicle, maybe affected by weather, maintenance 
cycles and so on.


Alberto, I'd like to see this model refined, lets make out that we are 
starting fresh, get it right and then look to see if some of the result 
can be incorporated into the current model, or even a long term transition ?


David

On 06/03/16 01:25, Alberto wrote:


Dear OSM staff, contributors, and users:

I have read the definitions, concepts and description that OSM uses to 
characterize (tag) roads and noticed that OSM does not establish the 
difference between inter-urban (rural) roads and urban roads 
(comprising mostly avenues and streets). Therefore, I propose to 
*replace the existing OSM road classification with a "functional 
classification"* that would allow OSM *"to better model and better 
visualize"* the actual road network. I have noticed that you have been 
challenged to adapt to the differences found in each country. If the 
following classification is adopted, it will be a "*universal 
standard*" and you will not need to adopt different criteria for 
developed or developing countries, like the OSM example for East Africa.


It would be useful to define a road class (paved/unpaved) and a road 
surface type (concrete, asphalt, surface treatment, gravel, earth). I 
also propose to reduce the options for road condition to only five 
categories defined by the need for maintenance or rehabilitation. I 
can provide a technical definition using the International Roughness 
Index (IRI) for paved and unpaved roads.



I am fully aware that these changes present a major challenge for the 
existing, coding, renderer, editors, etc. However, I am confident that 
introducing these changes (and adding the number of lanes) will not 
only simplify the mapping tasks, but would substantially improve the 
quality of the OMS products, particularly given the fact that many 
other layers are highly dependent on the quality of the road network.



I am a Civil Engineer (MS Stanford) with training on urban planning 
(MIT) with more than 20 years of experience working with international 
organizations like the World Bank and the African Development Bank on 
roads and highways in more than 50 countries, but mostly in 
Sub-Saharan Africa, South America, South Asia, East Asia and the 
Pacific, and Eastern Europe.


Alberto Nogales

202-257-8726


*A. FUNCTIONAL ROAD CLASSIFICATION for "Motor Vehicles":*

*
*

*Rural (Inter-Urban) Roads - Located outside of urban areas*

*Classified Road Network. *Generally falls under the responsibility of 
the National, Provincial (State), Municipal/Local Government to build, 
operate and maintain.


*1.* *Primary* Roads - National, Main, Trunk Roads outside of
urban areas that connect the main population and economic centers
of the country. Typically under the responsibility of the National
Government and with high levels of traffic.

*2.* *Secondary* Roads - Regional, State, Provincial Roads are the
main feeder routes into, and provide the main links between
primary roads. Typically under the responsibility of the
Provincial Government and with medium levels of traffic.

*3.* *Tertiary* Roads - Municipal, Local, Rural Roads that connect
the smaller towns to intermediate cities. Typically under the
responsibility of the Local Governments and with low levels of
traffic.

*Unclassified Road Network.*

*4. Unclassified* Roads. Mostly private roads or of unknown
responsibility to build and operate. Typically maintained by local
communities or by private mining, forestry, or agricultural
enterprises.

*Urban Network- Located within the boundaries of urban areas*

*1/2/3.* *Highway.* 

Re: [Tagging] how to tag a salt flat

[David Bannon]

On 30/09/15 21:28, Warin wrote:

..
Well if you want to have lake Eyre 'qualify' for the tag 'intermittent'
.
But if you want to see Lake Eyre full .. 'typically' that is once 
every 10 years or so...


So to me a full cycle of Lake Eyre in all its 'seasons' would be 
'typically' 10 years.
Warin, I think you will find that Lake Eyre has only 'Filled' three 
times since (white man's) records have been kept, 150 years ? Its a very 
big place, when water flows in on those ten year cycles, it just gets a 
bit damp in one small corner, you could not say thats the defining cycle 
for the whole lake.


Does 'intermittent' still apply to a 50 or 100 year cycle ? Honestly, 
the natural state of Lake Eyre is dry. And thats how we like it !


David





___
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] how to tag a salt flat

[David Bannon]

Anyway, we agree that Lake Eyre does not fill seasonally, we agree it 
does fill intermittently (but maybe disagree on "full", not important).


"seasonal" may be a good qualifier for a lake that depends on the 
seasons and responds to the season cycle most times around. But thats 
not intermittent IMHO. I don't think "intermittent" and "seasonal" go 
well together.


David

On 01/10/15 10:16, Warin wrote:

On 1/10/2015 8:49 AM, David Bannon wrote:



On 30/09/15 21:28, Warin wrote:

..
Well if you want to have lake Eyre 'qualify' for the tag 'intermittent'
.
But if you want to see Lake Eyre full .. 'typically' that is once 
every 10 years or so...


So to me a full cycle of Lake Eyre in all its 'seasons' would be 
'typically' 10 years.
Warin, I think you will find that Lake Eyre has only 'Filled' three 
times since (white man's) records have been kept, 150 years ? Its a 
very big place, when water flows in on those ten year cycles, it just 
gets a bit damp in one small corner, you could not say thats the 
defining cycle for the whole lake.


'Full' ... http://www.lakeeyrebasin.gov.au/about-basin/water States 
the 'typical' inflows ...


And the yacht club has a graph of the water depth from 1975 ... 
http://www.lakeeyreyc.com/fldhist.html




Does 'intermittent' still apply to a 50 or 100 year cycle ?


I would say YES!

I think the OSM wiki is wrong in putting the word "seasonal" as a 
qualifier to the tag intermittent!

Seasonal things should be tagged with the tag seasonal!
In fact I'll be brave and remove the  word! It was looks to be added 
by Chrabros <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Chrabros>  in 
April 2014..
So I have removed the word seasonal from the meaning of intermittent 
and added a 'common mistakes' section for seasonal things...

And added my comments to its discussion page.

Honestly, the natural state of Lake Eyre is dry. And thats how we 
like it !



Naturally! With the occasional damp bit, and then the rarer wet bit.


___
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] Future of categories (was: Re: Deprecating wikipedia Tag)

[David Bannon]

On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 18:06 +, Janko Mihelić wrote:
 I think we need a separate instalation of wikibase on our wiki. No
 need to fork wikibase. Then we can organize our tags in categories,
 subcategories, relations to outside data like wikidata and so on.

Yep, great concept, could be OSM Tagging Mk 2. But big project you are
talking about here. A very big project !

David
 
 Not only that, but make that wikibase a sort of an API to our tags.
 For example, if a data consumer wants to render all places where you
 can get food (restaurants, fast foods, convenience stores) it would
 just link a category named food places to an icon and that would be
 it. No need for everyone to understand all the possible tags that our
 database has.
 
 Janko
 
 
 uto, 26. svi 2015. 16:56 Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk je
 napisao:
 On 26 May 2015 at 13:01, Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl wrote:
  So a usecase:
 
  Say you want to locate all the streets and other objects
 named after
  17th century Dutch painters, worldwide.
 
  You could start by finding the painters from wikidata, then
 use the
  Overpass API to do a regular expression search with all the
 resulting
  Q-numbers.
 
  Wikidata alone may be problematic, because it's independent
 project,
 
 Why would that be a problem?
 
  but it
  is big database of objects and their relations, so we could
 have better
  classification of our objects. Maybe close cooperation or
 fork would suit
  our needs?
 
 Fork Wikidata? Why? Doesn't this community have enough to do,
 just mapping?
 
  Wikimedia already use our data for showing maps in the
 articles,
  so I think it may be beneficial for both parties to have a
 close
  cooperation.
 
 That is indeed what's proposed.
 
 --
 Andy Mabbett
 @pigsonthewing
 http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
 
 ___
 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] Replace tagging mailling list with Loomio?

[David Bannon]

On Sat, 2015-05-23 at 14:50 +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
 Of over 400 people posting on the tagging list, only 5 have shown any
 interest in that. I'll leave it to you to infer any decisions from that ;)

Well, yes. As one of the five who did try, I can say I tried it. It
works, its possibly a bit easier to manage than the mailing list but I
don't see it has enough benefit for the trauma of change.

Mind you, that change is quite small, Loomio can be treated as a mailing
list for those that don't want the Loomio interface. But still,
insufficient incentive to change IMHO.

People don't like change.

David 


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC Reception_desk Mk2

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 11:09 +1000, Warin wrote:

 Link to the proposal =
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/amenity%
 3Dreception_desk
 
I still see this as a useful thing.

David

 For those not familiar with the proposal.
 A Reception Desk provides a place where people (visitors, patients,
 or 
 clients) arrive to be greeted, any information recorded, the relevant 
 person is contacted  and the visitor/s, patient/s, or client/s sent
 on 
 to the relevant person/place.
 
 It is particularly useful to know the location of the reception desk 
 when it is located away from the typical place (near a front entry)
 or 
 where there is only one amongst a number of large buildings. First
 seen 
 as a suggested extended tag for camp sites, thought to have a wider
 application to offices, hotels and educational features.
 
  
  
 I have changed the documentation (many times) hopefully it addresses
 most issues that have been raised.
  
 One issue that I have not address is when someone wants to have one
 node with more than one amenity on it. 
 This occurs for many key=value situations. 
 Firstly .. it would be possible to create two nodes and place the
 different values on the different nodes. That is the solution I use. 
 Secondly ... it has been suggested to use a format of a subtag where
 value2=yes is placed under the key=value1.
 e.g.
 amenity=bbq
 reception_desk=yes
 
 I have not seen (nor sought!) documentation for this .. as I don't use
 it. 
 
 ---
 
 The present proposal format in the upper section shows what the result
 should look like, while the lower section has the verbose explanation
 etc. 
 I don't like the title 'Rationale' .. and have appended 'Verbose
 Explanation' as a simpler, clearer title. 
 I have also added sections on the key, value etc .. as I think that is
 easier to follow (and I don't get mixed up in my documentation! :-) ).
 
 
 So there it is .. voting soon? Depending on any discussion relevant to
 the key-value. 
 Discussion of the format etc ... ok .. but not fundamental to the
 proposal itself, so should not delay voting. 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer

[David Bannon]

On Sun, 2015-05-17 at 23:01 +0200, Daniel Koć wrote:
  Once we start seeing through the eyes of people using the 
 map, who can help expand and refine our data, we can understand what are 
 their background, what are the problems for them and how they may behave 
 when experiencing obstacles. That may give us a hint what could we do to 
 let them be better mappers and achieve their personal goals at the same 
 time.

Yep, well said !

While it might well be fun to treat the database as a write only memory,
for the project to move forward, we need to concentrate on what end
users want, need and might use. 

And, sticking my neck out here, one thing most end users expect and
probably need is to find the terms used in the database can be looked up
(eg in the wiki) and clearly understood.

David


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

Re: [Tagging] man_made=apiary or ?

[David Bannon]

On Tue, 2015-05-12 at 13:13 -0400, Anders Anker-Rasch wrote:
 first post on the tagging list so I'll try to be short.
Welcome Anders, very welcome!
 
 Apiary tagging is still in limbo - and has been so for some years
 now as I can see from the talk.
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/apiary

In my part of the world bee keepers move their bee hives around
seasonally. Not something I know much about but do understand most (?)
larger scale bee-keeping is mobile.  

I assume from your interest, thats not the case world wide ?

David


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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed tag value: surface=bare_rock

[David Bannon]

On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 09:06 +1000, Warin wrote:
 Hummm ... the mappers want more detail .. the renders less?

This (surface=) was the topic for a long discussion last year. As you
say, mappers seem to want to put more and more detail into the database.
Its really a case of write only memory - you can put it in but its
unlikely it will be used as its just too fine grained :-) .

Can I be the first to invent a term, mapping for mapper and suggest
its possibly just as dangerous as mapping for renderer  (when taken
beyond a reasonable point). We really need to think of how the data we
put in can be used.

I have only tagged surface=unpaved as the (unpaved) roads I like to map
will have a ranges of surfaces and its not practical to tag every
100meter segment differently. I do know its different elsewhere. 

David





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

[Tagging] proposal - camp_site= Voting ends soon

[David Bannon]

Approaching close of vote on this proposed feature.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site

We currently have -

8 approvals
1 reject
2 abstains

The 'reject' notes some use of camp_site=pitch already and suggests a
conflict. If we accept that, it has implication for how the terms
'camp_site' and 'pitch' are defined (good!). The two abstains suggest
its not necessary.

While this proposal grew out of a long winded discussion it seems to not
be going to make the cut, I see little point in extending the time
frame.  So, if you have an opinion, please act now.

Once this is over, either way, we can get on with documenting taging of
pitches (or os that camp_sites ? :-| )

David

 


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

Re: [Tagging] Camps

[David Bannon]

On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 07:12 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
  OK Phil, I was not aware of that difference.  So that leaves us wonder
  what to call those UK Holiday Camps ?  Leave it to the UK people I
  guess.
  
 There are not many left, they were of their time. In the UK context 
 tourism=holiday_camp would work.

I have seen enough of them in old British films. More than enough !

So, it seems they are not something we need consider when designing a
suite of tools tor describing camps ?  Good !

David


 Look on YouTube for hi-de-hi for an example of a British holiday camp set in 
 the 50s.
 
 Actually my only reference to an American resort is Kellermans in Dirty 
 Dancing) also set in the 50s.
 
 Phil (trigpoint )



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

Re: [Tagging] Camps

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 12:45 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:

 I am not talking about travellers, itinerant workers etc. That is a
 different issue. Such places (trailer parks, mobile home parks,
 travellers sites etc.) are a form of residential landuse.

Jerry, I suspect the distinction might be a bit US centric. Here, AU, we
have a large number of what we call Caravan Parks. They usually provide
mainly for tourists in caravans, motorhomes, tents. They usually have
some fixed cabins for hire to people without their own gear. Some
provide for 'permanent' residents, ranging from just a caravan that
stays there right through to standard sites (or pitches) for owner
occupied cabins, maybe with a nice little picket fence and tiny garden !

Now, I don't consider the permanent occupants are camping (nor
tourists) but we cannot exclude the Caravan Park itself from our
deliberations just because a few sites are used for that purpose.

Itinerant people use the Caravan Park in an almost identical way as do
tourists, the only difference is they are following the work (often
fruit picking etc) instead of the sun.

But Jerry, my real question was why are we talking about leisure= when
we were talking about tourism= ?  There is a large usage of tourism=
already there, almost no leisure=. 

David
 
 
 Jerry
   
 
 __
 From: David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
 To: Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk; Tag discussion,
 strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org 
 Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2015, 0:08
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Camps
 
 
 On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 09:44 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:
  
   It seems to me that the obvious generalisation, which would cover
  camps organised for profit and by non-profits would be
  leisure=vacation_camp. 
 
 I don't think 'vacation' or 'leisure' are good terms at all. A lot of
 people use the camp grounds we are talking about who are not on
 vacation, retirees, itinerant workers, travellers.  These grounds are
 'mostly' open throughout the year in my part of the world.
 
 tourism= means people are there because they want to be and I think
 that
 excludes refugee and military camps. Scout camps a bit grey 
 Maybe the key is that people don't stay there indefinitely ?
 
  ... very specific British connotations associated with 
   holiday_camp. 
 
 Yes, I would consider the british holiday camps would be better called
 resorts (?). The permanent building being the clue. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  In general I would use any derivative of resort : it is a word
 which
  has far too many meanings. 
 
 
 Did you mean to say avoid the use of  there ?
 
 So, in summary, why are we discussing abandoning or supplementing
 tourism=camp_site ?
 
 David
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



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

Re: [Tagging] Camps

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 11:09 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
 
  A resort is usually a town whos primary purpose is tourism. A resort
 is not operated by a single company,  and access is not restricted.  
  Resort should probably be avoided due to totally different meanings
 between BE and AE.
 
OK Phil, I was not aware of that difference.  So that leaves us wonder
what to call those UK Holiday Camps ?  Leave it to the UK people I
guess.

David



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[David Bannon]

On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 18:22 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
 It has been many years since I last went tent-camping, but my
 experience of campgrounds in the US national park system was numbered
 poles marking each campsite, a grassy area for pitching a tent, and a
 charcoal grill mounted on a steel pole. You weren't allowed to cut
 brush or to have a fire on the ground, only one in the charcoal grill,
 as a precaution against wildfires. There was a wooden outhouse (pit
 toilet) shared by multiple campsites.
 
Similar here in some Australian National Parks but also have more
Caravan Park like ones and some National Parks where you can camp where
you find a bit of clear ground. We need to cover the lot.

P.S. Hey John, your emails arrive with each paragraph one long line
requiring scrolling miles to the right to read. What email client do you
use ?

David 
 




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

Re: [Tagging] Camps

[David Bannon]

On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 09:44 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote:
 
  It seems to me that the obvious generalisation, which would cover
 camps organised for profit and by non-profits would be
 leisure=vacation_camp. 

I don't think 'vacation' or 'leisure' are good terms at all. A lot of
people use the camp grounds we are talking about who are not on
vacation, retirees, itinerant workers, travellers.  These grounds are
'mostly' open throughout the year in my part of the world.

tourism= means people are there because they want to be and I think that
excludes refugee and military camps. Scout camps a bit grey 
Maybe the key is that people don't stay there indefinitely ?

 ... very specific British connotations associated with 
  holiday_camp. 

Yes, I would consider the british holiday camps would be better called
resorts (?). The permanent building being the clue. 


 
 In general I would use any derivative of resort : it is a word which
 has far too many meanings. 

Did you mean to say avoid the use of  there ?

So, in summary, why are we discussing abandoning or supplementing
tourism=camp_site ?

David



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[David Bannon]

On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 18:54 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
 
 
There are some like that, maybe a concrete or tarmac base so tent 

 The amenity=caravan_site was indeed invented for what amounts to a
 parking lot for overnight use by RV's.  

Do you mean tourism=caravan_site (14K uses v. 1 use)?

 That's different from a liesure=camp_site that happens to allow RV's.

Again, leisure=camp_site ??  There are 8 entries for this undocumented
combination. Don't you mean tourism=camp_site (~60K uses) ?

Anyway, the issue is, perhaps confusion in some minds about =camp_site
and =caravan_site.  Most (but not all) camp_sites will also take
caravans and RV's. But Tourism=caravan_site is for the caravan ONLY type
of place. 

So a site taged tourism=camp_site can use the undocumented caravan=yes
(2518 uses) to make it clear. Better, I'd suggest to document it and say
yes is the default and caravan=no if unsuited for caravans. Hmm, what
about other RVs ?

David





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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[David Bannon]

On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 22:22 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

  camp_pitch=42 ?
 I think this would be an elegant and short method to do it, but it
 will very likely lead to osm-carto not supporting it (not in the key
 namespace that gets included in the rendering db and unlikely there
 will be a dedicated camp_pitch-column in the future).

Martin, does that concern also extend to camp_pitch=yes ?

I have not worked close enough with the rendering DB to get a feel of
whats good and bad. I tend to think of the data in an XML-ish form but
understand it has to get flatter than that at some stage. Could you
elaborate a bit please ?

Maybe suggest a better model ?

David 

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



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[David Bannon]

On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 17:43 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:

 ... I guess the page could be renamed to campground pitch 
No need ! Its the camp_site= part that is my problem.

 (I guess I should look into how one properly can rename a wiki page. . .)
Hmm, carefully I suggest.


 I guess there could be a issue on naming. The
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site page as
 I understand it would cover the entire area of the campground while I
 am trying to address the individual pitches within. What do you
 suggest?

Yep, thats my concern. A camp_site (in UK speak, not mine) might be a
larger area or possibly just a node marking, eg, the entrance where
larger area is unknown. The pitches, again nodes or areas may be within
the camp_site area or (yek!) near the camp_site node. 
 

 I haven’t been in a RV/caravan only type campground 

There are some like that, maybe a concrete or tarmac base so tent pages
a problem, maybe operator/owner just wants self contained campers.

I'd suggest for this purpose we treat them as the same, #define
caravan_site = camp_site. There are other tags to tell the difference.
 

 Suggestions for this? Perhaps simply camp_pitch=yes to be used in both
 tourism=camp_site and tourism=caravan_site?
 
Hmm, lets experiment ...

Node
tourism = camp_site
camp_site = standard
name = Happy Jacks

Node
tourism = camp_site
camp_pitch = yes
ref = 42
addr:unit = 42
camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes

Node


What I don't see here is how to associate the pitches with Happy
Jacks. I guess the easy solution is to say only map pitches where they
will fall into an (tourism=camp_site) area ? Hard solution is a
relation ?

I think its sad we cannot put something more useful than yes after
camp_pitch= but I know someone saw a problem with my suggestion of
camp_pitch=42 ?

Starting to look like this is firming up anyway, good, we need these
solutions. I notice that user N76 says he did a good part of the
camp_site=pitch on record and is happy to rename them. We appreciate
such a helpful attitude ! (Voting on the camp_site= proposal page).

David




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

[Tagging] proposal - camp_site= Voting is now open.

[David Bannon]

OK folks, everyone has had every chance to tell us what is wrong with
this proposal, its now open for voting. We have talked and talked ! Lets
vote now please !

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

David




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

Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site= Voting on the 28th

[David Bannon]

OK, I think we have talked this topic just about to death.

I propose to turn on voting on Tuesday, 28th April. So please, if you
have some further improvements, get in now !

Thanks folks for all your help with this. Its been a great example of
worrying away at a problem until its as good as it can get.

Lets see if thats good enough ...

David

On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 10:10 +0900, John Willis wrote:
 Seems great !
 
 Javbw 
 
 
  On Apr 24, 2015, at 9:52 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
  
  
  
  
  On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 06:47 +0900, John Willis wrote:
  
  I don't want people to map known illegal camp sites or places they just 
  happened to spend the night and think are nice but are on a farmers 
  private property just to complete the map, as map the ground truth means 
  mapping basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality.
  Ok, I have added a section, Legal Camp Sites, to the proposal page. It
  says legal only. Mappers have responsibility to ensure accurate data
  where they are mapping ...
  
  Please let me know what you think.
  
  David
  
  
  ___
  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] proposal - camp_site=

[David Bannon]

Jan, are you going to have another try at camp_type=  ?

I think the term non-designated was a contributor to it struggling.

Trouble is, the idea you have here is an important one but one its quite
hard to get your head around.

David


On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 05:05 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 My understanding is that this proposal is about sites that have been
 defined as campground. The purpose of the proposal that triggered this
 discussion
 (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D*)
 was to cover places that have not been defined as campground, but that
 are used as such for different reasons.
 
 




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

Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=

[David Bannon]

On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 06:47 +0900, John Willis wrote:

  I don't want people to map known illegal camp sites or places they just 
 happened to spend the night and think are nice but are on a farmers private 
 property just to complete the map, as map the ground truth means mapping 
 basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality. 
 
Ok, I have added a section, Legal Camp Sites, to the proposal page. It
says legal only. Mappers have responsibility to ensure accurate data
where they are mapping ...

Please let me know what you think.

David


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

Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=

[David Bannon]

On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 15:16 +0900, johnw wrote:

 That’s why I thought  informal yet legal spots would be good wording
 to cover this, and maybe link over to the camp_type proposal here -
 because with the wording for basic, the first thing I thought about
 was the legality or designation of the spot, thinking it would
 influence the camp_site= level - when it fact it is all inside the
 camp_type proposal. 
 
You will have to help me here John, I don't quite see what you are
trying to achieve. Here in AU it is, sort of, legal to camp anywhere
that is not private property and not declared no camping.

I see camp_site= used only where there is some substantial legal basis,
(where that is unclear, its camp_type=).  

* In countries/places where the default is to allow camping, no sign or
official endorsement is needed, just lack of a sign saying no
camping. 
* In other countries/places, where camping is not allowed unless its so
stated, we'd need to see that statement.

So, the term, 'legal' does have a slightly different meaning here
depending on where you are. But if we try and define it too tightly, we
may well end up excluding some local variation. Not sure thats a good
idea.

Would it work better if we added a small block that talks about just
that, how 'legal' has that slightly different meaning ? That block would
be a good place to say camp_type might be a better tag when the legal
status is unclear or undefined ?

David 


 I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well.
 
 
 I think camp_type=non_designated + camp_site=basic will be used
 together quite frequently, so reminding people of that is pretty
 important - it lets voters know why these two proposals go together
 well. 
 
 
 Javbw
 
 
 
 
 ___
 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] Proofread

[David Bannon]

Bryce, I was away and inattentive while this discussion went on, so
don't understand !

* amenity=sanitary_dump_station - Standalone facility for marine users

* waterway=sanitary_dump_station - Standalone facility for land users 

Seem to be wrong way around to me !  Why is waterway used for land
based users ? 

David


On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 17:17 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
 User Xxzme wanted the recent dump station wiki pages reorganized.
 Anyone willing to proofread?  No tagging changes were intended:
 
 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toilet_Holding_Tank_Disposal
 
 
 Unfortunately this messes with the recently translated Russian French
 and German
 versions of the page also.  Sigh.
 ___
 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] proposal - camp_site=

[David Bannon]

OK, I think the discussion on camp_site= has settled down and now
concentrates on things that are just outside the current proposal and
probably need to stay there for now. Thoughts, yes, no ?

I have mentioned on the proposal page tagging of individual pitches and
declared that out of scope for now.

I have added backcountry=yes as a possible tag to be used in association
with this new tag

If there are no objections or further suggestions, I'll move to voting
in a day or so.

please see -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site

David

On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 14:23 +0300, Dave Swarthout wrote:
 Would it not be ok to say (eg) -
 
 tourism=camp_site
 camp_site=basic
 backcountry=yes
 
 
 That's exactly what I was proposing. It isn't a tag describing the
 amenities of the camp so much as to indicate that it is a certain type
 of camp, one not accessible by vehcles. In New Zealand I believe these
 would be called trekking sites. I have no experience with Australia
 but I'm guessing the term would mean the same thing.
 
 On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 




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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[David Bannon]

On Tue, 2015-04-21 at 14:45 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
...

 The fact that rendering on osm-carto is so far behind tagging is an
 issue.
 
Indeed.

 But treating the campsite like a building, and the pitches like
 apartments, makes a lot of logical sense.

I don't see any theoretical issue with calling a caravan park a building
from a routing point of view. Wonder if it might give a misleading
result on a rendered map that shows buildings  
 
 And it scales well to how much is known:

Bryce, what does osm-carto do with your example below ?  As you noted in
another message, addr:housenumber, while wrong, gives some very positive
feedback, silly to ignore that fact. 

I see a similar problem with some retirement villages, market stalls,
car parks.

David
 
 
 0) leisure=camp_site,  drinking_water=no(nothing is known about
 pitches)
 1) capacity=100 (we know
 there are 100 pitches, but not where they are)
 
 2) addr:unit=1-50  addr:interpolation=all   (we know pitches 1-50
 along this road or area, but not exactly where)
 3) addr:interpolation=odd addr:unit=1-49(tagging one side of a
 road)
 4) addr:unit=1   (here's
 the center or entrance of pitch #1).
 5) relation=site  addr:unit=1 contains bench/parking/sewer dump/picnic
 table/gopher hole/tree/blades of grass  (micro mapping extraordinaire)
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[David Bannon]

On Sat, 2015-04-18 at 18:10 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:

 I’ve been using the tagging suggested at
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches
  so they have camp_site=pitch on them.
 
Tod, there was a fair bit of discussion here in Feb (?) about terms. The
consensus then was that a camp site is the larger area containing a
number of pitches. This seems acceptable to most people around the
world.

Personally, I think of camp_site as meaning pitch but that was not
the general answer. So, I don't think that camp_site=pitch makes a lot
of sense as a tag.

Would camp_site:pitch=42   be more appropriate ?

David











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

Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=

[David Bannon]

On Mon, 2015-04-20 at 09:02 +1000, Warin wrote:

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

 My comment. Any reason for the colours?
 

Honestly, no, I prefer the (eg) map makers determined what suits them
best. Quite happy to swap as you suggest but wonder if the proposal
would be better without any suggested Icons ? I like icons where they
describe what they are but here the colours are arbitrary.
 
 I'd think the blue is associated with water .. and might be better with 
 'standard' rather than 'serviced'? Possibly swap those two colours?

David


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

[Tagging] proposal - camp_site=

[David Bannon]

Folks, to revisit a topic that had lots of discussion last month !

I have updated the proposal page for camp_site=[basic; standard;
serviced; delux].

I now avoid the question of how to tag multiple instances of (eg)
amenity on the one node, area. People seem to have strong but
conflicting views and frankly, the proposal does not depend on any
particular style. 

Please have a look and make (constructive if possible please) comments !

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

If we don't spot too many problems, I'd suggest voting in a week or so.

(you may well ask why I left it on the table so long, well, I have been
away, camping, for the last three weeks, I'd call that research !)

David


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[David Bannon]

That scheme seems to rely on house number model. Sure looks good.

But does it, by implication, indicate there is a (eg) a house number 12
on the unnamed service road ?  I'm not into mapping house numbers so
don't know if thats important or not.

David




On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 10:51 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
 I'm opening discussion on how to best tag individual pitch numbers
 within a campsite.
 There are a variety of schemes in use from tourism=caravan_site on each
 node to campsite=pitch,ref=XXX.
 
 This scheme seems to work fairly well:
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37815651#map=18/36.49277/-121.14681
 But differs from the wiki.
 
 (note good rendering, but missing the dump station,
 and the ranger station (also reception, park HQ, and grocery).
 
 ___
 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] Ambiguous translations of waterway=dam - should be moved to man_made=dam

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 12:35 -0300, Lists wrote:
...
 
 Since the dam structure is a man_made construction, I suggest that the
 tag should be moved into that namespace. Currently we should abandon
 (deprecate) the tag waterway=dam to avoid conflicts with existing
 tagging scheme, and maybe in the future allow this tag to mean the
 waterbody of the dam. 

Hi, in Australia, the noun 'dam' refers to the whole water body, wall
included. Generally, the man made part, the wall, is referred to as the
dam wall. But not exclusively...

David

 Today I had to explain to a user why he couldn’t use waterway=dam on
 the waterbody, and he seemed confused about using landuse=reservior
 (which also should translate to represa). I do not know how these
 things are translated in iD, maybe some of this confusion could be
 solved with improved translations?
 
 Anyway, since the dam is a man_made structure I think it is about time
 this is corrected in the tagging namespace also. This tag is quite
 old, and have many uses, so a transition from waterway=dam to
 man_made=dam will be a timely long process. If consensus is that the
 man_made namespace is more propitiate, the new tag should be added
 (maybe in a mechanical edit) to existing tags, let data consumers get
 sufficient time to update stylesheets, etc, before removing the old
 tag from the database.
 
 Aun Johnsen
 
 
 ___
 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] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published

[David Bannon]

Honestly, this approved v. something else is a storm in a tea cup.
The proposals have been (or not) approved. Yes, by a small minority of
OSM mappers but ones who have thought about the proposal and they are
not in any way an exclusive group.

It does not say compulsory, required or anything prescriptive, it just
says the proposal has been approved and it has.

Lets leave it there.

David



On Sun, 2015-04-05 at 09:01 +1000, Warin wrote:
 On 5/04/2015 8:12 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
 
  On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 3:23 AM, moltonel 3x Combo
  molto...@gmail.com wrote:
  One can try to write a page defining what published means
  in the
  context of wiki proposals. But given the current level of
  controversy,
  I wish the authors good luck :p
  
  
  This mailing list community veers toward nit picking and bike
  shedding, and tends to block rather than guide forward change.  It's
  also a tiny fraction of the mapping community, which is sad.
  
  
  
  Published in this sense means published on the wiki, 
 
 By this definition a Draft proposal is published .. if taken
 literally. 
 
 
 Published ... is not a 'good' word for the intended use. 
 ___
 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] RFC - proposal page for camp_site=

[David Bannon]

I have fleshed out the camp_site proposal page a bit.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site

And added some text in the discussion page identifying the three
decisions that need to be made before the proposal proceeds -

1 -Is this the right model ?
By model, I mean the idea we can divide up all camp sites into between
four and six categories, separated by a small set of facilities.

2. Assuming yes, what are the category names and what facilities are the
key ones, the ones that define the category ?

3. How to tag the other information that needs be associated with a well
documented camp_site ??

I don't necessarily think that this proposal need to define 3) but it
sure would help the mapper if it did. I'm quite happy to make that bit a
vague suggestion or list of optional approaches but would rather get a
consensus. 

Seen a lot of complains about how renderers won't to this and that but
they would say we don't have our act together in this respect !

David





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

[Tagging] RFC - proposal page for camp_site=

[David Bannon]

On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 05:44 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 .. I hope someone else will stand up to kick off the camp_site=*
 proposal for facility levels.
 
OK Jan, hint taken.

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

Very early, lot more needs be done. I'm going to be tight on time over
next couple of weeks so anyone with a keyboard ..

David 



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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - proposal page for camp_site=

[David Bannon]

On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 17:05 +0900, johnw wrote:
 camp_site:restaurant=yes
 camp_site:water=yes
 camp_site:space_water=no
 campsite:kitchen=yes
 camp_site:space_bbq=no

John, this model would work fine if the end user was using a interactive
tool where he could say show me all the camps that comply with this
list of facilities.  But we very quickly identified twenty or so
characteristic of a camp and I reckon we could easily extent that to 50
to a 100 if we really tried. So, its not possible to show that on a flat
map, even a fairly specialised one. 

Thats where the idea of identifying a very small set of key
characteristics arose. Thats map-able and is a key to a subsequent list
of characteristics.

So the proposed new keys, camp_site= and camp_type= do not exclude all
the other things you mention and others. They could be seen as more a
top level filter, that an end user can use to narrow down their search.
Its in response to the very wide range of possible camp types you might
find.

Locally important facilities, tent/van issues, details of pitch
facilities and so on are all still usable and should (but not must)
still be mapped.

David





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

Re: [Tagging] Status 'Draft' ... vs status 'Proposed'?

[David Bannon]

On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 12:22 +1100, Warin wrote:
 There have been some comments on people making comments on the voting 
 stage of a proposal. I think this comes about because of the large 
 number of proposals with the status 'proposed'. 

Indeed. And you suggest a viable solution but I wonder if it needs be
that complicated ?

I'd prefer Draft - Proposed - Voting - etc

Draft - starts page creation time, unlimited.

Proposed - When declared, limit 6 months then drops back to Draft

Voting - As its now.

Assuming we have been going for ten years, 6 month Proposed would give
us 5% of current list. I see no purpose in defining rigidly what happens
in the Draft and Proposed stages apart from the fact that Proposed
appears on the Proposed page and is announced on list !

The drop back process would be manual, perhaps announced so true
believers can act. But a proposal can easily progress to Proposed again,
just needs an edit.

I do agree that the current list of Draft and Proposed is unworkable and
apparently ill-defined.

David




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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

[David Bannon]

I asked what the OSMAnd developers prefer but have not yet had an
answer. On their forum by the way, works well !

David

On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 07:11 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
 It's about time that renderers started supporting semicolon-delimited
 lists. Splitting apart a delimited string is a trivial programming
 task. I know, having worked as a programmer for the last 29 years.
 +1
 
 
 Speaking as an ex-programmer, I completely agree g
 
 
 PHP, and other languages, actually have a built-in function to do
 that: split, explode, etc. 
 
 
 Regds
 
 
 Dave
 
 On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:35 AM, John F. Eldredge
 j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
 It's about time that renderers started supporting
 semicolon-delimited lists. Splitting apart a delimited string
 is a trivial programming task. I know, having worked as a
 programmer for the last 29 years.
 
 
 
 On March 28, 2015 11:09:10 PM CDT, Dave Swarthout
 daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote:
 Just a note about using semicolon-delimited lists.
 Most renderers do not handle such lists very well so a
 tag like the following:
 
 amenity=bar;restaurant;picnic_table;sanitary_dump_station
 
 
 might not show you all of the amenities. There have
 been many discussions about this issue on this list
 and elsewhere
 
 On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 9:39 AM, David Bannon
 dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
 On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 12:26 +0100, Marc Gemis
 wrote:
 
  If I am on a large campsite I want to use
 the map to find my way to
  all amenities. If you have put everything on
 1 node it's a pretty
  useless map, not ?
 
 Agree in principle Marc but don't think its
 always practical. I have
 been to many camp grounds that are too big to
 walk around and bad
 manners to drive (apparently aimlessly)
 around. Many National Park
 toilets are drop toilets and, for obviously
 reasons need to be moved.
 Fireplaces are often quite impromptu, we are
 marking they are allowed,
 not where they are.
 
 I agree it would be nice to be able to zoom in
 and see where fixed
 things are, highly desirable for the people
 there on site. But people
 planning a trip, they just want to know fire
 places and toilets are
 there, somewhere. Lets help the second group
 and then, if we can, the
 first.
 
 David
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Dave Swarthout
 Homer, Alaska
 Chiang Mai, Thailand
 Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
 
 __
 
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 10:49 +1100, Warin wrote:
.
  From very distant memory those were temporary ..
 some times once only, sometimes once every few years.
 And they were restricted to scouts only .. thus access=scouts?
 
No Warin, don't think we are talking about the same sort of camp. There
are quite a number of very permanent camp grounds owned by the Scout
Association in Victoria, AU. I have personal knowledge of 5, my guess is
there are very many more. I know there a lot worldwide. They may be 100
or more acres each. We'd need show the perimeter and some facilities.
Reception ? :-(.I expect there are a number of other, limited access
camp grounds, church, school etc owned.

Being a specialised camp, are they best mapped under Jan's special
provisions ? 

The key is, are we telling the end user more about the camp when we talk
about its 'type' than when we talk about its 'facilities' ?

David

   


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

[David Bannon]

On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 21:57 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
  daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote:
 Just a note about using semicolon-delimited lists. Most
 renderers do not handle such lists very well so a tag like the
 following:
 amenity=bar;restaurant;picnic_table;sanitary_dump_station

 Most rendering will show nothing for such tagging.  If you tag like
 that, few people will ever see it.


So this is, IMHO, the crucial question. I've been too scared to ask it
in fear of being accused to Tagging for the Render. Is the
[SomeAmenityValue=yes] preferred by the rendered over a delimited list ?
Can we get that authoritatively ? A reference ?


 amenity=camp_site
 bar=yes
 picnic_table=yes
 internet_access=wlan
 opening_hours=24/7
 fee=$5
 
Cleaner and clearer.

David
 




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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

So you have renamed it Jan ?

Happy to see the original name, camp_site, pop up in parallel ? Probably
make sense to deal with them both as closely as we can.

An outsider, someone who has not seen the effort put in here (especially
by you), may see these as competing entries but they are really not. As
we have established !

I note you did not do 'scout camp' on there. Its equally specialised but
a different special I think ?? Hmm

David





On Sun, 2015-03-29 at 20:47 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 I have made major changes to the proposal as a result of our
 discussions. It it is strictly limited to camping type (designation)
 and does no longer classify on facility level, ease of access or
 pricing.
 
 
 It can be found here.
 
 
 Regards,
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

[David Bannon]

On Sun, 2015-03-29 at 09:31 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:


 
 Among other things, perhaps it would be better to change the final
 wiki vote status from approved to 
 
 something more like debate complete or published.

Indeed, published is good. I'd prefer that to debate complete as it
sounds like no further input would be accepted. Published is better as
its not unusual to see further 'editions'.

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



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

[David Bannon]

On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 12:26 +0100, Marc Gemis wrote:

 If I am on a large campsite I want to use the map to find my way to
 all amenities. If you have put everything on 1 node it's a pretty
 useless map, not ?

Agree in principle Marc but don't think its always practical. I have
been to many camp grounds that are too big to walk around and bad
manners to drive (apparently aimlessly) around. Many National Park
toilets are drop toilets and, for obviously reasons need to be moved.
Fireplaces are often quite impromptu, we are marking they are allowed,
not where they are.  

I agree it would be nice to be able to zoom in and see where fixed
things are, highly desirable for the people there on site. But people
planning a trip, they just want to know fire places and toilets are
there, somewhere. Lets help the second group and then, if we can, the
first.

David
 




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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 07:09 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
  1. Get a high level of classification of campsites based on the
 relation between the land owner and the camper
  2. Get a classification of regular campsites based on available
 facilities.

Agreed Jan. Different things.

However, I think the vast majority of campers are also more interested
in 2). Your Overlanders are an important group but a small minority. I
think the term camp_site is an important resource and needs to be
applied where most will be looking for it.

So, to deal with 1), a fairly specialist need, you really need a new
term that reflects that specialist need. Maybe camp_business_type=*
?

David


 I made the initial proposal to solve the first issue. I personally
 look at mapping as an overlander, often staying in countries without
  normal campsites. The discussion so far gives a reasonable picture
 how the first item should be mapped, but we are struggling with the
 exact tag names - camp_site= non_designated etc. (not being a native
 speaker doesn't help here :-( ). I will update the proposal and can
 bring it to voting on short notice.
 
 
 
 The second issue should be addressed with a different key
 (camp_site_facilities=basic etc. or so). It requires more discussion
 and has to have its own proposal. I will be hitting the road again in
 about a month from now, therefore I don't want to own the second
 proposal. 
 
 
 Bryce, as you seem to be very much interested in the second issue,
 would you be willing to take this one?
 
 
 Thanks,
 
 
 Jan
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

Sorry folks, email client problems. Evolution and bugs !

David


On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 19:10 +1100, David Bannon wrote:
 On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 06:41 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 
* We can use camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality for the
  hotels, 
* We can use tourism=camp_site:non_designated for all cases that
  the
 
 Sorry Jan, people, me included, do not like =non_designated. Honestly,
 I could learn to really dislike =opportunistic_hospitality quite
 quickly too ! I think two categories for these things is too many and 25
 character in a tag is too many. 
 
 With thought, I think (my suggestion of) adding camp_site=sponsored is a
 bad idea too. I'd prefer the list I posted early and we invent a new
 subtag to associate with any camp_site= such as sponsored=yes to deal
 with your case. Or do camp_site=basic:sponsored.
 
 Attractive vistas, fees, etc can all be dealt with with tags.
 
 David
 
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 16:55 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
 How about camp_site=hospitality for those hotels that offer camping on
 their grounds, or certain parking lots that allow camping, e.g.,
 WalMart.
 
 
 The hotel industry is, after all, sometimes referred to as the
 hospitality industry.

Sure, =hospitality would be a reasonable value too. I guess I backed
away a bit because I was thinking that the other values, basic,
standard, delux, whatever were all about what the site offers in terms
of facilities.  =hospitality or =sponsored is more about the business
arrangement.

Thats why I think camp_site=standard:hospitality is more consistent. The
=standard says what facilities are there, the :hospitality says its one
of these yeah, you can park here if you like sites. Two different
sorts of info.

But I would not vote against the camp_site=hospitality model. I think
'sponsored' is a touch clearer

David
 

 



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

[David Bannon]

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 07:31 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:

 Separate nodes for campground and amenities connected in a site 
 relation

Only practical solution IHMO.

David



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 06:41 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 We can use camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality for 
 We can use tourism=camp_site:non_designated for all cases

Sorry Jan, people, me included, do not like =non_designated. Honestly,
I could learn to really dislike =opportunistic_hospitality quite
quickly too ! I think two categories for these things is too many and 25
character in a tag is too many. 

With thought, I think (my suggestion of) adding camp_site=sponsored is a
bad idea too. I'd prefer the list I posted early and we invent a new
subtag to associate with any camp_site= such as sponsored=yes to deal
with your case. Or do camp_site=basic:sponsored.

Attractive vistas, fees, etc can all be dealt with with tags.

David



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 06:41 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 We can use camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality for 
 We can use tourism=camp_site:non_designated for all cases

Sorry Jan, people, me included, do not like =non_designated. Honestly,
I could learn to really dislike =opportunistic_hospitality quite
quickly too ! I think two categories for these things is too many and 25
character in a tag is too many. 

With thought, I think (my suggestion of) adding camp_site=sponsored is a
bad idea too. I'd prefer the list I posted early and we invent a new
subtag to associate with any camp_site= such as sponsored=yes to deal
with your case. Or do camp_site=basic:sponsored.

Attractive vistas, fees, etc can all be dealt with with tags.

David



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

[David Bannon]

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 09:58 +0100, Marc Gemis wrote:

 It is not necessary or appropriate to use a relation when all the
 elements contained within the boundary of the site belong to the site,
 and no elements beyond that boundary do belong. In this simple case
 simply tag the perimeter with all the appropriate tags. Users of the
 information can simply perform an 'is-in-polygon' test to determine
 which elements belong to the site. [1]

OK, I did not know that !  Is this is-in-polygon test something that
is already being done ?  Examples ?

It does mean that a camp_site needs to be mapped as a polygon, not a
node but thats not too bad.

David
 
 
 
 
 regards
 
 
 
 
 m
 
 
 [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:site
 
 
 
 
 
 On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 9:52 AM, David Bannon
 dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
 On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 07:31 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 
  Separate nodes for campground and amenities
 connected in a site relation
 
 Only practical solution IHMO.
 
 David
 
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 06:41 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:

   * We can use camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality for the
 hotels, 
   * We can use tourism=camp_site:non_designated for all cases that
 the

Sorry Jan, people, me included, do not like =non_designated. Honestly,
I could learn to really dislike =opportunistic_hospitality quite
quickly too ! I think two categories for these things is too many and 25
character in a tag is too many. 

With thought, I think (my suggestion of) adding camp_site=sponsored is a
bad idea too. I'd prefer the list I posted early and we invent a new
subtag to associate with any camp_site= such as sponsored=yes to deal
with your case. Or do camp_site=basic:sponsored.

Attractive vistas, fees, etc can all be dealt with with tags.

David



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites

[David Bannon]

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 14:07 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 It is a bit of a philosophical question: do you prefer a placeholder
 or a polygon of which you don't know how correct it is, for example a
 forest behind the campsite that may or may not be part of the
 campground.

In natural surroundings, a place holder node is the lesser of two evils.
To mark an arbitrary poly implies camping within is somehow better than
outside. And that is totally misleading.

But a single node cannot carry the #4 model associating different
features or constraints. So a very little polygon ? One that implies its
a 'pitch' rather than a campground ? It says I camped right here.

David
 
 
 On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:57 PM Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 In many cases you will be able to determine the area from the
 aerial images (thinking of Western European campsites).
 I assume that in the campsites you visited, the actual area
 was rather fuzzy and that the exact area will never been
 known, not ? OSM has no solution for fuzzy areas anyhow.
 
 
 Is it difficult to obtain an approximation of the area when
 you already go through the effort to position all the
 amenities as individual nodes ?
 you can always leave a note or fixme tag to indicate that the
 shape has to be established.
 
 
 just my .5 cents
 
 
 regards
 
 
 m
 
 On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Jan van Bekkum
 jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
 So if you don't know the real shape of the polygon it
 would be best to create a placeholder polygon (like a
 circle - it will be clear that it is a placeholder)
 and put all amenities inside it until the real shape
 is known.
 
 
 On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:33 AM Marc Gemis
 marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Overpass understands this. When I look for all
 toilets in the Zoo Antwerpen with [1], I
 only find toilets in that Zoo
 
 
 regards
 
 
 m
 
 
 [1] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/8qL
 
 On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Marc Gemis
 marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 OK, I did not know that !  Is
 this is-in-polygon test
 something that
 is already being done ?
 Examples ?
 
 
 Nominatim that adds the address of the
 building to the POI is an example of a
 similar test / algorithm. 
 Sorry, don't know any other examples.
 But it just makes sense that you do
 not have to define inclusion of
 something when you can determine that
 from it's position.
 
 
 I also only know 1 website that
 supports the site relation, the
 geschichtskarte for historical items
 
 
 regards
 
 
 m
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 ___
 

[Tagging] How does an end user use camp site data ?

[David Bannon]

Folks, we have been discussing this camp_site= issue for a long time.
And I don't think we are making any progress. How about we apply a
design approach ?  Agree on how the average end user would use the
data ?

In my opinion, a camper is likely look on a map hoping to see a camp
site near where he/she is heading. They will have an idea of the type of
sites they like. Some people won't camp without a toilet, others must
have a swimming pool. Another person will only go somewhere they are
unlikely to meet other people. 

When they identify the type they like, they may decide that is all they
need to know or they may investigate a short list further. 

Now, lets imagine an OSM map that shows camp site icons, maybe five or
six different colours depending on a simple set of characteristics. The
user knows they camp at only green and blue ones. Easy so far. If they
are after more info, the map may give them a name or locality to google
for. Or maybe its a specialised camping map that will pop up a flag with
more OSM date when the icon is clicked.

That more data is made up with info from the associated tags
including, perhaps, the description= key.

Please identify what is wrong with this story ?

In localities where special ad hoc data is important, it needs to be in
the description tag. General data that may influence a search, should be
tagged. We cannot expect to show all important data right there on the
freshly rendered map.

David


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

Re: [Tagging] How does an end user use camp site data ?

[David Bannon]

On Sat, 2015-03-28 at 15:57 +1100, Warin wrote:
  The next step is a web search.  Thus the website= link is the most 
  important

 Assumes web access.. as most of Australia has no cell phone access? 
 Satellite phone!
I carry one but save its expensive quota for desperate stuff !

 Me? I look for a camp site somewhere ahead after lunch time. 

Yep, and don't keep telling your self there will be a better one further
on !  But we are discussing here how someone would use the OSM based map
to find a site. 

 basic will do me for an overnight. For more than one night .. cloths 
 washing would be good.

Yep, you would see you need on, eg, OSMand.  Assuming we have made a
decision here and have been out populating the map 

David


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 05:51 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 Dave, I think we are after different things. Your proposal focuses on
 availability of services, while mine tells more about the relation
 between the camper and the land owner:

Yes Jan, I agree. You have summed it up perfectly !  I'm afraid I think
my version is, perhaps, what the end user is more interested in.
Further, can we expect the mapper to be able determine and express the
relationship between camper and land owner. 

We should map what we see.

Hey, where is this link John mentioned to your rig ?

David

   * Designated: permission to camp, most likely the place is still
 there tomorrow, service offering (whatever it is) is stable,
 publicly announced as campground;
   * Non-designated: permission to camp, policy and services may
 change overnight, not publicly announced as campground (no
 signs, no listings);
   * Wild: no permission to camp (but no prohibition either),
 sometimes a policy, situation may change overnight, not
 announced.
 Regards,
 
 
 Jan 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 09:10 +0100, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 To give you a better impression of what I mean with non-designated
 campsites I uploaded images of places we stayed at in Iran, Ethiopia,
 Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Malawi. Have a look here and
 enjoy. As you can see the quality of the places varies wildly.
 
Yep, as you say, wildly !  I would not consider them camp sites to be
honest !

I am not as organised as you, but just uploaded a couple of my sort of
camp sites -
http://bannons.id.au/uploads/agate_creek.jpg
http://bannons.id.au/uploads/obriens.jpg

Its going to be hard to talk about these in the same voice 

Is the solution to invent a set new of tags ?  Or qualifiers to the
suggested values ?

David



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 12:36 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 Non-designated is not necessarily temporary. Some hotels may offer the
 service for many years, but it is not officially announced and not
 listed. For overlanders this information is too important not to have
 it mapped somehow.
 

I still think the the problem is the word, non-designated. Its a
contradiction IMHO. Just about everywhere is non-designated, what makes
these particular spots special ?  The answer is that they are somehow
sponsored by some hotel or what ever.  So would a better approach be
camp_site=sponsored  ?

You are camping there because the Hotel either encourages, or at least
does not discourage camping. I guess they get some benefit and they may
provide some services and do provide some security. The defining
characteristic of this camp site is its associated with the Hotel.

Would that cover the Kite Club you mention ?  Is the Kite Club a
sponsoring body ?  Or just a name for a location ?

If its just a location, then camp_site=basic sounds like it fits.

 (camp_site=* ) -
sponsored = A place to camp near a (commercial?) operation that may
provide some limited facilities and security. 
basic = nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle.
standard = Basic + toilets and water
serviced = Standard + shower + power
fully_serviced = Serviced + camp kitchen + Laundry
deluxe = Fully_Serviced + swimming pool/restaurant

David 
 
 Let me also give a few examples of wild camps where we stayed that
 should be on the map:
   * Guarded section of a car parking next to a city park with
 public toilet (Tabriz, Iran). Amongst overlanders this is the
 one place to go to in Tabriz. In Iran we had quite a few
 situations like this.
   * Kite Beach in Dubai: as Dubai is very densely built up there
 are few good places to stay. The kite beach is a parking at
 the beach near the Kite Club. The Kite Club has clean public
 toilets and a beach shower.
 Images are here.
 
 
 Reagrds,
 
 
 Jan
 etmap.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] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

Warin suggested new category names and implied meanings. Think it was a
quick draft, I have a counter quick draft along same lines.

On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 11:06 +1100, Warin wrote:
 None= nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle.
 Basic = None + a toilet
 Standard = Basic + water
 Comfort = Standard + shower
 First Class = Comfort + cloths washing (+ power?)
 Luxury =Comfort + camp kitchen/swimming pool/restaurant

 David's model (camp_site=* ) -
Basic = nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle.
Standard = Basic + toilets and water
Serviced = Standard + shower + power
Fully_Serviced = Serviced + camp kitchen + Laundry
Deluxe = Fully_Serviced + swimming pool/restaurant

And define all the other aspects with additional tags. Good so far. But
I am sure someone can think of an anomaly.

BUT - its silly to have all those other things (mostly amenity=) on one
node or area. So, now we need to define different nodes. And that leads
to having to establish exact location of each. Thats too much trouble in
many cases. I don't know 

Jan suggests a relation to link them all together, makes sense to me,
but does it make sense to renderers and thus end users ? I've never used
relations, seems the docs concentrate more on when not to use them.

Jan, I am really sorry to be suggesting such drastic changes to your
proposal so late but I think might be more acceptable to the community.

David 





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

Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 19:36 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
 .that will require a separate node for each of them. The nodes
 will be hard to place unless you actually visit the campground in

Indeed Dave, thats my worry with this model. Same applies for survey
people in many cases. I'd need to walk around the whole ground, people
may well ask what I'm up to ?

IMHO these amenities are not stand alone, they are attributes of the
camp ground itself. For things like fire places and BBQ, might be one
for every pitch. I'm not into micro mapping !

And if we map them as individual nodes, should they be marked
private ? Don't want them rendered in some cases, people may they
think they are public assess. But the Camp operator might want to map
his whole ground and that would make sense. Sigh 


 Relations make a lot of sense except they are tricky to get right.
 Noobies will inevitably screw them up. 

Indeed. Especially as there is no example of the tagging on the wiki. An
active discouragement to their use ?

David



  David's model (camp_site=* ) -
 Basic = nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a
 vehicle.
 Standard = Basic + toilets and water
 Serviced = Standard + shower + power
 Fully_Serviced = Serviced + camp kitchen + Laundry
 Deluxe = Fully_Serviced + swimming pool/restaurant
 




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

Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 15:49 +0100, Marc Gemis wrote:

 When we were looking for a campsite, we often visited [1]. The list of
 features they show is much longer than any of you have in mind.

Indeed, that list was 1 minute of thought ! 

...
 Should all this information be available in OSM ?

Yes, absolutely. But we need develop a sensible model so it can go in
easily and be used easily. And we are a long way from there IMHO.

Do need active involvement from campers, we are a diverse lot ...
 
David



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 20:42 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 
 I really do want to keep non-designated as currently proposed. It was
 my main reason to start with the proposal. I understand it is not
 important in western countries, but it is vital in Africa and the
 Middle East. It is a site with the opportunistic blessing and amenity
 use of a hotel/ hostel, etc.

I agree Jan, these things exist in Australia too. But I have to ask, are
they really non-designated ?  I have used ones that sound pretty much
what you describe. I'd think of them as having been designated by the
land owner. Or at least loco parentis owner. 

In my category model, we are not describing anything about owner or
business arrangements, we leave that to other tags. We describe only
what is apparently there.  So, if its got toilets and water available
via the adjoining business, its 'standard'. If not, 'basic'.

David
 
 
 Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of
 unimproved? Summarized my preference is

Yes, I suspect 'trekking' is the odd one out here and might be better
dealt with in a subsequent proposal.

   * Designated
   * Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better)
   * Non-designated
   * Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for unimproved without
 blessing
 
I am uncomfortable with words like designated, unimproved - they
indicate we know far too much of the history and legal status of the
site. Lets just stick to what we can see there now.

David



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

Sorry Jan, cannot find the proposal page quickly. But I think we may be
arguing about the meaning of designated ?

If a commercial operation 'allows' its park or courtyard to be used this
way, then I'd suggest they are, to some degree 'designating' it. Just by
not moving people on.

In the same way extensive use a tag in OSM makes it 'official'.

Under my category scheme, we don't use the word designated at all. We
describe just what is apparently there. Perhaps an extra tag needs be
developed to indicate its less formal basis but I am not sure of even
that. Please look at the words again -

  David's model (camp_site=* ) -
 Basic = nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park
  a vehicle.
 Standard = Basic + toilets and water
 Serviced = Standard + shower + power
 Fully_Serviced = Serviced + camp kitchen + Laundry
 Deluxe = Fully_Serviced + swimming pool/restaurant

David

On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 22:53 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 In Africa they are non-designated. We have had situations in Ethiopia
 and Tanzania that the campsite was invented on the spot. The picture
 in the proposal gives a feeling what I am talking about. The site is
 the parking or the courtyard, no designated space. On the other hand
 lists are circulating amongst overlanders with hotels offering this
 service. Availability and quality can change quickly, therefore I
 don't want to mix with regular campsites.
 
 If a hotel has a permanent campground with amenities next to the hotel
 building the run like a standard campsite it is not in the
 non-designated category.
 
 
 On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, 23:03 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
 wrote:
 On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 20:42 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 
  I really do want to keep non-designated as currently
 proposed. It was
  my main reason to start with the proposal. I understand it
 is not
  important in western countries, but it is vital in Africa
 and the
  Middle East. It is a site with the opportunistic blessing
 and amenity
  use of a hotel/ hostel, etc.
 
 I agree Jan, these things exist in Australia too. But I have
 to ask, are
 they really non-designated ?  I have used ones that sound
 pretty much
 what you describe. I'd think of them as having been
 designated by the
 land owner. Or at least loco parentis owner.
 
 In my category model, we are not describing anything about
 owner or
 business arrangements, we leave that to other tags. We
 describe only
 what is apparently there.  So, if its got toilets and water
 available
 via the adjoining business, its 'standard'. If not, 'basic'.
 
 David
 
 
  Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of
  unimproved? Summarized my preference is
 
 Yes, I suspect 'trekking' is the odd one out here and might be
 better
 dealt with in a subsequent proposal.
 
* Designated
* Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better)
* Non-designated
* Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for
 unimproved without
  blessing
 
 I am uncomfortable with words like designated, unimproved
 - they
 indicate we know far too much of the history and legal status
 of the
 site. Lets just stick to what we can see there now.
 
 David
 
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 09:42 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
 On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:11 PM, David Bannon wrote
 
 Are we better saying -
   tourism=camp_site
   toilets=yes
   sanitary_dump_station=yes
   amenity=showers
   fee=yes
  
 Yes.
 Because camp sites will defy categorization.

No, sorry, I don't think that works either ! Looking at a typical
commercial book that describes camp sites, you expect to see a list,
maybe a long one, things like toilets, water, showers, laundary, BBQ,
fire place and so one. Many of these are already in amenity=*. But its
silly to do on one node or area -

tourism=camp_site
name=Happy Campers Rest
amenity=bbq
amenity=fireplace
amenity=bench
amenity=waste_disposal

So, I'd need to map each as an individual node. A search of the data
will not necessarily associate the BBQ with Happy Campers Rest Caravan
Park. Thats just as silly.

Someone making a map wants to see one object with these attributes so
they can decide what to render and how to render it.

tourism=camp_site:amenity=bbq;fireplace;drinking_water;waste_disposal;toilets;showers;bench
name=Happy Camper Rest

Ugly but works in terms of associating the data in a meaningful way.

I think we still need categories in some form so that renders have a
hint of what they should do.

David
 
 
 But definitely add official there, or a least operator.  I want to
 know in advance if the tent symbol on the map represents a place
 I can comfortably stay without getting woken up at 5am by a farmer
 with a shotgun *
 
 
-Bryce
 
 
 * Been there, done that.
 
 
 ** Also add stay_limit=7 nights, internet_access=wlan,
 camp_host=no, network=, campfire_permitted=season,
 ranger_programs, website.
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

While loosing faith in the proposal, I'd still like to make it work.

On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 16:18 +0900, johnw wrote:
 
 Also - as Martin mentioned - how is the fee associated with the
 grounds change their usage?  All the car camping grounds in Japan are
 private businesses. They all charge a fee. They look almost exactly
 like a state (public) campground camp in the US. But they are private.
 the fee should just be the standard fee= tag

But you would not oppose the proposal because a particular category does
not exist where you live/travel ?

Here in Australia (and other parts of the world) there really is a
different type of camp ground. Its typically provided by local council
or a local community (wanting to attract visitors). It will have no fee,
request a donation or a nominal fee of a few dollars. Its nothing like
the camp grounds you are thinking about and needs to be described
differently. Pitches are not defined, you park where you like and
therefore usually with plenty of space between neighbours. Few or no
services, no staff. Arguably more suited to caravans or motor homes than
tents. There is a monthly magazines devoted to the subject. I have a
book with 3700 listings. 

While it may be beyond some list member's experience, it exists !

David


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



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 11:06 +1100, Warin wrote:

 No, not a decision for the render but information for the end user .. the 
 most important pero=son is the end user!
 'Customers' first!  :-)
I don't think there are too many end users who look up the raw data!

 The map user wants to search for the closest camp sites and then select for 
 the features they want.
Agreed, whole heartedly !

 None= nothing other than an area to pitch a tent or park a vehicle.
 Basic = None + a toilet
 Standard = Basic + water
 Comfort = Standard + shower
 First Class = Comfort + cloths washing (+ power?)
 Luxury =Comfort + camp kitchen/swimming pool/restaurant

And a camp ground that has a pool but no cloths washing facility ? Is
the water drinkable ?

BBQ, fire places, defined 'pitches', metered/unmetered power, disabled
toilets, shade, grass, cooking facilities, rec room, launching ramp,
fish cleaning facilities, internet access, pets allowed/not, child/dog
minding capability, credit card facilities .

Need a category system, for sure, but need a lot of extra data not
implied by the category.

 ---
 There is a similar proposal for hotels
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Awards_and_ratings

I think the range, the size of the matrix, is smaller for hotels.

 Get off your unrealistic expectations of instantaneous correct data 
Yeah, agree, we are mapping a real world ! Its analogue and it changes.

David


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

OK, I'm struggling. I started answering Dave S's stuff (below) and
realised I was really arguing away the who catagory approach. Sigh.

Are we better saying -

tourism=camp_site
toilets=yes
sanitary_dump_station=yes
amenity=showers
fee=yes

tourism=camp_site
toilets=no
sanitary_dump_station=no
fee=no

and so on.

And just live with it like that ?  I really like the category approach
but worry that we are not going to make it work. What would need to
happen is to improve the documentation for the tourism=camp_site and,
then, maybe fill in a few missing tags. That interestingly, is where we
were some months ago and saw the spin out of sanitary_dump_station= and
waste= proposals. 

David

On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 07:43 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:


  Many Alaskan campgrounds do have showers 

Wow, I have a picture of camping in Alaska, cold !

 Martin says:
 I don't like the idea that a designated camp site has to be
 non-commercial, I'd rather tag that aspect with the fee key.
Yes, I agree with Martin. But silly to put dollar amounts in.
fee=nominal; fee=yes; fee=no; fee=donation

 To me, and I think others agree, designated means official. Any place
 where people camp in a specially prepared environment has been
 designated at some point, either by the government or a business
 owner; designated to be a campground. To base an entire category on
 this term is misleading IMO.

This spot is designated as a camping spot, now look at the other tags
to tell you what sort of camp it is.  Maybe its fee for service, maybe
its got toilets and showers. Hmm, I'm arguing to let the other tags tell
the story, not what I want to do.
 
 
 @Jan - yes, I suppose the camping areas I'm talking about could be
 category #2 if you get rid of the adjective nominal for the fee.
 Just say they may be free or charge a fee because these days camping
 fees are anything but nominal, at least in my opinion.

Here, we may commonly pay between $25 and $45 a night for a powered site
expecting to find toilets and hot showers available. The ones I consider
'nominal' will be charging anything from a coin donation up to, maybe,
$10 a night. Not much overlap there.
 
 
 I say get rid of #6 entirely. Tagging an entire state as an area where
 camping is permitted, like Alaska, is problematical at best.
Yes, agree.
 
 




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

Re: [Tagging] Loomio evaluation

[David Bannon]

On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 19:07 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:


 We'll definitely need to find a smart and soft way to attract people
 to a different platform. 

I think its better than the email list. For a number of reasons. And
while the list also wins a couple of points, overall, Loomio is better.

But I don't think its better by enough to drag everyone over there to
use it. To make people abandon something they are comfortable with, it
needs to be heaps better and current system needs to have some major
problem. And I don't think that is the case.

I would be willing to move but not so much I'd pressure others to go
there as well.

David


 However, though I agree that email is not the best tool, we need a
 very good alternative rather than a marginally better option first.
 
 On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 OSM is a very large community with much accumulated knowledge
 and
 skill - it's bound to be quite conservative, and for good
 reason. The
 challenge is to allow experimental innovations to breathe
 without
 disrupting the community. We'll never be able to organise a
 vote (ha!)
 to switch to loomio all at once. But if we decide Loomio is
 worth
 trying, maybe we can experimentally agree to use it to
 negotiate some
 small tagging subproject, in a particular tag namespace.
 (indoor
 tagging might be a good example?) Then inch by inch we see
 what works.
 
 Dan
 
 
 2015-03-23 0:18 GMT+00:00 Dave Swarthout
 daveswarth...@gmail.com:
  I'll second the notion that we need something better than
 the current
  system. It is an anachronism!
 
  My first look at Loomio was good, I was impressed, but my
 immediate thought
  was, it'll never get accepted into OSM
 
  On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Dan S danstowell
 +o...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  It's interesting. I hadn't realised it's open-source too,
 so osm could
  run its own version of it if we wanted to.
 
  Dan
 
  2015-03-20 22:38 GMT+00:00 Kotya Karapetyan
 kotya.li...@gmail.com:
   Dear all,
  
   In an attempt to find a better tool for our proposal
 discussions, Loomio
   has
   been mentioned. At the very first glance it looks like a
 feasible
   alternative to the mailing list and the forum.
  
   Let's take a look together:
   https://www.loomio.org/g/tknueHrw/osm-tagging
  
   And let me know if you want to check the coordinator
 role.
  
   Cheers,
   Kotya
  
   ___
   Tagging mailing list
   Tagging@openstreetmap.org
   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
  
 
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 
 
 
  --
  Dave Swarthout
  Homer, Alaska
  Chiang Mai, Thailand
  Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
 
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

[David Bannon]

On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 15:04 +0100, fly wrote:

 as long as there is no alternative for offline support we need email.

Fly, once registered as a Loomio user, you can still choose to receive
and respond to email, maybe without ever actually logging into the
Loomio interface again (?).

 Please also have in mind the amount of traffic between plain text and html.

True, but perhaps made up for by not including long histories in each
message. And the messages seem to be RFC compliant, no long lines for
example !

 We did not talk about security issues and scripts, yet.

??

David


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 19:12 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
 The majority of campgrounds United States parks are not guarded,
Agree, guarded is not a very friendly word !

  and almost never fully staffed. 
yes, fully staffed implies 24/7 or thereabouts. We need to include
parks where some supervisor calls in from time to time. But issue here
is that there is someone, possibly off site, possibly not around when
you need them. But they exist.

  Hot showers are a luxury and a few camp_sites have them, most do
 not.

Gee, you pay a 'significant' fee and don't get hot showers ?  But you do
get electricity ?

 
 Rather than stating these sorts of things as a minimum requirement,
 let them be mentioned as optional
Yep.

Martin is unhappy with the word designated. I don't think its great
but cannot suggest another. Here we say free camps but use the word
free as in free speech, not free beer and it causes a lot of
confusion.

I am happy with camp_site=informal (unlike Martin), pretty much 
says what it is supposed to say. I expect it would be rendered
differently or not at all in most cases. We could make that clearer in
the text ?

David

 




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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

Just to make sure we are all singing from the same hymn book, here is a
table summarising the differences between these different camp sites.
Sorry if you are not using fixed spacing fonts, you should !

  StandardDesignated Trekking Informal 
Fee   Significant No/Nominal   ?No
Toilets   Yes Possibly No   No
Power Usually Rarely   No   No
Water Yes SometimesMaybeNo
Washing   Usually Rarely   No   No
Staff Yes Rarely   No   No
Pitches   Yes Rarely   no   No
Official  Yes Yes  Usually  No

Toilets should be read as Toilets/Sanitary Dump Point
Staff means someone in attendance at some time.
Pitches is a UK term meaning defined spaces where each individual
tent/caravan/whatever sets up.
Washing might mean laundry, dish washing facilities...

What have I missed, got wrong ?

My point might be that with so many factors, we are unlikely to see a
100% of campgrounds to fit into their category flawlessly every time.
Thus words like rarely and usually.

David









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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 11:19 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 If I would have to choose between the options I would go for
 full_service, but I leave this to the native speakers. If I get the
 same service and pay the same for a state run campground as for a
 privately run one it can be called commercial.
 
Yes, its a problem Jan.  I think most taggers standing in a camp ground
trying to think of a name would come up with 'commercial' first. Then,
maybe full service, serviced ?? A poor second/third IMHO.

I'm looking at Ayres Rock and Kathrine Gorge, two examples of full
facility parks run by National Parks people. The brochure from Kathrine
Gorge says fully serviced. Interesting, the campground at Ayres Rock
is in fact commercial, must be leased out !

Dave S, knowing the American thoughts on such things, are you sure the
camp grounds you are talking about are really run by National Parks ?
Or 'operated' by a commercial entity under contract ?

I think it would be a mistake to make another category of camp ground
that apparently covers the same user experience but just has a different
business structure behind it. But if the name sounds wrong, its wrong !
Hmm

David


 Is it a problem if tourism=camp_site wouldn't get the attribute
 camp_site=commercial in this case? It is the default and most common
 one anyhow.
 
 
 On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:03 AM Dave Swarthout
 daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote:
 I was trying to do as Richard suggested, that is, trim the
 other replies off the message. Screwed that up.
 
 
 It's not the definition I object to, it's the use of the term
 commercial. Regardless of the quacking like a duck comparison,
 the national, state, and forest service campgrounds are simply
 not commercial by American standards. That's why I was trying
 to redefine designated to make it possible to include our
 state and national park camp_sites in that category, or any
 category. I can practically guarantee that nobody in the
 United States will tag a camp_site inside of a national park
 as commercial. If I'm left with the definitions the way they
 are now, I'll simply tag them as tourism=camp_site and be done
 with it. Other amenities can be added to nodes or buildings as
 appropriate.
 
 
 
 Let's come up with a better term for the full-featured
 (flash) sites we're talking about. This recent modification
 is good but still needs work, IMO
 
 
  1. Commercial campgrounds: large sites for tents,
 caravans and RV's, offering toilets, showers,
 internet, laundry and dish washing facilities, a shop,
 a swimming pool, waste stations, internet, etc. They
 are often crowded, usually have defined pitches and
 someone is in charge. Commercial campgrounds are found
 in countries with a camping holiday culture like North
 America, Western Europe, South Africa and Australia.
 They can be run by private parties, but also by public
 bodies on a commercial basis like the campgrounds in
 South African National Parks;
 
 
 How about full_service, full_featured, comprehensive? I don't
 like any of these and only offer them as food for thought. But
 I cannot get on board with commercial.
 
 
 
 
 On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 4:37 PM, David Bannon
 dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
 Dave S, think you missed the list
 
 On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 09:19 +0700, Dave Swarthout
 wrote:
  Okay then, Your idea is to define the campgrounds
 inside of national
  and state parks as commercial ones?
 
 Well, its more a case of are you paying to camp
 there ?  And are you
 being provided with extensive services or not ?
 
 Here in Aus, camp grounds in national parks are
 generally more basic,
 they are cheap, minimal facilities. But some, at
 specific places, are
 more like commercial ones. So, I'd call the flash ones
 commercial, even
 though they are operated by Parks.
 
 
  I have no problem with that other than I usually
 don't consider
  government run operations of any type, including
 campgrounds, as
  commercial.
 
 If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, I reckon
 its a duck !
 
  Commercial

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

Dave S, think you missed the list

On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 09:19 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
 Okay then, Your idea is to define the campgrounds inside of national
 and state parks as commercial ones? 

Well, its more a case of are you paying to camp there ?  And are you
being provided with extensive services or not ?

Here in Aus, camp grounds in national parks are generally more basic,
they are cheap, minimal facilities. But some, at specific places, are
more like commercial ones. So, I'd call the flash ones commercial, even
though they are operated by Parks. 
 
 
 I have no problem with that other than I usually don't consider
 government run operations of any type, including campgrounds, as
 commercial. 

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, I reckon its a duck !

 Commercial implies a business run for profit, not a governmental
 administered operation. All I'm looking for is a category into which
 the majority of the campgrounds in the United States will fit. If you
 want to lump them together then the definition of commercial needs to
 change.

Yes, maybe its a case that the name is wrong. Not sure of a better name.
When you think about it, the camp ground it self (in those flash
National Parks) are in fact run for profit, the profit goes back to help
running the park, but its still run on a fee for service basis.

David




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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 08:02 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
...

 I hadn't thought about it, but we might use the
 tag camp_site=permitted_area as attribute of a country border (like
 Sweden) to show that camping is allowed anywhere.
 
Jan, not sure thats a good idea. Here in Oz, you would not camp
anywhere near population centers, only in the remote areas. There is no
hard border between where you can and where you cannot. Not sure what
the rules are elsewhere...

David 



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

On Sun, 2015-03-22 at 07:45 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:

 I don't think this is accurate. In my experience, designated sites are
 very similar to commercial sites except you pay a government for the

No no no !  Dave, if its effectively similar to a commercial camp
ground, it should be mapped as a commercial camp ground. I don't care
where the money goes, point is if full service, you pay an appropriate
fee, someone is in charge.

The description Jan has for a Designated camp grounds describes a type
of camp ground perfectly. Free or nominal fee. You come and go as you
please (although lots do set a max stay). There is no one in charge and,
naturally, few facilities are provided. usually don't have predefined
'pitches' (hate that word!) and tend to be a bit better spaced. Do get
very busy at times, sure ! Don't exist everywhere but I use them a lot
and they need to be mapped.

Maybe we need to change the definition of commercial cam grounds to
better cover the type of thing you are talking about ?

David
 
 #Designated campgrounds: sites that charge no or a nominal fee, have
 some or no facilities, sometimes limited length of stay, community
 feel, self managed. Typically less crowded than commercial
 campgrounds. For example locations in a community where you are
 allowed to put your motorhome or caravan. You don't pay but have no
 amenities or perhaps only drinking water and toilets. The service is
 provided by the community to attract visitors. France and Australia
 have many of such places;
 
 
 I don't think this is accurate. In my experience, designated sites are
 very similar to commercial sites except you pay a government for the
 privilege of camping there instead of a private party. The designated
 camp_sites I know of have almost as many services as the larger
 commercial ones, cost nearly the same and are certainly not
 self-managed. Nor or they less crowded. I'm thinking of the big
 campgrounds at American national and state parks. Yellowstone N.P. for
 example has several designated campgrounds that offer many amenities
 (recreation center, convenience stores, etc.) and cost $20/night for a
 standard site and $48/night for an RV site with full hook-up, that
 is, water, electricity, and sewage disposal.  These campgrounds are
 crowded through the entire season and some, notably Denali N.P. in
 Alaska, available only with advance registration. 
 
 
 
 
 How about this:
 
 
 Designated campgrounds are similar to many commercial sites except may
 offer fewer services, the major difference being that most are managed
 not for profit but as a public service. Some are free but others may
 cost as much as a commercial site. They are often located within
 state, local, provincial, or national parks.
 
 
 By the way, under Examples in #6 you mention default rules where
 camping is allowed any place it's not prohibited. This is true for the
 entire state of Alaska. And of course there are many state
 administered and controlled, designated, camp_sites as well. It's
 worth noting that these sites are not free.
 
 
 Regards,
 
 
 Dave
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

[David Bannon]

Dave, to clarify. You use the term 'RV' as meaning a MotorHome,
accommodation built on a truck chassis, and excluding things towed
behind a car, SUV or 4x4 ?

Here, we use RV to mean Motorhome, caravan, camper. Sometimes even
broader.

David

On Sat, 2015-03-21 at 06:34 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
 
 
 I like the idea behind this proposal overall but feel some
 clarifications are needed. In the first section: Designated means set
 aside for the purpose of camping, so that part is fine. But then you
 say:
 2. Designated campground (camp_site=designated) - areas that
 are made available for camping on a non-commercial basis,
 usually for an overnight RV or caravan stay, but that are
 equipped with no or few facilities and charge no or a nominal
 fee;
 
 
 if you reword it to say:
  areas that are available for camping on a non-commercial basis,
 often for RV or caravan use, and that have at a minimum facilities
 like toilets, trash disposal and drinking water. Such sites may be
 free or charge a fee and may be located inside a public park or other
 recreation area. If the site is only for tents or only for RVs, add
 caravan=no or tents=no,  etc. 
 
 
 you will remove the bias toward RVs your version has and expand the
 definition to include more campgrounds. This sort of campground, along
 with the commercial types, is probably the most common type in the
 U.S. If you leave it as is, the bulk of the camping facilities in the
 U.S. and Alaska will not have a strong match to any of your
 categories. With this definition there, you can discard the 6th
 category entirely. I would venture to say 99% of campgrounds inside of
 National and State Parks and National Recreation areas are
 designated, you cannot just camp anywhere. 
 
 
 Under Rendering:
 Your choice of an RV icon for designated sites is not good because it
 implies RV usage is the major type of camping at this place.
 
 
 Also, you say 
 Commercial and undefined campgrounds: Blue tent
 symbol Camping.n.16.png as currently in place
 
 Why do you use the word undefined. It's the first time that word
 appears in the proposal and has no . I think you should say,
 commercial sites or sites that are tagged tourism=camp_site but have
 no other clarifying tags, should get the blue tent symbol.
 
 
 Regards,
 
 
 Dave
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Jan van Bekkum
 jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
 I have updated the proposal with the feedback as much as
 possible.
 
 Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards,
 
 Jan van Bekkum
 www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl
 
 On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 1:55 PM, John Willis jo...@mac.com
 wrote:
 
 I understand the risk of confusion, but:
 
 A - if there is any informal kind of tag there would
 be people who tag particularly good sites to pitch a
 tent in national parks or whatnot with them, and
 though I can only think of a couple myself I'd
 consider good enough to map, people will want to share
 this as soon as they see informal is available,
 so...
 
 B - I  don't want informal - either turnout
 car-camping, hotel adjacent camping, nor random
 trekking camp clearings confused in any way with
 proper, designated, car-camping /tent camping /
 caravan facilities - and giving people a couple extra
 tag values is going the reduce confusion so the actual
 maintained camp sites are labeled and marked correctly
 by taggers. I thought about the few car camping (auto
 camp) / tent camping sites I'd seen in Japan recently
 and thought about how I would tag those, and the
 thoughts about tent platforms came to mind, for
 example, same with tagging their immaculate kitchens
 and amenities in another thread.
 
 I'm not a big camper anymore, nor campsite tagger, but
 I have been on hundreds of camping trips, covering
 every facility mentioned several times over (save
 RV/caravan sites) and there seems to be big
 distinctions between all the kinds I mentioned - and
 being able to convey those in tags seems relevant -
 though maybe my input is not as important because I'm
 not so interested in tagging those kind of sites.
 
 I hope my input was helpful, I will be voting yes on
 whatever is decided.
 
 Javbw
 
  On Mar 15, 2015, at 8:46 PM, sly (sylvain letuffe)
 

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

[David Bannon]

On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 18:23 +0100, Peter Wendorff wrote:
 ... sensible stuff about off line work...
 In an ideal world we would have one discussion platform that can be used
 by a mail client as well as by a web forum software. I don't know if
 anything like that exists, but basically it's the same concept, whether
 it's mail with reply-to headers or forum posts with some kind of a
 parent-post link.

Indeed Peter, it looks like Loomio can do that. I registered for Loomio
(using my google creds) and now get an email for every post. I can
answer directly via the email or follow a link to Loomio.

On the other hand, those wishing to see a reduction of incoming mail

David
 
 regards
 Peter
 
 
 Am 19.03.2015 um 16:36 schrieb Jan van Bekkum:
  Correct, but the forums are easier to scan through and search,
  
  On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:26 PM Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org
  mailto:j...@liotier.org wrote:
  
  On 19/03/2015 15:42, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
   Proposal 7 - use a forum instead of 4 mailing lists and a wiki (was
   proposed earlier).
  
  Then you'll have 4 sub-forums and a wiki.
  
  
  _
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.__org/listinfo/tagging
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
  
  
  
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
  
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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

Re: [Tagging] Wiki 2.0 Proposal: Unregulated voting : But you must convince another mapper to finalize changes

[David Bannon]

Bryce, I think this proposal is far to complicated to be developed on a
mailing list. And probably on a Forum.  Is it time your bare bones plan
move to a wiki page, perhaps as a Best Practice document ?

Then we can concentrate on each section, bit by bit and massage it into
something great. I do think its heading in the right direction. But
detail, always details 

On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 14:14 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:

Criticising to improve and clarify, not shoot down 

You have not mentioned the process before creation of a Proposed Tag
Page. Assume pretty much as now, default being discussion on this List,
a Forum or SE ? 

 This is a proposed new method of managing tag pages. It mashes up the
 schemes from Kotya, Moltonel, Hoess, and others.  In this scheme there
 are five valid states for a tag page:
   * Proposed Tag Page
   * Proposed Tagging Convention Change or Extension
   * Active Tag
   * Deprecated Tag
   * Redirect
 Voting on a proposal opens whenever the proponent decides it's open,
 and stays open forever.  Votes are not deleted, but horizontal lines
 may be placed in the voting stream to indicate alterations to the
 proposal.
 
Now, 'horizontal lines', an innovation. Do you see people re-voting
every time there is a horizontal line ? I may fail to do so because its
some minor change, unless someone trawls through the history, hard to
see impact of changes. 

What about the process to manage changes to a PTP (Proposed Tag Page) ?
If I make a change to a PTP that is completely contrary to its existing
theme, is it reverted ?  New votes deleted ? 

And if my change is just a bit contrary ? And so on 
 
 There is no specific vote threshold.  However, convention is that an
 active mapper other than a proponent must execute state changes (e.g.
 from Active to Deprecated or back).  Essentially the third party
 mapper acts as Judge  Jury, evaluating the full weight of the
 evidence from mailing list discussion through Taginfo.  As we've
 learned no one threshold applies in all cases.
 
Nice model ! other than a proponent ?  Note use of a not the, at
what point do I become a proponent ? By speaking up in List/Forum ? By
voting. By sleeping with original page writer ?
 
 
 Tagging changes may be followed by a retagging proposal, after a
 suitable maturation period, with a goal of keeping the data consistent
 enough for rational machine processing.

Now, that needs further details, make no mistake. Please elaborate.

 Each state change has a compulsory notification sent to the tagging
 mailing list.

I think each state change needs to be foreshadowed in the List/Forum.
And people given the chance to object.

David



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

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

[David Bannon]

On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 10:24 +0100, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
 On 18/03/2015, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
  No, I'm sorry but I don't see how an interested party can be expected to
  objectively determine what the discussion concluded.
  [...]
  No, sorry, but a vote and an outcome may offend some politically correct
  members but it is necessary.
 
 Don't you see the contradiction in those statements ? 

Yep, you are right, careless wording on my part.  The suggestion was
that discussion on the list; determine its finished; proposal goes to
(sort of) approved.  I suggested that a vote is still needed _after_
that stage, as current practise. So, yep, someone is still 'determining'
but its not the end point.

 
 I'm not sure why you see the proposed workflow changes as turning the
 wiki into an 'unmoderated' thing.

The suggestion was everyone was free to edit as they see fit. At
present, proposed edits are floated past the list for review. Drop that
review and its unmoderated IMHO.
 
 
  New users to OSM need to see the idea of 'approved' keys and values.
 
 I do not see that at all. Only after a few years of editing did I
 venture into the Proposal namespace on the wiki, and I was still far
 removed from the concept of approved proposals. Editor presets,
 default rendering, existing data, general wiki pages, and taginfo is
 what guided me (in that order).
 

Again, maybe careless wording on my part. Editor designers need to to
see .

I think the discussion has moved along anyway hasn't it ?

David


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

Re: [Tagging] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

[David Bannon]

On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 11:30 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
 On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 
 I believe the current requirement to add a reason for a
 dislike is important and should not be dropped by
 substituting it with a simple click mechanism.
 
Agree.
 
 
 Think StackExchange. 
 
Nice. But practicable ?

David


 Example:
 ---
 Tag bla-bla.
 Pro's 
 
 - Adds additional information wrt tag bla. [20 likes, 5 dislikes]
 - Makes tagging more explicit. [30 likes, 2 dislikes]
 Contra's 
 
 - Clashes with existing tag bla-bla-bla. [25 likes, 15 dislikes]
  Comment: -1 because the existing tag is historic and we may to
 deprecate it. [10 likes]
 Current usage 
 1234 nodes
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 ___
 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] Accepted or rejected?

[David Bannon]

OK, is it fair to say any non specific vote, one that is neither a clear
yes nor a clear no is 'informal', not counted. Such a vote was cast with
the intention of it adding to neither yes nor no so we should observe
the voter's wish. 

Note their opinion but not count an uncountable vote ?

David

 

On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 12:00 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
 I didn't mean to break the rules :) I thought I did count 8 +1's, plus
 the discussion shifted to other topics, so no strong opposition was
 expressed. 
 If Pieren and you really see more harm than improvement in what I've
 done, please feel free to roll back.
 
 
 I have a general impression that democracy should sometimes be a
 little helped by a strong opinion, when it minimizes damage. If you
 foresee a damage—feel free to undo.
 
 On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 2015-03-19 11:37 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan
 kotya.li...@gmail.com:
 Dear all,
 
 
 We have enough support to change the current math and
 no dramatic opposition. 
 I will do it in the wiki now. 
 
 
 FWIW, I didn't even count 8 positive votes that you said would
 be required when cast unanimously, but at least one clear
 opposition (Pieren) plus my comment that you couldn't change
 the rules this way.
 
 
 ___
 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] Fuel shops

[David Bannon]

On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 08:46 +1100, Warin wrote:

  
 I've come across regular filling stations without a roof. 

Indeed, absolutely no reason a full service or pump based fuel
supplier must have a roof.

Usually an office (or shipping container) nearby but pumps out in the
open is very common.

David

 Somewhere in Scotland.. on a Sunday .. no one there but a credit card reader 
 so I could get fuel. 
 Others in Australia .. White Cliffs,  Warburton, Docker River, Laverton, 
 Carnegie Station and many others. 
 The existence of a roof does not identify a 'regular filling station' to me. 



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

Re: [Tagging] Wiki 2.0 Proposal: Unregulated voting : But you must convince another mapper to finalize changes

[David Bannon]

On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 15:26 +1100, Warin wrote:

 if stinker proposals are promoted to Active, with lots of negative
votes. 

 How is it determined that it is a majority view? Vote? .. back to
 square one.

Possibly, but probably not in most cases. I doubt too many people on
this list would be dishonest in getting a proposal up. After all, its
would be easy now, anyone unaware of how easy it would be to make, say,
8 extra wiki accounts ?

Get a bad proposal up via trickery, its still a bad proposal, it won't
get used if its that bad. If its only a bit bad, and does get use, then
its the use that matters, isn't it ?

And addressing your concern about forming groups trading approvals. Same
answer. While we are looking for documentable process, it always has to
be open and transparent too. And dependant on the good will of the OSM
community.

David


  
 ___
 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] List v Forum - was Accepted or rejected?

[David Bannon]

One thing I'll say for Forums, at least the format will be consistent.
With our List users all using different email clients, with top posters,
bottom posters, middle posters, some (me) who like to thin down a
message when replying and some who like the message to just get
bigger

I'm starting to think a Forum is a good idea.  But Stack Exchange is a
bigger decision, I have not used it, who has ?

David


On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 08:53 +1100, Warin wrote:
 On 20/03/2015 4:45 AM, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:
 
  
  
  On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com
  wrote: 
  Also, if I need or want to resurrect the thread, that it
  typically trivial on a forum as you just post a reply. But
  if I’ve pulled up the old thread out of the list archive I
  will have broken the message ID information in the email
  headers that make threading options on a mail reader work
  well.
  
  
  That's true. Therefore forums are better than mailing lists. But
  they are still not good enough to make a discussion easy to follow,
  if it tends to split up or causes a lot of opinions.
  
  
  Cheers,
  Kotya
  
  
 
 The splits effect both mailing lists and forums... 
 
 ___
 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] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

[David Bannon]

Kotya, in no way was I criticising the leadership you have shown in this
matter !

Its just that I preferred Dan's approach. Key IMHO is -

* A proposal gets to wiki in much the same manner as now.

* Once on the wiki, instead of a formal vote period, users (eg) click a
like or dislike button and aggregate score is shown. For some time
(?). Obviously they can also edit content to say why.

Now, we don't have that content freeze when voting formally starts. Is
it a problem that I click 'like' and some important change is made to
content later ?

David

On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 23:57 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:


 Ahhm, not sure how it is different, but never mind. I will be happy if
 we all agree on a good solution, and I definitely don't claim the
 authorship of all the good ideas that have popped up here over the
 last couple of days. I just tried to summarize it in something that
 looked to me like a working solution. Dan, thanks for making a good
 illustration :)
  
 Quite a good one really. It meets my
 criteria  of giving a new mapper some guidance on what he/she
 should
 use.
 
 
 
 Good to hear :)
  
 Add in taginfo data.
 
 
 Yes: Opinions for and against are expressed in the discussions
 and summarized at the top of the page (e.g. advantages and
 disadvantages of a tag) together with the current usage
  
 
 And maybe a list of competing approaches so, again, its clear
 to a new
 user what the options are.
 
 
 It clearly belongs a see also section IMO.  
 
 
 
 
 
 I do think we'd need to have some (usage determined ?) end
 point
 however. Who is going to register their approval of, eg,
 highway= this
 far down the track ?
 
 I think data consumers also need a bit of certainty too.
 
 
 End of what? 
 
 Usage, as discussed in another thread, is a vague criterion. Two tags
 may have a full support of the community, one having thousands of uses
 and another (for a rare feature) ten. 
 For data consumers---definitely yes, and I suggest it being the moment
 when we remove the proposal status, so the page becomes a feature
 page. The moment can be when the discussion calms down (which can
 even be defined mathematically if needed).
 
 
 Sorry guys, no more spamming today :) Hopefully we'll converge to
 something good, so these discussions won't be in vain :)
 
 
 Cheers,
 Kotya
 ___
 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] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 22:21 +, Dan S wrote:

 So here's how I would answer your question of how would an interested
 party [...] objectively determine what the discussion concluded:
 instead of approved/rejected, some sort of visual widget on the wiki
 page which summarised the {{yes}} and {{no}} with something like 76%
 support [out of 98 opinions]. The poll would give a quick guide to
 mappers, and encourage others to chip in with their opinion - any user
 could add or remove their {{yes}}/{{no}} at any point.
 

Certainly a different approach ! Quite a good one really. It meets my
criteria  of giving a new mapper some guidance on what he/she should
use.

Add in taginfo data.

And maybe a list of competing approaches so, again, its clear to a new
user what the options are.

I do think we'd need to have some (usage determined ?) end point
however. Who is going to register their approval of, eg, highway= this
far down the track ?  

I think data consumers also need a bit of certainty too. 

David




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

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

[David Bannon]

On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 09:09 +1100, Warin wrote:

 I see no point in having a proposal open for voting over 1 year, those 
 that want to vote have done so, the proposals voting should be closed 
 and resolved.

Hmm, I disagree. Just because the proposal did not get enough votes does
not mean it should disappear. Mappers looking for a suitable tag can see
it, decide after reviewing its flaws to use it. And it may well become a
widely used tag.

My guess is the proposer was disappointed in the initial RFC response
and decided he'd not get the votes.

Remember, being voted in is just one way a proposal becomes 'approved'.
Wide usage is the other (main one). Having that proposal listed gives
users firstly, some guidance and secondly, a chance to decide for
themselves.

It is not easy to get usage numbers for many unapproved tags, perhaps
thats worth addressing ?
 

David
 
 The apiary proposal 
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/apiary
 Promotes one tag and list other tags that could be used .. It has been 
 in comments stage for a few years .. abandoned? Sorry but I see little 
 point in leaving a proposal open for long periods of time .. all tags 
 will evolve over time .. no mater what the status 'inuse', 'approved' 
 etc still means they may change over time .. leaving them as proposed 
 does little for that long term change process.
 
 
 ___
 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] Revisiting proposal/voting scheme

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 21:40 +0100, Kotya Karapetyan wrote:

  . would it make sense to change the current proposal/voting
 mechanism like follows?

 - When the discussion calms down (which can even be defined
 mathematically if needed), this very page is converted into a feature
 page. It is never approved or rejected, but the opinions are made
 clear. 

No, I'm sorry but I don't see how an interested party can be expected to
objectively determine what the discussion concluded.  If we absolutely
must measure data in the database, how can we do otherwise in our
processes ?

About the only way would be to count up the emails for/against. And then
discount the early ones as they would apply to early drafts of the
proposal. Try and allow for the fence sitters

No, sorry, but a vote and an outcome may offend some politically correct
members but it is necessary. 


 - People can add their concerns later just by editing the page. 

At present, people wanting to edit (more then typo) test the list's
opinion first. Thats important.
 
 The advantage of such approach would be:

  ...Adherence to the wiki idea, when the community develops a good
 page by working on it more than by discussing it; 

In my experience, a wiki that is 'unmoderated' very quickly becomes such
a mess its unusable. Fun for the few who know their way around it but a
mystery to everyone else. And thats many years of leading a technical
and very focused team using wiki as core documentation. 

The current system is not too bad. Lets correct the voting number
anomaly first. You did seem to me have consensus there but given what I
said above, does it need to be treated as a proposal ?

New users to OSM need to see the idea of 'approved' keys and values. Its
not enforced, we make that clear but a new user needs some initial
guidance.

Then maybe we look at the Forum idea ? 

David


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

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

[David Bannon]

On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 21:19 +0100, Andreas Goss wrote:
 ...
 STOP USING MAILINGLISTS!!!
 
 Those things might be nice for some tech savy people, but for everybody 
 else it's just as mess and feels like spam.

Andreas, I don't think email or mailing lists require tech savy. My 87
year old mother copes fine with some she uses. I did need to warn her
about using all caps and after that, she was fine. You are unlikely to
meet a less tech savy person.

 We are 100x more productive in the German Forum ...

Fine, then why not suggest we move to a similar model ?  I'm personally
quite happy with the list but would be willing to consider alternatives.
As, I'm sure, would others. But we'd need to be convinced it has some
advantages for us...

David


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

Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?

[David Bannon]

I'd suggest a large percentage of mappers are not aware of this list,
or, if aware, do not see it as relevant to them and do not subscribe.

I mapped for many years before subscribing.

David

On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 06:08 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote:
 It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and
 vote compared to the number of mappers.
 
 
 On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:01 AM Kotya Karapetyan
 kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi Jan,
 
 
 Your rule would mean that with 7/3 would be a rejection while
 8/7 an approval.
 I suggest to not only bring the logic back but also address
 this issue.
 
 
 I agree that it changes the rules, but why not try to improve
 them?
 
 
 Cheers,
 Kotya
 
 
 
 On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum
 jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote:
 I would like to stick to my original proposal. It
 brings the logic back, but doesn't change the rules.
 
 enough support is 8 approval votes on a total of 14
 votes or less and a majority approval otherwise.
 
 
 On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:07 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Am 17.03.2015 um 15:04 schrieb Kotya
 Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com:
 
 
  I don't think there is a procedure to vote
  on such proposals, so please just give it +1
  here if you agree. We change it when we have
  8+ plus ones if there are no significant
  objections to this change.
  Once again, please note: we are not
  discussing the consequences of
  approval/rejection, we just change the rule
  of thumb recommendation to a mathematically
  more sound one.
  
 
 
 
 I also don't think there is a procedure to
 change the proposal voting system and how
 votes are counted. 8 votes in favor of a
 change seem too few, and besides this, IMHO
 this is not something we should vote on the
 tagging mailing list, I suggest to announce it
 more broadly, eg on the national lists and on
 talk.
 
 
 cheers 
 Martin
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



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