Re: [Tagging] Meeting point
Amenity is definitely better. I used them more as a business traveller than as a tourist. On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 3:11 PM Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, that would be OK. On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 06:41:33 +0900 John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: I think the meeting point has a name beyond meeting point, so would it be okay to name I of it has an actual name beyond its function (even if it is East meeting point or Exit C8 meeting point if it says that on the sign? ___ 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=
Dave, I wasn't intending to have another try at camp_type=*. We'll leave on our next trip in less than two weeks from now, so I don't have the time. I also will be not able to complete another voting cycle until I'll be without decent internet again. Furthermore I haven't seen better proposals lately for the used definitions and wording than what is in the proposal now. Camp_type=non_designated is intended to be used under the following conditions: - Camping is legal, either because camping is allowed anywhere except... (like in Sweden) or because the land owner has given explicit permission (from my experience: police stations and mission stations in Africa) - The place has a practical reason to be selected for camping. This can be security or nearby presence of accessible amenities - There are not many similar places in the environment. Places *not* to be mapped: - A place you select along the road to have a spot before it gets dark (any other place will do in a safe country) - A place you select solely for its natural beauty (other places around; don't spoil it by sending everybody there) - A farmer or (African) hamlet that gave you permission to use its land if other farmers/hamlets will likely will do the same or if you don't want to abuse the hospitality of the land owner by directing other people to it I can see camp_site=basic and camp_type=non_designated got together frequently as camp_site=* talks about available facilities and camp_type=* talks about how the place is designated and managed Regards, Jan On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:12 AM John Willis jo...@mac.com 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=
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. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:56 AM Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: People can fudge the common to mean what they want, but without it, in some places that could mean every single roadside turnout could be marked as a campground - which would not be so helpful. which could become a problem in Sweden :-) since it is Legal to put up your tent almost everywhere. see [1], look for the paragraph I’ve heard that you can camp wild anywhere in Sweden. Is this true? regards m [1] https://naturetravels.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/wild-camping-in-sweden-and-the-right-of-public-access/ ___ 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] inuse, defacto
Why is it important? The main thing that matters is than only one definition exists for an item, irrespective of how often it is used. On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 5:46 PM Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: On 18.04.2015 09:31, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: So far we have 3 parameters: number of OSM objects, number of real-word objects, number of users. Let's put them into a formula in order to enable objective decisions and avoid edit wars. I don't think it's as easy as that. Other things to consider: - If there is an alternative tagging concept around, then the numbers need to be a lot higher. On the other hand, if a tag is universally considered a good idea, usage numbers don't matter as much. - A tag that is only used in a certain country or region is probably not a defacto standard yet (except for things that exist nowhere else). - Application and/or editor support is important, no tag can be considered fully established without it imo. To be honest, I doubt it's possible to put it into a formula. My personal interpretation of defacto is a tag that is used by a lot of mappers and applications throughout the world, and you can print it on a mug without having to worry that it might be outdated anytime soon. ___ 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] Money transfer amenities
Alternatively you could use brand=moneygram;western_union;orlandi_valuta On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:28 AM Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com wrote: On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 05:18 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: As an amenity it is no problem that it is combined with other services (like amenity=toilets), although here (again) I feel shop would be better than amenity. I would recommend to use operator=moneygram rather than money_transfer:moneygram=yes to be consistent with other businesses like gas stations. The potential problem with this is a shop can offer MoneyGram, Western Union, Orlandi Valuta, etc. at the same location. Both solutions feel a bit hackish and each has its own set of complications. -- Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Money transfer amenities
As an amenity it is no problem that it is combined with other services (like amenity=toilets), although here (again) I feel shop would be better than amenity. I would recommend to use operator=moneygram rather than money_transfer:moneygram=yes to be consistent with other businesses like gas stations. On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:50 AM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Shawn K. Quinn skqu...@rushpost.com wrote: The problem is that (for example) in the US, it's a very poor fit as there aren't businesses dedicated to just money transfer. Sometimes they will be combined with check cashing places (which I think is tagged with something else under amenity=*), other times your local convenience store or grocery store will also do money transfers. I used a USA dedicated money transfer store just last month. It was tagged: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbureau_de_change There are separate systems for high and low income users in the USA. The low income places do payday loans, secured loans, check cashing, loan sharking, auto title loans, focusing on the community that can't or won't use banks. ___ 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] Proposed features/camp type=*
The voting was officially closed by today, but I'll leave it open for another week. So far 13 people have voted. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I agree that we should not use the star system or six categories It is becoming far too complex for mappers and renderers. This level of refinement must be achieved with additional attributes or extra amenities in a relation. 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. Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of unimproved? Summarized my preference is - Designated - Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better) - Non-designated - Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for unimproved without blessing ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Straw pole Temperature=objective default unit?
As a physicist I don't like any value without units. The degree symbol is not needed, but C would be great: 21 C, 70 F. On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 6:43 AM John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: If it's 42 f, you'd go into hypothermia almost instantly. =} Assuming c unless explicit should be enough for mapping. Javbw On Apr 12, 2015, at 8:23 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/04/2015 4:50 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: On 9 April 2015 at 01:52, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Say a mapper tags temperature=42 Under what circumstances would such a tag be used. How would we know that the actual temperature is not 41 or 43? You want more detail? Say a mapper tags amenity=swimingpool temperature=42 Is that enough detail? The question is is the 42 taken as degrees Celsius or rejected as an error Presently 'degrees Celsius' is a little ahead of ' rejection' . Accuracy? really? in OSM? No dimension entry into OSM includes any statement of accuracy ... If you want a full statement of 'accuracy' it would have to be a statement of uncertainty with level of confidence and coverage factor. No .. you don't want to go there!! No measurement is 'error free'. They all have some uncertainty .. Reference http://kcdb.bipm.org/appendixC/search.asp?service=All For example NIST claim, in thermometry, for a liquid in glass thermometer at 'normal' temperatures their best uncertainty is 0.02 K (neglecting any contribution by the thermometer being calibrated). Note : BIPM uncertainties are adjusted for 95% level of confidence and approximately a coverage factor of 2. No .. you don't want to go to statements of errors and accuracy .. Instead .. what would a 'reasonable person' expect for such a statement of 'the temperature is 42 °C'? Most would readily accept ±1°C given the resolution of the statement. They may even accept ±2°C .. but not ±10°C. What would be acceptable for a statement of 'width is 1 metre' given in OSM on a path? Why am I wasting time on such a question? Because Andy asked. Suggest you do some research on it Andy. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Straw pole Temperature=objective default unit?
I would prefer a degree symbol. Otherwise you never can be sure that C is meant by a mapper from a F region. On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 4:13 AM Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: I think that, as for elevations, it should default to degrees Celsius. That is, taking the number 20 as a value would mean 20 degrees C. The tag could accept Fahrenheit if the numeric value is followed by a space and the letter F. Also, no degree symbols please. On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:03 AM, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com wrote: I think if no unit is specified then it should be taken to mean Celsius worldwide. To define the unit explicitly use n[.n][C|F]. We should also state that the degree symbol is not required (and maybe that it should never be present). At least, that's my opinion. Andrew On 9 April 2015 at 10:33, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Please indicate your preference a,b or c. (or d etc if they are nominated?) Explicit units are better than implicit. But there still needs to a be a better defined case for a temperature tag: there are very few fixed temperatures that meet OSM's criteria of verifiable. ___ 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
Re: [Tagging] New values for entrance=
Mosques often have separate entrances for men and women. On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 4:34 AM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Sounds good. Is there a similar dual entrance concept for other classes of building, or is this just a school thing? -- Many western buildings have a service entrance, but this would definitely not be for visitors. ___ 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
I don't say that tourist, scout, refugee should be outside OSM. My statement is that the group key (tourism, shop, highway, ...) is not needed, as all information is in the value (hotel, supermarket, motorway, ...). Attribute tags that give more information about the main key (opening_hours=...) remain needed. Something like this is absolutely wrong, because it suggests that a refugee camp is something touristic.: tourism=camp_site camp_type=refugee_camp On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 12:45 PM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 03.04.2015 um 12:57 schrieb Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: If the camp_site information 'tourist', 'scout', 'refugee' etc is outside OSM then the render/user has no hope of determining which it is. While I can agree that scouts are implying also a leisure component (besides eg education), I think that refugee camps aren't a part of camp sites that fit into the tourism definition (people traveling for leisure), neither are detention camps 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] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
Will it be clear for new mappers what the difference is between published and documented (i.e. someone created a wiki page that describes a tag without voting or one that didn't collect enough votes)? Wouldn't endorsed be better? On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:30 AM Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-04-03 10:22 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:21 PM, François Lacombe fl.infosrese...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, +1 with Bryce and published instead of approved +1 with Ole regarding power features Cheers François So let's see if we can make it happen. The question of what wiki approval means has been a thorn for a long time. The proposal on the table is to change the wiki status of Approved to read Published, with no other changes. The feeling is the term published is less likely to cause new mappers to incorrectly weight the tagging conventions described on the wiki. This change requires Wiki administrator cooperation and buy in, to implement. I like this idea. This will help reduce dogmatism. Does this proposal need a wiki page? (I'm not trying to be ironic, just asking) Dan ___ 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
This is an example of a more general discussion: the distinction between land use (what it looks like) and what function it has. Similar cases are being discussed for a building that looks like a church, but is not used for religious services or a reception desk that is hidden in a non-descript building, but serves to welcome visitors. We had an example in Johannesburg of someone who ran two businesses: car parts and a campground. The reception of the campground was in the car parts shop two blocks away from the campground. If you have this information properly mapped you know that you need the function campground reception, but you look for a car parts shop. Similarly as a general tourist you are not interested in a scout camp, therefore the function should be mapped differently. So the land use may be campground, but the function is not. Looking at long-term OSM developments one wonders if such a classification shouldn't replace the current key=value structure: in almost all cases of main tags the key information is redundant - in tourism=hotel tourism doesn't give any additional information, because there are no other keys that go with the value hotel; a renderer still may have a lookup table that links hotel, motel, ... to the category tourism, but that information can stay outside the OSM database. It even gives confusion (refugee camps tagged as tourism=camp_site is not correct; the ongoing discussion about shop=storage_rental or amenity=storage_rental mainly leads to confusion, just storage_rental should be sufficient. On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:08 AM, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: At most they will be access=permissive. Public implies an inalienable right of access supported by law. Permissive implies something far different to me. It means that I can walk onto the property without prior arrangement, and chances are nobody will hassle me. Permissive is used quite frequently for objects that are nominally private, but habitually used by the public. An fine example is a particular local rock park, or at least what looks like a park. It's not city owned, it's fully private, and correctly tagged access=permissive. The distinction between open to any member of the public with funds to pay and held in public trust is somewhat murky in OSM. The held in public trust lands can and do charge fees, exclude non-payers, and enforce compliance with rules. Also murky is proper tagging for open to members only, but membership applications are available to members of the public access=members is not established. ___ 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
Is supported reasonable? On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:41 PM Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: On 03.04.2015 11:22, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: The proposal on the table is to change the wiki status of Approved to read Published I would prefer to stay with approved. Using published would not actually make things clearer, quite the opposite: Using the normal meaning of published, a proposal is published as soon as someone hits the save button. The feeling is the term published is less likely to cause new mappers to incorrectly weight the tagging conventions described on the wiki. Placing more weight on tags that are the result of public discussion and represent a consensus among interested mappers is actually a good thing. ___ 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
One more idea: why do we need a binary outcome of the voting? Something like endorsement= positive/neutral/negative (the current approve, abstain, reject) as an indicator tells much more (together with tag use). Examples: - Endorsement=50/0/2 - very good, important tag (much involvement) - go on and use - Endorsement=10/0/1 - good tag, of interest to a small group - go on and use - Endorsement=35/4/28 - not a very good tag, but about an important topic - nothing better possible? - Endorsement = 4/0/3 - not a very good tag, but few people care - use as you see fit On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:05 PM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: Will it be clear for new mappers what the difference is between published and documented (i.e. someone created a wiki page that describes a tag without voting or one that didn't collect enough votes)? Wouldn't endorsed be better? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published
I like recommended by 25 users, but then I would also want to know how many users oppose the idea: 25-0 is not the same as 25-24. On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 5:14 PM Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 04/03/2015 05:01 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: I personally interpret a voted on wiki proposal as “recommended”. Ideally, recommended by 25 users, just to bring a perspective to things ;) But humour aside, I applaud the idea of getting rid of approved. The suggestion of published is not ideal but at least it doesn't suggest a too-special status. Another, similar, name could be listed - so something is proposed, and then once enough people support it it can make its way onto a list. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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 - Reception Desk
I will definitely use the proposed tag where applicable. The issue of adding a relation is close to the ongoing discussion about mapping amenities on camping sites: *Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites.* This is the only critically important aspect IMO. For a building hosting multiple organizations, there should be a way to attribute the reception properly. In many cases it logically follows from the location. Not in all probably. My suggestion would be to introduce the tag as is, and add a relation when possible. The tag definitely adds value in many cases even without the relation. 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] RFC - proposal page for camp_site=
Does any formal definition of a postfix to a key exist? A prefix in prefix:key like in abandoned:shop tells something about the state for the key. In a proposal like camp_site:restaurant=yes it means that restaurant belongs to camping (a kind of site relation in a line). In practice in this example tourism=camp_site camp_site:restaurant=yes camp_site:bar=yes would be the same as tourism=camp_site restaurant=yes bar=yes You need such a construction if you want to give additional information about the attribute, for example tourism=camp_site restaurant:opening_hours=18:00-22:00 bar:opening_hours=17:00-24:00 It is a way to use existing definitions of attributes (like opening hours for restaurant) for multiple namespace keys on a single node. amenity=restaurant;bar doesn't allow this. It is a clean solution, but I haven't found osm suffixes are set up this way. As far as I have seen osm doesn't treat postfixes in a special way: peanut:butter is parsed the same way as peanut_butter, in other words the complete key peanut:butter has to be defined, unlike abandoned:shop with separate definitions for abandoned and shop. Correct? info/tagging https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting camp_type=*
Corrected where applicable On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 3:33 PM Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure about the typo : is it non-designated or non_designated ? Pieren ___ 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] Feature Proposal - Voting camp_type=*
After an intensive discussion (see [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings) that has resulted in substantial modification of the content and scope of the original proposal please cast your votes for the reworked version. It has been kept as lean and focussed as possible. Proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D* Regards, Jan van Bekkum ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting camp_type=*
Hi Dave, Thanks for the comment. I have made the change. Regards, Jan On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:04 AM Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: Good work Jan. This is something I can use until the extra work is done to make classifications by amenity level easier. One small thing in terms of language usage. It isn't correct to say campgrounds are opportunistic activities. Campgrounds are a thing, a noun, while an activity is an action. A campground cannot be an action. If you change the wording to campgrounds that are opportunistic in nature (or in character) that will make it grammatically correct. Cheers, Dave On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: After an intensive discussion (see [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings) that has resulted in substantial modification of the content and scope of the original proposal please cast your votes for the reworked version. It has been kept as lean and focussed as possible. Proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D* Regards, Jan van Bekkum ___ 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
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
I decided not to include the scout camp, because it then still might be confused with a place where ordinary campers can stay (like is the case with all options in the proposal). After the long discussion I have tried to keep the proposal as clean and simple as possible. I hope someone else will stand up to kick off the camp_site=* proposal for facility levels. On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:03 AM johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: On Mar 30, 2015, at 8:49 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/03/2015 10:14 AM, David Bannon wrote: I note you did not do 'scout camp' on there. Its equally specialised but a different special I think ?? Hmm David 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? From that perspective .. not something I'd map. If they are permanent (repetitive even) then I'd map it .. but access=? It’s access=private with operator= or something. Scout Camps can be huge, with hundreds of people visiting year after year, they become local, sometimes regional, landmarks. And often times, even with smaller ones, the reason the people are going to the area is because there is a scout camp. The public map available for the California state park near my house clearly labels the Boy Scout camp in the middle of it (with “private” under the name, I think) because so many people are familiar with it’s location. It might also be a labeled feature on USGS topo maps, but I could be wrong. They are just private facilities, but they should be properly tagged as a camp site, as people drive long distances to take scouts there, so they should be searchable and routable. 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule
I just followed the post voting instructions that ask for the listing. There is no condition for a minimal number of votes. I believe it is good to have a single list with all approved tags. On Sun, Mar 29, 2015, 12:48 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 28.03.2015 um 22:12 schrieb Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com: You have to edit the Map Features template. yes, but map features are only the most used tags and not every tag that gets approved by 10 people in the wiki, indeed, map features contain tags that never have been voted but are still established 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule
Hello Ole, I see your point, but it would have been nice if you would have let me know that you removed the entry. Regards, Jan On Sun, Mar 29, 2015, 13:11 Ole Nielsen on-...@xs4all.nl wrote: I'm the one who reverted your edit to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:power The power features template isn't the appropriate place for this tag. The template includes important power infrastructure features such as power=line and some of the most essential attribute tags to these features such as voltage=*. Your proposed tag clearly doesn't belong there since it's not intended to be used with power features. It seems like it is rather to be used together with tourism=camp_site and similar features. Therefore it should be documented on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Camp_site . I see that there are already various other attributes defined on that page and it would be natural to include your tag there as well. Ole / opani On 28/03/2015 22:35, Jan van Bekkum wrote: I did that, but somebody reversed it without telling me. I now put it in the tourism section. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:14 PM Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com mailto:www.ha...@gmail.com wrote: You have to edit the Map Features template. Michał On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I can't find how I get this in Map_Features. Can anybody help? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:04 PM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: The voting period is over. The proposal collected 10 approvals and 2 rejects. Therefore I moved it to state approved: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/__wiki/Power_supply:schedule http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_supply:schedule Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, Jan van Bekkum www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl http://www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: The set voting period is over. The proposal collected 7 approval votes, and 2 oppose votes (one without comment). I have extended the voting period for another week. Regards, Jan On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:15 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 16/03/2015 9:41 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 11:14 +0100, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: Where in the rules is the only persons who have participated previously allowed to vote? It most certainly does not say that. On the other hand, sitting back and only being involved to vote 'no' is - 1. Bad manners. And any community has many unwritten manners rules. 2. Unproductive. Lot of well meaning effort goes into a proposal, where is the pleasure in killing it, apparently just for the sake of killing it ? There is a lot more benefit in improving a tag. Please use the comments/draft time to do that. I would oppose firm rules like Jorg mentioned but, like any community, we need to indicate clearly just what bad manners are ! Perhaps a short para on good manners on the voting page ? Best Practice? And it needs to be for the draft/comments section. With an expansion on the voting section? David _ 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 mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.__org/listinfo/tagging https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _ 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
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D*. Regards, ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule
I did that, but somebody reversed it without telling me. I now put it in the tourism section. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:14 PM Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com wrote: You have to edit the Map Features template. Michał On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I can't find how I get this in Map_Features. Can anybody help? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:04 PM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: The voting period is over. The proposal collected 10 approvals and 2 rejects. Therefore I moved it to state approved: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_supply:schedule Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, Jan van Bekkum www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: The set voting period is over. The proposal collected 7 approval votes, and 2 oppose votes (one without comment). I have extended the voting period for another week. Regards, Jan On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:15 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 16/03/2015 9:41 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 11:14 +0100, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: Where in the rules is the only persons who have participated previously allowed to vote? It most certainly does not say that. On the other hand, sitting back and only being involved to vote 'no' is - 1. Bad manners. And any community has many unwritten manners rules. 2. Unproductive. Lot of well meaning effort goes into a proposal, where is the pleasure in killing it, apparently just for the sake of killing it ? There is a lot more benefit in improving a tag. Please use the comments/draft time to do that. I would oppose firm rules like Jorg mentioned but, like any community, we need to indicate clearly just what bad manners are ! Perhaps a short para on good manners on the voting page ? Best Practice? And it needs to be for the draft/comments section. With an expansion on the voting section? 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites
What if I know the camp site has a showers, a swimming pool and a dump station, but I don't know where on the site they are? Thus: *tourism=camp_site* *showers=yes* *swimming_pool=yes* *dump_station=yes* It means that you create new tags for objects for which approved tags already exist, such as amenity=shower and leisure=swimming pool, this is not a good practice. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites
Conclusion for my own mapping efforts from the discussion so far: start with stacked amenities until you know something about the campsite topology, then make nodes/polygons per amenity. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:58 PM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 28.03.2015 um 12:26 schrieb Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com: 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 ? +1, IMHO the ideal mapping should be an area for the camp site, and features should be mapped inside this area as objects on their own (i.e. no need to repeat those as attributes on the camp site). A specialized camping map could see from the data which features are available on a certain site (because this information is spatially available) On the other hand this requires some processing / advanced querying and might be too expensive for general maps, so a basic scheme with rough site types for the camp site object ((1-2 attributes should be sufficient) seem reasonable as well. 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
Hi Dave, I agree with that. I am thinking about camp_type=*. Also usable for scout camps? On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 11:11 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Some participants in this discussion feel we are making little progress. The cause is that contributors have two different agenda's: 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. 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
Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites
What do I see on the map when I use the stacked amenity model? A campsite symbol with a restaurant below it or a restaurant symbol with a campsite below it? A search in OsmAnd will give me the campsite in all cases, but it cannot always show all tags below it, so I don't know all amenities by looking at the node. If I have separate nodes I always see them all. If I (roughly) know the camping perimeter I can place the amenities as nodes or buildings within them. Having three nodes close together but not at the exact location is not worse than having a single stacked node which isn't a the exact place either. If you don't know the perimeter at all draw something that clearly isn't the real shape ( a small square or a circle) and put all nodes within it. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 1:34 AM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: OR .. you could place each node of the separate features close together with a fixme tag on them ... This way you don't need two systems for tagging the same thing. And it makes it easier for a mapper to move them to the correct location when they are found. And it conveys the information and being spacialy close they indicate that the loctions are not absolutely correct. ANd the renders don't need to recognise two different systems for the same thing. The advantage of the single node approach is you can make a list of camp sites and their amenities really easily, and you can click once on a campsite tag, and understand what's there. Look at camp and caravan sites in New Zealand for examples of full on ammenity style tagging. -- I think piling a bunch of nodes in the wrong place is not particularly kind to the next mapper, or the reader. ___ 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
Bryce, This is not the right example. All tags in your example are attributes that belong to the camp_site, no need for extra nodes; you are fully correct there. What I am talking about is multiple namespace tags in a single node: tourism=camp_site amenity=restaurant;shower;bar;swimming_pool shop=convenience;supermarket What happens if the opening hours of restaurant and bar are different? What happens if I can pay with credit card for the campsite, but not for the restaurant? No way to tag that. Whatever we choose no new tagging proposal is needed for this. Option 1 (stacked namespace tags) ,3 (multiple nodes) and 4 (multiple nodes with site relation) can all be done with what exists today. I only ask of a choice between the options. Regards, Jan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
After yesterday's discussion I thought about the wording a bit more: - We can use *camp_site=opportunistic_hospitality* for the hotels, hostels etc. that don't have a separate camping area or amenities but offer a place at their parking and some way of access to amenities for payment and that don't advertise. In the earlier discussion we have called this category non designated. It is a long phrase but covers exactly what is meant; - We can use *tourism=camp_site:non_designated* for all cases that the area is not (permanently or ad-hoc) designated. This included the following real life cases: - Beautiful place in the mountains, desert or at the beach - no facilities, usually no explicit owner's permission (wild camp). We can add attribute *camp_site=trekking* for trekking camps; - In a country where camping is free (as in free speech) and free camping is safe: a nice parking in the neighbourhood of public amenities. From our experience: - The park in Tabriz, Iran as mentioned yesterday - The kite beach in Dubai as mentioned yesterday - we didn't pay there and didn't have to ask the land owner for permission; - The corniche in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, next to a mosque with water and toilets - free and no permission asked; - In countries where free camping is not safe: - Parking of a local police station, an option we had in Omorate, Ethiopia; - Area of a mission post school like we had in Tanzania; - Next to a village, like we had in Zimbabwe - we paid some money to the village's chief, otherwise it might have been not safe. The reason I would want to put it on the map is that the village was hidden and few villages were in the area. If we hadn't been tipped by other tourists we wouldn't have found it; - Standard campgrounds (permanently present, advertised, paid for or free) can get attributes to indicate the level of service (for example *camp_site= serviced*. The categories includes the basic overnight RV places as well as full featured campgrounds. I would like to make definition of these attributes a new, separate proposal that will result in additional values for tag *camp_site=**, Of course not every non-designated place is mapped. Non-designated places we used that I have not mapped include: - The land of farms in Turkey and Iran where we were permitted to stay - not mapped because of privacy of the owner and because the culture is that every farmer in these countries would allow you to camp; - Desert sites in north Sudan - almost any place there is beautiful and quiet; - Villages along the road in Sudan - can be seen from the road and every village would allow you to camp. If no strong objections against the wording I propose here come back I'll update the proposal as the change in meaning of phrases becomes confusing. Regards, Jan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites
This is a spinoff of a discussion that was started in the mail trail about the proposal for camp_site=* that is currently open for comments. I would like to limit this discussion to facilities for the entire campground, not individual pitches. Similar questions will apply to other situations than campsites. Certain amenities that are offered with campgrounds have their own namespace key. Examples are restaurant, bar, shop, shower. Others like toilets and internet can be attributes under tourism=camp_site. Let's take as an example a campsite with restaurant and shower. For tagging a restaurant plus showers that belong to a campground different approaches can be chosen: 1. The node or area tourism=camp_site gets one attribute amenity=restaurant;showers. Advantage: (1) evident that shower and restaurant belong to campground, (2) no new tag definitions needed Disadvantages: (1) additional attributes for individual amenities (like opening_hours=* not possible, (2) difficult to render 2. New attributes are created such as restaurant=yes, showers=hot, restaurant:opening_hours=* Advantage: (1) evident that shower and restaurant belong to campground, (2) attributes for individual amenities possible Disadvantages: (1) duplication of tag definitions for the same object (amenity=shower and shower=hot), (2) difficult to render 3. Separate nodes for campground and amenities Advantages: (1) no new tag definitions needed, (2) attributes per amenity straightforward, (3) no rendering issues Disadvantages: (1) not evident that campground and amenities belong together, (2) placing of nodes incorrect if layout of camping area is not known 4. Separate nodes for campground and amenities connected in a site relation Advantages: (1) no new tag definitions needed, (2) attributes per amenity straightforward, (3) no rendering issues, (4) evident that campground and amenities belong together, (5) acceptable rendering even if relation isn't properly handled by rendering software Disadvantages: (1) placing of nodes incorrect if layout of camping area is not known, (2) use of relations felt to be difficult by some mappers. All in all I personally prefer option 4. Opinions? Regards, Jan van Bekkum ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging method of amenities at camp_sites
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
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Hi Pieren, You are correct for most bush campsites where you stay mainly for the beauty of the environment. I have mapped those myself only in cases other reasons existed to map than. However, places you select for security or for availability of amenities you want to have on the map. This will be more of an issue in Africa than in Europe, but in countries without a camping culture you need this. In my earlier mail I have given a number of examples of such places that we visited. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:50 AM Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: We can use tourism=camp_site:non_designated for all cases that the area is not (permanently or ad-hoc) designated. This included the following real life cases: Jan, I really appreciate your efforts to find a consensus. But I couldn't agree on tagging such informal locations. It is so subjective, it can be set potentially everywhere in the countryside, everywhere you can install a tent. If the aim is to advertise a nice point of view, the risk is also that you encourage wild camping on the same place, increasing tourists attendance (and littering). The best location for wild camping is a beautiful and unique spot which was never used before you and will never be used after your night, no ? Pieren ___ 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
True On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:24 PM Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Pieren, I have mapped those myself only in cases other reasons existed to map than. But this is not what the first section suggests: Beautiful place in the mountains, desert or at the beach - no facilities, usually no explicit owner's permission (wild camp). We can add attribute camp_site=trekking for trekking camps; Pieren ___ 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
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. 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 mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
So, explicit mapping is needed. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:20 PM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 28/03/2015 1:48 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: However, places you select for security or for availability of amenities you want to have on the map so can it be deduced from other features on the map ? that would be a reason not to map it explicitly. Perceived security is not something you can determine from a map. Amenities ... such as water quality .. not mapped at this stage, no tags! showers inside a hotel (or other places .. like a roadhouse in Australia).. not usually mapped ... and no tags to indicate if they are available to non guests. ___ 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
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 https://plus.google.com/photos/+JanvanBekkum/albums/6130450615283723697 and enjoy. As you can see the quality of the places varies wildly. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:51 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com 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: - 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
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Our blog can be found at www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl, video clips of our trips at https://www.youtube.com/user/JanvanBekkum. Many places we visited in Iran and east Africa for sure are no campgrounds according to western standards, but if you need a place for the night your standards adapt quickly. We also had many superb wild camps (different set of images I am happy to share). You must have visited the place or have a report from earlier visitors to map it properly, but once you have been at the place classification is very simple and well visible. Most often we found the non-designated places from reports and blogs of earlier travellers (we made an overview ourselves as well http://www.deeindervoorbij.nl/camping.html), from travel guides like Lonely Planet or by just asking at hotels. We recently came in touch with iOverlander http://ioverlander.com/. iOverlander currently maintains a proprietary database, but considers to get the hard data from OSM in future. Soft data (visitor reports and ratings) and images would stay in their own database. As far as tagging is concerned I think it is quite simple. We have three main categories designated, non-designated and wild. As designated is the default it would not need a special attribute; non-designated would get an extra attribute while wild would get it own namespace tag. Trekking camps are in the designated group. Classification as proposed by Dave Bannon a.o. would be by means of an additional attribute tag for designated campsites. Any category (also wild) can have additional attributes to describe facilities. Examples: - Regular campground with toilets, water, power, shower, internet: tourism=camp_site camp_site=serviced (definition Dave B.) internet=wlan - A hotel offering to put the car on their parking lot and a toilet: tourism=camp_site camp_site=non_designated toilets=yes - A place next to a city park with public toilets (like we used in Iran): tourism=wild_camp_site toilets=yes On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:04 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
I am afraid we disagree then. After travelling around for almost 1.5 years and attempting to tag over 200 sites where we stayed, my conclusion is that it cannot be handled properly with the existing tags. That's why I made the proposal. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:23 PM jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me wrote: If it's there for years then it is a campsite no matter how it is advertised. There is no point in separating designated and non-designated. In my opinion those photos do not depict wild camping, you are camping in a car park with some facilities available to the public. The is nothing “Wild” about it. All of these examples can be covered by existing tags. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me *From:* Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, 26 March 2015 12:36 *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org 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. 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 https://plus.google.com/photos/+JanvanBekkum/albums/6130521674529892033. Reagrds, Jan etmap.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
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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. 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 https://plus.google.com/photos/+JanvanBekkum/albums/6130521674529892033. Reagrds, Jan etmap.org/listinfo/tagging 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
I can't find how I get this in Map_Features. Can anybody help? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 7:04 PM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: The voting period is over. The proposal collected 10 approvals and 2 rejects. Therefore I moved it to state approved: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_supply:schedule Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: The set voting period is over. The proposal collected 7 approval votes, and 2 oppose votes (one without comment). I have extended the voting period for another week. Regards, Jan On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:15 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 16/03/2015 9:41 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 11:14 +0100, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: Where in the rules is the only persons who have participated previously allowed to vote? It most certainly does not say that. On the other hand, sitting back and only being involved to vote 'no' is - 1. Bad manners. And any community has many unwritten manners rules. 2. Unproductive. Lot of well meaning effort goes into a proposal, where is the pleasure in killing it, apparently just for the sake of killing it ? There is a lot more benefit in improving a tag. Please use the comments/draft time to do that. I would oppose firm rules like Jorg mentioned but, like any community, we need to indicate clearly just what bad manners are ! Perhaps a short para on good manners on the voting page ? Best Practice? And it needs to be for the draft/comments section. With an expansion on the voting section? 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule
The voting period is over. The proposal collected 10 approvals and 2 rejects. Therefore I moved it to state approved: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power_supply:schedule Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: The set voting period is over. The proposal collected 7 approval votes, and 2 oppose votes (one without comment). I have extended the voting period for another week. Regards, Jan On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:15 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 16/03/2015 9:41 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Sat, 2015-03-14 at 11:14 +0100, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: Where in the rules is the only persons who have participated previously allowed to vote? It most certainly does not say that. On the other hand, sitting back and only being involved to vote 'no' is - 1. Bad manners. And any community has many unwritten manners rules. 2. Unproductive. Lot of well meaning effort goes into a proposal, where is the pleasure in killing it, apparently just for the sake of killing it ? There is a lot more benefit in improving a tag. Please use the comments/draft time to do that. I would oppose firm rules like Jorg mentioned but, like any community, we need to indicate clearly just what bad manners are ! Perhaps a short para on good manners on the voting page ? Best Practice? And it needs to be for the draft/comments section. With an expansion on the voting section? 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
As well. If you look in the original proposal you find different categories of sites in this groups. It can be the beauty of the place, security, availability of some amenities. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:27 PM jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me wrote: Those look fantastic, would you want to tag those as Wildcamping? Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me *From:* Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com *Sent:* Thursday, 26 March 2015 14:11 *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Fortunately we had those as well: https://plus.google.com/photos/111767853767854777895/albums/6130545866082686641 ___ 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
Fortunately we had those as well: https://plus.google.com/photos/111767853767854777895/albums/6130545866082686641 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
So far I have created different nodes (or areas if known) for different amenities and linked them by means of a site relation. The ones I typically added to the camp_sites I mapped are amenity=restaurant, amenity=bar and amenity=shower. I believe this is the correct way to do it as it allows for different attributes for different amenities. For example if the restaurant has other opening hours than the bar you can map that. The site relation tells that the amenities all belong to the camp_site. However, I do not know how this is rendered in practice. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:23 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Before I update the proposal let me try to summarize where we stand: 1. There are three main categories of camp_sites: designated campsites, non-designated campsites and wild camps. Non-designated campsites are important for countries without a camping culture such as Ethiopia; 2. All designated campsites have in common that they have been set up to camp and that you are allowed to camp there. We have discussed a further subclassification of the designated campsites in (1) standard campsites with more facilities, (2) basic campsites with few facilities and (3) trekking campsites. Also a star system with even more levels came up. The perception what should go in which category depends on the place in the world as well as personal experience and interest. We came up with a draft list of minimal requirements for the standard campsite. That list could develop to the criterion to separate these subclasses; 3. The proposed definition of the basic campsite is very close to the existing tourism=caravan_site; 4. A more detailed description of a campsite requires many more attributes, some of which exist such as (internet access), some of which have been proposed a few years ago (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site) but never reached the voting stage and some of which are completely new. The current proposal does not address these attribute tags; 5. No clarity exists how we best can handle the potentially many amenities that came with a campsite: amenity=aaa;bbb;ccc under the tourism=camp_site tage or a site relation with a node for each amenity. The latter approach has been in the proposal from the beginning; 6. A new namespace tag should be defined for the wild camp. It depreciates impromptu=yes; 7. In some situations large areas have been identified where parking is allowed, but without specific provisions for camping (for example in a park where it is allowed to camp anywhere at least 200m from the lake). This situation should be removed from the proposal as it is not really a campsite So the main questions to the group: 1. Do we want the subclassification of the designated campsites in the proposal? 2. Do we want to include ideas for new attributes in this proposal? Ad 1: I am still in favour of the subclassification. When you are travelling you will be aware of regional differences (I know how an Kenyan campsite typically differs from a German one) and if the classification is too difficult a high level of detailing is possible with attribute tags. Before I am off to Africa again I'll download all campsite related raw data. I would hope that the classes and subclasses would be rendered differently and that I get all additional details from the raw list. I would also hope that special interest sites like iOverlander would show all details I am looking for. Ad 2: I oppose the definition of new attributes in this proposal as each of them ears a separate discussion if needed. I do not want to mix the discussions. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl Before I update the proposal ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
What we discuss here is a classification of campgrounds. In addition we need tags that spell out available facilities. Those tags should be separate discussions (this is already complex enough to bring to closure :-( ). See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site for ideas on the tble. Ideas enough, but consensus... On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:52 PM Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 9:43 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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 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. Some of the criteria we based our holiday on, were the size of the pitches and whether dogs are allowed ( a number, not just yes/no) For other people the availability of animation for children is important (should be part of deluxe IMHO). Should all this information be available in OSM ? regards m [1] http://www.eurocampings.co.uk/ [2] http://www.eurocampings.co.uk/belgium/luxembourg/la-roche-en-ardenne/campsite-floreal-la-roche-101407/ ___ 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
I agree that we should not use the star system or six categories It is becoming far too complex for mappers and renderers. This level of refinement must be achieved with additional attributes or extra amenities in a relation. 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. Why do we need to keep trekking? Isn't it a special case of unimproved? Summarized my preference is - Designated - Unimproved (although I like the word Basic better) - Non-designated - Wild_camp_site: separate namespace tag for unimproved without blessing ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Using a relation in any case you see all amenities: when I find a campground on the map I see a restaurant in its direct neighbourhood, etc., even if the relation isn't handled at all by the renderer. I am not so afraid of mapping relations. The site relation is very simple. If I don't know the exact position of the buildings I just use different nodes close to one another; this is not worse than using a single node for a campground. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Dave, 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 ! This is correct for BBQ's, but not for big amenities like restaurants, bars and shops, which sometimes are and sometimes are not accessible for the general public. This is useful information. 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 ? Why can't we make an example then. Site relations are much simpler than relations for bus routes and turn restrictions . ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camp Ground Categories - Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Need to start another topic for this? That would separate it out from established, unofficial and wild campings. Makes sense. ___ 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
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
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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: - 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
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
In Africa we have been desperately looking for such places. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
I think the table is basically correct. I added showers, amended the pitches and added access hours. In Europe it is very common that no pitches are defined. Staffing=yes means that during at least defined period of the day (say 7:00-10:00 and 16:00-20:00). Usually you are not able to register beyond these hours. Guarded depends on the region: in Europe usually not, in Africa definitely yes. Standard Designated Trekking Informal Fee Significant No/Nominal No/Nominal No Toilets Yes Possibly No No Showers Yes, usually hot No No No Power Usually Rarely No No Water Yes Sometimes Maybe No Washing Usually Rarely No No Staff Yes Rarely No No Pitches Yes/No Rarely No No Official Yes Yes Usually No Access Restricted hours 24/7 24/7 24/7 *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.* I see your point, but do we have a better phrase? Basic? Overnight? *@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.* OK *I say get rid of #6 entirely. Tagging an entire state as an area where camping is permitted, like Alaska, is problematical at best.* OK *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 ?* I can see Martin's point. It is like the fuel discussion: you don't want to mix the regular filling stations and the drums. *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.* In any case I want to keep the separation between designated (in the broader sense), non designated (not much discussed here, but for me the most important reason to start the topic) and informal. We could decide to recombine the current *Standard*, *Designated *and *Trekking.* Indeed we could leave the other details to attributes. Regards, Jan Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Looking at the current definition of tourism=caravan_site it is very close to what I had in mind with camp_site=designated. So the updated proposal would become: - Designated - standard, designated (duplication of tourism=caravan_site), trekking in the current proposal; to be refined with attribute tags - Non-designed - as proposed - New main tag tourism=wild_camp_site ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops
+5 I fully agree with Dave! We need a clear differentiation between regular filling stations with large underground containers and the shops that sell a few liters of diesel of which you may hope that it isn't polluted and doesn't contain water. When I travel in countries like Malawi or Ethiopia I try to plan fuelling in such a way that I can use normal fillings stations. I don't care so much about the brand or the roof, but large quantities and protection against manipulation are important. The shops I only use in emergencies. So please use amenity=fuel for regular filling stations and extend the existing shop=fuel with attributes to specify what fuekl is sold. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:05 AM Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: I agree with amenity=fuel + a subtag like these (if needed). This is not the way to go. An amenity is something the *general public* might like or use or want to visit. These little shops are definitely not that. They sell small quantities of fuel, usually 2 or 3 liters, to local motorcycle drivers. And the Wiki's definition of shop is: A place selling retail products or services. Too brief perhaps but it does allow for a wide range of additions. Meanwhile, until the renderers get smart, people are going to travel to these shops hoping to fill up their SUVs. This is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. I do not see why there is so much resistance to adding another value to the shop keys in existence. There are some pretty strange special values out there: shop=bag shop=e-cigarette shop=fashion (??) What the hell does a fashion shop sell? Fashion of course. I wonder when the renderers will decide to deal with bag shops? 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] Accepted or rejected?
I can't imagine that people who are able to provide mapping input for OSM are not able to work with forums etc. Moderation is something you have to agree upon before. The OSM community can decide not to moderate. On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:53 AM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-03-23 10:43 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: The mailing lists are moderated. they are moderately moderated, you have to act in a very asocial way to risk moderation, unless it's the accessibility list, maybe ;-) 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
I have renamed commercial to standard as it is the most common campground and can include campgrounds that have all facilities of a privately run campground, but are run by a government body (like the South African parks). I also added details to the description of this category of campground (definition and examples). Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl 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
How does the tagging differ from an unstaffed filling station where you enter your credit card and fill up the tank of your car yourself 24/7 like I seem them all over the place in the Netherlands? In the situation you describe I really prefer shop=*. Regards, Jan At these places you could fill up your SUV tank and hence they are tagged appropriately. I add: amenity=fuel automated=yes description:en=A vending machine accepting cash in notes and/or coin that dispenses automotive fuel 24/7. Most are poorly marked and offer no other services. fuel:diesel=yes/no fuel:gasohol_91=yes/no fuel:gasohol_95=yes/no fuel:gasoline_91=yes/no fuel:gasoline_95=yes/no name=* opening_hours=24/7 payment:cash=yes payment:credit_cards=no source=GPS, geolocated photo vending=fuel vending_machine=yes ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Martin, I agree with the proposal to have a different main tag for informal sites; something like tourism=wild_camp. I guess some kind of RV/trekking attribute would work as well, What we now are looking for is the proper distinction between 1, 2 and 4. It should be one attribute key to distinguish between the 3 cases. Does standard/basic/non-designated cover what we look for? I don't have a strong opinion about 6. In the earlier discussion people felt it is important that is is mapped in some way. Regards, Jan Regards, Jan On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:27 PM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-03-23 13:02 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 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. to explain a bit more: we use designated in other parts of our tagging (access) as a stronger yes (i.e. signposted/official), using it here differently seems odd. Another issue: 5. Informal camping (camp_site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:camp_siteaction=editredlink=1 =informal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:camp_site%3Dinformalaction=editredlink=1) - locations that are not set up to offer camping, but are more suitable for camping than other places in the neighbourhood and therefore valuable to know. -- I think this should get another main tag, basically there is not camp site, there is only a spot that is suitable to camp from the point of view of the mapper. This should not be confusable with official camp sites. 6. Areas for example in National Parks where camping is permitted camp_site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:camp_siteaction=editredlink=1 =permitted_area http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:camp_site%3Dpermitted_areaaction=editredlink=1. -- see 5, these are not camp sites Also I see a lot of overlap, because different aspects of the same thing are packed into the same key: 1. commercial or not for profit 2. trekking or motorized campers 3. formal or informal places My suggestion would be to have different subkeys for 1 and 2 and to have different main keys (tourism=camp_site and new key) for 3. The part 2 could also be further distinguished (types of vehicle) 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 established, unofficial and wild campings
Dave, Wouldn't such campsites belong to cat. 2? On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 1:28 PM Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: Ah, Jan, you added too many conditions! The majority of campgrounds United States parks are not guarded, and almost never fully staffed. The larger parks have someone at the gate to collect money, but they do not guard the campers Most of the parks in Alaska work on the honor system: uoip ut your money in the receptacle and in return get a receipt to show the authorities. .There is usually a ranger station nearby that might send a car out to patrol the campground, usually to check the date on your reservation, but other than that they are almost invisible. Hot showers are a luxury and a few camp_sites have them, most do not. I dunno how to bridge this gap in our perceptions of these campgrounds. Rather than stating these sorts of things as a minimum requirement, let them be mentioned as optional On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I have renamed commercial to standard as it is the most common campground and can include campgrounds that have all facilities of a privately run campground, but are run by a government body (like the South African parks). I also added details to the description of this category of campground (definition and examples). Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl 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
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
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. 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 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 -- 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
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
What Dave Bannon says is exactly what I have in mind. #6 was intended for parks with larger areas where camping is allowed. I have made a few adaptations to the text to clarify the issue I hadn't thought about it, but we might use the tag camp_site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:camp_siteaction=editredlink=1 =permitted_area http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:camp_site%3Dpermitted_areaaction=editredlink=1 as attribute of a country border (like Sweden) to show that camping is allowed anywhere. Regards, Jan On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:54 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
For example in Sweden you are not allowed to camp in view of any home etc. On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 10:22 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops
There is also more risk that fuel sold for cars is more polluted or that water was added. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl 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
Thanks Dave and Dave, I have changed the designated campground as proposed and made RV/Motorhome/Caravan more explicit. For consistency rendering is now using the same (tent) symbol for all categories, but in different colours. I did leave in the 6th category. It will always be an area. It follows up on the discussion that camping in a large area in a park may be allowed (category 6), but that within that large area some popular spots exist (category 3). Regards, Jan On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:30 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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
Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops
There is a similar confusion for kerosine (US), paraffine (UK), petroleum (NL); it all the same liquid. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:29 PM johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: On Mar 20, 2015, at 6:19 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 20/03/2015 6:20 PM, John Willis wrote: I haven't had a chance to read up on how to define the fuel type. I imagine there is various heating oils, propane and kerosene, LNG, coal, wood, different grades of gas, diesel, aviation fuel, jet fuel, etc - even farm gas which has different taxes. How can those be defined - esp if a shop sells more than one ( like my Japanese gas station that also sells kerosene?) Read the wiki? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fuel Thanks for the link. that lists various octane ratings, LPG, wood, electric, diesel... It misses on various things as it is designed for amenity=fuel ... but has been expanded for amenity=bbq ... that expansion has not followed the same system though. well, I guess you could use fuel:wood=yes for a place that sells firewood, same with charcoal, if it was of mappable importance. at least they didn’t try to define the liquid fuels the same way (“gas”), and left it to us to add propane/kerosene, etc. You can change it .. or make proposals here. Just don't change the existing values and it should be fine. I'd think you'd be adding heating oils, propane and kerosene. I'd leave the avgas and jet fuel for later when aviation types want it, not something you normally see for sale. yea, I’m more interested in kerosene for mapping Japan. Propane in the US is for BBQ grills, right? as far as the heating oils they use for the central heaters in the eastern US, I have no idea what it is actually called. 'Opal' fuel is a special petrol that exists in 'outback' Australia .. maybe that could be added. if that is how it’s displayed, I would add it, as it is not “normal” gasoline. There’s another additive down there too, the adblue stuff. it discourages kids sniffing petrol and ending up without brains. Some people use avgas in their vehicles for the same purpose. there must not be a lot of stuff to do out there, I take it. 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] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
I have updated the proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* 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) lis...@letuffe.org wrote: dieterdreist wrote Am 14.03.2015 um 05:41 schrieb John Willis lt; johnw@ gt;: and mapping them for other Trekkers would be useful only if they are not confused at all with all of the other, more substatial or easily accessed spots in a camp or along a road. +1, I believe the tag for informal camping spots should not just be a sub key added to the same tag as for a commercial or otherwise official camp site, it should be a different main tag +1 from me as well. Too much risks of confusion of too different concepts. (Please note that I just discovered on that page the existence of impromptu=yes which imho should be warned against on the wiki, and given it's rather low usage (400) after 8 years of existence, could also be marked as proposed for deprecation in favor of another tourism=x top tag - -- sly, contact direct : sylvain /a\ letuffe o r g http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Sletuffe -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Tagging-established-unofficial-and-wild-campings-tp5834677p5837225.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.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] Fuel shops
Good idea to have such a tag, should include diesel for cars, kerosine for heating and propane/butane for cooking that are sold in the same way. I Kenya we have been in areas far away from regular filling stations; there people are selling diesel from drums. I think shop=fuel is dangerous as it is too close to amenity=fuel (which in my opinion should be shop=fuel). There are more discussions about things tagged as amenity or shop (see for example the discussion about shop=car_storage). On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:20 AM Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: I want to float an idea to get your reactions. Here in Thailand, and especially in rural areas, there are hundreds of shops that sell motor fuel in small quantities. Most of the population drive motorbikes which are used for every sort of transport imaginable. They have a tiny petrol tank, perhaps 4-5 liters, therefore a short range; they need frequent fill-ups. To meet this need local individuals have set up small sheds or kiosks from which they hand pump the small quantities needed. Some shops sell fuel by the liter bottle, often a whiskey bottle. Such shops are poorly marked, seldom have any signs indicating their presence and typically offer no other services. If you live in the area you will know where the fuel shop is, otherwise they're almost invisible At any rate, we're looking for a way to tag these fuel shops in such a way that they become visible in OSM (and on our GPS units), and will not be mistaken for a full size fuel service station. Current tagging practice is to tag them with amenity=fuel and a made up name, for example, Bike petrol or Drummed fuel. The people doing this are aware of the fact that such tagging isn't strictly correct, but they understandably want to be able to find those shops should they run out of fuel. One problem with this Thailand-centric approach, is that other data consumers are unaware of it. Another is that the informal names are multiplying rapidly and one mapper's drummed fuel is another's barreled fuel and another's Bike petrol. Where it will end is anyone's guess. I'm suggesting an addition to the values of the shop key: shop=fuel or perhaps shop=motor_fuel My goal is to standardize the tagging so that at some point these shops can be eventually rendered on Garmin compatible downloaded maps and hence made visible. I have done this for my custom Garmin maps and find it a real asset. Here is a photo of such a shop in my neighborhood: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABarreled_fuel_shop.jpg -- 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
Re: [Tagging] Fuel shops
I would prefer a different tag as I would not like the lemonade table to be rendered in the same way as a regular filling station. The tag shop=gas with subtag would be better. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:46 AM Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com wrote: I think they should remain as amenity=fuel (I have visited Thailand and I know what you mean). Local people will know what to expect, but for clarity perhaps subtags should be used to add detail and differentiate between a filling station and a lemonade stand selling fuel. On Thursday, 19 March 2015, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote: In Benin (Africa) these shops exist also – mostly only a table with some big bottles with fuel. 2015-03-19 9:18 GMT, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com: I want to float an idea to get your reactions. Here in Thailand, and especially in rural areas, there are hundreds of shops that sell motor fuel in small quantities. Most of the population drive motorbikes which are used for every sort of transport imaginable. They have a tiny petrol tank, perhaps 4-5 liters, therefore a short range; they need frequent fill-ups. To meet this need local individuals have set up small sheds or kiosks from which they hand pump the small quantities needed. Some shops sell fuel by the liter bottle, often a whiskey bottle. Such shops are poorly marked, seldom have any signs indicating their presence and typically offer no other services. If you live in the area you will know where the fuel shop is, otherwise they're almost invisible At any rate, we're looking for a way to tag these fuel shops in such a way that they become visible in OSM (and on our GPS units), and will not be mistaken for a full size fuel service station. Current tagging practice is to tag them with amenity=fuel and a made up name, for example, Bike petrol or Drummed fuel. The people doing this are aware of the fact that such tagging isn't strictly correct, but they understandably want to be able to find those shops should they run out of fuel. One problem with this Thailand-centric approach, is that other data consumers are unaware of it. Another is that the informal names are multiplying rapidly and one mapper's drummed fuel is another's barreled fuel and another's Bike petrol. Where it will end is anyone's guess. I'm suggesting an addition to the values of the shop key: shop=fuel or perhaps shop=motor_fuel My goal is to standardize the tagging so that at some point these shops can be eventually rendered on Garmin compatible downloaded maps and hence made visible. I have done this for my custom Garmin maps and find it a real asset. Here is a photo of such a shop in my neighborhood: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABarreled_fuel_shop.jpg -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com -- Lukas Sommer ___ 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
It is expected that most renderers only look at the namespace tag, not at the attributes. How do we ensure that I don't end up at a bottle store while I expect a decent filling station. I am afraid that we pollute the amenity=fuel tag if we use it for fuel out of a drum as well? We really should use a different namespace tag. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 5:46 PM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-03-19 17:12 GMT+01:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: brand=none or no_brand=yes to proper mark the independence. some independent petrol stations are organized in associations and use these as their brand, see e.g. here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesverband_freier_Tankstellen not being part of a mineral oil corporation doesn't necessarily mean you don't use a brand name. 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] Fuel shops
+1 The last thin I want is to count on a regular filling station and to and up at a bottle store with my 4WD. A that will happen if the type of store is an attribute, as map makers will show them the same. So please make it a different value for the tag, not fuel. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:11 PM Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote: On 19.03.2015 20:31, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: However I can see nothing wrong with amenity=fuel, that is what it is in that part of the world . What turns amenity=fuel into a regular filling station is the building=roof. There is a huge difference. You'll notice that if you end up with your Diesel pickup in front of a amenity=fuel shelf out of Whiskey bottles filled with gasoline. The quantity is even too small to substantially fill up a car. Those pumps from a barrel are fine for a car. We used them recently on a trip near Doi Inthanon. Filling up 500 Baht of Diesel was no issue at all. There is operator=independent. I suggest this along with amenity=fuel for everything which is suitable for filling up a car or small truck/pickup. This is to differentiate from big brands like PTT which usually also come with a convenience store/coffee shop. Vending machines selling petrol for cars also fine. The problem are vending machines only serving for motorbikes and those bottle-shops. I would like to avoid them being amenity=fuel as it is hard to convince every western map-maker to query additional tags before deciding how to render them. That tag is already too established without extra tags. Stephan ___ 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?
Proposal 7 - use a forum instead of 4 mailing lists and a wiki (was proposed earlier). On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:32 PM sly (sylvain letuffe) lis...@letuffe.org wrote: Jan van Bekkum wrote It is amazing to see how few people participate in this discussion and vote compared to the number of mappers. I will only talk for myself : I'm very interested in the outcome of this specific discussion about tag proposals, and I did my best to make my way thru the 6 threads on 2 mailing lists + a wiki page for a total of around 100 messages. But that is far too much time consuming not only to read, but to answer while it was probably allready answered in another branch of mail thread number 5. A mailing list is not suited for that purpose for the time I'm ready to invest. I'd welcome a summary somewhere (a wiki page ?) after a first pass of discussion about the, says, 5 proposed changes of the proposal process that have met a few supporters. proposal 1- Voting quorum upgrade to 15 voters proposal 2- 2 thirds approval required to have the accepted sticker proposal 3- Voting period extended to 2 month proposal 4- Remove all words that make people think the wiki process is somehow an official and only way to accept tags proposal 5- give free ponies to mailing list contributors who passed the 100 emails mark in the month proposal 6- disregard any previous proposal and let every one do what they want ps: do we have a process for changing processes ? - -- sly, contact direct : sylvain /a\ letuffe o r g http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Sletuffe -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble. com/Accepted-or-rejected-tp5837104p5837849.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.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
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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 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 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
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
Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.
Can we copy some of this: for other vehicles than mtb:
http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/4WD_Trail_Rating?
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:55 AM David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
wrote:
On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 16:39 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:mtb:scale
At grade 6, it's a list of things including a drop of over 2m.
It's fairly well fleshed out.
True, but the other downhill scales, 0-5, have no measurables except
gradient.
If we can have such a scale for MTB and dirt bikes, why not for four
wheeled vehicles ? Copy the style and approach ?
Incidentally, take a look at where that guy on scale=4 is heading,
crazy !
David
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:53 PM, David Bannon
dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 23:22 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
road_usable=car;4x4;mt
Tag what's there: measure something. Don't tag an
interpretation.
Bryce, please tell us how it should be done then. Don't just
sit there
saying computer says no. A drovers dog can tell this
capability is
needed. Look at how many proposals there have been, at how
many times
its hit this thread.
No telling what a drovers dog is, but:
highway=track
surface=dirt
constraint:cobble_size:sustained=15cm
constraint:cobble_size:average=25cm
constraint:sand:worst=30cm
constraint:side_slope:worst=22degrees
---
highway=track
surface=dirt
surface:variation={1-smooth,2-rough,3-potholed,4-rutted,5-deeply_rutted}
surface:constraints=steep;narrow;side_slope;sand;winch_
section;hells_angels
---
highway=track
surface=dirt
surface:mtb={0-5} (Tag segments, or add s for sustained or x the
worst case. 5s 5x is thus harder than 1s 5x)
surface:4wd={0-5}
surface:2wd={0-5}
surface:hgv={0-5}
surface:motorbike={0-5}
surface:width=6m
surface:constraints=steep;hello_kitty_gang;puncture vine
---
And I previously posed that a survey of users would help, as long as
multiple answers are allowed:
User: Fred, Date: 2015-01-01 Condition report: went right through in a
Yugo with two flat tires. Vehicle=2wd
User: Fredy, Date: 2015-01-02 Condition report: impassable via car
after rain, had to turn back at Big Creek, nearly lost it at cliff.
Vehicle=4wd
User: Fredyy, Date: 2015-01-05 Condition report: alien encampment at
milepost 23 - nearly ate my vehicle. Vehicle=spaceship
___
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?
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
Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.
Can we learn something from this: http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/4WD_Trail_Rating? On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:49 AM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: The biggest step ahead is that is now is part of the highway=* preset in JOSM with a description of the levels. I can certainly live with that. Using the tag is the most important, more than refining it. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:38 AM Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote: So - I am against any of proposed changes. +1 ___ 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] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.
Combination of 2 and 3. It must be possible to distinguish between vehicles. As I wrote earlier a stretch of road that is reasonable for a 4WD can be horrible for a motorcycle and vice versa. A scale in words very bad, bad, ... very good or whatever at least helps me to remember what the good end of the scale is. The first time I will have to look in the wiki to get a feeling about the boundaries between the levels, after that I should be able to do without. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 6:44 AM Ineiev ine...@gnu.org wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 02:00:51PM +1100, David wrote: Been a good discussion on new tags for smoothness=. Time, imho, to ask people to indicate just what they do like. How about a show of hands for one or more of - 1. Numeric tags, perhaps grade1 .. grade8 similar to tracktype. 2. Words that describe the smoothness - glassy -smooth -rough -bumpy - rutted 3. Words that describe the (wheeled) vehicle that might use it - Any_vehicle, city_car_bike, 4x4_mtb, off_road_vehicle, extreme_vehicle, none. 4. Combined: grade1 ... grade8 glassy smooth ... any_vehicle ... extreme_vehicle and grade1;glassy;any_vehicle (or surface_grade=1 roughness=glassy approved_for=any_vehicle). ___ 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] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.
The biggest step ahead is that is now is part of the highway=* preset in JOSM with a description of the levels. I can certainly live with that. Using the tag is the most important, more than refining it. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:38 AM Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote: So - I am against any of proposed changes. +1 ___ 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 - shop=storage
I saw that one user declined both my proposals (shop=storage http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage and power_supply=intermittent http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent) in the voting stage without any argumentation and without earlier participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Regards Jan van Bekkum Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: To avoid confusion the wiki page has been renamed to reflect the change of the proposal itself that was made before the proposal was submitted for voting. It now can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dstorage#Tagging . Furthermore I elaborated the reasoning for the proposal as it is a bit more in the paragraph Tagging. Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:13 PM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: There a move page link that leads to Special:MovePage, for renaming pages. ___ 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
I saw that one user declined both my proposals (shop=storage http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage and power_supply=intermittent http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent) in the voting stage without any argumentation and without earlier participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: As the period for comments has passed and no new comments have come in during the last week I would like to move the proposal to the voting stage. The entire proposal can be found here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent, the voting section is here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent#Voting . Regards, Jan van Bekkum ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule
Nowhere, but I repeat my question: What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Regards, Jan On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:16 AM Jörg Frings-Fürst o...@jff-webhosting.net wrote: Hi, Am Samstag, den 14.03.2015, 09:34 +0100 schrieb Jan van Bekkum: I saw that one user declined both my proposals (shop=storage and power_supply=intermittent) in the voting stage without any argumentation and without earlier participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Where in the rules is the only persons who have participated previously allowed to vote? [...] CU Jörg ___ 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] ?=maze
+1 to make a wiki entry on leisure=maze. Fits with what already exists and the alternative isn't really better. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 8:58 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/03/2015 10:04 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:57:28AM +1100, Warin wrote: Mapping a maze path would reduce the enjoyment of the maze .. at least for me. Even if it was a single path. spoiler_warning=yes ? I do not think that is necessary: #1 you don't have to loook at the map before going through the maze #2 GPS is not precise enough to lead you through a maze You say that, but I'm guessing you've never been to an American suburban neighborhood full of twisty little cul-de-sacs with no rational urban planning or terrain to justify such obfuscation, each more identical than the last. American mazes can be quite huge, often dozens or even hundreds of square kilometers, and I'm pretty convinced the people who live in them do so because they can't find their way out. Off topic .. for a small while Unfortunately they exist around the world Paul ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boxes + http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/MALVINA/mr094.htm *Little boxes on the hillside,* * Little boxes made of ticky tacky,* * Little boxes on the hillside,* * Little boxes all the same.* * There's a green one and a pink one * * And a blue one and a yellow one,* * And they're all made out of ticky tacky* * And they all look just the same.* *And the people in the houses* * All went to the university,* * Where they were put in boxes* * And they came out all the same,* * And there's doctors and lawyers,* * And business executives,* * And they're all made out of ticky tacky* * And they all look just the same. * etc * -- *Back on topic In June 2012 attraction=maze had 44 entries leisure=maze had 32 entries now in 2015 attraction=maze has 148 entries leisure=maze has 79 entries I think the continued use of attraction=maze is due to the good wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/maze compared to the poor wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dmaze which, before I edited it, redirect back to attraction=maze !!! - So .. Should I simply make a wiki entry on leisure=maze .. and simply copy it across from attraction=maze .. then make the attraction=maze redirect to the leisure=maze page (possible edit wars!) Or make a new proposal here ? ___ 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] Accepted or rejected?
The guideline to determine if a proposal is accepted is A rule of thumb for enough support is *8 unanimous approval votes* or *15 total votes with a majority approval*, but other factors may also be considered (such as whether a feature is already in use). This sounds a bit strange to me: a proposal with 8 approval votes and 1 decline would be rejected, while one with 8 approval votes and 7 declines would be accepted. I suppose that this is what was intended: enough support is 8 approval votes on a total of 14 votes or less and a majority approval otherwise. Regards, Jan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Therefore the proposal explicitly states: *Again: informal campgrounds shall only be mapped if there is an important reason to select the place over other places in the neighbourhood. If the place is a spot along the road, chosen just because it got dark, then it shall not be mapped.* On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:55 PM Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: Informal campgrounds exist in areas where you are allowed to camp anywhere except... (like in Sweden) or where no rules exist informal campgrounds shall only be mapped if there is an important reason ... Nearby presence of public facilities, Their security, Their sheer beauty, Remote sites which means potentially everywhere... imagine a similar proposal for pissing on trees tagged as informal toilets ? Pieren ___ 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
This is covered by example 2.1 On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:50 PM Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business would be. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can you please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage? Jan http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/02/2015 4:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: A strongly related discussion: tagging the difference between an official trail, and shortcut / use trail / squatter trail. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Link to this discussion? ___ 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
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
This is covered in tagging #5 On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:50 PM John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com wrote: I think it would be good to mark these, with a suitable description; prohibited, no, or closed perhaps? If it's still a landmark that people will recognize as a campsite, it can be useful for navigation, and it may help to implement the prohibition, in that people turning up there will have some kind of indication that it is not to be used for the purpose that, on the ground, it looks like it's meant for. __John On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: What to do with places where one cannot camp? Sure camp_site=prohibited or camp_site=no [for an icon: a tent with a slash through it :-) ] or even camp_site=disused -- 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
Ref1: good point. Any recommendation for the tags to be used? Ref 2: isn't this covered by example 2.1? Aren't the permissive ones at the bottom of your mail covered by example 4.4? On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:36 PM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Two issues I think the proposal should address: 1) Use separate tagging for a place you can park a caravan or car overnight (as per your example), compared to a place you can pitch a tent without getting hassled. They really are not the same thing. 2) Tagging large areas. For example default rules exist in the USA on land of the US Forest Service (USFS) land, or Bureau of Lumber and Mining (BLM). Camping is generally allowed anywhere it's not specifically prohibited. Yet within those areas are established informal campsites. It's not clear if OSM should tag these large areas with a camping tag, or simply inform the prospective camper of who owns the land. Regulations change from time to time, so it's perhaps best to refer the reader to the official source: the website of the owner, land agency, or store. OSM here is acting a bit like old hobo chalk marks, where transients would leave coded symbols to each other about places they found food or shelter. It exists outside the official realm. Readers of a map however should be clear which camp sites are permissive (e.g. you might get away with it) and which ones are official (a rule says it's OK to do). ___ 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
The statement: *Again: informal campgrounds shall only be mapped if there is an important reason to select the place over other places in the neighbourhood. If the place is a spot along the road, chosen just because it got dark, then it shall not be mapped.* On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:14 PM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: For the UK that is correct. In countries where informal camping is allowed see statement with supporting examples in the proposal. *Again: informal campgrounds shall only be mapped if there is an important reason to select the place over other places in the neighbourhood. If the place is a spot along the road, chosen just because it got dark, then it shall not be mapped.* On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:09 PM jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me wrote: In the UK Wildcamping is illegal, you have to request the landowners permission or face charges of trespass. There are two exceptions, Scotland allows wildcamping, not sure of the limitations if any. And Dartmoor National Park, again not sure of any specific restrictions. So, only officially designated campsites, mainly privately run, should be mapped, I feel. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me *From:* Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com *Sent:* Friday, 13 March 2015 14:47 *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business would be. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can you please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage? Jan http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D%2a Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/02/2015 4:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: A strongly related discussion: tagging the difference between an official trail, and shortcut / use trail / squatter trail. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Link to this discussion? ___ 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
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
For the UK that is correct. In countries where informal camping is allowed see statement with supporting examples in the proposal. *Again: informal campgrounds shall only be mapped if there is an important reason to select the place over other places in the neighbourhood. If the place is a spot along the road, chosen just because it got dark, then it shall not be mapped.* On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:09 PM jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me wrote: In the UK Wildcamping is illegal, you have to request the landowners permission or face charges of trespass. There are two exceptions, Scotland allows wildcamping, not sure of the limitations if any. And Dartmoor National Park, again not sure of any specific restrictions. So, only officially designated campsites, mainly privately run, should be mapped, I feel. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me *From:* Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com *Sent:* Friday, 13 March 2015 14:47 *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business would be. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can you please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage? Jan http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D%2a Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/02/2015 4:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: A strongly related discussion: tagging the difference between an official trail, and shortcut / use trail / squatter trail. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Link to this discussion? ___ 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
Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*
+1 On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:45 AM David dban...@internode.on.net wrote: I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos.. I think it would be a mistake to put too much emphasis on photos. In my experience, photos very rarely show the true usability of a road or track. It does really need to be looked at in context, the issues averaged out by eye. One, or even a set of snapshots just does not cut it ! And talking of issues, last time this discussion came up, from memory, we identified about 20 separate issues that might need to be considered. So lets not talk about trying to identify measurables. The smoothness tag, as described, already takes the right direction, it tries to judge the usability of the road. And, honestly, thats what people want to know ! Lets improve it with better values, sure a heap of photos if thats what people want. But clear words that describe just what sort of vehicle could traverse the road. So, questions, for better values, numerical or verbal ? Is it acceptable for a tag to have two, parallel sets of values, why not ? If we can get past there, we can then look for more descriptive sets of words David . Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos, which the community then segregates into classes. Smoothness on asphalt is something entirely different than smoothness on sand, or smoothness on ground. When a mapper is in doubt, just look at 10 photos which are determined to be grade3, and then you can be sure that's the right value. Janko ___ 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 - Reception Desk
- Of course it is not tourism, but amenity: it is not a goal by itself, but an amenity of something larger. There probably more reception desks at industrial compounds etc. than at campsites; - If you can't tag it as an area you still will place the note as accurately as possible where the reception desk is; anyhow it should be part of an area relation. We have been in situations that the camping reception was outside the campground itself, two blocks away in a shop On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:49 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: One personal factual example; 5 buildings with an area including parking, landscaping etc .. of about 2 square kilometers One reception desk. Yes only one. The node of reception desk is spatially within the area .. so 'connected' to the rest .. as are the car parks within the area. On 13/03/2015 11:25 AM, Andreas Goss wrote: anything that is big enough to have a reception is better represented by an area than by a node- IMHO. At the time I micromap the reception I'd likely also convert the node POI into an area So how do you now connect the reception with the area? What if you have different levels? __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ 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
I have completely reworked the proposal with all feedback received. Can you please give any additional comments before I move to the voting stage? Jan http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 24/02/2015 4:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: A strongly related discussion: tagging the difference between an official trail, and shortcut / use trail / squatter trail. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Link to this discussion? ___ 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 - Reception Desk
+1 On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:05 PM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-03-12 2:53 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: The level of opposition -- regardless of the technical count -- indicates the proposal can use some improvement. I urge any person getting this level of opposition to reconsider, resolve the issues, and resubmit. If you look at the actual comments, almost none of them are useful, sometimes already answered (but still repeated by following voters). E.g. - It's not simple at all. Using amenity https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity=* for this makes it impossible to combine it with such POIs. Also why amenity at all? For me it looks like a I didn't find anything better, I mean amenity https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity=reception_desk https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dreception_desk can't even stand on its owm. with which POI should this be combined _on the same object_? I mean, this is a tag for a reception desk, obviously it can be combined with other amenities by putting it inside them, but you won't have many objects that are at the same time a reception desk and don't know, toilets? An example why this is a problem would help to understand the reservation. - this comment pops up several times (as the only reason for opposition): The tag is related to tourism and not to amenity. but it was already answered: this is nothing particular to tourism, it can appear in all kinds of companies, administration contexts etc. - vague, half-baked is not a critic that helps to improve or even shows potential problems - The proposal Sems to me too isolated, it should be embedded in an indoor tagging scheme. the voter wants a complete indoor tagging scheme and therefor opposes a tag that might be one of the first steps towards this? - It should not be an amenity, the definition is vague, and in most cases this should go under indoor mapping, which is quite a complex subject. I didn't know indoor mapping was a different part of the project. You can discuss the vagueness of the definition, but to me A Reception Desk provides a place where a visitor goes to gain information and or access to the facility e.g. could be in a motel, office, campsite. It has been suggested as an additional tag for a campsite .. but would be better as a general tag as reception desks occur in many other places. isn't too vague. - This tag needs more time. not helping in any way to find potential problems. No substantial critique. the only useful point of critique is this one IMHO: The reception is not necessarily a 'desk'. More than the proposal I think the reasoning for opposing the proposal would have to be improved. 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] Current status of the key smoothness=*
There are two fundamental approaches to this and I believe that in this discussion the two are mixed: 1. The physical status of the road is described as well as possible and it is left to the receiver of this information to judge if he/she can use the road. This is quite complex as many parameter play a role: on gravel and rock roads smoothness is important, on sand roads how soft the sand is, for fords how deep the water is, but also the bottom structure etc. Furthermore it is season dependent: a road may be perfectly OK in the dry season and hardly passable in the rainy season 2. The tagger determines how hard it will be to use the road, irrespective of the reasons why it is hard or easy: there can be different reasons why a road is horrible. This approach requires a distinction between different types of vehicles: I have driven the Turkana route in north Kenya in a small convoy with motorcycles and 4WD cars. Some parts of the road had boulders as big as children's heads and were relatively easy for the 4WD's, but very hard for the motorcycles. However, crossing a small stream with a very steep decline/incline was relatively easy for the motorcycles and very hard for the cars. I would favour the second approach as the judgement is made by someone who was there and has seen it; I admit this is subjective. The approach does require an attribute describing the road per type of vehicle, and sometimes also per season. I share the opinion that grading in words is better than in numbers: in case of hotels 5 stars is the best, for the tracks grade 5 is the worst. So in its most extensive form you would get something like road_quality:car:rainy_seasion=very_poor. On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 11:36 AM Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-03-12 11:21 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: Is grade1 now excellent or horrible? No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like the values much, but at least it's clear that good is better than bad. it really doesn't help you a lot to know whether good is better than bad, you have to know if good or bad are sufficient for your current means of transport. I'd use grade1 etc. because this is an established scale from tracktype, and should be understandable therefor. To use these values you'll have to look them up, and this can be seen as an advantage: unlike good or bad (which do have precise meaning according to the wiki, but are often used by the expectation the user has of their meaning) it will improve consistency (hopefully). 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
