Re: [Tagging] Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - childcare

[Sean Horgan]

I personally like when OSM definitions are linked to other references,
especially a well-known source like wikipedia.

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/social+service:
social service
n.
1. Organized efforts to advance human welfare; social work.
2. Services, such as free school lunches, provided by a government for
its disadvantaged citizens. Often used in the plural.

or Merriam Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20service
: an activity designed to promote social well-being; specifically :
organized philanthropic assistance (as of the disabled or
disadvantaged)

I can add these references to the tag page if people consider them better form.

As for removing the daycare reference in social_facility, I agree that
replacing it with a link to an approved childcare feature makes sense.

There are service organizations that focus on children and I wouldn't
be surprised if some provided daycare, but this is such a specific
service that I think a node is better described by combining tags.  So
a social facility that provided childcare service could use:

amenity=childcare
social_facility:for=child
age=2-17
operator=ABC Kids

--
Sean

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 04:59, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> Actually I perceive as well some reference to class struggle,
> especially in the introduction of the linked wikipedia article:
> "pursuit of social welfare, social change and social justice". I
> suggest to remove this reference, as it is not even helpful in its
> generic definition, and "social change", "social justice" and to some
> point also welfare are not about what it is, but why it is (so it
> belongs to philosophy / politics / economy and not to OSM). It is also
> not helpful to have the basic definition ("A social facility is any
> place where social services, as defined here, are conducted:") linked
> to a dynamic page ;-), and I think in OSM we could well live without
> the "as defined here" part.
>
> Given all this I agree that there is not yet a suggested value, but
> there is daycare as an example: "social_facility:for=child       e.g.
> daycare center for children", i.e. following the logics of the cited
> page there would be social_facility=daycare, social_facility:for=child
> to be amended.
>
> Following the logics of your proposal instead, there could be an
> amendment to your proposal saying that daycare should be removed from
> the example section of social_facility:for (or a link to your tag
> added. Removing "daycare" from social_facility would not be a problem
> because there is not yet a single object with this tag in the database
> (according to taginfo),
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Scuba diving (Shop or spot)

[Sean Horgan]

Are you referring to SNUBA?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuba

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 01:10, John Smith  wrote:

> On 19 January 2011 17:34,   wrote:
> > Literally, you are right. In the scuba world rebreather diving and
> snorkle
> > diving are a part of what scuba divers do.
>
> Erm no...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuba_diving
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snorkling
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebreather
>
> There is also some diving in places where you use a bubble over your
> head and then there is line diving but I couldn't find a wikipedia
> article on it.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new key civilization

[Sean Horgan]

Sounds like a good idea.  Could you list an example with tags?

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 04:01, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

> What do you think of a key: "civilization" ? This could be used to
> describe the people that built a certain feature (mostly historical
> intentions).
> Values could be:
>
> etruscan
> roman
> greek
> egyptian
> mayan
> ...
>
> I will make a proposal for this, if there is not already another tag in
> use.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Plant Nursery

[Sean Horgan]

Looks good.  After reading this discussion page on the natural=tree wiki, I
think their model of naming the trees (which you now follow) is the better
way to go.

Sean

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 00:58, Kenny Moens  wrote:

>  Hello,
>
> Based on the input here, and the description of th natural=tree key, I've
> ammended the plant nursery proposal:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Plant_nursery
>
> Please note that this is not exactly the suggestion made by Sean, but
> rather based on the existing way of tagging as used by the natural=tree tag.
>
>
> Additionally I've created a new draft which contains the plant proposal
> itself, and the involved keys:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Plant
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Kenny Moens
>
>
> On 11/12/2010 22:55, Sean Horgan wrote:
>
> I just took a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species and it
> says there are about 7 million identified species, or which plants represent
> around 300k.  On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree it supplies a
> definition of a tree and common names used by most people to identify a tree
> seem to have detailed wikipedia pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak),
> which go on to link to specific species (oak:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Quercus_species).
>
>  It looks like a lot of the specifics can be directly referenced so it
> wouldn't need to be duplicated in the OSM wiki.
>
>  Depending on how much the tagger wants to record, you could define a tree
> node as follows:
>
>  plant=, where type={tree, herb, bush, grass, vine, fern, moss,
> green-algae}
> =
> species=
>
>  For example:
>
>  plant=tree
> tree=oak
> species=*Quercus alba <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quercus_alba>*
>
>  --
> Sean
>
>  On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:10, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 2010/12/8 Sean Horgan :
>>
>> > Hi Kenny,
>> > The new proposal looks good.
>> > Are you going to create a new plant key?  Maybe at least a landing page
>> and
>> > some examples that cover your original needs to describe trees.
>>
>>
>>  I suggest to amend the species type with the latin classification
>> scheme, like it is in use for natural=tree. This permits to
>> unambigously tag the specific plants. The suggested plant-tag could be
>> used as preliminary / rough tag to make differences between trees,
>> grass, etc.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listtagg...@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> --
> Kenny Moens
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Plant Nursery (was: Tree Nursery)

[Sean Horgan]

I just took a quick look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species and it says
there are about 7 million identified species, or which plants represent
around 300k.  On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree it supplies a definition
of a tree and common names used by most people to identify a tree seem to
have detailed wikipedia pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak), which go
on to link to specific species (oak:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Quercus_species).

It looks like a lot of the specifics can be directly referenced so it
wouldn't need to be duplicated in the OSM wiki.

Depending on how much the tagger wants to record, you could define a tree
node as follows:

plant=, where type={tree, herb, bush, grass, vine, fern, moss,
green-algae}
=
species=

For example:

plant=tree
tree=oak
species=*Quercus alba <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quercus_alba>*

--
Sean

On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:10, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

> 2010/12/8 Sean Horgan :
> > Hi Kenny,
> > The new proposal looks good.
> > Are you going to create a new plant key?  Maybe at least a landing page
> and
> > some examples that cover your original needs to describe trees.
>
>
> I suggest to amend the species type with the latin classification
> scheme, like it is in use for natural=tree. This permits to
> unambigously tag the specific plants. The suggested plant-tag could be
> used as preliminary / rough tag to make differences between trees,
> grass, etc.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Plant Nursery

[Sean Horgan]

Like everything else on this list, these are just my opinions and I'm sure
others will have a different take.  Here is what I would do.

A new key should go through the same proposal process.  Since your focus is
on defining trees that would be in a nursery, you could create a Plant
proposal that had the detail you want in trees but leave placeholders for
everything else: herbs, grasses, vines, etc.

I can't imagine anyone would expect you to fully define the entire kingdom
Plantae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant).  As others have the need to
refer to other plants, they can add to it.

I went through a similar process when I wanted to define a Homeless Shelter.
 It made sense to work with another user on his definition of
"social_facility", of which homeless shelter was a subtype.  I haven't got
around to cleaning up Homeless Shelter though...

Sean

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:40, Kenny Moens  wrote:

>  Sean,
>
> I'm willing to do so, in this case would that need an additional proposed
> feature?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Kenny Moens
>
>
> On 08/12/2010 20:30, Sean Horgan wrote:
>
> Hi Kenny,
>
>  The new proposal looks good.
>
>  Are you going to create a new plant key?  Maybe at least a landing page
> and some examples that cover your original needs to describe trees.
>
>  Sean
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 08:08, Kenny Moens  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 07/12/2010 18:24, John Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a reason that you want such a specific tag?
>>>
>>> There is also an old/abandon RFC for almost an identical tag value:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Plant_nursery
>>>
>>> You could extend this to add a subtag to indicate the types of plants
>>> grown.
>>>
>>
>> I tend to agree here, it is indeed better to use a more generic plant
>> nursery type instead of the specific tree nursery. This way we can also
>> capture other plants by the same purpose. However, it still has to remain
>> the way that it is used for growing plants only for sellings the plants
>> afterwards. I.e. not for growing crops for food production, as that is a
>> typical example of landuse=farm.
>>
>> Therefore, I modified my proposal into the older abandoned version of
>> plant nursery and put it to 'proposed' feature again. I've merged my
>> information on the older page for the feature and added some links from the
>> tree_nursery towards the plant_nursery feature.
>>
>>
>> On 07/12/2010 20:01, Sean Horgan wrote:
>>
>>> I like the use of the broader Plant Nursery tag with a subtag for
>>> specific types of plants grown.
>>>
>>> A couple of (the many) ways to capture the type:
>>>
>>> 1. The shop model (shop=).
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop
>>>
>>> 2. The recycling model (recycling:=yes/no).
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Recycling
>>>
>>> You mentioned a "produces" tag in your proposal.  Instead of this, I'd
>>> like to see a plant= tag, which could lead to a Plant page on the wiki
>>> that could be also referenced by places like garden centres and farms, but
>>> this could be a much bigger project.
>>>
>>>
>> You are right, I hereby modified 'produces' towards 'plant'.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Kenny Moens
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kenny Moens
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listtagg...@openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> --
> Kenny Moens
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Plant Nursery (was: Tree Nursery)

[Sean Horgan]

Hi Kenny,

The new proposal looks good.

Are you going to create a new plant key?  Maybe at least a landing page and
some examples that cover your original needs to describe trees.

Sean

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 08:08, Kenny Moens  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On 07/12/2010 18:24, John Smith wrote:
>
>> Is there a reason that you want such a specific tag?
>>
>> There is also an old/abandon RFC for almost an identical tag value:
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Plant_nursery
>>
>> You could extend this to add a subtag to indicate the types of plants
>> grown.
>>
>
> I tend to agree here, it is indeed better to use a more generic plant
> nursery type instead of the specific tree nursery. This way we can also
> capture other plants by the same purpose. However, it still has to remain
> the way that it is used for growing plants only for sellings the plants
> afterwards. I.e. not for growing crops for food production, as that is a
> typical example of landuse=farm.
>
> Therefore, I modified my proposal into the older abandoned version of plant
> nursery and put it to 'proposed' feature again. I've merged my information
> on the older page for the feature and added some links from the tree_nursery
> towards the plant_nursery feature.
>
>
> On 07/12/2010 20:01, Sean Horgan wrote:
>
>> I like the use of the broader Plant Nursery tag with a subtag for specific
>> types of plants grown.
>>
>> A couple of (the many) ways to capture the type:
>>
>> 1. The shop model (shop=).
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop
>>
>> 2. The recycling model (recycling:=yes/no).
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Recycling
>>
>> You mentioned a "produces" tag in your proposal.  Instead of this, I'd
>> like to see a plant= tag, which could lead to a Plant page on the wiki
>> that could be also referenced by places like garden centres and farms, but
>> this could be a much bigger project.
>>
>>
> You are right, I hereby modified 'produces' towards 'plant'.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Kenny Moens
>
>
>
> --
> Kenny Moens
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tree Nursery

[Sean Horgan]

I like the use of the broader Plant Nursery tag with a subtag for specific
types of plants grown.

A couple of (the many) ways to capture the type:

1. The shop model (shop=).
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop

2. The recycling model (recycling:=yes/no).
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Recycling

You mentioned a "produces" tag in your proposal.  Instead of this, I'd like
to see a plant= tag, which could lead to a Plant page on the wiki that
could be also referenced by places like garden centres and farms, but this
could be a much bigger project.

--
Sean

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 09:24, John Smith  wrote:

> On 8 December 2010 02:22, Kenny Moens  wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Hereby I want to invite everyone to comment on the Tree Nursery proposal
> I
> > made:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tree_nursery
>
> Is there a reason that you want such a specific tag?
>
> There is also an old/abandon RFC for almost an identical tag value:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Plant_nursery
>
> You could extend this to add a subtag to indicate the types of plants
> grown.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Charity tagging

[Sean Horgan]

Agreed, social_facility as it is defined focuses on services and shops don't
fit.

I prefer your Dec 4 post where you mentioned charity=shop, or some variation
of a standalone charity key.  There are some interesting comments in the
discussion page of last year's charity proposal by Lulu-Ann:

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

<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/charity>I'd rather
try to resurrect the charity proposal as I feel like there are many other
issues/attributes under the surface that would benefit from a standalone
charity key.  So an oxfam bookshop would have these tags:

shop=books
charity=yes

or alternatively

shop=books
charity=shop

The charity tag could follow the same model used by social_facility where
the value of the tag refers to another key, such as in *social_facility*
=healthcare.

Sean

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:19, Laurence Penney  wrote:

> The whole point of the social_facility, as described on the wiki, is
> clearly around helping people at that place. Charity shops such as Oxfam and
> British Heart Foundation - even if they have broad aims of "social justice"
> - just don't fit into this at all. And RSPCA shops? They explicitly have
> nothing to do with helping people, yet seem to call for very similar tagging
> as the other kinds of charity shop.
>
> I accept that my suggestion about suppliers is more appealing to the
> taxonomist than for the average user, so... how about this for an Oxfam
> bookshop?
>
> shop=books
> shop:charity=yes
>
> - or for an RSPCA general second hand shop:
>
> shop=second_hand
> shop:charity=yes
>
> - L
>
> On 5 Dec 2010, at 02:26, Sean Horgan wrote:
>
> > Good discussion.
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow you WRT non-commercial/state run.  Social facility
> doesn't imply non-commercial, there are plenty of private organizations that
> deliver social services.  In the case of a social facility run by the state,
> I would consider this an act of charity: the giving of help to those in
> need.  In this case, the state is a proxy through which the residents
> provide the services/goods.
> >
> > I definitely agree that social_facility doesn't exactly roll off the
> tongue, especially in the context of charity.  There is little likelihood
> that an average user would type "social facility" into a search box when
> looking for a charity. As much as I'd like to consolidate related entities
> into the same tagging scheme, I know that it can't be forced.
> >
> > Is there a way to mark tags as equivalent, e.g. social_facility=shop <=>
> charity=shop, or more broadly social_facility <=> charity?
> >
> > I like your thinking on supplier=donation but I think it falls into same
> bucket of social_facility=shop: nice for the taxonomy but not the average
> user.  I prefer a simple donation=yes approach.
> >
> > Sean
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Charity tagging

[Sean Horgan]

Good discussion.

I'm not sure I follow you WRT non-commercial/state run.  Social facility
doesn't imply non-commercial, there are plenty of private organizations that
deliver social services.  In the case of a social facility run by the state,
I would consider this an act of charity: the giving of help to those in
need.  In this case, the state is a proxy through which the residents
provide the services/goods.

I definitely agree that social_facility doesn't exactly roll off the tongue,
especially in the context of charity.  There is little likelihood that an
average user would type "social facility" into a search box when looking for
a charity. As much as I'd like to consolidate related entities into the same
tagging scheme, I know that it can't be forced.

Is there a way to mark tags as equivalent, e.g. social_facility=shop <=>
charity=shop, or more broadly social_facility <=> charity?

I like your thinking on supplier=donation but I think it falls into same
bucket of social_facility=shop: nice for the taxonomy but not the average
user.  I prefer a simple donation=yes approach.

Sean

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 14:24, Laurence Penney  wrote:

> I don't dislike this direction, Sean, but a "social facility" doesn't to me
> necessarily imply charity. It implies non-commercial, but it could be
> something run by the council. There are useful distinctions to be made
> between charity and the state!
>
> I'd prefer charity=shop and shop={books|second_hand|clothes|music}. That
> seems to me easy to remember, to type, and to parse.
>
> Not sure about a donation tag. If it is understood that the value of the
> shop key generally represents the type of thing that customers can purchase,
> then it seems nice 'n' symmetrical to set up a key for how the shop is
> supplied. Maybe supplier=donation or supplier=charity. Then the donation key
> could denote how & when to make donations.
>
> - L
>
> On 4 Dec 2010, at 16:17, Sean Horgan wrote:
>
> > Thanks John.
> >
> > How do people feel about this change to the social_facility key:
> >
> > +social_facility=shop
> > +donation={yes|no|call_first}
> >
> > I'll add some examples of a donation center as well.
> >
> > --
> > Sean
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Charity tagging

[Sean Horgan]

Thanks John.

How do people feel about this change to the social_facility key:

+social_facility=shop
+donation={yes|no|call_first}

I'll add some examples of a donation center as well.

--
Sean

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 15:55, John F. Eldredge  wrote:

> I would recommend a donation=yes|no|call_first flag, or the equivalent, as
> it has been my experience that certain thrift shops only accept donations at
> certain days of the week, when enough personnel are on duty to handle both
> the sales and donation-receiving duties.  Also, you may have a situation
> where, due to limited storage space, only some locations accept bulky
> donations such as furniture or large appliances.
>
> ---Original Email---
> Subject :Re: [Tagging] Charity tagging
> From  :mailto:sean.hor...@gmail.com
> Date  :Fri Nov 26 14:36:47 America/Chicago 2010
>
>
> In the discussion during the social facility proposal, we thought about
> shops:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/social_facility
>
>
> but left it that shop=charity was more appropriate.  However, we do have
> social_facility=food_bank which is a step towards a charity-oriented shop,
> one that specifically gives away food.
>
>
> Thinking about it from an end-user perspective, I could see 2 types of
> people with respect to charitable merchandise:
>
>
> 1. Those that are looking for a place to donate goods, whether they are
> food, clothing, household items, book, even a car
> 2. Those that are looking for a place to buy second-hand/cheap goods from a
> store that has social welfare as a higher priority than profits
>
>
> In either case, the shop key handles the description of the actual
> merchandise (shop=clothes, shop=books, etc).  I think a new type of social
> facility would help describe the business model as Laurence mentioned:
>
>
> social_facility=shop
>
>
> So for both types of users, they would add the social_facility=shop tag to
> their search.  We may want to have an explicit "donation={yes,no}" tag, I'm
> not sure if that is necessary.
>
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 19:19, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer 
>  dieterdre...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>  2010/11/22 Laurence Penney mailto:l...@lorp.org> >:
>
> > I've also tagged several charity bookshops as shop=books. For these it
> seemed even more important to model the type of thing you can buy, rather
> than the business model - but that may be because I buy lots of second hand
> books and only a few second hand clothes.
>
>
>  you can combine shop and social_facility without any problem, if you
>  would like to tag it as charity as well.
>
>  cheers,
>  Martin
>
>
>
>
>  ___
>  Tagging mailing list
>  Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>  ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not
> to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - community food growing

[Sean Horgan]

+1 to sub-tagging garden.

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 03:16, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

> 2010/11/12 Tom Chance :
> > I have proposed a new landuse value - for land used for communal food
> > growing (different to farms and allotments):
> >
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Community_food_growing
> >
> > Please read the rationale in full and leave any comments. As usual, I
> > suspect there will be a fruitful discussion in making sure the wording is
> > absolutely clear for native speakers of other languages.
>
>
> IMHO they could be subtagged as gardens. Have a look at the proposed
> subtypes for garden.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Charity tagging

[Sean Horgan]

In the discussion during the social facility proposal, we thought about
shops:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/social_facility

but
left it that shop=charity was more appropriate.  However, we do have
social_facility=food_bank which is a step towards a charity-oriented shop,
one that specifically gives away food.

Thinking about it from an end-user perspective, I could see 2 types of
people with respect to charitable merchandise:

1. Those that are looking for a place to donate goods, whether they are
food, clothing, household items, book, even a car
2. Those that are looking for a place to buy second-hand/cheap goods from a
store that has social welfare as a higher priority than profits

In either case, the shop key handles the description of the actual
merchandise (shop=clothes, shop=books, etc).  I think a new type of social
facility would help describe the business model as Laurence mentioned:

social_facility=shop

So for both types of users, they would add the social_facility=shop tag to
their search.  We may want to have an explicit "donation={yes,no}" tag, I'm
not sure if that is necessary.

Sean

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 19:19, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

> 2010/11/22 Laurence Penney :
> > I've also tagged several charity bookshops as shop=books. For these it
> seemed even more important to model the type of thing you can buy, rather
> than the business model - but that may be because I buy lots of second hand
> books and only a few second hand clothes.
>
>
> you can combine shop and social_facility without any problem, if you
> would like to tag it as charity as well.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Chamber of Commerce?

[Sean Horgan]

Hi Alan,

I believe that the value of the amenity key should in some way describe what
it provides, e.g. cafe, fuel.

Is the Chamber of Commerce a private organization?  What amenity would you
say it provides?

Maybe you could propose amenity=lobby or amenity=advocacy and then use
name=chamber_of_commerce.

Sean

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 17:00, Alan Mintz

> wrote:

> In most cities in the US, and even some smaller towns, there's an
> organization called the Chamber of Commerce. With varying participation from
> municipal government, it's a portal for new businesses to come to for help
> and information, networking with other business owners, representing
> businesses in addressing the city, sometimes informal arbitration, etc.
> There are only a handful of existing tags with the name "[Cc]hamber [oO]f
> [Cc]ommerce", with no consistent tagging.
>
> Any objection to amenity=chamber_of_commerce ?
>
> --
> Alan Mintz 
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Amenity key

[Sean Horgan]

A short definition is great but I think the wiki page could use a little
more explanation *after* the definition, e.g. some examples, references to
supporting  sources like wikipedia.  I also think that it is worth
mentioning and linking to pertinent mail archive threads on the use of the
tag as it help gives some context.

As a new tagger I was confused about its use and I'd like to take a stab at
improving the wiki.  I'm not talking about a wholesale change.

I like the wikipedia definition:

 *amenities* are any tangible or intangible benefits of a property,
especially those that increase its attractiveness or value or that
contribute to its comfort or convenience.

I'll post something definitive out in a few days.

--
Sean

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 06:53, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

> 2010/10/21 Sean Horgan :
> > The definition of such a tag/key that is so common the database (3+%
> > according to taginfo: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/amenity),
> needs
> > more than a single line definition.
>
>
> Why? The shorter the definition, the better. The definitions should be
> precise and contain the needed definition, but not more. Often there
> are longish key definitions that explain a certain usecase and
> therefore restrain unneededly the use of keys/tags. Also examples
> should not be contained in the definitions IMHO (they can go in an
> example section but the definition shouldn't need them).
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Amenity key

[Sean Horgan]

Hello everyone!

>From searching through the tagging mailing list archives, the Amenity key
has its share of supporters and detractors and the topic seems to frequently
rear its head.  I can see both sides and like many of the tagging issues, it
comes down to semantics.  I think a lot of the contention results from the
definition in the OSM wiki, which sounds weak:

   - This is the primary tag for useful and important facilities for
   visitors and residents: toilets, telephones, banks, pharmacies (to buy
   medicines), schools ...

I think that the "..." at the end speaks to the vagueness.  Where possible,
I like to see the OSM definitions reference popular dictionaries like Oxford
(http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1221361#m_en_us1221361):


   - a desirable or useful feature or facility of a building or place


and wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenity):


   - any tangible or intangible benefits of a property

The definition of such a tag/key that is so common the database (3+%
according to taginfo: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/amenity), needs
more than a single line definition.

How do people feel about a change to the definition of the amenity key in
the wiki?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - social facility

[Sean Horgan]

Hello again everyone.

The last day of voting for the Social Facility proposal is tomorrow, 22 Oct.
 The proposal can be found on the wiki here:

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

<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/social_facility>With
13 votes, 12 for and 1 against, it looks like we are 2 votes away from the
community recommended 15 for approval.

User Hasemann raised a good point concerning the use of
amenity=social_facility.  Personally, I'm fine with making the use of
amenity an optional but recommended tag instead of required.  Would such a
change to the proposal change anyone's votes?  What is the recommended
process for making changes to an approved feature?

I'm going to send out a separate email on the amenity issue.

Thanks.

Sean


On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 08:35, Sean Horgan  wrote:

> Ok, sounds good.  I just bumped the date to the end of next week.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 05:55, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer  > wrote:
>
>> 2010/10/10 Sean Horgan :
>> > Hello everyone!
>> > The original deadline for voting on the social facility proposal has
>> just
>> > passed.  The page can be found here:
>> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/social_facility
>> > We received 4 approvals (2 of those from the authors) and 1 in
>> opposition.
>> >  We've tried to address concerns in the Discussion page and we've
>> updated
>> > the proposal based on feedback from email.
>> > Based on the proposed feature process
>> > (
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features#Proposal_status_process
>> ),
>> > we should aim for 15 total votes.  Could people on this list take a few
>> > minutes to either cast their vote or note their objections?
>> > Thanks to everyone for their help to this point.
>>
>>
>> I would set a new deadline on the Wiki (say +14 days), to make it clearer.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Sean Horgan]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 15:46, Steve Bennett  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Anthony  wrote:
> > I'm not aware of any hyphens which are converted into underscores, let
> alone
> > that this is "predominantly" the case.  And even if it is "predominantly"
>
> man_made=pier
> power=sub_station
>
> A key or a value don't have to be correct grammatical English - they
> just have to be relatively clear and easy to remember. I strongly
> suggest always using underscores, never hyphens.
>
> > the case, that's no reason not to do things correctly in the future.
> What's
> > the point of converting a hyphen into an underscore?
>
> Not having to remember on each case which one it is.
>

+1.  Most compelling argument I've read.

--
Sean


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

Re: [Tagging] Successful proposal

[Sean Horgan]

As a new tagger, I look to Map Features to see what tags were supported by
the community, not to see the most common tags.  When I want to know the
most commonly used tags, I use some automated tool like taginfo or tagstat.


We are wrestling with a presentation issue and clearly a single wiki page
for Map Features isn't working.  I can easily imagine some people wanting to
view the features by the number of occurrences, the number of different
users who have used it, the number of different countries it's used in, and
the last time it was used.  I don't know if the current wiki engine will
support such dynamic display but I doubt it.

Being new I don't know of any previous efforts to develop some application
to manage the community supported tags.  Has there been any?

--
Sean



On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 00:43, Peter Körner  wrote:

> Am 13.10.2010 09:31, schrieb Matthias Meißer:
>
>  For this proposal IMHO the users who removed the proposal should be
>> notified and the author should be allowed to add his new feature to the
>> map features page. He fullfilled all requirements with his proposal
>>
>
> I contacted him and we're still in a very interesting discussion. His
> opinion is, that the map-features should list the *most common used*
> features and it's clear that with 500 uses, craft does not fall into this
> category. So I can accept this tag not being listed on map-features but
> findable via a the search. This is a definition problem of what should be on
> the map-features page.
>
> Peter
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - social facility

[Sean Horgan]

Ok, sounds good.  I just bumped the date to the end of next week.

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 05:55, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

> 2010/10/10 Sean Horgan :
> > Hello everyone!
> > The original deadline for voting on the social facility proposal has just
> > passed.  The page can be found here:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/social_facility
> > We received 4 approvals (2 of those from the authors) and 1 in
> opposition.
> >  We've tried to address concerns in the Discussion page and we've updated
> > the proposal based on feedback from email.
> > Based on the proposed feature process
> > (
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features#Proposal_status_process
> ),
> > we should aim for 15 total votes.  Could people on this list take a few
> > minutes to either cast their vote or note their objections?
> > Thanks to everyone for their help to this point.
>
>
> I would set a new deadline on the Wiki (say +14 days), to make it clearer.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - social facility

[Sean Horgan]

Hello everyone!

The original deadline for voting on the social facility proposal has just
passed.  The page can be found here:

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

<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/social_facility>We
received 4 approvals (2 of those from the authors) and 1 in opposition.
 We've tried to address concerns in the Discussion page and we've updated
the proposal based on feedback from email.

Based on the proposed feature process (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features#Proposal_status_process),
we should aim for 15 total votes.  Could people on this list take a few
minutes to either cast their vote or note their objections?

Thanks to everyone for their help to this point.

Sean

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:17, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

> 2010/9/28 Sean Horgan :
> > I know the voting has started and changes to the proposal are off-limits,
> > but I was considering the addition of "animals" to the
> social_facility:for
> > subtag:
> > {{tag|social_facility:for|animals}}
>
>
> for me it's fine, but there is also a dedicated animal tag. It would
> suit also there.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] SchemaTroll 2.01 - OSM OpenMapFeatures Spreadsheet - Available for edits

[Sean Horgan]

Hi Sam,

Seems like some great work.  I'm relatively new to contributing to OSM so
pardon what may be some ignorant questions that I have.

1. How does the spreadsheet fit in with the current process of managing Map
Features (RFC Draft, Proposal, Vote, etc)?

2. How will new users to OSM find this google spreadsheet?

3. Did you use any scripts/code to parse the source datasets?  If so, do you
plan to open source them? github etc.

4. You cover a lot of information about this in email and the wiki, do you
plan to consolidate it all in the wiki?

5. Are there are current/planned users of the SchemaTroll standard?

Thanks.

Sean

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 08:58, Sam Vekemans wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'm happy to report that i have now (finally) converted the OSM Map
> Features page  into a Google Docs spreadsheet
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features
>
> The Spreadsheet is now live and available for edits.
>
>
> https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Am70fsptsPF2dGZBb3FfWHlhWTVBTGZ5ZV81LVFSMkE&hl=en
>
> The idea behind it is to organize all of the map features, in a format
> that can be used more easily, and make it similar to all of the of Map
> Feature PDF catelogues that i am looking at from data sets around the
> world.
>
>
> So now you can easily sort the chart, and find where the errors are,
> and spot where their are inconsistancies.
>
> The purpose is so the end user would not need to go to any other page
> to find map features as it should all be listed on the same wiki page.
> For each key, i have set a space for the key=*description row, so then
> the actual key can be clearly defined, with the values below.
> And where it's needed, there is space to include a rendering (doesnt
> have to be mapnik, just any render that supports it, so the user can
> know how that tag could look like.   Even a view on the garmin device
> would be good to see.
>
> Also, the purpose of the SchemaTroll 2.01 project, is so that it will
> be able to work across multiple databases and datasets
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/SchemaTroll_2.01#SchemaTroll_2.01
>
> For CommonMap, i have an IRC chat #CommonMap on oftc.net  where we can
> discuss tagging also.   As this map is using CC-BY where the data can
> and is welcome to be used by OpenStreetMap, as well as anyone else who
> wants it.
> So the aim is to be taking other map features examples into account,
> and helping to make the OSM Wiki a standard which is 'Common' to many
> maps,
>
> ... and as was mentioned earlier, there is no point in deviating from
> the map feature system, when it is already very very good
>
> I hope to have the other charts available within the next month, and
> make it detailed, so it's easy to begin the cross-referencing process.
> But 1st, the Map Features page needs to become more clear, with all of
> the definitions and descriptions filled in, as well as pictures and
> rendering samples (which in many cases) are already on the linking
> page, it just hasn't been transfered.
>
> So (for example)   Johen's database system is welcome to use the from
> this chart to get pictures and rendering samples, and descriptions
> http://blog.jochentopf.com/2010-10-05-introducing-taginfo.html
>
> I dont plan on doing major edits, and will just be editing the chart
> live on the GoogleDocs spreadsheet.
>
> Cheers,
> Sam
> ---
> Across Canada Trails - Beyond 2017 - The National Trails Network
> Victoria, BC Canada
>
> Twitter: @Acrosscanada
> Blog: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
> Skype: 'Sam Vekemans'
> IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room)
> IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #CommonMap The Common Map channel (an open chat
> room)
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Animal rescue centre

[Sean Horgan]

I was just thinking about adding animal to the social facility feature
proposal:

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

We use
the "for" subtag to specify who the facility would be used by.  A natural
extension would be animal:

social_facility:for=animal

Sean

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 13:41, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 2010/10/3 John Smith :
> > On 4 October 2010 05:35, Dave F.  wrote:
> >> I think Animal rescue centre would be the best option if nobody has an
> >> alternative.
> >
> > Wouldn't this just be another type of shelter?
> > shelter=animal ?
>
> THere is a proposal:
> animal=shelter
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Animal
>
> I wouldn't tag it shelter=animal, because that indicates IMHO you
> could find shelter under an animal.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Map Feature Samples

[Sean Horgan]

Hi Sam,

Do you have a link to the google spreadsheet?  Do you plan to make it
viewable to public (as in a webpage)?  What about editor privileges?

Sean

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 08:25, Sam Vekemans wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Dave F.  wrote:
> >  On 29/09/2010 06:15, Sam Vekemans wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >> I'm creating a list of all of the existing map features, and looking
> >> for a nice example (node/way/area/relation) of every feature.
> >>
> > Hi Sam
> >
> > To check, are you planning to replace the images in map features, even
> the
> > ones that are already there?
>
> Nope,
> The images are fine.
>
> I'm looking at sample for each feature with a link
> ie.
> This is an example of
>
> amenity=parking
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/68394042
>
> amenity=pub
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/823183114
>
> ...
> So a complete list of every map feature with an example of each would
> be helpful :)
>
> It would be great to have a sample link on every wiki page, so then
> users can easily see how it's mapped.
>
> The map Features chart is great, im just making it into an open access
> GoogleDocs chart form, with more details.
>
> Cheers,
> Sam
>
> >
> > Cheers
> > Dave F.
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] operator and brand WAS: Re: community centres

[Sean Horgan]

Hotels are similar to petrol stations in that many are independently owned
and operated but rely heavily on the brand for marketing.  Coffee shops,
 fastfood restaurants and any other franchise-business fall into the same
bucket  (starbucks, mcdonalds, home depot, Teleflora).  name, operator, and
brand would normally be 3 different things in these cases.

Sean

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:56, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

> 2010/9/28 Sean Horgan :
> > sounds good, no objections.
>
>
> OK, as this is IMHO no real change, I put it in the wiki.
>
> Now I realized something else:
> according to the German ML for tagging certain objects 3 tags are useful:
> name, operator, brand
>
> e.g. a petrol station:
> name would be the _name_ of the specific petrol station
> operator would be the name of the company or person running this
> specific station
> brand would be the name of the chain, e.g. BP, Shell, etc.
>
> Now looking at the wiki and getting this example:
>* tourism=hotel
>* name=Le Méridien Piccadilly (the name of the specific hotel)
>* operator=Le Méridien (the name of the company that runs the
> hotel, and which maybe run other hotels too)
>
> I notice a slightly different approach ;-)
>
> any comments/opinions?
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - social facility

[Sean Horgan]

I know the voting has started and changes to the proposal are off-limits,
but I was considering the addition of "animals" to the social_facility:for
subtag:

{{tag|social_facility:for|animals}} - Takes care of homeless, lost, or
abandoned animals.  See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_shelterwikipedia]

What do people think?  Is there anything that covers animal shelters today?

--
Sean

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 07:09, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

> 2010/9/25 Sean Horgan :
> > For some reason, kerosin hasn't been able to post to the mailing list so
> I'm
> > sending this out.
> > We received great input over email and on the talk page for the social
> > facility proposal so we decided to open it for voting:
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/social_facility
> > Thanks for your time.
>
>
> Is this proposal (in the discussion there were also ideas to
> incorporate social=centre) related to
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Community_Centre
> ?
>
> In Italy the "centro sociale" (wikipedia states that this is a
> "community_centre" in English, which is at the most close to truth) is
> usually a place that is not run (AFAIK) by the government or local
> administration (what is required according to the definition of
> community centre in our wiki) but by local associations. They offer
> space for diverse activities, usually you can meet there, get some
> drink, they often also organize concerts, readings, workshops and show
> soccer games, sometimes they also have spaces for educational purposes
> (computer courses, bike repair, etc.). Mostly they are politically
> left wing oriented and do political campaigns as well (like collecting
> signatures, organizing political demonstrations, etc.).
> How would you tag this? Is this incorporated in social_facility or
> would it better be in community_centre ?
>
> Why do the definitions have to be so long and specific (e.g.
> community_centre says it has to be "in a village or town", what about
> hamlets? It also states: "owned and provided by the local government".
> These topics depend very much on the social and cultural context in
> the country/region, people should try to keep the definitions as
> generic as possible and restrict usage only in cases where necessary).
>
> Your proposal is missing a definition in the first place: "Use
> amenity=social_facility to define such a POI." - which kind of POI?
>
> Below it states: "Social facilities come in many different types and
> generally focus on improving the lives of people through a variety of
> holistic and focused services." which is somehow understandable. I
> would put the first part as definition (deleting probably the
> subphrase after "people": "focused" and "holistic" are opposites as
> far as I understand them, how can they be combined with "and"? How
> does this help people who want to tag?).
>
> Besides this: nice proposal, looking at the extensive list of proposed
> subtags it gets clear what this is aimed at.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] community centres

[Sean Horgan]

sounds good, no objections.

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 01:59, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

> 2010/9/28 Pierre-Alain Dorange :
> > Sean Horgan  wrote:
> >
> >> agreed.  there should be no restriction on who owns/provides the
> service.
> >
> > Yes but then we must provide operator=*
>
>
> yes, we should encourage the use of operator, which might not be the
> same as proprietor though. It could be that the operation of the
> service is assigned to a private company, but the proprietor is
> public. Like for fuel stations we might need different subtags for
> this, and we should define the roles in the wiki.
>
> Looking at "operator" in the wiki, there is really no definition, just
> longish local examples: "Often it's useful to describe that a certain
> map object "belongs" to a company or corporation in any way. For
> example: With the emerging of private postal service providers, it may
> be of interest for the map user which postal services provider
> operates a certain post_box. For example, in Germany there are already
> some private companies like PIN or Stadtbrief who install their own
> post boxes. Who wants to ship a letter has to choose the post box of
> "his" postal service provider. Other examples are pub, restaurant and
> hotel chains, maybe also streets maintained by private companies where
> a fee is required. "
>
> OK, found it below, in "examples": "The operator tag could be used to
> name a company or corporation (also a person???) who's responsible for
> a certain map object or who operates it. "
>
> what about changing this to "The operator tag is used to name a
> company, corporation, person or any other entity who is in charge of
> the operation of a certain map object" and putting it on top of the
> page. We could then put the stuff quoted above below "examples".
>
> any objections?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=wedding_office [Was: New tag value: shop=wedding]

[Sean Horgan]

office=wedding_planner sounds fine to me.  I'm actually going to need one of
those pretty soon ;-)

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 21:00, Noel David Torres Taño
wrote:

> On Martes 28 Septiembre 2010 04:47:58 Sean Horgan escribió:
> > I prefer office=wedding_planner.  Craft doesn't sound right but there is
> > definitely some overlap between the examples in craft and office.
>
> AFAIK, Craft is mostly for people who make (and sell) something, Shop for
> people who sell something they don't made, and office for people who don't
> sell
> anything material. Thus, that's why there are shop:jewelry and
> craft:jeweler,
> and there are office:lawyer but there are no shop:lawer nor craft:lawyer.
>
> wedding_planner sounds great to me.
>
> Let's agree on "office:wedding_planner" ?
>
> Noel
> er Envite
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=wedding_office [Was: New tag value: shop=wedding]

[Sean Horgan]

I prefer office=wedding_planner.  Craft doesn't sound right but there is
definitely some overlap between the examples in craft and office.

Sean

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 20:43, Sean Horgan  wrote:

> Ok, I was confused by this statement in
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:shop:
>
> There are shops specialized in providing wedding services: catering,
> decoration, photographer/videocameraman, illumination, gifts, flowers...
>
> In the US, the services you describe are generally performed by a wedding
> planner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_planner.
>
> I don't have any experience with the craft tags, but it looks to me like it
> covers any number of service oriented fields, such as carpenters, gardeners,
> and even chimney sweeps.  So a craft=wedding_planner wouldn't be much of a
> departure.
>
> Sean
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 20:35, Noel David Torres Taño <
> env...@rolamasao.org> wrote:
>
>> On Martes 28 Septiembre 2010 04:07:10 Sean Horgan escribió:
>> > Maybe this just makes it more confusing, but it looks a photographer or
>> a
>> > confectioner would be listed using craft:
>> >
>> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:craft
>> >
>> > There is also shop=confectionery, shop=bakery, shop=florist.  Maybe the
>> > shop=butcher serves as a good model in cases like this, where it's
>> better
>> > to sub-tag like butcher:pork=yes/no.  E.g. shop=florist,
>> > florist:wedding=yes.
>>
>> That is not at all. I'm not talking about a photographer nor a florist nor
>> confectionery nor anything of that, but about people who organize
>> weddings:
>> they contract in your name with a photographer, a florist, a catering
>> bussines,
>> a pastry, a restaurant, etc.
>>
>> They do not craft anything at all, so Key=craft is plain wrong. They do
>> not
>> sell any material, nor craft any merchandise. They sell a service for
>> organizing a wedding, like travel agencies (office=travel agent) do not
>> carry
>> you nor give you rooms nor rent you cars, but contract in your name with
>> airlines and hotels and car rentals.
>>
>> Maybe I should change Key=shop by Key=office as Martin initially proposed.
>> What
>> do you think?
>>
>> Noel
>> er Envite
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=wedding_office [Was: New tag value: shop=wedding]

[Sean Horgan]

Ok, I was confused by this statement in
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:shop:

There are shops specialized in providing wedding services: catering,
decoration, photographer/videocameraman, illumination, gifts, flowers...

In the US, the services you describe are generally performed by a wedding
planner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_planner.

I don't have any experience with the craft tags, but it looks to me like it
covers any number of service oriented fields, such as carpenters, gardeners,
and even chimney sweeps.  So a craft=wedding_planner wouldn't be much of a
departure.

Sean

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 20:35, Noel David Torres Taño
wrote:

> On Martes 28 Septiembre 2010 04:07:10 Sean Horgan escribió:
> > Maybe this just makes it more confusing, but it looks a photographer or a
> > confectioner would be listed using craft:
> >
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:craft
> >
> > There is also shop=confectionery, shop=bakery, shop=florist.  Maybe the
> > shop=butcher serves as a good model in cases like this, where it's better
> > to sub-tag like butcher:pork=yes/no.  E.g. shop=florist,
> > florist:wedding=yes.
>
> That is not at all. I'm not talking about a photographer nor a florist nor
> confectionery nor anything of that, but about people who organize weddings:
> they contract in your name with a photographer, a florist, a catering
> bussines,
> a pastry, a restaurant, etc.
>
> They do not craft anything at all, so Key=craft is plain wrong. They do not
> sell any material, nor craft any merchandise. They sell a service for
> organizing a wedding, like travel agencies (office=travel agent) do not
> carry
> you nor give you rooms nor rent you cars, but contract in your name with
> airlines and hotels and car rentals.
>
> Maybe I should change Key=shop by Key=office as Martin initially proposed.
> What
> do you think?
>
> Noel
> er Envite
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=wedding_office [Was: New tag value: shop=wedding]

[Sean Horgan]

Maybe this just makes it more confusing, but it looks a photographer or a
confectioner would be listed using craft:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:craft

There is also shop=confectionery, shop=bakery, shop=florist.  Maybe the
shop=butcher serves as a good model in cases like this, where it's better to
sub-tag like butcher:pork=yes/no.  E.g. shop=florist, florist:wedding=yes.



On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 18:27, Noel David Torres Taño
wrote:

> On Lunes 27 Septiembre 2010 23:27:18 Sean Horgan escribió:
> > I prefer wedding_services over wedding_office, as my first thought with
> > office was one of those Vegas drive-thrus.  Either one will still cause
> > some confusion though.
>
> What about "wedding_organization" ?
>
> Noel
> er Envite
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - social facility

[Sean Horgan]

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 17:10, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

> 2010/9/28 Sean Horgan :
> > I took a stab at a definition and updated the wiki; let me know what you
> > think
> "A social facility is any place that focuses on improving the lives of
> others."
>
> that's very generic, while it is true it might still not be very
> helpful for a mapper who looks for a certain tag.
>
> I'd be more specific: "Most often, it is a place where social
> services, as defined here, are conducted: "
>
> Simply put the whole thing to "A social facility is a place where
> social services, as defined here, are conducted: "
>
> just a suggestion.
>

Sounds good.


>
> "There are no restrictions as to who provides the services; it can be
> government, faith-based, private, local, national, or international."
>
> IMHO you can cut this after "services" and it is shorter, easier and
> more precise.
>

Ok.  I'm seeing the trend here: succinctness.


>
>
> > "group home".  One of the tag examples in that section of the wiki is for
> > "Retirement Home".  Does this cover the need?
>
>
> it would be one kind of this type, yes.
>
> >  Or is your point that
> > "assisted living" is a confusing term?
>
>
> no, not at all. You are describing the office / place of the
> administration and not the place, where the work is done (the home of
> the assisted people), right?
>

correct.


>
>
> > I would say yes. I would tag with
> > social_facility=healthcare
>
>
> really? You would tag a place where heroine-addicts go to consume
> their drugs "healthcare"?
>

Provided that the primary purposes of this place were the safety and health
of the users, then I would say yes.  Certainly not for places whose motives
were commercial/for-profit.  We discussed the use of the word "clinic"
instead of "healthcare", which sounds better in this drug case but we
settled on healthcare as could reference the rich detail in that proposed
feature: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare.


> social_facility:for=drug_addicted
>
>
> I would tag facilities like this as well, but not the one described.
>
>
> > and maybe add in the description the details about non-disturbed drug
> use.
>
> nah, we are making the proposal now, don't put the meaning in the
> description if you don't have to.
>
>
> > If the owners of the restaurant have a goal to employ anyone with
> > disabilities, then I would say that it is a social facility in addition
> to
> > being a restaurant. You could add the following tags to the POI:
> > social_facility=workshop
> > social_facility:for=disabled
>
>
> yes, I think that's what it is. You would combine these with regular
> restaurant tags. (The specific place I wrote about is kind of an
> association that deals with down-syndrome, so they don't just
> coincidentally happen to have a lot of down employees ;-) )
>
>
> >> There should IMHO also be a subtag social_facility=counsel (?) for
> >> places that give advice and support (with a subtag for which kind of
> >> advice you get), e.g. family planning, people who live in a rented
> >> place, drug addicts, people with debts, psycologic advice, etc.
>
>
> > I like that idea.  I'm split though as I think we could broaden the
> > definition of the "outreach" type, which is currently:
> > A non-residential facility that provides social welfare services such as
> > advocacy, job placement, veterans services, housing placement, wellness
> > programs, daycare, leisure activities. e.g. outreach for veterans
>
>
> I'd cut this as well: "A facility that provides social welfare
> services." Why should it be non-residential? To exclude social housing
> projects and the like?
>

Exactly.  We wanted to clear delineate where people should go for
residential needs (group home or shelter) versus offices for wellness.


>
> > However, counseling may be different enough of a service to warrant
> another
> > tag.  I could go either way on this.
>
>
> yes, but it is a "facility that "provides social welfare services" so
> I'd put it here and mark it with a subtag.
>

agreed.  Counseling starts to get more medical in terms of definition, which
is better served with the proposed healthcare tag.

updates to the wiki were made.

Sean



>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] New tag value: shop=wedding

[Sean Horgan]

I prefer wedding_services over wedding_office, as my first thought with
office was one of those Vegas drive-thrus.  Either one will still cause some
confusion though.

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:05, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

> 2010/9/27 Noel David Torres Taño :
> > I expressely said in the proposal at
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:shop that it is not for
> clothings,
>
>
> yes, I understood this, but it was not what I expected. And many other
> people might not read the definition prior to using a tag if they have
> the impression they know what it's about ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - social facility

[Sean Horgan]

Thanks for the comments Martin, response below:

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 13:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:

> 2010/9/27 kerosin :
> > Hey Martin,
> >
> > I would tag this as with amenity=community_centre! Our aim with that
> > "social_facility"-proposal is to capture facilities for people with
> > disadvantages or people in needs. The amenity you're describing is more
> > general and responsive to everyone.
>
>
> yes, I agree, I was a little bit confused because I know that some of
> the "centri sociali" are tagges as social=centre, and I read some
> discussion for this proposal that wanted to incorporate these, but
> reading your proposal I recognized that the idea behind it was
> different.
>
> > Your're right maybe we should add a definition to clarify our approach!
>
>
> yes, more then clarify it will be easier to get at a glimpse what it
> is about. Generally your proposal is already good and OSM needs this.
> I would add a headline2 ("definition" or something similar) above
> reasoning and put the following sentence there: "Social facilities
> come in many different types and generally focus on improving the
> lives of people. (For the details see below)." Or something similar. I
> took your sentence and deleted the "through a variety of holistic and
> focused services" part, because either they are focused or not, either
> they are holistic or not (they might all pretend to be, not sure), it
> doesn't really matter for the definition.
>

I took a stab at a definition and updated the wiki; let me know what you
think.


>
> Some other amendments that come to my mind:
> social_facility=assisted_living "A non-residential facility that
> supports the living needs of those who can't fully support themselves
> (comprising ambulantory services). e.g. home nurses". I know of
> assisted_living as residential facility. Usually it is for the
> "richer" part of the population, because it is more expensive than a
> nursery home to live there. Often the residents are the proprietors of
> the appartments and pay for the nurse/medical service.
>

We tried to cover residential facilities that support the elderly under
"group home".  One of the tag examples in that section of the wiki is for
"Retirement Home".  Does this cover the need?  Or is your point that
"assisted living" is a confusing term?


> In some countries (first one worldwide 1986 in Berne, CH; in
> Northamerica 2003 in Vancouver "safe injection site") there are
> facilities for drug addicts where they can go and take their drugs
> without beeing disturbed. Would that qualify for this tag?
>

I would say yes. I would tag with

social_facility=healthcare
social_facility:for=drug_addicted

and maybe add in the description the details about non-disturbed drug use.


>
> I also know of a restaurant where a lot of the employees suffer from
> down syndrome, but the restaurant is open to the public, you won't
> necessarily consider this a "social_facility" still it is.
>

If the owners of the restaurant have a goal to employ anyone with
disabilities, then I would say that it is a social facility in addition to
being a restaurant. You could add the following tags to the POI:

social_facility=workshop
social_facility:for=disabled


>
> There should IMHO also be a subtag social_facility=counsel (?) for
> places that give advice and support (with a subtag for which kind of
> advice you get), e.g. family planning, people who live in a rented
> place, drug addicts, people with debts, psycologic advice, etc.
>

I like that idea.  I'm split though as I think we could broaden the
definition of the "outreach" type, which is currently:

A non-residential facility that provides social welfare services such as
advocacy, job placement, veterans services, housing placement, wellness
programs, daycare, leisure activities. e.g. outreach for veterans

However, counseling may be different enough of a service to warrant another
tag.  I could go either way on this.

Sean


>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] community centres

[Sean Horgan]

agreed.  there should be no restriction on who owns/provides the service.

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 14:04,  wrote:

> Your proposed changes make sense to me.
>
> ---Original Email---
> Subject :[Tagging] community centres
> From  :mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com
> Date  :Mon Sep 27 16:02:20 America/Chicago 2010
>
>
> I happened to stumble over
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcommunity_centre
> The definition restricts usage with this sentence "The Community
> Centre is owned and provided by the local government."
>
> The linked wikipedia article
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_centre doesn't for good
> reasons: it mentions a lot of those facilities run by religious
> communities, which are in most countries not "the local government".
> There is also the possibility that a foundation or a political party
> run a centre like this.
>
> I find the restriction to governmental institutions somewhat
> unnecessary. What about changing this? We could still encourage the
> use of an operator tag to clarify who runs the thing.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - social facility

[Sean Horgan]

For some reason, kerosin hasn't been able to post to the mailing list so I'm
sending this out.

We received great input over email and on the talk page for the social
facility proposal so we decided to open it for voting:

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

Thanks for your time.

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

Re: [Tagging] [HOT] recording damage

[Sean Horgan]

Unless you've already started on it, I can consolidate into the the format
you've used for (and get up to speed with) your schematroll efforts.  Is
there a write-up or wiki page that describes your goals and where you are
with it?

Sean

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 03:27, Sam Vekemans wrote:

> hi,
> from the wiki page, it looks like its all derrived from the
>
> UNSDIT and SAR datamodel.
> Does anyone have the sourse pdf document feature catelogue that lists
> all the featurs and it's meanings?
>
>
> would save me digging.
> I'll include the descriptive comments that people put, as this helps
> in the tag decision making process, to get it in context.
>
>
> cheers,
> sam
>
> On 9/24/10, Sam Vekemans  wrote:
> > sure,
> > if someone wants to simply make a list of the commonly used tags for
> > an emergency use situation, just put it in a spreadsheed form, and it
> > can be incorporated into the overall tagging schematroll system im
> > working on.
> >
> >
> > cheers,
> > sam
> >
> > On 9/23/10, Schuyler Erle  wrote:
> >> My best suggestion would be to start a Humanitarian Features page on the
> >> OSM
> >> wiki that copies the format of the Map Features page. I'd then collect
> as
> >> much of the existing discussion as you're willing to devote time to
> >> doing,
> >> and put it all on that page. In point of fact, I think this would be a
> >> tremendous service to HOT (unless anyone else feels otherwise and wants
> >> to
> >> pipe up).
> >>
> >> Sean, are you volunteering? :-D
> >>
> >> SDE
> >>
> >> On Sep 20, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Sean Horgan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi everyone,
> >>>
> >>> It looks like the push to define Humanitarian OSM tags in the wiki
> >>> stopped
> >>> in February but from scouring the web, it looks like the HOT is very
> >>> active (http://hot.openstreetmap.org/weblog).
> >>>
> >>> Where is the right place to review the current damage/disaster-related
> >>> tags?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Sean
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 08:59, Sean Horgan 
> wrote:
> >>> I've been in Galveston Texas for the last week and I've been trying to
> >>> add
> >>> some POIs as I've ventured around the island.  One thing I've run into
> >>> is
> >>> that some of facilities are either permanently destroyed or temporarily
> >>> out-of-use due to storm damage from Hurricane Ike in 2008.  Little to
> no
> >>> tagging of this damage exists.
> >>>
> >>> I've searched around trying to find some precedent for damage-related
> >>> tags
> >>> and found the following, all related to Haiti:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/t...@openstreetmap.org/msg26308.html -
> >>> discussion on the talk mailing list
> >>>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team/Haiti_Strategy_And_Proposal
> >>> - Haiti proposal
> >>> http://tagstat.hypercube.telascience.org/search.php?query=damage -
> >>> tagstats on damage
> >>>
> >>> What are the best forums to both understand current practice as well as
> >>> discuss tagging of damaged features, i.e. storms, earthquakes, riots,
> >>> conflicts, etc?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> Sean
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> HOT mailing list
> >>> h...@openstreetmap.org
> >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> HOT mailing list
> >> h...@openstreetmap.org
> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Twitter: @Acrosscanada
> > Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/
> > http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
> > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
> > Skype: samvekemans
> > IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room)
> > @Acrosscanadatrails
> >
>
>
> --
> Twitter: @Acrosscanada
> Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/
> http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
> Skype: samvekemans
> IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room)
> @Acrosscanadatrails
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [HOT] recording damage

[Sean Horgan]

I guess I just volunteered ;-).  Happy to help.

I can consolidate any disparate sources of tags and start putting together a
proposal for new map features.   I'll take a look at those UNSDI-T xls', the
JOSM presets, the current Humanitarian tags on the wiki and anything else
people send my way.  I'll start with a spreadsheet that organizes everything
I can find and post it out to the hot and tagging mailing lists.

Sean

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 20:24, Schuyler Erle  wrote:

> My best suggestion would be to start a Humanitarian Features page on the
> OSM wiki that copies the format of the Map Features page. I'd then collect
> as much of the existing discussion as you're willing to devote time to
> doing, and put it all on that page. In point of fact, I think this would be
> a tremendous service to HOT (unless anyone else feels otherwise and wants to
> pipe up).
>
> Sean, are you volunteering? :-D
>
> SDE
>
> On Sep 20, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Sean Horgan wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > It looks like the push to define Humanitarian OSM tags in the wiki
> stopped in February but from scouring the web, it looks like the HOT is very
> active (http://hot.openstreetmap.org/weblog).
> >
> > Where is the right place to review the current damage/disaster-related
> tags?
> >
> > --
> > Sean
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 08:59, Sean Horgan  wrote:
> > I've been in Galveston Texas for the last week and I've been trying to
> add some POIs as I've ventured around the island.  One thing I've run into
> is that some of facilities are either permanently destroyed or temporarily
> out-of-use due to storm damage from Hurricane Ike in 2008.  Little to no
> tagging of this damage exists.
> >
> > I've searched around trying to find some precedent for damage-related
> tags and found the following, all related to Haiti:
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/t...@openstreetmap.org/msg26308.html -
> discussion on the talk mailing list
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team/Haiti_Strategy_And_Proposal-
>  Haiti proposal
> > http://tagstat.hypercube.telascience.org/search.php?query=damage -
> tagstats on damage
> >
> > What are the best forums to both understand current practice as well as
> discuss tagging of damaged features, i.e. storms, earthquakes, riots,
> conflicts, etc?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > HOT mailing list
> > h...@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a currently-closed public athletic field

[Sean Horgan]

agreed.  I prefer disused=yes myself but I wanted to at least mention
another approach I've read.

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 15:45, John Smith  wrote:

> On 22 September 2010 06:45, Sean Horgan  wrote:
> > I've heard others suggest updating the current tag, such as
> > "amenity=disused".
>
> The only problem with that is it would obscure any amenities that may
> have been damaged that they're planning to fix etc, I'd stick with
> disused=yes so you know what was/is going to be there.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a currently-closed public athletic field

[Sean Horgan]

John,

Here is an approach that I took for a similar situation.

I tagged some buildings that were damaged from Hurricane Ike in Galveston
Texas as "disused=yes" and I place a note saying why.  Here is an example of
one:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/914783304

I've heard others suggest updating the current tag, such as
"amenity=disused".

--
Sean

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:36, John F. Eldredge  wrote:

> Nashville, Tennessee, USA was hit by a thousand-year flood on May 1st and
> May 2nd, 2010 (that is, a flood severe enough that is unlikely to occur more
> than once in a thousand-year period).  One of the consequences was that a
> small park, containing a softball field used mostly by children's teams, and
> an associated parking area, was closed due to flood damage, and has still
> not been repaired nearly five months later.  It is still fenced off and
> off-limits to the public.  How do you suggest tagging a public park and
> athletic field that is currently not open to the public?
> --
> John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
> "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not
> to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] recording damage

[Sean Horgan]

Hi everyone,

It looks like the push to define Humanitarian OSM tags in the wiki stopped
in February but from scouring the web, it looks like the HOT is very active
(http://hot.openstreetmap.org/weblog).

Where is the right place to review the current damage/disaster-related tags?

--
Sean


On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 08:59, Sean Horgan  wrote:

> I've been in Galveston Texas for the last week and I've been trying to add
> some POIs as I've ventured around the island.  One thing I've run into is
> that some of facilities are either permanently destroyed or temporarily
> out-of-use due to storm damage from Hurricane Ike in 2008.  Little to no
> tagging of this damage exists.
>
> I've searched around trying to find some precedent for damage-related tags
> and found the following, all related to Haiti:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/t...@openstreetmap.org/msg26308.html -
> discussion on the talk mailing list
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team/Haiti_Strategy_And_Proposal
>  -
> Haiti proposal
> http://tagstat.hypercube.telascience.org/search.php?query=damage -
> tagstats on damage
>
> What are the best forums to both understand current practice as well as
> discuss tagging of damaged features, i.e. storms, earthquakes, riots,
> conflicts, etc?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sean
>
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] recording damage

[Sean Horgan]

I've been in Galveston Texas for the last week and I've been trying to add
some POIs as I've ventured around the island.  One thing I've run into is
that some of facilities are either permanently destroyed or temporarily
out-of-use due to storm damage from Hurricane Ike in 2008.  Little to no
tagging of this damage exists.

I've searched around trying to find some precedent for damage-related tags
and found the following, all related to Haiti:

http://www.mail-archive.com/t...@openstreetmap.org/msg26308.html -
discussion on the talk mailing list
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team/Haiti_Strategy_And_Proposal
-
Haiti proposal
http://tagstat.hypercube.telascience.org/search.php?query=damage - tagstats
on damage

What are the best forums to both understand current practice as well as
discuss tagging of damaged features, i.e. storms, earthquakes, riots,
conflicts, etc?

Thanks.

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

Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] social facility

[Sean Horgan]

Good feedback Peter and thanks for passing along the Crossing wiki.  Some
comments below:

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:39, Peter Wendorff wrote:

>  Hi.
>
> On 14.09.2010 18:59, Sean Horgan wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Also, if I wanted to capture specific data about that they offered, I'd
> like to follow the amenity:recycling tagging scheme (
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drecycling):
>
>  + homeless_shelter:programs=jobs
> + homeless_shelter:meals_served=breakfast
> + homeless_shelter:lodging=yes
> + homeless_shelter:emergency_medical=yes
>
>  Is this a good model to follow?
>
> I'm not sure.
> I think, there are two general approaches to simulate a tree-style tagging
> scheme like this.
> The first is to use more keys (as you do here with homeless_shelter:*), the
> second is to use more values and to concatenate multiple values by ; (like
> you will have at
> homeless_shelter:meals_served=breakfast;lunch
> (compare crossing=island;traffic_signals)
>
>
Ok, I'm following you.  Similar to amenity:recycling, many of the examples
in Crossing follow a yes/no model:

traffic_signals:sound<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals:sound>
=yes/no<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:traffic_signals:sound%3Dyes/no&action=edit&redlink=1>

traffic_signals:vibration<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals:vibration>
=yes/no<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:traffic_signals:vibration%3Dyes/no&action=edit&redlink=1>

traffic_signals:arrow<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals:arrow>
=yes/no<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:traffic_signals:arrow%3Dyes/no&action=edit&redlink=1>
traffic_signals:minimap<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_signals:minimap>
=yes/no<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:traffic_signals:minimap%3Dyes/no&action=edit&redlink=1>

<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:traffic_signals:minimap%3Dyes/no&action=edit&redlink=1>However,
for a finite and relative small (< 10) set of values, I prefer a multivalued
value string like "homeless_shelter:meals=breakfast;lunch" over something
like this:

homeless_shelter:breakfast=yes
homeless_shelter:lunch=yes
homeless_shelter:dinner=no

For amenity:recycling, there is no limit to what could be recycled so I
think it makes more sense to follow the yes/no model as a single value could
get extremely large.  The same appears to go for traffic_signals (I never
thought you could break those down so discretely!).

Both are good for some reasons:
> using less keys provides easy access for the whole group of values;
> using less values is more easy to parse and search - there is no string
> slicing needed.
>
> But:
> I would not mix these together.
>

I prefer consistency as well but I think I would only apply that for a
particular tag.  To continue the meals example, homeless_shelter:meals could
be defined as a multivalued list from a set of known values (e.g.
{no;breakfast;lunch;dinner;takeout}) while a list of programs/services
offered by the shelter would follow the yes/no model:

+ homeless_shelter:lodging=yes
+ homeless_shelter:meals=no
+ homeless_shelter:job_placement=yes
+ homeless_shelter:veterans_services=yes
+ homeless_shelter:emergency_medical=yes


Feedback is greatly appreciated!

--
Sean


> Perhaps that's only my POV - feel free to argument against.
>
> regards
> Peter
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] social facility

[Sean Horgan]

Thanks for the feedback Sam.

kerosin and I have talked about a couple of different approaches:

social_facility=shelter
social_facility:for=homeless

or along the lines as you recommended:

social_facility=shelter
shelter=homeless_shelter

I find social_facility:for=homeless to be more descriptive, it's clear who
this feature is for.  Is there any consensus one way or the other?

Also, if I wanted to capture specific data about that they offered, I'd like
to follow the amenity:recycling tagging scheme (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Drecycling):

+ homeless_shelter:programs=jobs
+ homeless_shelter:meals_served=breakfast
+ homeless_shelter:lodging=yes
+ homeless_shelter:emergency_medical=yes

Is this a good model to follow?

Thanks.

Sean

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 18:48, Sam Vekemans wrote:

> yup,
> just change 'social_facility:for=homeless'
> to
> shelter=homess'
>
>
> this way it's a clear sub-sub-tag
>
>
> cheers,
> sam
>
> On 9/13/10, Sean Horgan  wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 21:52, Steve Bennett 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Sean Horgan 
> wrote:
> >> > social_facility=emergency_shelter (a shelter for homeless people e.g.
> in
> >> > case of a disaster)
> >>
> >> The description there looks horribly confusing to me. The words
> >> "homeless shelter" leap off the page, even though that's not what it's
> >> describing.
> >>
> >>
> > Agreed, this description didn't work and that's what we're clearing up.
>  In
> > fact I believe kerosin just removed that from the social_facility
> proposal
> > page:
> >
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/social_facility
> >
> >
> >
> >> > social_facility=emergency
> >>
> >> That tag strikes me as not intuitive - you need an accompanying
> >> description to have any idea what it's describing.
> >>
> >
> > There is a clear distinct between homeless people during normal times and
> > those who do not have homes during a disaster.  The Humanitarian OSM tags
> > refers to the latter group as Internally Displaced Peoples (IDPs).
>  Having
> > thought about it some more, I don't think we should include emergency
> > facilities into a social facilities feature as they serve different
> > populations at different times.
> >
> > Here is an example of how a homeless shelter feature could be defined:
> >
> > amenity=social_facility
> > + social_facility=shelter
> > + social_facility:for=homeless
> > + name=Loaves and Fishes Dining Room
> > + operator=Sacramento Loaves and Fishes
> > +building=yes
> > + wheelchair=yes
> > + opening hours=24/7
> > +Addr:Street=1321 North C Street
> > +Addr:City=Sacramento
> > +Addr:State=CA
> >
> > A newbie question I have goes beyond the definition of social_facility
> and
> > into capturing more specific information about a homeless shelter, such
> as
> > specific programs they provide (e.g. veterans, jail visitation, job
> > training).  Would it be appropriate to introduce a separate
> homeless_shelter
> > tag for that purpose?
> >
> > Thanks for the help.
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >
> >> That's my first glance reaction, which is worth what you paid for it.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> Twitter: @Acrosscanada
> Blogs: http://acrosscanadatrails.posterous.com/
> http://Acrosscanadatrails.blogspot.com
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
> Skype: samvekemans
> IRC: irc://irc.oftc.net #osm-ca Canadian OSM channel (an open chat room)
> @Acrosscanadatrails
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] social facility

[Sean Horgan]

On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 21:52, Steve Bennett  wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Sean Horgan  wrote:
> > social_facility=emergency_shelter (a shelter for homeless people e.g. in
> > case of a disaster)
>
> The description there looks horribly confusing to me. The words
> "homeless shelter" leap off the page, even though that's not what it's
> describing.
>
>
Agreed, this description didn't work and that's what we're clearing up.  In
fact I believe kerosin just removed that from the social_facility proposal
page:

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



> > social_facility=emergency
>
> That tag strikes me as not intuitive - you need an accompanying
> description to have any idea what it's describing.
>

There is a clear distinct between homeless people during normal times and
those who do not have homes during a disaster.  The Humanitarian OSM tags
refers to the latter group as Internally Displaced Peoples (IDPs).  Having
thought about it some more, I don't think we should include emergency
facilities into a social facilities feature as they serve different
populations at different times.

Here is an example of how a homeless shelter feature could be defined:

amenity=social_facility
+ social_facility=shelter
+ social_facility:for=homeless
+ name=Loaves and Fishes Dining Room
+ operator=Sacramento Loaves and Fishes
+building=yes
+ wheelchair=yes
+ opening hours=24/7
+Addr:Street=1321 North C Street
+Addr:City=Sacramento
+Addr:State=CA

A newbie question I have goes beyond the definition of social_facility and
into capturing more specific information about a homeless shelter, such as
specific programs they provide (e.g. veterans, jail visitation, job
training).  Would it be appropriate to introduce a separate homeless_shelter
tag for that purpose?

Thanks for the help.

Sean


> That's my first glance reaction, which is worth what you paid for it.
>
> Steve
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] social facility

[Sean Horgan]

I'd like to get some feedback from the community on possible inclusion of
"emergency shelter" in a "social facility" feature.  I was discussing this
with the author of that proposal, kerosin, as I'd like to fold the Homeless
Shelter proposal into Social Facility.

After just a little research, the Humanitarian OSM tags came up and I want
to make that whatever we propose is in line with those goals.

Thanks,

Sean

-- Forwarded message --
From: Sean Horgan 
Date: Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 14:28
Subject: Re: [OpenStreetMap] Re: Re: Re: Re: social facility
To: kerosin 


While I don't want to over-complicate this proposal, the inclusion of
emergency raises more questions.

The use-case I'm thinking about for emergencies covers shelters for
disasters as well as vaccination clinics or distribution of aid.  Some of
this is covered in the Humanitarian OSM tags:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Tags/Humanitarian_Data_Model#Health_Facility

An emergency shelter would be covered under Internally Displaced People
(IDP) camp site, e.g.

idp:camp_condition=building

A vaccination clinic, for something like smallpox would be:

health_facility:type<http://w/index.php?title=Key:health_facility:type&action=edit&redlink=1>
=dispensary<http://w/index.php?title=Tag:health_facility:type%3Ddispensary&action=edit&redlink=1>

I didn't see anything in there there for distribution of food or other aid
like building supplies.

>From your wiki proposal, I would change this:

social_facility=emergency_shelter (a shelter for homeless people e.g. in
case of a disaster)

to just

social_facility=emergency

We could then use the Humanitarian tags to describe the feature in more
detail.  Would this be the right way to approach this?

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

Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] Re: social facility

[Sean Horgan]

We are currently discussing those suggestions.

Which do people prefer:
* social
* social_centre
* social_facility

--
Sean

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:39, John Smith  wrote:

> What was wrong with the suggestions made in the previous thread about
> this same topic?
>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-September/004278.html
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] Re: social facility

[Sean Horgan]

Are you talking about this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sheltered_Housing?

Also, on the amenity wiki under Entertainment, Arts & Culture there is a
link to a social_centre:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Dsocial_centre&action=edit&redlink=1

It is described as "A place for free and not-for-profit activities." but it
is not defined at all.

Are you recommending that we use "social" instead of either "social_centre"
or "social_facility".  I lean towards "facility" myself as just "social" or
"social_centre" sounds more recreational.

In general I like the idea of redirecting amenity:homeless_shelter to a more
generic tag.  How does this impact retrieval via an API?

--
Sean

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 11:58, Sam Vekemans wrote:

> hi,
> I have 'amenity=sheltered_housing'
> which can be translated to
> amenity=social
> social=sheltered_housing
>
>
> then setup a re-direct of amenity=homeless_shelter to the above 2 tags
> as a pop-up 'did you mean ?'
>
>
> this way, its generic enough that other features can be put into
> 'social', and can still be understood.
>
>
> cheers,
> sam
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OpenStreetMap] Re: social facility

[Sean Horgan]

Jan,

Great to hear from you.  This is my first time through the process as well.
 I spent some time going through the wiki to learn more about proposals and
a key part is mailing a Request for Comments (RFC) to the OSM tagging
mailing list: tagg...@openstreetmap.org.  I've cc'd them on this email so
that the broader OSM can chime in.  This is how I got feedback on the
Homeless Shelter feature.

I really like a more general tag to describe buildings and land that
primarily serves others in need.  I'll gladly help with moving the proposal
forward.

I like the term "social facility"; it's a good compromise.  I don't like the
term "institution" as it has bad connotations in the US, such as prisons
which are often called "correctional institutions".

I prefer facility over "service" and "centre" as it hits at the true meaning
of a building that facilitates a service.  Also, In the US, a social
center/centre is more recreational.


> What do you think about tagging like this:
> amenity=social_facility
> social_facility=nursing (instead of service)
> social_facility:for=senior (instead of care_for)

I'm not very experienced with tagging style, but I normally prefer more
descriptive keys.  Using service=nursing make it very clear that you are
talking at the specific service that this amenity provides and lends itself
better to multiple values.

What is the general guidance from the OSM community on descriptive tags?

Thanks.

Sean

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 02:11, kerosin <
m-132217-aab...@messages.openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Hi Sean Horgan,
>
> kerosin has sent you a message through OpenStreetMap with the subject Re:
> social facility:
>
> ==
> Hey Sean,
>
> I just had the idea to create a tag that is a bit more general. As you
> might know there are some more proposals that overlap with the tag "social
> facility":
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Orphanage
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Residential_home
>
> I just made this proposal to initiate a discussion about a general tag ;)
> At the moment I'm not actively working on this proposal, but I would like
> to put more efforts in it! You're the first person that gives me feedback.
> I'm not very experienced in Wiki-Systems so I wasn't sure how to create a
> vote for a proposal. Of course emergency-shelters are a good thing to add!
> But first the proposal needs a rework.
>
> What do you think about tagging like this:
> amenity=social_facility
> social_facility=nursing (instead of service)
> social_facility:for=senior (instead of care_for)
>
> maybe you as a native english speaker could say something about the  term
> "social facility" in general. Would "social institution", "social centre" or
> "social service" be better?
> Thank for your support!
>
> Best regards,
> Jan (aka kerosin)
>
> P.S. I will add a german translation of the proposal
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==
>
> You can also read the message at
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/message/read/132217
> and you can reply at http://www.openstreetmap.org/message/reply/132217
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Homeless Shelter

[Sean Horgan]

That was easy; just left a message.

--
Sean

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 16:02, Sean Horgan  wrote:

> Dear mappers,
>
> I scoured the well-written wiki pages for a similar feature but couldn't
> find one so here is a proposal for a Homeless Shelter:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Homeless_Shelter
>
> This is my first crack at a proposal so I'm looking forward to all
> suggestions and comments.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sean
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Homeless Shelter

[Sean Horgan]

I tried to collect the feedback by topic and I posted my thoughts here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Homeless_Shelter

<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Homeless_Shelter>Let
me know if I missed anything.  Did this format work?

The big takeaway is merging this proposal in with social_facility (or
something similarly named).  How can I get hold of the user kerosin?

Thanks.

Sean

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 17:17, Sean Horgan  wrote:

> Thanks for all the good feedback.  I just got back from a long-weekend away
> and I plan to go through the comments and respond first thing tomorrow
> morning.
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 08:33, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>> 2010/9/4 Sam Vekemans :
>> > a key 'social' does work for homeless_shelter,  are there any other
>> > values (that are in other keys) that would fit with this social key?
>> >  bingo_hall
>>
>>
>> I don't know these well, but I thought they would more belong to
>> "leisure"?
>>
>> > ... community_center (with a tagging war lol)
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> > ... beer_garden
>> > ... pub  to discuss tagging wars.
>>
>>
>> -1, I'd keep them where they are.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Homeless Shelter

[Sean Horgan]

Thanks for all the good feedback.  I just got back from a long-weekend away
and I plan to go through the comments and respond first thing tomorrow
morning.

Sean

On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 08:33, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 2010/9/4 Sam Vekemans :
> > a key 'social' does work for homeless_shelter,  are there any other
> > values (that are in other keys) that would fit with this social key?
> >  bingo_hall
>
>
> I don't know these well, but I thought they would more belong to "leisure"?
>
> > ... community_center (with a tagging war lol)
>
> +1
>
>
> > ... beer_garden
> > ... pub  to discuss tagging wars.
>
>
> -1, I'd keep them where they are.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Homeless Shelter

[Sean Horgan]

Thanks for the reply John.

I found this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Shelter,
but this seems specific to recreation.

You could place a tag on the homeless_shelter to cover the demographic
served, i.e. women, children, etc.

Sean

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 22:05, John Smith  wrote:

> I'll try to dig up the thread, however someone had come up with a more
> generic shelter idea, since there is more than one kind, and I'm not
> talking about mountain shelters.
>
> You also have women's shelters, which are there to protect battered
> women and children from abusive spouses.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Homeless Shelter

[Sean Horgan]

Dear mappers,

I scoured the well-written wiki pages for a similar feature but couldn't
find one so here is a proposal for a Homeless Shelter:

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

This is my first crack at a proposal so I'm looking forward to all
suggestions and comments.

Thanks.

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