Re: [Tagging] Tagging Voting system- time for reform?
Scene 7. Ext. Prehistoric Planet FORD: You don’t seem to understand… MAN IN CROWD: No, no, no I just - MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: It’s a simple matter! It’s a procedural matter! That’s the point! CAPTAIN: Alright, alright, alright, alright! CHAIRMAN: I’d like to call this meeting to some sort of order, if that is at all possible. CROWD MEMBER: Care for a light drink sir? CHAIRMAN: Uh, not now love… FORD: Look! C’mon please! I mean everybody! there is some important news: we’ve made a discovery. MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Is it on the agenda? FORD: Oh don’t give me that! MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Well I’m sorry, but speaking as a fully trained management consultant I must insist on the importance of observing the committee structure. CROWD MEMBERS: Yeah, yeah, yeah!. FORD: On a prehistoric planet!? MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Address the chair. CROWD MEMBERS: Yes. FORD: There isn’t a chair! There’s only a rock! MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Well, call it a chair. FORD: Why not call it a rock? MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: You - you obviously have no conception of modern business methods… FORD: And you have no conception of where the hell you are - MARKETING GIRL: Oh look shut up you two, just shut up! I want to table a motion. Guy: Boulder a motion you mean… FORD: Tha-Thank you I think I’ve made that point! Now listen! Someone: Order, Order! FORD: Oh God! CHAIRMAN: Listen! I would like to call to order the five-hundred-and-seventy-third meeting of the colonization committee of the planet of Fintlewoodlewix. And furthermore - FORD: Oh this is futile! Five-hundred-and-seventy-three committee meetings and you haven’t even discovered fire yet! MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: If you would care to look at the agenda sheet - GUY: Agenda rock, yes… FORD: Oh, go on back home or something will ya? MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: …you will see that we are about to have a report from the hairdressers fire development subcommittee today. HAIRDRESSER: That’s me. FORD: Yeah well you know what they’ve done don’t you? You gave them a couple of sticks and they’ve gone and developed them in to a pair of bloody scissors! MARKETING GIRL: When you have been in marketing as long as I have, you’ll know that before any new product can be developed, it has to be properly researched. I mean yes, yes we’ve got to find out what people want from fire, I mean how do they relate to it, the image - FORD: Oh, stick it up your nose. MARKETING GIRL: Yes which is precisely the sort of thing we need to know, I mean do people want fire that can be fitted nasally. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and, and, and the wheel. What about this wheel thingy? Sounds a terribly interesting project to me. MARKETING GIRL: Er, yeah, well we’re having a little, er, difficulty here… FORD: Difficulty?! It’s the single simplest machine in the entire universe! MARKETING GIRL: Well alright mister wise guy, if you’re so clever you tell us what colour it should be! FORD: Oh Mighty Zarquon! Has no-one done anything? MARKETING GIRL: And of course Finlon the producer has rescued a camera from the wreckage of the ship and is making a fascinating documentary on the indigenous cavemen of the area. FORD: Oh yes, and they’re dying out, have you noticed that? MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Yes we must make a note sir to stop selling them life insurance. FORD: But don’t you understand? Just since we’ve arrived they’ve started dying out. MARKETING GIRL: Yes! Yes! And this comes over terribly well in the film that he’s making. I gather that he wants to, eh, make a documentary about you next captain. CAPTAIN: What? Oh. Oh really? That’s awfully nice. MARKETING GIRL: Oh, he’s got a very strong angle on it: you know the burden of responsibility, the loneliness of command… CAPTAIN: Ah well I wouldn’t overstress that angle you know, I mean one’s never alone with a rubber duck… MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Er, sir, er, skipper? CAPTAIN: Want a squeeze, eh? MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Um listen, if we could, er, for a moment move on to the subject of fiscal policy - FORD: ”Fiscal Policy”?! MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Yes. FORD: How can you have money if none of you actually produce anything? It doesn’t grow on trees you know! MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: You know If you would allow me to continue! CAPTAIN: Yes let him to continue. MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt leaves as legal tender, we have, of course all become immensely rich. FORD: No really? Really? CROWD MEMBERS: Yes, very good move… MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT: But, we have also run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability. Which means that I gather the current going rate has something like three major deciduous forests buying one ship’s peanut. So, um, in order to obviate this problem and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on an extensive defoliation campaign, and um, burn down all the forests. I think that’s a sensible move
Re: [Tagging] Deprecation of associatedStreet-relations
On 23/01/2015 20:53, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: +1 to all of that ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Dress Code proposal
On 23/10/2013 12:27, pmsg wrote: Generally, I think it is a good idea to map access restrictions related to dresscode. Similar kinds of access restrictions are: No knife, no camera, no backpack, no cellphone, no food/drinks etc. What about not being allowed in a bikeshed unless you have a bike? J. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres
On 23/10/2013 12:55, Matthijs Melissen wrote: I think the proposal would benefit from a more precise definition. Or you could just tag the ones you find using this perfectly sensible tag and not worry about it. In the UK a Soft Play is a well-recognised and well-defined concept. If that concept doesn't exist elsewhere, fine, but don't stop this mapper from recording information because you don't like what colour the bikeshed is. J. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres
On 22/10/2013 16:43, Dominic Hosler wrote: I have just proposed a tag to use for soft play centres. Looks absolutely fine. There are times when I'd use it on a node when the soft play is just one part of a larger building, but that's pretty much standard OSM practice anyway. Don't worry about having to explicity specify which other tags you can use with this one, since editor presets will take care of many of them anyway. I'd just carry on mapping using this tag. J. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tag proposal for soft play centres
On 23/10/2013 14:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Would they qualify as soft play? No, that's a bouncy castle. Soft play is padding, not inflatables. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot
On 18/09/2013 18:15, Lukas Hornby wrote: HI, Having studied all of the comments, we seem to agree that a tag is needed, that it is worth tagging. However the ambiguity over plot (which was the word I used in my proposal and lot (which has been read into plot) seems to be a sticking point. ...or alternatively: it's clear a tag for an individual plot is needed, but after that point it got bikeshedded to death. I will try stating what is needed as clearly as I can: A plot is the individual parcel of land within and allotment site that is let (rented, hired, or other synonym) to one tenant. We already tag the whole site as landuse=allotments and we just need to mark individual plots with allotment[s]=plot(*). This makes it clear it's an allotment plot we're talking about, not anything else. Each plot will probably have a number (not necessarily a number) of some kind, and I'd suggest using ref=* for this. This appears to be about as complicated as it needs to get. I know this because not only do I *have* an allotment, I am the Warden of our allotment site and am responsible for administering the tenancies on that site, and that's all I need to map, barring a track or two. J. (*) Although natural spoken English would suggest tagging as allotment=plot, I can see how using allotments=plot makes it clear it's a sub-division of landuse=allotments, so I'd accept the plural form in the tag. But that's getting into Bikeshedding again. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway
On 18/04/2013 16:22, Steve Bennett wrote: Disadvantages - tag clashes, particularly name= - is this the name of the bike path, or of the former train line? The bike path, as per On The Ground. The path is a *former* railway line, so it no longer has the railway as its *current* name. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna
On 07/02/2013 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: but: there are antennas where the whole structure acts as antenna (mast=antenna). Maybe this is an example: Yes, but unless you can explain, unambiguously how you identify those vs. other types of mask, you're going to hit a verifiability problem. I'd also say not having the distinction in OSM doesn't lose us much -- people will still be able to identify that there's a structure there, and the general nature of the structure, and hence be able to navigate using it as a reference. So, if you do know the difference, please note it in an extra tag, but don't try to force most ordinary mappers to have to distinguish when they're unlikely to be able to do so. Does that sound reasonable? J. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Disused/historic railway stations
On 06/02/2013 00:50, Greg Troxel wrote: (I am also curious if a British railroad geek could explain if the OSM terms seem right to the railfan community.) There was this discussion on talk-gb recently: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-January/014376.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] non-trivial color schemes
On 20/12/2012 12:10, Stephen Gower wrote: blazon=barry gules and argent Barry Gules and Argent? Didn't they split up in 1974? runs away ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fishing allowed?
On 10/09/2012 12:36, te...@free.fr wrote: I would like to store information about the legality of fishing a lake, a river, etc. Is there already any tag with such a meaning? fishing=yes/no ? -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] sports_centre
On 16/07/2012 10:01, Frederik Ramm wrote: I find that surprising because it seems that sports_centre is even more ambiguous or misunderstood - at least if someone tells me he's going to the gym I know what they mean. It isn't to a British person (probably). Most towns of any size have a municipal facility called a Sports or Leisure Centre, which may itself contain a gym, but will have other facilities, probably including non-sport related ones such as a theatre. Unless another Brit wants to correct me, of course. J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] dispute about center island in a turning circle
On 13/03/2012 11:29, Nathan Edgars II wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dturning_circle#Central_island The question is whether a normal-sized turning circle can be tagged as such if there's a small landscaped island in the middle. Here's a local example: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=enll=28.450005,-81.506599spn=0.008433,0.016512gl=ust=mz=17layer=ccbll=28.450005,-81.506599panoid=XSUkL2QthSC5VFHjx0U2Rgcbp=12,1.34,,0,8.36 That is a perfect example of something that isn't a turning circle. The tree in a bed prevents you using the full width of the circle to turn in. Were you to map that as highway=turning_circle width=10m (say), a 7.5m truck, which would be able to turn in a 10m unobstructed turning circle (eventually), would get stuck trying to make it around that loop. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] dispute about center island in a turning circle
On 13/03/2012 11:57, Nathan Edgars II wrote: The same is true for overhanging branches and such. You can't rely on tags to know if an oversize vehicle can turn around. Overhanging branches are not a physical property of the road in the same way the central island is. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wikifiddling, surface=cobblestone vs. sett paving_stones
On 20/02/2012 12:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Is it consensus to use sett instead of cobblestones for most of the stone pavings of roads? Taginfo shows only 177 objects tagged with sett. How should we deal with this? Maybe there was indeed a definition gap to distinguish on a finer granularity between different pavings? You shouldn't be using sett instead of cobblestones in any case, because they're not the same thing. My understanding is that cobblestones are irregular stones, used in pretty much their natural state for paving, whereas setts are specifically shaped, brick-sized pieces of rock (granite in the case of Guildford High Street, where I live) that form a smoother surface (but not as smooth as a metalled road). Paving stones, I'd venture, are another class again, where they can either genuinely be flat stones or cast material, but larger than setts or cobblestones, perhaps over 50cm. In summary: I believe the three classes to be separate and non-overlapping. So I disagree with the wiki edit made, but do think surface=sett is a sensible, verifiable tag. Jonathan. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service=drive-through or drive_through?
On 29/06/2011 14:19, Mike N wrote: I don't see these edits as out of line or unusual. It's not so different from the dozens of other projects to create more unified tags so that data consumers have a chance of using the right tag. I suspect the tags you're talking about in other projects don't have quite the same significance as they do in OSM. Can you give us an example of what you mean? I see bulk-changing one tag to another in this way as being equivalent to changing a method name in an open source library without changing its functionality, just to make the name nicer. Anyone using that method in their code will get a compilation error all of a sudden, but nothing has actually improved in the library. You break some people's use of the data without having a net benefit. To put it another way, if the edits could be done using a simple algorithm, they haven't added anything to the OSM data itself, since that algorithm could be applied as post-processing. It's just rearranging deck chairs. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Greenery adjacent to roads
On 13/07/2010 07:37, char...@cferrero.net wrote: How might I go about tagging the often quite extensive green stretches of land to the side of larger roads here in Abu Dhabi (and indeed in many parts of the world)? Sometimes this is just grass (in which case landuse=grass kind of makes sense) but often this is a mixture of grass, trees and decorative plants in varying proportions. In many cases it kind of looks like a park, but no-one in their right mind would actually try to use it as such (and indeed, in central reservations they'd have to be suicidal to try). One idea might be: leisure=garden or leisure=park combined with access=no but this seems a bit like tag gymnastics to me. surface=grass is about all you can justify. They're certainly not parks or gardens (and landuse=grass is just wrong. You're using the land *for* grass? What does that mean?) Use the tags to describe what it is, and if it's just miscellaneous ground that's not really doing anything, then just map it as part of the surrounding area. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Greenery adjacent to roads
On 13/07/2010 11:32, John Smith wrote: On 13 July 2010 20:28, Jonathan Bennettopenstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: gardens (and landuse=grass is just wrong. You're using the land *for* grass? What does that mean?) Turf farm? landuse=agriculture crop=grass or crop=turf Nice try, though. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Garden specification)
On 18/05/2010 21:56, Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote: maybe even landuse=allotments if anyone wants to tag each property separately. Nope. That would be allotment=plot or something. Each plot is not a separate garden, but just the parcel of land allocated to a tenant. -- Jonathan (allotment holder) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
On 05/05/2010 10:24, John Smith wrote: It's a cascade problem... what is it... a shop what sort of shop... fish shop... what does it sell... what is it... a shop what sort of shop... pet shop... what sorts of pets... Either way you look at it, shop is the base unit, followed by what it sells... To be consistent, your example above should really be: what is it... a shop what sort of shop... food shop... what sort of food... -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
On 30/04/2010 09:57, Claudius Henrichs wrote: I'm trying to get some input on how to tag a shop selling fish and seafood from some english speaking users. For the sake of sanity I'd use shop=fishmonger This describes what the shop sells in general, without getting into whether or not it sells any one particular kind of water-borne animal. It's certainly the generic term for such a shop in the UK. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A shop selling fish and seafood
On 30/04/2010 13:25, Greg Troxel wrote: I would go for shop=fish. In the US, no one would hear someome saying they were going to the fish store and say but they sell crustaceans and they aren't technically fish. fishmonger works too, but most people in the US will not really know what it means - but they'll guess close enough. In the UK a fish shop can be one of two, usually mutually exclusive, things: * A fishmonger, selling wet (i.e. raw) fish and seafood * A Fish and Chip shop, selling cooked fast food So we'd need to distinguish between these in the UK at least. Fishmonger has a slight advantage in that it translates into French as Poissionerie, German as Fischhändler, Italian as Pescivendolo, and so on. Also, we have shop=butcher, not shop=meat. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposal for more detail on leisure=playground
On 25/03/2010 21:05, Antony King wrote: Thanks - I think. Perhaps another time you could contact the author of the page first - I had some external links to those pages which I've had to change in a hurry. For my part I'll make sure future pages are spaced where appropriate. That isn't necessary. MediaWiki puts in a redirect for any page that gets moved, so anyone using one of your old links will still end up in the right place. Try it: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AccessiblePlay I'd never take any action that I knew would break something without a very good reason, and if I did know it was going to break something, I would indeed let people know before I did it. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging an old bus route
On 24/12/2009 01:13, Arlindo Pereira wrote: Hi there, I mapped a bus route that is integrated to the subway line (uses the same ticket) [1]. However, this route will be no more, because we've built another subway station, which would change the bus route. I'd like to maintain the old route to historical reasons. How should it be tagged? You should delete it from the current dataset, indicating it's no longer current data. However, this doesn't remove it from the OSM database, only from the current dataset so you'll still be able to retrieve the route at some later point if you need to. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging an old bus route
On 24/12/2009 10:45, Erik Johansson wrote: Any ideas on how to indicate that a delete isn't an edit. These kinds of deletions are because of change of the physical world, not because of a better survey. There is a meta difference which some might want to map. This point has been brought up before. The most obvious idea is to explain in the changeset comments why you're deleting it. One other idea was to add a tag to the feature just before deleting it, so the last active version carried the relevant information. That's before we get onto the mapping of archaeological artefacts... -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging an old bus route
On 24/12/2009 14:17, Steve Bennett wrote: Would a tag like deletion_reason=* help? Well, that information could just go in the changeset comment. I think the idea was more that you'd add an end_date=* tag to the feature to show when it really disappeared (from the real world) as opposed to being removed from the current OSM dataset. For a bus route (or any feature replaced by an equivalent), something like superseded_by=* with a reference to the new route would probably be more succinct. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] A first step towards bringing the wiki and tool support closer together
Erik Johansson wrote: Yes but people say don't tag for the renderer which a horrible meme, I say always tag for the renderer. If there is not visual feedbackyou are doing it wrong (except in keepright). Only using a tag because it appears in a renderer style sheet (or conversely not using one just because it doesn't) is a pretty good definition of tagging for the renderer. Now, if that tag isn't an accurate description of the feature you're mapping, then you're doing it wrong, even if it does produce an effect on the map. Note that not all tags *have* a visual representation, so relying on having visual feedback to know whether you've done something right can be misleading. Equally, not all applications of OSM data involve rendering a map (geocoding, routing) so choosing a tag purely based on its visual effect can result in errors in those applications. By all means check the rendered map after you've done some mapping to see if you've made a mistake somewhere, but please, please don't change the tag you use for a feature purely to make it render in a particular way (or at all) on a particular renderer. If the renderer doesn't support your tag, help the person running that renderer to add support for it. Jonathan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Implied oneway tag for highway=*_link, wiki edits
Paul Johnson wrote: Name one road type which is inherently one-way. Roundabouts, Motorway slip roads in the UK, half of a dual carriageway, bus guideways... My point was about newcomers to the project, who haven't sat in on endless tedious tagging discussions (and may have no wish to do so) assuming that because every instance of a type of road they know is one way that it's an inherent property. Showing their assumption is false doesn't change their behaviour. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Implied oneway tag for highway=*_link, wiki edits
Alessandro Rubini wrote: I don't think there are road types that are inherently one-way, besides roundabouts. This is a two-way motorway link, for example: http://maps.google.it/?ie=UTF8ll=45.249774,9.044243spn=0.002761,0.004914t=kz=18 It is indeed, but my guess is that it's an exception, and not the normal. There's nothing to say you can't override an implied tag with an explicit one, should the majority situation not apply. Explicit tags on objects should always beat implied or inherited tags. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
