Re: [Tagging] tower types, cooling towers, etc.

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:30:06 +0100
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tower types, cooling towers, etc.
> Message-ID:
>   <cabptjtbvawcgrv_0zmrvru5a4tx2pchdp+hsumxdw93xhou...@mail.gma
> il.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 2017-11-17 17:22 GMT+01:00 Mark Bradley <ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com>:
> 
> > You know, after giving it some more thought, I'm not sure what I think.
> > Forget I said it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've also been re-thinking about it, and maybe the best is to abandon
> man_made=tower for everything that can be better described with a more 
> specific
> tag, e.g. man_made=water_tower (established), lighthouse (established),
> communications_tower (established), cooling_tower (deprecated but used 400
> times), watchtower (not used, but watch_tower has
> 3 occurences), etc.
> 
> I'm setting up a proposal,
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
>


Thanks for the proposal, and I look forward to it.  Hopefully it will lead to 
some clarification.

Mark
 



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

Re: [Tagging] tower types, cooling towers, etc.

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:18:14 +0100
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tower types, cooling towers, etc.
> 
> 2017-11-16 17:57 GMT+01:00 Mark Bradley <ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com>:
> 
> > I also like the idea of having all towers under one tag, for the same
> > reason as marc marc.
> >
> 
> can you expand, which kind of "all towers" you mean here. Is this including 
> light
> towers, water towers, power towers, bell towers, air traffic control towers, 
> cooling
> towers, drop towers? Are you going by the name? E.g.
> there's the tower of London, but it is tagged as a castle currently, would 
> you suggest
> to retag it as tower?
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/370870741
> 
> 
> 
> > I would also like to point out that tower:type=communication_tower is
> > redundant.  Tower:type=communication is sufficient.
> >
> >
> they are describing (physically) very different features, that only have the 
> same or
> similar function from a specific abstract point of view (radio communication, 
> actually
> broadcast = oneway communication). As they are both only about radio
> communication, I find the name generally not well chosen.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin


You know, after giving it some more thought, I'm not sure what I think.  Forget 
I said it.

Mark

 


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

Re: [Tagging] tower types, cooling towers, etc.

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:39:56 +

> From: marc marc <  
> marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>

> To: "  tagging@openstreetmap.org" < 
>  tagging@openstreetmap.org>

> Subject: Re: [Tagging] tower types, cooling towers etc.

> 

> Le 16. 11. 17 à 13:05, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :

> > B. man_made=tower

> 

> I like the idea to have all tower in a main tag (it allow a mapper to

> map it as a tower and after refine it depending of the use)

> 

>  > tower:type=communication_tower

> 

> I dislike the "no-meaning" type suffix.

> Type could be the use, the scope, the shape, ...

> It should be better to find a better word

> 

> Regards,

> Marc

> 

> --

 

 

I also like the idea of having all towers under one tag, for the same reason as 
marc marc.

 

I would also like to point out that tower:type=communication_tower is 
redundant.  Tower:type=communication is sufficient.

 

Mark

 

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Fire Hydrant Extensions)

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 11:14:56 +
> From: marc marc 
> To: "tagging@openstreetmap.org" 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Fire Hydrant
>   Extensions)
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Le 05. 10. 17 à 12:16, Viking a écrit :
> > I really don't understand why so many people oppose this proposal [1]
> > without ever having participated in the discussions
> it is indeed strange that no opponent took the time to say during the RFC 
> arguments
> that are found now during the vote.
> 
> yes the wiki page need a cleaning between the basic tags and the advanced 
> tags. is it
> the role of a tag vote to talk about the layout of the wiki page or should we 
> talk
> about tag changes ?
> imho wiki layout doesn't need a vote, it only need to follow tag meaning
> 
> yes the proposal will change many objects but changing 1k objects or 100k it 
> is the
> same work when updating an app.
> 
> yes it will need a transition period for the few specialized apps to be 
> updated but it is
> not by splitting the proposal tag by tag that it will be better, on the 
> contrary devs will
> have to do x release instead of being able to group them.
> 
> There are also hardly understandable arguments as opposed to the replacement 
> of
> fire_hydrant:position by location since they have the same meaning.
> 
> ihmo removing the namespace when it is useless and the proposed additional 
> (and
> optional) tags are a heavy but coherent and positive set
> 
> Regardless of the outcome of the ongoing vote, I would like to take this 
> opportunity
> to thank you for the time you have devoted to it and for the constructive 
> spirit in the
> search for a concessus.
> 
> I hope that this energy will persist if the current proposal fails due to 
> "voting-only"
> people.
> 
> Regards,
> Marc


I echo Marc's sentiment!

Mark



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

Re: [Tagging] war_memorial

[Mark Bradley]

> I am following this discussion with interest.  I have tagged several of these 
> memorials,
> and have used the value war_memorial, because that is what is suggested in 
> the Wiki.
> I have no problem retagging the features I've already tagged, if a consensus 
> is
> reached on an alternative tagging scheme.
> 
> With that being said, I have a question.  Take a look at the memorial (not a 
> war
> memorial) on the north side of the road in this photo [1].  (I hope it's okay 
> to use a
> Google Street View photo, as I don't have a website to post it on, and I 
> don't use any
> of the commercial photo-sharing sites.)  How would you tag this memorial?  I 
> have
> used historic=memorial, followed by memorial=stele (following the recommended
> procedure in the Wiki), but this object doesn't strictly meet the definition 
> of "stele,"
> according to Wiktionary and Wikipedia.  It resembles a gravestone, but 
> obviously it is
> not one of those.  I can't think of a suitable term to use to describe the 
> type of
> memorial.  Neither does it fit the definition of monument, as described in 
> the Wiki.
> 
> Mark
> 
> [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@39.5987119,-
> 85.8427832,3a,75y,27h,81.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT2QKoSsT4MR9JkRHxcSd-
> A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656


Someone suggested using Wikimedia Commons as a repository for sharable photos, 
instead of using Google Street View.  While browsing the suggested website, I 
discovered a category of memorials called simply "markers," and the photos 
there are of the type I want to tag.  It seems like an appropriate description, 
so I think historic=memorial with memorial=marker sounds good, unless someone 
has a better suggestion.

Mark


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag "agricultural centers"

[Mark Bradley]

Thanks for all the replies.  It seems there are two already-established tagging 
schemes for what I want to map.  They are



shop=agrarian

or

shop=trade
trade=agricultural_supplies



According to Taginfo, these schemes are used approximately equally, so I'll use 
one of them.  That being said, I'm not surprised I didn't initially discover 
either one of these.  I don't think most people (including myself) would think 
of one of these features as a "shop," so that's why I never considered this 
tag.  Such are the quirks of OSM.

Mark



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

[Tagging] How to tag "agricultural centers"

[Mark Bradley]

In the Midwestern US we have places scattered throughout the countryside
whose purpose is to sell farming supplies, such as seed, feed, herbicide,
anhydrous ammonia, etc.  I'm talking about a parcel of land, typically with
several buildings situated on it, and plenty of room for parking and
maneuvering farm vehicles and trucks.  None of the existing tags in the Wiki
seem to fit to describe these facilities.  I'm looking for suggestions on
how to tag these.  A type of landuse?

 

Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?

[Mark Bradley]

> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2017 12:14:11 +0100
> From: Philip Barnes 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?
> 
> 
> 
> On 4 July 2017 11:07:04 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> >2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis :
> >
> >> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers,
> >communication
> >> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
> >>
> >> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because not
> >only
> >> can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows presets to
> >be
> >> easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
> >>
> >> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
> >>
> >
> >
> >I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
> >desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this same
> >landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities, logistical
> >infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).
> >
> >For the German context (but likely also for other places), there should
> >be also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).
> >
> >Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of typical
> >top level categories (e.g. automotive, textile, semiconductors,
> >electronics, energy, machinery, mining, ...)
> >
> The correct English term is pylon.
> 
> Although I am a little confused by the purpose of this thread, the presence 
> of pylons
> does not in my experience change the landuse, if they cross farmland the land
> beneath them is still farmland or in the case of this photo natural=wood.
> 
> https://flic.kr/p/V8pLyS
> 
> Phil (trigpoint)



In American English most people would call the structure a tower, but according 
to the convention of OSM using British English, I would defer to the word 
"pylon."

I agree with you Phil; I don't think the small area under a pylon should have 
its own landuse.  I don't think most people think in terms of such a small area 
when they hear the term "landuse."  I think that giving a pylon area a separate 
landuse is overkill and misleading.

Mark





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

Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?

[Mark Bradley]

> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:30:31 +0800
> From: Jherome Miguel 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Power Tower Landuse = ?
>
> 
> Though I came lately here, I agree. Indicating the type of industrial area 
> will help
> indicate the industry where the piece of land is used.
> 
> --TagaSanPedroAko
> 
> On Jul 4, 2017 6:08 PM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > 2017-07-04 1:56 GMT+02:00 John Willis :
> >
> >> it seems like other long-term infrastructure (power towers,
> >> communication
> >> towers) are suggested to be landuse=industrial.
> >>
> >> I really think there should be some kind of subtag then, because not
> >> only can you define what and why you are tagging, but it allows
> >> presets to be easily created in iD and searched by new taggers.
> >>
> >> industrial=power, industrial=communication, etc.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I agree that a formalization of industrial subtags would be really
> > desirable. There are many different kind of things that get this same
> > landuse property, e.g. warehouses, production facilities, logistical
> > infrastructure (ports, distribution centres, ...).
> >
> > For the German context (but likely also for other places), there
> > should be also a distinction for "light industry" (Gewerbe).
> >
> > Then it seems strange we don't have yet a standardized list of typical
> > top level categories (e.g. automotive, textile, semiconductors,
> > electronics, energy, machinery, mining, ...)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Martin



I nominate Martin, John Willis, and a few others on this list to form a 
committee and formulate an organized tagging structure for OSM.  You guys are 
intelligent and thoughtful and I would trust you to come up with a good 
solution.  I'm tired of the endless debating back and forth on this list that 
seldom goes anywhere.

I know this won't happen, but I just wanted to voice my thoughts.

Mark




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

Re: [Tagging] metal-bladed windmills for water pumps

[Mark Bradley]

> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:21:12 +0900
> From: John Willis 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] metal bladed windmills for water pumps
> Message-ID: <1f5c3e86-2b0e-4345-9378-dd3fdacf1...@mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 
> 
> Javbw
> 
> > On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If you followed the history link I gave above you get They can be traced 
> > back to the
> year 644 in Persia. Bit before the industrial revolution.
> 
> The idea of using a wind driven shaft with a cam and a rod and a leather 
> sealing
> element in a bored well for getting water out of the ground is really old. 
> But those
> "windmills", I will assume, look like traditional windmills because of the 
> structure
> needed to hold all the big heavy Main (wooden/bamboo) fan shafts and a driving
> shaft, cam, etc needed would have to have a small building of some kind - the 
> stresses
> needed to pump water and handle wind load for wooden things with no bearings 
> or
> gearboxes is pretty large if it is a permanent structure. Perhaps the really 
> old ones in
> China were temporary, until a typhoon destroyed them. If it is some permanent 
> thing,
> It's gonna be a building. I purposefully defined the traditional windmill as 
> "operating
> some machinery" in the base - a mill, a trip hammer, a cam pump - whatever it
> happens to be - it is a building.
> 
> A windpump: Using a small (mass-produced metal) transmission in a box on a 
> derrick
> which can only move a rod up and down about 6 inches is similar only in that 
> there is
> a fan disc - the building isn't present, the entire mechanism is in an 
> outdoor gearbox,
> and the whole thing spins on the derrick because the gearbox is about the 
> size of a
> suitcase on metal stilts. It can follow the wind because it has a tail (vane) 
> that is the
> size of a car hood.
> 
> The only thing of great significance is the gearbox the size of a suitcase. 
> The rest a
> bits of metal angle-iron and sheet metal.
> 
> A windpump can trace it's heritage back to the mechanism inside that pumped 
> water
> a 1400 years ago - but so can all of those big permanent holland windmills - 
> this is
> more about the structures - big buildings vs a box on a derrick - and a name 
> to
> separate them.
> 
> They are all generally called windmills - my father calls his "windpump" a 
> windmill - in
> the same way a person calls train cars "cars" when they are power cars, or 
> MPU cars,
> or some other name - but it is a easy way for people "in the know" to 
> differentiate
> them.
> 
> Javbw
> 


There are many old windpumps in the Midwestern part of the United States.  
Built in the 1800's and 1900's, most are now broken down and no longer used.  
Some have been restored and are left standing for aesthetic purposes.  (In one 
of the earlier posts in this thread someone referenced a picture of one of 
them, but I have since deleted that post.)  Like Javbw's father, I believe most 
people in the Midwestern US would call them "windmills" and not "windpumps."  I 
would like to point out that many (most?) of them were created for pumping 
natural gas out of the ground, not water.  They were mapped on the USGS 
topographic maps.  You will see them symbolized with a small hollow circle, 
with the label "Gas well."

Mark

 



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

[Tagging] How to tag monumental railcars

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:04:28 -0400
> From: "Mark Bradley" <ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com>
> To: <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: [Tagging] How to tag monumental railcars
>
> > From: Tijmen Stam <mailingli...@iivq.net>
> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> > <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to tag monumental railcars
> >
> > On 10-05-17 13:15, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> > > On 10 May 2017 at 10:24, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I believe in British English it should be "waggon".
> > >
> > > "Waggon was preferred in British English until a century ago and it
> > > still appears occasionally, but it is fast becoming archaic. In this
> > > century, the shorter one is preferred in all main varieties of
> > > English."
> > >
> > > http://grammarist.com/spelling/wagon-waggon/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I think I'm setting for historic=railway_car Which is the name
> > Wikipedia uses for one item of railway rolling stock which is not a
> > locomotive (be it a freight or passenger car
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_car
> >
> > Railcar, in the UK rail parlance, means a single-car powered passenger
> > car with driver stands (usually) at both ends.
> >
> > I took the liberty of creating a wiki page (basically copied
> > historic:locomotive):
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Drailway_car
> 
> 
> After reading the Wikipedia article entitled "Railroad car" that you referred 
> to, I think
> you should modify your wiki page to modify the description of "railway car" 
> to include
> non-revenue cars.  I have mapped several cabooses (UK brake vans), a type of 
> non-
> revenue car, and technically these don't fall under the categories of rolling 
> stock,
> freight cars, or passenger cars/coaches.
> 
> Mark Bradley
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 23:22:25 +0100
> From: Andy Mabbett <a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to tag monumental railcars
> Message-ID:
>   

[Tagging] How to tag monumental railcars

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 15:56:13 +0200
> From: Tijmen Stam <mailingli...@iivq.net>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to tag monumental railcars
> Message-ID: <17c6e991-7a78-ab78-7701-acef9290d...@iivq.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> 
> On 10-05-17 13:15, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> > On 10 May 2017 at 10:24, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I believe in British English it should be "waggon".
> >
> > "Waggon was preferred in British English until a century ago and it
> > still appears occasionally, but it is fast becoming archaic. In this
> > century, the shorter one is preferred in all main varieties of
> > English."
> >
> > http://grammarist.com/spelling/wagon-waggon/
> >
> >
> 
> I think I'm setting for historic=railway_car Which is the name Wikipedia uses 
> for one
> item of railway rolling stock which is not a locomotive (be it a freight or 
> passenger car
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_car
> 
> Railcar, in the UK rail parlance, means a single-car powered passenger car 
> with driver
> stands (usually) at both ends.
> 
> I took the liberty of creating a wiki page (basically copied
> historic:locomotive):
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Drailway_car


After reading the Wikipedia article entitled "Railroad car" that you referred 
to, I think you should modify your wiki page to modify the description of 
"railway car" to include non-revenue cars.  I have mapped several cabooses (UK 
brake vans), a type of non-revenue car, and technically these don't fall under 
the categories of rolling stock, freight cars, or passenger cars/coaches.

Mark Bradley


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

Re: [Tagging] How to tag monumental railcars

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 15:26:17 +0200
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to tag monumental railcars
> 
> > On 7. May 2017, at 15:17, Tijmen Stam <mailingli...@iivq.net> wrote:
> >
> > How does one tag a railcar/railway wagon that is standing somewhere as a
> monument, which is NOT a locomotive?
> 
> 
> could be historic=freight_car or railway_carriage or waggon etc.
> 
> If it is with a roof you could consider building as well.
> 
> 
> For both tags I would assume that the thing doesn't move anymore.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin


Here in the US it is common for old cabooses to be publicly displayed by 
themselves.  (Not sure if "caboose" is only an American term or not.)  I have 
mapped several of these, drawing a polygon around the shape and tagging with 
historic=caboose.

Mark Bradley



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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping Attenuation Ponds / Sustainable drainage schemes

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 11:10:02 -0600
> From: Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Cc: talk...@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Mapping Attenuation Ponds / Sustainable
>   Drainageschemes
> 
> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Steve Brook <srbr...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Many new UK housing estates are required to be built with Attenuation
> > Ponds / Sustainable Drainage schemes as part of their development.
> > These are to control rain water runoff during storms and consist of a
> > pond surrounded by an embankment with a controlled release structure
> > to slow down drainage of the water to the river system.
> >
> >
> >
> > The relevant features might be
> >
> > · Low or normal water level of pond
> >
> > · High water level or top of embankment
> >
> > · Land use/vegetation between low/high water marks is water
> > tolerant/marsh plants
> >
> > · Structures for water input and output – often brickwork and
> > filter screens round a pipe.
> >
> >
> >
> > Has anyone any experience of mapping and tagging such a structure?
> >
> > Are there any examples of where this has been done?
> >
> 
> These are common where I live. (We get lots of rain from October to June) I 
> map them
> as landuse=basin, basin=* based on how they are designed. See
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:basin for more info.
> 
> Clifford


In the US these are known as retention ponds or detention ponds.  (Not sure if 
there is a technical difference between the terms or not.)  I have mapped many 
of these.  I use landuse=basin with basin=retention.

Mark Bradley

 




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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 22:18:40 +0530
> From: muzirian 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   
> Subject: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (office=courier)"
> 
> The proposal for amenity=courier was rejected, so going on with another 
> suggestion
> office=courier.
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Office%3Dcourier
> 
> Regards
> Kelvin


Personally I am disappointed this proposal was rejected.  I read the section of 
the wiki that talks about offices, and I think amenity fits a courier business 
better.  For a courier, the important stuff happens out in the field 
(delivering packages), not in the office, as in the other types of offices 
listed in the wiki.  The fact that a courier has an office is secondary to its 
principal purpose.  But if people will support office=courier, I will support 
it, as I definitely think a courier deserves its own tag value.

Mark



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

Re: [Tagging] water=pool

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:24:39 +0100
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
> To: daveswarth...@gmail.com, "Tag discussion, strategy and related
>   tools" 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] water=pool
> Message-ID: 
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 22 Mar 2017, at 08:53, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> >
> > Either waterway=pool (TagInfo: 26 uses), or waterway=stream_pool, would be
> better than water=stream_pool.
> 
> 
> I would prefer water over waterway as a key, because this is about 
> areas/polygons, for
> which we typically use natural=water and subtags. This would also allow to 
> keep
> waterway=riverbank for the whole stream-/river-area (which is so far the only
> significant exception where waterway is used for areas and not as a linear 
> graph
> model).
> I would be ok with leisure as well, although this is mostly used for 
> artificial features so
> far, and there might raise some confusion with "ordinary" swimming pools.
> 
> 
> cheers,
> Martin


To categorize these pools as a subcategory of leisure seems shortsighted to me, 
because that may not be the only use for them, just as not all swimming pools 
are for leisure.  I would prefer they be tagged as a value of water or 
waterway, instead of inferring they are only for leisure.

Mark



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

Re: [Tagging] water=pool

[Mark Bradley]

> I think just "water=pool" is a bit short and potentially misleading with 
> other types of
> pools (reflecting pool, swimming pool, salt pool, ...).
> 


As far as I know, all these types of pools are man-made, not natural, so I'm 
not sure how
misleading "water=pool" would be.


> If you don't need a new tag, I would go for natural=water water=lake (and let 
> the size
> and position of the feature show that it is a small body of water on a river) 
> After all, it
> is a kind of lake, only much smaller ;) The various definitions to distiguish 
> lake/pond
> are quite messy, I do not want to go there.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pond#Technical_definitions
> Please also note that in current OSM wiki: water=lake "should be considered 
> default
> for natural=water, when no water or other descriptive tags are specified".
> I think it is good enough for the kind of semantics we are trying to achieve 
> in OSM.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, if I cannot convince you with that alone, at least expand to 
> "stream_pool",
> like:
> 
> natural=water
> water=lake
> lake=stream_pool
> 
> or
> 
> natural=water
> water=stream_pool
> 
> 
> -- althio


I like

natural=water
water=stream_pool

as in your second example above.


Mark Bradley



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

[Tagging] Destination:street

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:42:32 +0100
> From: Colin Smale 
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] destination:street
> 
> On 2017-01-23 09:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 22 Jan 2017, at 22:18, Colin Smale  wrote:
> >>
> >> Consumers who are not ready to handle multiple values in their data
> >> models can stop reading after the first value
> >
> > consumers unaware of multiple values in the same field will see all those 
> > multiple
> values together as just one value. Either you deal with multiple values (even 
> in some
> basic way like splitting the string and throwing away most of it) or they 
> will break the
> system for you. This means checking all values of all tags if they might have 
> to be
> split.
> 
> This subject has been discussed so many times in the past, over several 
> years. It seems
> that OSM is incapable of moving forward. The current data model does not
> accommodate multi-valued attributes, and in the absence of leadership, many
> competing systems have been brought forward and come into use. None of them is
> perfect, none of them suit everybody.
> If the data model is to evolve to included MVAs with some kind of structured
> approach, choices have to be made and not everyone will be happy. That's the 
> price of
> progress - you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
> 
> It's a complete waste of time to have yet another debate about the pro's and 
> con's of
> semicolons vs suffixes and all the other possibilities, without having some 
> kind of
> mechanism in place, and the will, to actually make a decision one way or the 
> other.
> 
> By the way, it wouldn't be the first time the data model has changed in a way 
> that
> broke some data consumers. The IDs were extended from 32 bits to 64 bits. That
> meant all consumers needed to review their code and adapt to the change.
> 
> //colin


+1

As someone who has followed this mailing list for 2-1/2 years, I have come to 
the same conclusion.  Every time the pros and cons of a certain tag get 
debated, there is never a consensus!  Never!  Consequently the same issues get 
debated over and over.  What a waste of time and effort!

I'm aware of two conflicting theories about how OpenStreetMap should 
operate—one side says you have total freedom as to how to tag objects, and the 
other side says your work can be reverted if you don't conform to certain 
rules.  One side says the Wiki is only a guideline, but I keep hearing about 
mappers that rely on the Wiki for instructions (presumably because it is the 
closest thing to a how-to manual we have).  One group advocates following a 
certain process to get new tags "approved," which culminates in voting, and 
another group says that voting is meaningless.

I agree totally with Colin's assessment that what this project sorely lacks is 
leadership.  Without it, I see no end to the current process, with nothing ever 
being resolved, never moving forward.  It is getting tiring to follow this 
list.  There are great opinions discussed.  The people contributing to the list 
are obviously very intelligent.  Every angle of every issue is brought to 
light.  But in the end I'm not sure much is getting accomplished.

Count me as one of those that wishes OpenStreetMap were more structured.  As 
Colin said, choices have to be made, and not everyone will be happy.  Empower 
some folks to make decisions (after thoughtful deliberation), and enforce the 
decisions!  Just tell me how something should be tagged, and I'll follow it!  
Without something like this, it seems like we are doomed to go around and 
around, forever and ever...

Mark


 



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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping pergolas/arbors

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 08:12:12 +0200
> From: Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Mapping pergolas/arbors
> 
> Why not the established shelter_type [1], which is used over 69.000 times 
> according
> to taginfo [2]
> 
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shelter_type
> [2] http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=shelter_type
> 
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:09 AM, David Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I would discourage the use of type as a key here as it is used to
> > differentiate between relations. Suggest shelter:type or something similar.
> > Cheers
> > Dave



Okay.  Since this tag is established, I'll use amenity=shelter, followed by 
shelter_type=pergola.

Mark Bradley


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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping pergolas/arbors

[Mark Bradley]

> From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Mapping pergolas/arbors
> >
> > I know of some pergolas I would like to map.  (Wikipedia says other
> > words for these features are "arbors" and "arbours.")  Looking on the
> > wiki on the list of map features, there doesn't appear to be any
> > established tags for these features, so I'm asking for suggestions
> > before I make up my own.
> 
> 
> maybe the key "building" could be used, values could be "pergola" or "arbour" 
> (BE
> spelling). This is about a frame on which plants are intended to grow for 
> shade, right?
> 
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
 
 
Yes Martin, you're correct.

Based on the discussion here, I will plan to go with amenity=shelter, followed 
by type=pergola.

Mark Bradley



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

Re: [Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses?

[Mark Bradley]

> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 15:42:55 +0100
> From: Marc Zoutendijk <marczoutend...@mac.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: [Tagging] man_made=mast for non communication uses?
> Message-ID: <5b194908-066a-4ca0-8123-2c9e93efd...@mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Currently man_made=mast has this wiki description:
> 
> "A man_made=mast is usually a small tower of only a few meters height. It is 
> often
> built from concrete or steel and only for a single application like a mobile 
> phone base
> station."
> 
> The part "only for a single application" almost always deals with 
> communications, but
> does it has to be so?
> 
> Recently someone was trying to map a number of street lamps that were really
> beyond the regular lamp pole idea. Tagging them with highway=street_lamp would
> not describe (fully) their function.
> You can see a picture of that situation here. [1] The location on the map is 
> here. [2]
> 
> On the map you can see that because of this tagging:
> 
> man_made=mast
> mast=lighting
> 
> they show up on the map as communication towers. Which of course looks rather
> weird. (*)(**)
> 
> The design of the lighting on this square is part of the architectural design 
> and could
> probably be tagged different to do more justice to this type of lighting.
> Another type of similar lighting is here [3] Do you think that extending the 
> use of
> man_made=mast with the above used mast=lighting (or maybe better
> mast:type=lighting) is a useful adddition?
> Do you have any other thoughts on this?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Marc.
> 
> 
> [1]
> http://www.panoramio.com/photo_explorer#view=photo=23_photo_id
> =93337008=date_desc=7788600
> 
> [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.23768/6.83967
> 
> [3] http://zoom.nl/foto/full/landschap/kijfhoek-in-de-
> nacht.2436005.html?object=user_id=138053
> 
> (*) The two leftmost lamp poles have been tagged with highway=street_lamp, and
> currently do not render
> 
> (**) I found another example with mast:type=lighting here:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3191361778#map=18/56.51507/66.54789
> overpass-turbo: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/esX
> 


I agree with you Marc.  In the United States, at many interchanges of our 
interstate highways, we have huge poles that support big street lights.  These 
poles look to me to be about a hundred feet tall.  I would call them a mast 
with the purpose of lighting.

Mark Bradley


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 76, Issue 56

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2016 05:25:16 -0600
> From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging scrap yards, junkyards
> Message-ID:
>   <CAMPM96rJyFHOe5Jk5h8yp-k_5kMqj+7_502g6TBJeN6iZ4Jr-
> q...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:16 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com
> > wrote:


[...]


> This is how I view junkyards.  I consider scrapyards a different critter, 
> though, more in
> the recycling tagging schemes than anything, as that tends to be where cars 
> that
> were once in the junkyard go when the junkyards decide it's cheaper use the 
> space for
> a more complete unit than keep the existing one on the lot.


+1

This is the point I was trying to make earlier.  They ARE different critters.  
I don't care so much what we call them, as long as we call them something 
different.  "Junkyard" and "scrapyard" may be American English.  Okay, let's 
use British English, or whatever else people want.  But they are different 
things.

Mark Bradley


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

Re: [Tagging] Airport power and USB stations

[Mark Bradley]

 Date: Sat, 23 May 2015 17:29:27 +1000
 From: Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Airport power and USB stations
 Message-ID: 55602c57.1090...@gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; Format=flowed
 
 On 23/05/2015 3:57 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
  On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Dave Swarthout
  daveswarth...@gmail.com mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Thanks for the great suggestions.  I'm typing on an iPhone so will
  respond fully after I reach my final destination.
 
  amenity=charging_station with subtags for clarification seems to
  fill the bill.
 
 
  I think that's a choice with high long term costs to rendering and
  processing engines.
 
  What will happen is that you're asking rendering and processing
  software to keep up with a blizzard of subtags.
  charging_station presently is understood to mean a vehicle charging
  station, not a generic charging station.  Suddenly icons designed for
  vehicle charging will start appearing inside airports.
 
  Similarly:
 
  power_supply=cee_17_red
  power_supply=cee_7_4
  power_supply=usb
 
 
  forces rendering to understand a long series of values.  For an AC
  wall plug that means understanding that  nema_5_15sev_1011 and
  cei_23_16 are all types of AC wall plugs, but that USB is something
  different.
  It's asking too much from the maintainers of rendering software.
 
  
 
 bbq has the same problem.. electric, wood, gas ...
 as does building .. school, retail, residential, church, post office ...
 
 The rendering 'problem' ?
 
 /To render or not .. that is the question?   (to misquote Bill). /
 
 The data can be added .. rendering is another problem.
   First the tagging, then the mapping .. then the rendering. They all have 
 their problems.
 -- next part --

+1



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

[Tagging] Camps

[Mark Bradley]

Greetings.

 

In the wiki under the leisure key group there is a value called
summer_camp.  I would like to propose that the value be changed to simply
camp.  Many of these camps operate year round.  Also, the description
refers to children and adolescents, but some of these camps also cater to
adults.

 

Mark

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

[Tagging] Camps

[Mark Bradley]

 Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 06:30:33 -0700

 From: Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com mailto:t...@fitchdesign.com 

 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools

tagging@openstreetmap.org
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org 

 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Camps

 Message-ID: c0cdf3a2-52d6-4dfb-add8-5b4a7f937...@fitchdesign.com
mailto:c0cdf3a2-52d6-4dfb-add8-5b4a7f937...@fitchdesign.com 

 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

 

 Reading about a refugee situation the other day I realized that camp can
mean quite different things in different contexts. So I'd be a bit leery
about going from a fairly specific term to a more general one, even if I
doubt that a refugee camp would be tagged under leisure.

 

 

Agreed.  Since there are different types of leisure camps, what about a
combination of keys, such as

 

leisure=camp

camp:type=_

 

Some possible values could be camping, sports, religious, etc.

 

 

 Perhaps, to be more general and allow for all year expectations,
leisure=resort_camp could be used. Only 79 uses of leisure=summer_camp so
far so it should not be to hard to update things if a new consensus is
achieved.

 

 Looks like their might be a desire for something along the line of
leisure=sports_camp as I see campo_sportivo and campo_baseball also tagged
under leisure.

 

 Cheers,

 Tod

 

 

 On May 4, 2015, at 4:50 AM, Mark Bradley ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com
mailto:ethnicfoodisgr...@gmail.com  wrote:

 

 Greetings.

  

 In the wiki under the leisure key group there is a value called
summer_camp.  I would like to propose that the value be changed to simply
camp.  Many of these camps operate year round.  Also, the description
refers to children and adolescents, but some of these camps also cater to
adults.

  

 Mark

 

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