Re: [Tagging] Shop for watches
On January 25, 2015 9:01:44 AM CST, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: On 25.01.2015 11:46, Severin Menard wrote: I did not find anything on the Map Features regarding shop selling watches, what is quite common both in Europe and South America (at least). shop=jewelry Watches came out of use when people got mobile phones. The only remaining reason to wear watches is to show off. That's why all jewelries sell watches, and you'll hardly find any shop that sells nothing but watches. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I tried, briefly, using my cell phone instead of a watch, and found it less convenient to pull out my phone to check the time, versus glancing at my wrist. It is still common to see people wearing watches. I now wear a smartwatch, meaning that I can check who called or texted me without having to pull out and unlock my phone. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wiki Edit War on using/avoiding semicolon lists
On 01/24/2015 10:28 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: 2015-01-24 17:20 GMT+01:00 Никита acr...@gmail.com mailto:acr...@gmail.com: Are you an idiot? I mean really. I hereby request a ban of this individual from this mailing list and I definitively support an OSM-wide ban. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Agreed. Ad hominem attacks aren't a suitable way to discuss OSM issues. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Ford and other river crossing : (was : waterway=wadi problem)
Is a bridge in flood usable? I think not. This discussion is about rare, special bridges that are used for such a purpose. They are usually in places that flood where emergency access is still required, or they are the only means of accessing an otherwise inaccessible area. Normally, when the water reaches the top of the support pylons and begins contacting the bridge itself are considered unsafe and the bridge could possibly fail, so this isn't a discussion about almost all bridges in the world. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging road illumination quality
You could use a light meter to measure how bright the light is. That isn't the only factor in the suitability of the lighting, but it is objective. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. On January 16, 2015 11:18:33 AM Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to enter illumination quality for bicycle infrastructure (cycleways) in OSM. This is unfortunately a thorny issue, as there is no easy way to measure in an objective way the quality of the illumination. Has anyone already looked into this? I could invent something along the lines of the smoothness tag, which in my view faces a similar problem of not being objectively quantifiable. I am thinking of something like lit=no|yes|poor|sufficient|good Obviously, if it were to work for cycle paths it could also be use for other highways. Any suggestions welcome Volker -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Ethnic shops
Sent from my iPhone On Jan 16, 2015, at 10:54 PM, Dan S danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote: That's not a flaw - you've already given the solution in your own email: Basically you want to label restaurants/shops only if they offer something different from what's the typical local fare. Exactly - here in japan, the local restaurant type of ramen, soba, cutlet, sushi, dango, yakisoba, okonomiyaki, etc would all have their own cuisine tags (probably in Japanese) as that what people search for. There are also ethnic shops - Philippine restaurants and shops, Peruvian restaurants ad shops, etc for the local foreigners. I think there should be ethnic=*, Nationality=* , or culture=*tag that can be used for any feature when it is a feature of the place to esperate it from the country it is in. , or focuses on goods and services from a specific place. (Greman car repair?) There are Philippine dance clubs in my area, plastered with flags. - but the word Philippine is not in the title of the club, but it is a big part of the shop identity. Similarly, Korean BBQ and Japanese BBQ are very similar - but often the shops will differentiate based on nationality - but they are all (to Japanese people, at least) BBQ. If I search BBQ, it would be nice to see them all, or Korean BBQ and get just the Korean ones. I'm not sure how the tag space searches are handled. In San Diego, there is a basically just Japanese or sushi restaurants, and Japanese markets. There is a small all things bright and British shop in my hometown, plastered with big Union Jack flag - a culture=British might be useful. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=wadi problem
I would recommend expanding the definition of intermittent streams to include not only streams that have a regular, seasonal water flow but also streams in desert areas that exist only when a rare storm comes along. The topography is the same, the tendency of water to run downhill is the same, only the frequency of rainfall is different. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. On January 15, 2015 3:13:38 AM Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de wrote: On Thursday 15 January 2015, johnw wrote: A wadi is a place where flash floods occur. It is not an intermittent river - it isn’t really seasonally wet, and doesn’t provide any real expectation that water will be present (except deep underground) - because they are located in places where rain itself is unexpected for most of the year. Well - that would be a useful concept of a wadi but it has two problems: * current use of the tag is very different from that, you can see that quite well when you look at the taginfo map: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/waterway=wadi#map the uses in Europe for example are probably almost always seasonal. * sporadic waterflow is very difficult to determine for the mapper. This is especially true for northern Africa where climate got a lot drier in the last few thousand years and as a result there are many permanently dry valleys that still look like being formed by waterflow but that have not seen significant waterflow in the last hundred years. My suggestion would probably be to stop rendering waterway=wadi in a way implying waterflow, encourage mappers to use intermittent/seasonal where this is known and reserve waterway=wadi - despite the then misleading key - for valleys where waterflow is unknown. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=wadi problem
On Jan 15, 2015, at 2:00 AM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: On Jan 14, 2015, at 8:28 AM, Wolfgang Zenker wrote: In my experience a wadi will go from completely dried up waterway or small stream to a raging river within a few seconds after some rainfall upstream, and back to its former self within a few hours. Depending on the location, these rainfall events might very well be a few years apart. When I tag an intermittent stream I usually have something more benign in mind, like a stream that only exists during the spring snow melt and is dry the rest of the year, but maybe that is only my interpretation of an intermittent stream. Wolfgang +1. This is exactly how I see the difference - especially since when there is water, it is usually a dangerous, unexpected thing. Your description of wadi matches many things locally called a wash in the U.S. desert southwest. Yet when I suggested that I tag those as wadi I was shot down. I added wash as a description to wadi on the osm wiki last year when I was thinking of mapping the San Diego county deserts (as even in Wikipedia it is a round Robbin of links between arroyo and wadi). I'll have to look at the edit history to see if it got pulled off. This was before I understood that adding a description to the wiki was potentially controversial: I thought I was adding something glaringly obvious and helpfully updating the wiki at the same time I'm really surprised you were shot down from using wadi when it is the most applicable tag for the item, and I'm surprised that there is discussion of axing a well used tag, which defines a known and named geographic feature, for the sake of jamming it under rivers. I always imagine we will be discussion of adding more and more specialized tags, as micro mappers keep labeling smaller an smaller stuff - or. Like the wadi tag - expand our definitions of basic tags to better define what is around us. I wonder if the people who shot you down have even ever seen a wash, let alone are familiar with them. I know it's a no true Scotsman fallacy, but that's what it feels like. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC: Reverse Vending Machine
Would this be appropriate for the automated recycle centers that weigh recyclables and gave you credit? It is basically a dumpster with a scale and a terminal, but you leave behind cardboard, paper, etc for recycling. It's usually very limited in what they accept. Or is this thing just an automated recycle center, and different from what you guys are talking about? Javbw Sent from my iPad On Jan 11, 2015, at 11:00 PM, makko ma...@brainscorch.net wrote: On 11.01.2015 14:34, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: I like the proposal. In Germany and in the Netherlands these machines are common and it is indeed important to know where one can find the nearest one. They are usually not operator-specific, though the voucher they issue can be redeemed only within the operator shop (or network). Indeed yes, but the machines are usually operated by a market chain and since I am always proclaiming that some operators only allow their own products to be refunded, we would at least need this option to keep the information about the operator. Remark 1: I wonder if we also want to indicate whether the machine is inside or outside the shop and if it is accessible outside working hours. Good point. As far as I know these machines are always inside (at least in Germany, Denmark, and Finland). They are sometimes located inside of a market or in a separate small room that is accessible directly with its own opening hours. I like the idea of using amenity:refund_machine service:refund=yes refund:plastic_bottles=yes refund:glass_bottles=yes refund:cans=yes refund:crates=yes Using the opening hours tag seems also appropriate, if the machine is located in its own room/building-part. I reconsidered the idea of using vending_machine or shop as a parent tag for refund machines, since it just is not right. These machines are, as mentioned above, sometimes more separate and should not be mixed with normal manual refund services that shops offer. Remark 2: Also some shops have multiple such machines (e.g. for glass and plastic), and OSM tagging scheme doesn't allow assigning the same key twice to one node. As a suggestion, we could ignore the fact that these are two (or more) separate machines and map it as one. This seems a bit unclean and a quick-fix. I would suggest to use the idea of ATM machines in this case and give each of those machines its own node. Especially since it happens that there are two machines, where only one of them accepts crates to be refunded ( see picture [1], taken in Finland). Furthermore, if people have a lot of refund to give, they might choose a refund point with at least 2 machines. Regarding the recycle type tag, with the suggestion above, we wouldn't use the same key twice. [1] Reverse Vending Machines in Finland, one of which accepts crates: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Bottle_reverse_vending_machines#mediaviewer/File:Pullonpalautusautomaatti.JPG ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Boundary Relations. What's a subarea used for?
In the same manner, in some US states, cities and towns are subordinate to counties. In some other US states, such as Virginia, towns are subordinate to counties but cities are on the same administrative level as counties. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. On January 11, 2015 2:42:44 PM André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Look at the Belgium relation http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/52411 and, while hiding the subareas (in left pane), try to figure with that map the *administrative tree* (regions, provinces) using the borderlines. You won't. Now look at the subareas and something you will notice is that Brussels is not inside any area. It has got its own independent status. Not obvious at all from borderlines. Now, trying to figure the tree, you can use your knowledge of Belgium or try to right-click on each subarea to open its link in another browser tab and you will find that Belgium is divided in two regions: Flanders in the North and Wallonia in the South. Now what about the other subareas? Try to jigsaw puzzle them again and you will fit Flemish Community in the North, French Community in the South and German community to the East. And so what about Brussels again? It's Flemish-and-French bilingual. So, Belgium=Flanders+Brussels+Wallonia regions. and Belgium=(Flemish+bilingual+French+German) communities Similarly, United Kingdom=England+Wales+Scotland. I may miss a few UK details, but that's because ... it has no subareas to see. And I recall a guy from Munich. Wasn't his problem that Munich is not part of its Land? Isn't the Munich problem like Brussels (please do not focus the thread on that if it's wrong). And the same process can be repeated at each boundary level down the tree. Moreover, it is straightforward for a consumer program like OSM.org to use the subareas to draw the outline of the regions, provinces, etc. inside the country map or to do other things like measuring borderlines. Why the heck would we remove the subareas and cause those programs to stop working, instead of adding the subareas which is really straightforward too? Now, there is a very interesting property of subareas making a nice program. Choose a boundary relation. Pick its subareas members one by one and put their borderline ways (members) in a bag. Now, remove those ways that appear twice in the bag. What have you got? The borderline of the chosen relation. For example, by combining that way the borderlines of the UK subareas England, Wales and Scotland, you get the borderline of United Kingdom. Idem down at any level. So, it looks like masochism somehow to tag borderlines for anything else than the lowest level. From it, one may have that program compute the borderlines of every relations upwards. But I guess software having to build a country boundary that way would have a hard CPU time. The idea that would come to mind is to keep the borderlines as a cache. But we have the cache already made manually. Why not simply let the mappers use the program to build the borderlines manually? They don't change often. That program can work two ways. Either to compute borderlines. Either to check that the intricate borderlines match the so easily tagged, error proof subareas. There is presently no real QA program for borderlines. Here it is. Ad it's s easy... Start checking Belgium and France, Osmose! It's a really simple program, a very few tens of lines. I didn't write exactly that but that was close (computing total length of boundaries in a province or country). But, shame on me, I misplaced the source :-( I once read on some server a French text wondering whether the right solution is subareas *or* borderlines. As it often happens, the answer is hard to find because the question is wrong. It is not or but *and/or*. And the answer is and, both. Also wondering which makes tagging boundaries the easiest. Certainly creating the boundary relations with just simple subareas linking them. Then start adding borderlines at the lowest level. And run the check program above working at progressively higher levels. That programs detects incomplete borderlines loops and hence dangling lines near which more have to be filled in. Visually checking with the spoken above rendition that there are no unwanted holes also checks the subareas tree. That's how we, Marc, André and Patrick (yes, MAP!) made the boundaries of South Belgium. One thing is certain. Should anyone remove our subareas because, as said, he does not understand, it would be like stealing a worker's tool and I would stop any boundary work immediately. I won't write too much in one article but I'll add this. What's that aversion against redundancy? Redundancy used as crosscheck is used in many place. For example, TCP, which is the transport protocol of the Internet, uses redundancy
Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?
As poodles are always the litmus test for new tags, toy poodles are acceptable, full poodles are not. You can stash your sacrifice in your carry-on quite quickly if need be - if it's a toy poodle. Javbw On Jan 10, 2015, at 9:23 AM, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 10/01/2015 00:17, John Willis wrote: Similarly, animal sacrifice and practicing voodoo at the airport's prayer room might get you arrested. Not even poodles? :) https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-January/020847.html Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?
multi fits the sports tagging scheme well, and I think it is best for the religion tag too. Allis not good, as most sports places don have a clay sumo ring or a sandy pit for beach volleyball set up, so all would be wrong. Similarly, animal sacrifice and practicing voodoo at the airport's prayer room might get you arrested. Multi seems the best fit. Javbw On Jan 10, 2015, at 12:58 AM, Andreas Neumann andr-neum...@gmx.net wrote: On 09.01.2015 13:52, John Sturdy wrote: Wouldn't it be simplest to leave the religion or denomination tag out, if the facility isn't specific to a particular religion or denomination? __John Hi, I see this problem: Where is the difference between a multifaith place and an object with missing religion-tag? Andreas -- Andreas Neumann http://Map4Jena.de http://Stadtplan-Ilmenau.de ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] religion=multi* ?
Wouldn't it be simplest to leave the religion or denomination tag out, if the facility isn't specific to a particular religion or denomination? __John On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 09/01/2015 01:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-01-09 00:56: denomination=none ;-) Nice, but we need to stay on the religion= level But couldn't the sharing be inter-denominational, rather than inter-religion? As I see it: 1. No specific religion, such as rooms at hospitals, airports etc. 2. Shared places where different religions/denominations preach/perform services at separate times. 3. Shared places where different religions/denominations preach/perform services at the same time. I'm guessing this would more likely be denominations than religion. Dave F. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] barrier=net ?
I think there is a big difference between a 5 story tall net (held up by massive poles) and a fence. If it was a 5 story tall fence or wall, we'd call it a building or a dam or something. These giant nets usually found near ballsports need their own tag - or maybe a new value of fence=net or something? But considering the tag value is in use, it might be better just to document it. Javbw Sent from my iPhone On Jan 7, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote: I have been tagging the vertical netting at golf courses as barrier=fence In some cases there is more or less horizontal netting, and in that case I agree that barrier=fence does not fit. Mike On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:41 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: There are 544 uses of barrier=net, and I want to add it into the wiki. For many golf courses, driving ranges, and baseball fields world wide, and many school grounds in Japan, they may have a fence or wall, and in addition a separate expansive and very tall netting, in some cases 5 to 10 stores tall for a driving range, supported by steel or concrete poles (that look like telephone poles). In many instances, the net alone is the sole barrier between a golf course and adjacent property, forgoing a wall or fence, when trespassing or privacy concerns is not an issue. I don’t think these kinds of nets fits very well with =fence, so I’d like to add the value to the wiki page (and then for rendering in -carto) Javbw. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] barrier=net ?
What's the difference between an alley and a motorway besides width? Something about a giant flowing net 5 stores tall visible for kilometers away and a pice of netting used to hold a poodle in a yard seem similarly different, besides height. Javbw. On Jan 7, 2015, at 11:54 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: On 07.01.2015 02:43, John Willis wrote: I think there is a big difference between a 5 story tall net (held up by massive poles) and a fence. If it was a 5 story tall fence or wall, we'd call it a building or a dam or something. I would call it a fence or wall anyway. What is your minimum height for a net, and your maximum height for a fence? If it's just about the height, what's wrong with a height=* attribute? -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag
I thought tat was a feature, to actually deprecate the landuse from the buildings, so we don't have the similar issue again of a building and area rendered the same. If -carto rendered landuse=religious, then the POW would be tagged on buildings, sitting on the landuse with hopefully a complimentary rendering. Having them render the same is a bug, or if POW is tagged on a non-building tag, it should render landuse=religious the exact same way. Javbw On Jan 5, 2015, at 12:07 AM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: amenity=place of worship that is not rendered as area is a bug Thanks for a report - it is now on bugtracker as https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1193 2015-01-04 15:20 GMT+01:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: Hi Now that the render amendments have come through, It seems the comment below is inaccurate. It's not being rendered at all. Was that the intention? I was unaware the grey render was considered as 'building', especially since adding building=yes changed the colour. Areas are mapped as religious that, as well a church building, include the likes of car parks, cemeteries, community halls etc. Maybe mapnik needs to show landuse=religious to compensate. Cheers Dave F. On 02/01/2015 15:17, Matthijs Melissen wrote: Dear all, In particular, areas tagged with amenity=place_of_worship or aeroway=terminal that do not have a building tag will be no longer rendered as a building. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] correct access tagging for tourist attraction
That is how I had interpreted access=destination also. Just because it has a specific legal meaning in the UK doesn't mean the tag can't be used elsewhere in the world. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. On January 2, 2015 4:25:23 PM Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I always thought access=destination meant you can go through a road with a car, if your destination is that road. You can't use that road to go to a different road. 2015-01-02 17:01 GMT+01:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Happy new year Am 31.12.2014 um 19:05 schrieb Greg Troxel: johnw jo...@mac.com writes: perhaps use the =destination tag instead of =private on the road you are supposed to use. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access Please, no. I agree. There's also access=customers that I use for parking lots. access=destination is supposed to be some legal notion in the UK. In the private facility case, it's really a question of some places being signed for no access and some being welcoming, but it a with-permission-of-landowner kind of way. I still prefer access=permissive as I often take short cuts by foot across these private roads without being a customer. Another approach is to use access=no for the ones you shouldn't use (and for which almost no one among the public gets permission) That is access=private and not access=no and access=permissive for the one the public should use. It's a little off; presumably going there at night is not ok. But as a represent-the-world-with-what-we-have-now approach, it seems like a pretty good fit. +1 access=permissive is the one we need here, access=destination has some legal aspect. The other roads would be access=private. Still be careful with access=* as it might depend on your traffic mode and foot/bicycle/horse/ski might have different rules. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
The situation in India could mean that a congregation was meeting on that site, and planned to construct a building there, but had not yet done so. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. On January 3, 2015 5:03:10 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/01/2015 4:56 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 04:45:24 +0100 From: Andreas Gossandi...@t-online.de To:tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag Message-ID:m87okr$iep$1...@ger.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed landuse=religious Which still nobody knows what it is supposed to be used for... I too don't know what it is to be used for. However Australian Aborigines have 'sacred sites' that could be tagged that way. Ayres Rock springs to mind. One scrared site was vandalised... the road that goes past it has been closed for at least 30 years. So the sites are important, but they may not want the public to know their location due to the possible vandalism. I've come across a site in India that was tagged for a church IIRC .. but no building was present. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] correct access tagging for tourist attraction
So a reasonable solution would be to tag roadways as access=private if they can only be used by specific people such as residents or maintenance vehicles, and access=destination if the general public can use them to enter a particular area, but can't use them as a through route. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr. On January 3, 2015 11:03:36 AM Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: Typical situation in Poland is that only residents may drive on some roads in housing estates - not everybody who wants to reach this place. So I am using vehicle=private - despite the fact that it is quite different from private as in only one person may use this road. vehicle=destination is not a correct tagging here. 2015-01-03 17:48 GMT+01:00 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: John F. Eldredge wrote: That is how I had interpreted access=destination also. Just because it has a specific legal meaning in the UK doesn't mean the tag can't be used elsewhere in the world. Absolutely - this is true of pretty much every highway= value and they, too, have been adapted for use elsewhere. I'd echo the call not to use access=private on housing estates. Last year I was working on a (commercial) project to plan thousands of delivery routes in the urban US, using OSM data and routing software. The only serious issue we encountered was exactly this: the router couldn't plan journeys to estates where each road was tagged with access=private. We could have told the router to ignore access=private, but this would have created wrong routes in other situations. Using access=destination would have prevented this. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/correct-access-tagging-for-tourist-attraction-tp5828203p5828886.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag
On Jan 3, 2015, at 5:26 PM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: Since when do we use ways for landuse=* ? Also I have not found a single one that is tagged like you say. They are all areas. I think he means closed way = area, as landuse implies area=yes . Javbw Why multipolygons? Typical area with various church thingies (church, vicarage etc) is not requiring multypolygon - it is usually may be represented by a simple closed way. landuse=religious Which still nobody knows what it is supposed to be used for... I'm supposed to tag this around every church? Well, have fun with those landuse multipolygons... __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accuracy of survey
It was over 5 meters in some places along the coast, but only a very small part. Under the ocean, it was 25m. Most of japan stayed put, but the northern section along the coast was stretched a bit wider, but the coast sank about 1m, so with coastal flooding, japan didn't get that much bigger. There was no uniform movement so you'll get a different number depending on what number you like (largest, average for Ojika peninsula, average for North Japan, etc) Anyway you slice it, The Pacific Ocean is a bit smaller now. So Northern Japanese mountains, roads, and farms all have fractionally different dimensions and altitudes now. Everyone talks about the big one, but there were thousands of aftershocks, and a hundred or so very large ones, including ones inland that caused 1m tall fissures, gaps, and trenches to open up all over north japan, severing roads and buildings. All of them have different elevations now and slightly different road alignments. The release of pressure from the big one allowed all of the smaller inland faults to start moving again. Here's a pdf (full of pictures) of a 6.6 a month later that caused 1m uplift and offset in Fukushima. http://www.geerassociation.org/GEER_Post%20EQ%20Reports/Tohoku_Japan_2011/QR4_Preliminary%20Observations%20of%20Surface%20Fault%20Rupture_06.06.11.pdf At the small peninsula closest to the earthquake, Ojika-hanto, the parking lot across the street from the shoreline is the new shoreline. I visited in July 2011. This is completely due to the lowering of the seabed from the quake. https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/11091302756/in/set-72157638113676925 The sidewalk is visible(left), but the unclassified road to the far left and the old shoreline, is completely underwater now, as is the pier. While realigning the coastline is possible, they will be surveying for a decade or so just to figure out everything that moved. Javbw Sent from my iPad On Dec 31, 2014, at 9:36 PM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: According to http://www.dw.de/quake-shifted-japan-by-over-two-meters/a-14909967 it was 2,4 m. 2014-12-30 22:22 GMT+01:00 Rainer Fügenstein r...@oudeis.org: W Ultimate 'accuracy'? You do realise that the tectonic plates are moving? btw: as a result of the Mar.2011 earthquake, japan has moved by at least 5m. how did OSM react? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes=-1 especially in Canada
On 12/29/2014 04:16 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I rolled the map-roulette wheel, and found a series of highways in Canada marked with lanes=-1, all part of a CANVEC import. I see 17,943 uses of this value: it's less popular than 5 lanes but more popular than 6. What does it mean, if anything? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging It may well mean what it says, a one-lane road. Some rural areas in the USA still have one-lane roads, with occasional wider spots where one vehicle can pause to allow a vehicle going the other direction to pass by. Given how sparsely-populated some of the northern regions of Canada are, I would not be surprised to find some one-lane roads, and some extensive areas with no roads at all. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] lanes=-1 especially in Canada
On 12/30/2014 03:16 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: On 12/29/2014 04:16 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I rolled the map-roulette wheel, and found a series of highways in Canada marked with lanes=-1, all part of a CANVEC import. I see 17,943 uses of this value: it's less popular than 5 lanes but more popular than 6. What does it mean, if anything? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging It may well mean what it says, a one-lane road. Some rural areas in the USA still have one-lane roads, with occasional wider spots where one vehicle can pause to allow a vehicle going the other direction to pass by. Given how sparsely-populated some of the northern regions of Canada are, I would not be surprised to find some one-lane roads, and some extensive areas with no roads at all. I just re-read this, and realized that the value was negative 1, not positive 1. Negative 1 probably represents some editor program's way of tagging lanes as unknown. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
On Dec 29, 2014, at 3:20 AM, Andy Street a...@street.me.uk wrote: I notice a quicky increasing number of oneway=no tags on roads, probably due to editors offering some flashy list box for the oneway key. If you mistakenly check the one way box on a road preset in iD, unchecking the box chafes the value to no, rather than assumed to be no (which is the default absence of the tag). Clicking the box again resets it to assumed to be no , but soce we already know the route isn't one way, I bet a lot of people, myself included, simply uncheck the box (making it no) rather than the trash can to delete the tag. I bet that is where a lot of them are coming from. I don't think people are intentionally tagging so many oneway=no, tags - it's just misunderstanding the presets. Maybe there are some situations where oneway=no is important (odd motorway situations), but I bet a ton of them are checkbox spam from iD. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Moveable objects tagged as building=*
Semi temporary buildings are usually called portables. Schools I have been to in the US will have them in place for several years, though they lack a foundation and can be moved away whole or in sections as a truck trailer - similar to a mobile home. Although the method is not similar, the office bus I wrote about is used in a similar manner. Perhaps building = portable? Javbw On Dec 16, 2014, at 9:33 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: So we are talking about objects which are movable but nearly do not move and are used similar to buildings. Instead of using key building we could use man_made or even some new one. For the fact that these objects are movable we need an additional key with perhaps some values. To distinguish between self-powered or not might be useful, as well. Just, my 2 ct fly Am 15.12.2014 um 12:21 schrieb johnw: One of the driving schools I went to is a permanent course laid out on a flood plain ( as is the soccer fields and helipads), but as it is inside a leveed flood canal, they are not allowed to build permanent buildings. So the driving school uses a bus. It has a desk, a waiting room, and everything. It has parked in the same spot for years, day in and day out, occasionally moved to higher ground during a typhoon. It is a drivable vehicle. I tagged that bus as a building (and named it “バス” - “bus in Japanese) - it's where you need to go for the driving school, and it is always there. http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.32157/138.99813 - Javbw On Dec 13, 2014, at 5:33 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com mailto:pier...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps the attribute of 'moveable' or not should be specified in a separate tag (without significant deconstruction efforts or foundations because basically all buildings can be moved theoritically). I also don't see a problem to keep building for permanent structures, floating on water or on wheels (caravan). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Amenity=Ufficio_Pubblico
The existing tagging scheme supports various levels of government, from local up through national. On December 16, 2014 2:50:48 AM CST, Simone Savio simone.savio...@gmail.com wrote: The issue is that in Italy a government office, for example, corresponds to the prefecture. An office, such as that of the Informagiovani, is very different because it operates at a local level and it is a specific office for young people. Simone 2014-12-16 3:35 GMT+01:00 johnw jo...@mac.com: working on a proposal for civic landuses, and a subtag for building=civic for all kinds of governmental buildings and services. Your input is appreciated. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic javbw On Dec 16, 2014, at 7:30 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: On 12/15/2014 08:31 AM, Simone Savio wrote: Hi propose http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ufficio_pubblico http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amenity_features#kids_area.3Dno.2Findoor.2Foutdoor.2Fboth becaus I want create a specific tag for public institutions in Italy such as informagiovani because this concept does not exist in English. Looking forward for any comments and suggestions. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging What is informagiovani? An information office? The concept exists in English. Ufficio pubblico looks like it would translate as public office; again, the concept exists in English. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Moveable objects tagged as building=*
Another common use for such temporary buildings is as the office at a major construction site. They may sit in one place until the construction project is completed, or may be relocated for different phases of the project. Once the project is completed, the construction office trailers are removed. On December 16, 2014 8:30:31 AM CST, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 7:44 AM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: Semi temporary buildings are usually called portables. Schools I have been to in the US will have them in place for several years, though they lack a foundation and can be moved away whole or in sections as a truck trailer - similar to a mobile home. Although the method is not similar, the office bus I wrote about is used in a similar manner. Perhaps building = portable? Well, wondering if portable is starting to become a misnomer for just plain cheaping out, since everyplace I've seen 'em (mostly southern California and western Oregon) park 'em once, then use them until they rot and collapse 4 decades later. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [tagging] Amenity=Ufficio_Pubblico
On 12/15/2014 08:31 AM, Simone Savio wrote: Hi propose http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ufficio_pubblico http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amenity_features#kids_area.3Dno.2Findoor.2Foutdoor.2Fboth becaus I want create a specific tag for public institutions in Italy such as informagiovani because this concept does not exist in English. Looking forward for any comments and suggestions. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging What is informagiovani? An information office? The concept exists in English. Ufficio pubblico looks like it would translate as public office; again, the concept exists in English. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Distinction between amenity=restaurant and fast_food
On December 11, 2014 6:15:17 AM CST, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: Restaurants only serve meals, it is not possible to go there and only have a drink. That really depends on the restaurant. A at least in Bavaria there are a lot of traditional restaurants where you can just get a beer. Also very common when they are next to sports clubs. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Distinction between amenity=restaurant and fast_food
On December 11, 2014 6:15:17 AM CST, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: Restaurants only serve meals, it is not possible to go there and only have a drink. That really depends on the restaurant. A at least in Bavaria there are a lot of traditional restaurants where you can just get a beer. Also very common when they are next to sports clubs. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Distinction between amenity=restaurant and fast_food
I would not be surprised to find some establishments where the emphasis is on food up through mid-evening, but the kitchen closes earlier than the bar does, leaving the final hours of operation to offer only beverages and perhaps some precooked snack food. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] man_made=adit_entrance
On 12/08/2014 06:50 AM, ael wrote: On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:29:21PM +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: And tags for other mine entrance types? Would it not be better to have man_made=mine_entrance type=adit etc I'm a native speaker of English and I only came across the word adit relatively recently. To me it seems obscure and technical - but I understand that in other parts of the world it's common. It's in common use in Cornwall and I guess other areas of the UK with a mining history. Despite the philological origin of the word, it normally refers to the complete tunnel rather than just the entrance (in modern usage). Maybe the Roman use of entrance was more emcompassing. I agree that the average mapper might not know the term, but then such a person is unlikely to map an adit, or even recognise one. Would man_made=mine_entrance be offensive to people who do use the word 'adit'? That doesn't seem quite right as above. mine_access_passage is the best I can do OTTOMH, but omits the implication that it is roughly horizontal. Or since I guess it will almost always be a node, then mine_access_passage_entrance?? Of course, that suggests adit_entrance as well. ael Whenever I have encountered the term, it referred to passages that were horizontal, or at least close enough to horizontal that one could walk along them, as opposed to shafts which meant vertical passages. It certainly referred to more than just the entrance to the mine. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
True. There could be chemical contamination which would not be removed by filtering or boiling, and which would render the water unsafe to drink. On December 5, 2014 4:05:09 AM CST, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-12-05 0:42 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: water_potable = yes/no If not known you don't tag. Then it will some default action possibly based on location. Some may want tags 'boil', 'filter','filter+boil' ... values like boil or filter could go under a key like suggested_water_treatment. I think it bears some risk for the mapper to add information like this to a water source where the water is officially classified as non-potable. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] path vs footway
Interesting! Those are huge cycle ways! Here in japan, they designate small service roads normally blocked with bollards as cycle ways, as the distances covered between the intersecting roads are very long (1-2km sometimes) and sometimes more direct than the road system - but nothing more a path with a painted line - sometimes only 1m per lane (as it is a converted service road. For as much as Japan loves bikes, they usually don't give a care about making anything remotely purpose built in high traffic areas to avoid accidents - bike lanes are woefully inadequate as well. Javbw On Nov 30, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting interpretation of history. Slightly different version: The path tag was introduced by people who couldn't deal with highway=cycleway being shared with pedestrians, and wanted something less mode-specific than highway=footway and highway=cycleway. This is actually an important distinction, as cycleways generally adhere to the applicable highway standards for lane widths, markings and signage, which are usually absent on smaller and/or more multimodally oriented spaces. Compare a paved MUP looping your neighborhood park (which, odds are, is maybe 2-2.5m wide) compared to a cycleway with markings (which tends to be 2.5-3m wide, per lane). Consider it the nonmotorized infrastructure distinction between highway=unclassified and highway=tertiary (or higher, when you start throwing on values greater than one for both lanes:forward and lanes:backward for more than turn:lanes:* or start dealing with divided multilane cycleways). Personally I use highway=footway+bicycle=yes if it's low quality and legal for cycling, and highway=cycleway (which implies foot=yes in the UK) if it's halfway decent for cycling. And highway=path in field and forest. I'd avoid using highway=cycleway if it's not built primarily for a cyclist's benefit, readily identifiable with standard pavement markings and signage. Granted, this means there's some decent chunks of infrastructure that end up highway=path; bicycle=designated; foot=designated that end up as major portions of a cycleway and/or hiking network. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Various alt_name values?
Also, parsing a semicolon-delimited string into an array of strings is a simple task in most programming languages. On November 24, 2014 5:35:21 PM CST, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 11/24/2014 11:51 PM, Tobias Knerr wrote: The semi-colon is not universally accepted, for good reasons. Contrary to what you said, it should only be used if it is explicitly defined as an option for that particular key. To introduce such a convention to an old and widely used set of tags is not easy and requires a broad consensus, not a quick wiki page change. There was a discsussion on the talk/imports lists recently (September, subject Proposed mechanical edit to convert alt_name tags) where it seemed to me that the consensus was to indeed have a semicolon-delimited list of names in alt_name, instead of having alt_name_1, alt_name_2 etc. like initially suggested in that thread. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Street cabinet - Voting
How does the term street cabinet, as opposed to technical cabinet, give information on the cabinet's size? On November 17, 2014 3:25:46 AM CST, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-11-14 10:57 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe fl.infosrese...@gmail.com: I personnaly find some interest in man_made=technical_cabinet instead of man_made=street_cabinet The street term is certainly restrictive when such cabinet can be found far from streets. man_made=street_cabinet should be documented as expected regarding the vote but we also should deal with mistakes before widely use keys. I'm really puzzled and sorry regarding this particular point. I prefer the street cabinet term to a more generic technical cabinet, as it gives approximative information both on size and that it is an outdoor facility. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Street cabinet - Voting
On Nov 18, 2014, at 9:50 PM, François Lacombe fl.infosrese...@gmail.com wrote: How would you tag a mail relay box differently ? Such relay boxes are key-part of national postal infrastructure. I thought it fit well enough, so I voted yes. I also saw a solution to my cabinet problem as well - so I suggested the waste value during voting. ~~ Do we sort everything by function? By method? By operator? By location? By size ? By type of medium handled? Everything eventually falls into every category. There's always going to be something about every value that makes it a rough fit - at least with the way tagging seems to be currently. Do we need a mail subkey? A waste subkey? I don't know. Adding a value or two to a key gets questioned as to its fit with existing categories, and creating a category creates questions of scope. It seems to be very difficult to find the happy center. Congratulations on getting street_cabinet approved, I hope my proposals are as lucky. J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
If OSM has the water source tagged as potable, but the actual water source has a sign saying the water isn't potable, I wouldn't drink it. If OSM has the water source tagged as non-potable, but the actual water source has a sign saying the water is potable, I would drink it only in an emergency. On November 13, 2014 9:46:17 AM CST, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-11-13 1:51 GMT+01:00 Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com: A reason for the non-potable would be nice too. I can filter and disinfect water with a field kit but I can't remove toxic minerals and this is important to know when traveling in the area. while this is true, I'm not sure if I would rely in this case on information from OSM ;-) My suggestion is to not formalize this but use a generic tag like description (which is intended for end users, while note is less suitable as it is intended for fellow mappers). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
If OSM has the water source tagged as potable, but the actual water source has a sign saying the water isn't potable, I wouldn't drink it. If OSM has the water source tagged as non-potable, but the actual water source has a sign saying the water is potable, I would drink it only in an emergency. On November 13, 2014 9:46:17 AM CST, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-11-13 1:51 GMT+01:00 Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com: A reason for the non-potable would be nice too. I can filter and disinfect water with a field kit but I can't remove toxic minerals and this is important to know when traveling in the area. while this is true, I'm not sure if I would rely in this case on information from OSM ;-) My suggestion is to not formalize this but use a generic tag like description (which is intended for end users, while note is less suitable as it is intended for fellow mappers). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] place=island wiki page - coastline
The Caspian Sea, the Dead Sea, and the Great Salt Lake are all landlocked bodies of salt water. There are other salt lakes around the world, plus various brackish bodies of water (of an intermediate degree of saltiness). The Sea of Galilee is fresh water. Language is imprecise. On November 5, 2014 5:20:57 AM CST, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-11-05 12:11 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: how is that clean, Lake Eerie is a lake, Caspian sea is a sea, Baikal lake... Yes, Caspian Sea should be mapped as coastline, Baikal and Eerie not. If they aren't like this at the moment, then it might change (there is some fluctuation I have noticed in the past years, retagging forth and back) Even worse, some cross-broder water-bodies can be a lake in one language and sea in the other language on the other sea/lake-shore. typical distinction: freshwater. There might be some exceptions but I guess they are very rare. From a practical pov I would prefer * no distinction at all - or * distinction based on approximate size and complexity then you should probably aim at the introduction of a different tag to describe them (e.g. shoreline). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial
That is an interesting question. I think that falls outside the goal of this tag but I am unsure. In America, Amtrak is nationalized, but I think most of their facilities would fall under transportation related things - railway stations, etc. but their main office, which is not a train station, would be landuse=civic(_admin) I think. The bus station would be transportation related, but their office, where all the paper-pushers reside, (who administers the service) Would probably be similarly tagged. Javbw On Nov 7, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: What about buildings of public transport companies (bus, train, airplane) that are owned and operated by the government. I assume they should be added to the civic part ? I know more and more countries are turning those companies into privately owned, but there are probably countries where this is not the case. regards m On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org wrote: To help us making up our minds which tag to prefer, or to check if we should use two of them, I have started a table of use cases that would suit one ore the other tag class better, and started with some examples, on the Talk page. Tom Pfeifer wrote on 2014-11-05 11:21: Matthijs Melissen wrote on 2014-11-05 01:27: I might have missed it in the discussion, but why not simply landuse=governmental? Well that was among my first ideas, hence the subject of this thread. We are currently collecting the arguments for each potential tags on the Talk page, feel free to contribute there or here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic#Alternative_values I start thinking that we might need even two tags, one for the civic/municipal cases and one for the govenmental/administration ones. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
An example would be where the sign had fallen off, or been stolen by vandals. On October 29, 2014 8:05:10 AM CDT, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-29 14:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org: Then it happens that a 3 m bridge that for some reason has no sign gets a 4 m tag. examples? What is some reason? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] How to tag severely destroyed forest track?
I was tagging tracks in the desert, and ran across some similar issues. Some of the tracks are abandoned because they were no longer needed/ wanted (officially) in a wilderness park, or heavily damaged or unmantainable because of the road's position in a ravine. But people who want to use the old road with very high off-road skill, can drive them without flipping or destroying their off-road 4x4. 1m gullies and boulders make up sections of the road, requiring a bit of rock crawling to get through. This is not in a sports context, but necessity - access down a 1 km long ravine from a plateau in the badlands is the only way to continue north into the next (easily accessed) valley, without having to drive around the mountains for 3 hours. But you could get your truck stuck/ flipped/ totaled because the condition of the road is so unbelievably bad. It is beyond having 4x4 - it is having the skill and risk acceptance required to go drive the road correctly. And yes, it is marked on USGS maps as a track. Javbw On Oct 27, 2014, at 11:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-27 15:22 GMT+01:00 Ronnie Soak chaoschaos0...@googlemail.com: It may be usable on foot if dried out over a long time or if frozen. yes, this is a general problem with unpaved ways that usability might (depending on the actual composition and grain size) heavily depend on the weather conditions, especially humidity and temperature. tracktype does not offer a solution for this, as worse grades are described as being closer to undisturbed nature, while the opposite is the case here. actually tracktype is not about undisturbed nature, it is about how much the way is built up and how much not, in combination with actual smoothness / usability (i.e. it is somehow subjective). In your case it would probably be a tracktype=grade5 because otherwise the way would not have been damaged that much ;-) sac_scale comes to mind, but this is a track not a path and it has nothing to do with alpine hiking. +1, wouldn't use it track_visibility does also not cover this, as these tracks are if anything MORE visible now. +1 Even surface or smoothness can't describe this, as simply tagging this bumpy and muddy does not do the situation justice. (And they are not picked up by enough renders/routers, for which we of course do not tag.) IMHO surface can still be useful to describe the surface and smoothness to describe the lack of smoothness. I'd go for surface=earth and tracktype=grade5 and maybe a smoothness indication (not sure what are currently suggested values, maybe very_horrible ;-) ). When the surface material is soft the unevenness might fix itself with the rain in the next months anyway. What do you mean by unusable by foot? Is this about getting your shoes and trousers dirty or would you have to climb artificial cliffs? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean?
Speaking of permanent structures, is there a recommended way of tagging a maxheight that is temporarily lower, such as when scaffolding is erected under a bridge for painting or repairs? On October 24, 2014 6:10:48 PM CDT, Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi wrote: Personally, i use maxheight = x + maxheight:physical=x for these, but saying that signs are the only thing that can be tagged gives bad data. You may not collide with a bridge, signed or unsigned. Ultrasound range finders can sometimes be purchased for under 10 euros, so without a sign there may still be a real maximum possible height for a vehicle passing under that - bridge or any other - construction. In most countries, no sign should only guarantee that a vehicle under the local legal limit can expect not to hit any permanent structures, unless they have signs. Should, but not necessarily would. Statements to the effect that any tags can only refer to signposted limits do not represent the original usages of the tag - only some access tags referred to legal accessibility. -- alv Lähettäjä: Friedrich Volkmann [b...@volki.at] Lähetetty: 25. lokakuuta 2014 0:29 Vastaanottaja: tagging@openstreetmap.org Aihe: Re: [Tagging] what does maxheight=none mean? On 24.10.2014 20:53, Tom Pfeifer wrote: I stumbled over some maxheight=none tags on motorways, that did not even pass under a bridge. I found that this is the most frequent value of maxheight (2889 of 41474). [...] For bridges without sign, there is no recommendation in the English wiki, however the German wiki proposes maxheight=unsigned (290 uses), also used is maxheight=default (303) and =unspecified (2). I would recommend to add maxheight=unsigned to the English and other wiki pages, and list maxheight=none as incorrect tagging. I don't like either of these (maxheight=none/unsigned/default/unspecified), because we should map what we see. If there is no sign, there is nothing to map. Applications can make their assumptions on their own. Please remove the nonsensical and nonstandard maxheight=unsigned from the german wiki instead of polluting other pages with it. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=mall versus shop=shopping_centre
On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Bryan Housel br...@7thposition.com wrote: Your description of a mall as an enclosed place makes sense to me, but where I live they seem to call anything a “mall”. Here is the Watchung Square Mall”: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/258702838 and the “Valley Mall”: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/256668041 (both of those are really shopping centers, not malls) Yea. I tagged the local shopping centre here as a mall, because it has mall in the title . But I will be changing that. Anyway, I avoid the `shop=mall` and `shop=shopping_centre` completely. I usually tag `landuse=retail` for the area and `building=retail` for the buildings. Me too, until realizing we have both these these tags. I love landuse=＊so much. IMO, `shop=*` should really just be for a single shop. Yea - the mall seems more like retail=* sub tag stuff,if one exists. Javbw. On Oct 21, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: To me analyzing the given examples it seems as if a mall was necessarily a closed place while a shopping center would/could have outdoor connectivity. They appear to be similar as they both have several independent shops and collective facilities like toilets and parking. Maybe a mall has to have restaurants and other eating facilities, while a shopping center doesn't have to (but could have). I think small sets of shops with collective parking won't qualify as mall but they might constitute a shopping center. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=mall versus shop=shopping_centre
Sent from my iPad On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:45 PM, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote: I was also thinking that landuse=retail makes more sense than either mall or shopping_centre. If you have a big building enclosing lots of shops, you can tag it building=mall. johnw, I understand the distinction you're making (I would call your shopping_centre a strip mall, I think). But do you really hear people use these terms without overlap? Do you have some evidence of this usage? For example, in wikipedia, the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shopping_centres_in_the_United_Kingdom distinguishes shopping centres (what you're defining as malls) from retail parks (which you're defining as shopping centres). A strip mall is usually much smaller. It doesn't have any anchor stores. Although many of them have names, most people refer to the store itself as their destination. I'm going to ___shop They would never, ever, ever say I'm going to the mall for any of my shopping centre examples - but that would be the common term for referring to a large mall. They would also refer to the mall by name - I love going to Hanyu Aeon! - but almost never my def of a shopping_centre. Malls are a city-wide or regional shopping attraction, distinct from a local group of shops on the side of the road. If we want to keep these car centric, amenity free, roadside shopping areas (whatever you want to call them) just in landuse=retail, and kill off shopping_centre, that's fine. But the definition of mall needs to narrowed a bit to avoid this confusion. Even though there is a couple satellite shops in a retail anchor store's space - anything with a couple shops inside is in no way a mall. Most really large supermarkets have small rental spots for a bank, florist, coffee shop,, dry cleaner, or a donut shop. But 3 little stores doesn't make it a mall. A mall is a big, special place. Javbw On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:22 AM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:54 PM, Bryan Housel br...@7thposition.com wrote: Your description of a mall as an enclosed place makes sense to me, but where I live they seem to call anything a “mall”. Here is the Watchung Square Mall”: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/258702838 and the “Valley Mall”: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/256668041 (both of those are really shopping centers, not malls) Yea. I tagged the local shopping centre here as a mall, because it has mall in the title . But I will be changing that. Anyway, I avoid the `shop=mall` and `shop=shopping_centre` completely. I usually tag `landuse=retail` for the area and `building=retail` for the buildings. Me too, until realizing we have both these these tags. I love landuse=＊so much. IMO, `shop=*` should really just be for a single shop. Yea - the mall seems more like retail=* sub tag stuff,if one exists. Javbw. On Oct 21, 2014, at 7:21 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: To me analyzing the given examples it seems as if a mall was necessarily a closed place while a shopping center would/could have outdoor connectivity. They appear to be similar as they both have several independent shops and collective facilities like toilets and parking. Maybe a mall has to have restaurants and other eating facilities, while a shopping center doesn't have to (but could have). I think small sets of shops with collective parking won't qualify as mall but they might constitute a shopping center. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=mall versus shop=shopping_centre
At least in the USA, mall usually refers to a group of stores around a pedestrian-only courtyard, often with a common roof over both the stores and the courtyard space, and sharing a common parking lot. Shopping center usually refers to a linear or C-shaped group of stores, with a common parking area but no pedestrian courtyard. On October 20, 2014 7:00:43 PM CDT, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: Dear all, We have currently two tags with a closely related, if not identical, meaning: shop=mall (26 643 instances) and shop=shopping_centre (182 instances). Is there a difference between these two tags, or should we deprecate shop=shopping_centre in favour of shop=mall? -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=stationery, shop=office_supplies
I haven't noticed one for several years, but there used to be stores that specialized in selling greeting cards and small ornamental gifts. Hallmark greeting cards had a retail chain. On October 20, 2014 7:34:19 PM CDT, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: When I think of a stationery shop, I think of something like a FedEx Office minus the copiers and shipping. When I think of an office supply store, I think of something like Office Depot, Office Max or Staples, which also sell office furniture, computers, adding machines, filing cabinets, etc. On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: Dear all, We have currently two tags with a closely related, if not identical, meaning: shop=stationery (8038 instances) and shop=office_supplies (177 instances). Is there a difference between these two tags, or should we deprecate shop=office_supplies in favour of shop=stationery? For example, Staples, a large multinational stationery/office supplies shop is tagged 380 times as shop=stationery and 48 times as shop=office_supplies. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - relation type=person
On Oct 14, 2014, at 9:39 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I think we should have notability, like Wikipedia. Every time I mention importance or similar, everyone gets in a huff, as they think that it will start an edit war or something. We trust mappers to do everything, and make it local, but never to mark what's important (except for, you know, road levels, and where they go and where they intersect) but having some kind of opinion based tag, though verifiable by other local mappers, is not allowed. For some reason. So things that should be rendered at zoom level 9 - like prominent or notable peaks, and things that should be rendered at very high zoom levels - like the tens of thousands of little named hills just in my area of japan, get rendered in a confusing soup of triangles. Because making that decision is unverifiable, so we have to let the map be shitty for the sake of the tagging, which seems really backwards. Making a good map is about choosing what is important to be shown at what zoom, and Unless there are varying levels of tags, then we rely on the mapper simply to not tag things to avoid confusion. Which seems counterproductive. I imagine the landmark tag is as close as we got. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Problem with rendering natural=saddle
Since the mapper of the saddle knows the direction, why can't the saddle have a directional icon rendered if it is on a way that represents the passable section of the saddle, following the ridgeline? Simple and effective. I'm sure the mapper understands the direction of the saddle quite easily. The way itself doesn't need to be rendered, but the icon would be rendered In the midpoint of the way. Javbw On Oct 15, 2014, at 2:28 AM, Alan Trick alantr...@gmail.com wrote: I'm a little bit late to this, since I don't read the list regularly, but I have some thoughts about this, and I hope something moves forward. 1. I think that if we render saddles, it would also be good to render ridge lines. Most maps I've seen render either both or neither. I think they certainly look more complete together. 2. While I think rendering a saddle/pass/col with the bridge icon would be better; I think that for the time being, just rendering the name would be fine. This is what the current USGS maps do. 3. While we could get direction from elevation data from elsewhere, it has it's issues. Elevation data can be misleading, particularly in rugged terrain. 4. In the above example of Col du Grand-Saint-Bernard, I would think the col is clearly east-west-ish. Sure, the road goes north-south, but where it meets the ridge, it goes east-west. There is a north-south col at Fenêtre de Ferret (http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/292049137) 5. I haven't looked at the rendering code yet, but would it be possible to define a col/saddle/pass as a point along a ridgeline, and its direction to be perpendicular to that line? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Truckage company
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Andreas Labres l...@lab.at wrote: Any suggestion how to tag a transport company (a company forwarding goods, don't know how you call these guys from the Güterbeförderungsgewerbe like DPD etc. in English)? The companies often refer to their sector as logistics, although I think that's probably the marketing people trying to sound clever, and that the people actually driving and loading the trucks will call it transport. __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial
Sent from my iPad On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-07 14:57 GMT+02:00 johnw jo...@mac.com: For example, I'm a foreign resident in Japan. I have to visit the regional offices to renew my visa every year or so. It's always a busy place people have to find. It's not at the city hall, the airport or a border - but it is a really important government office building that needs to labeled differently than a standard office building. I agree that it would be desirable to have more detail on government offices, e.g. being able to distinguish the tax office from the immigration office etc. I'd see this under the office tag and not in landuse. I don't want to add any detail through the landuse - beyond tagging their land. A single tag that can be used to marking the land for all of these services seems pretty straightforward. This is an enormous pile of work to do, as there are many different kind of these, and the detailed structure is different in every country. This is why a single landuse that is an umbrella for these services is an easy solution - it separates out the government services, but leaves the function tagging to other schemes, like landuse=retail tells you nothing about what is sold - just that something is sold there. I view these buildings as a completely separate class of buildings - so I want a new major landuse class, just as an industrial plant and a mall are big, but viewed and tagged with a different land use. A regional capital building is a similar size, and similarly in a different class than existing landuse values. A seperate subtag, where all the different building definitions can be put (beyond the ones already existing) or just more definitions thrown into amenity - either way I'm okay with it - but they all need a distinct landuse to sit on. On the other hand, the idea of having a wastewater plant, a fire station, a court and a federal ministry categorized the same civic landuse doesn't seem very appealing to me. If you want to slice out emergency services (police/fire) and judicial, that's fine. Give them their own umbrella landuses, and let the existing tagging scheme describe their function, The wastewater treatment plant is still industrial - as is the incinerator, but the city's water board office, usually part of the city's main office, would be civic. To me, civic is a shortening of civic administration. We recognize places that provide services to citizens or offices of those services directly with separate tags - there are tags for community centers, rec centers, city halls, dmvs, and other places that the public visit regularly that are part of the civil government (not military) - but there is no good landuse for them, as there is for industrial/retail/commercial. There are several classes of buildings still without seperate tags - ones that get their own label on the map, a guidepost on the road, and are visited by the public as frequently as a trip to city hall - but no tag labels them yet (tax/pension/immigration/etc). I want to show their class through a landuse, and their function with some other tag. I believe that civic might be too generic (but maybe I just don't understand this right, hence the question for what is included and excluded). Questions always help me clarify my thinking, and understand yours as well. Thank you for the questions. My idea right now is an umbrella landuse for these offices/services that don't fit in commercial, and a separate subtag/additional amenity tags for function, however people want to do that. cheers, Martin Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Retag: craft=sweep = craft=chimney_sweep
Chimney sweeps still exist in the USA, although they offer a variety of services. The usual term for the industry is Heating/Ventilating/Air Conditioning Repair, often abbreviated to HVAC Repair. I had my chimney cleaned a few years ago. The technique used was a powerful, truck-mounted vacuum cleaner, plus a large brush moved up and down the flue. Modern houses no longer use flues large enough to climb into, as they suck nearly all of the heated air up the chimney. I agree that the value chimney_sweep is more understandable than simply sweep, as the latter could be misinterpreted to refer to companies that sweep up trash from roads and parking lots. On October 3, 2014 6:32:52 AM CDT, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-03 13:26 GMT+02:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: If they're a German-specific thing then why not use the German word rather than co-opt an English one that doesn't actually match the primary function that these people perform? they are all chimney sweeps. The list of detailed services, obligations and functions is naturally country specific such as with any other tag as well. We are not using English tags to describe everything in relation to Britain, but because it seemed a good way to describe the whole world in a way that would be understood by most of the mappers. I'd also expect chimney sweeps to be operating (still) in Britain, as they do necessary maintenance work (maybe you have less frequent sweeping, but it still has to be done from time to time). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no
Compacted usually means compacted earth (the soil has been packed more densely, but no other hard surface has been added). A dirt road simply has the native soil exposed, with perhaps some grading done, but again no topping added. To my mind, neither of these count as paved. On September 30, 2014 4:57:58 AM CDT, Erik Johansson erjo...@gmail.com wrote: These are more than 90% of values for surface, categorize them as paved/unpaved the rest as unpaved. surface= asphalt unpaved paved gravel ground dirt grass concrete paving_stones sand cobblestone compacted paved=yes will remove then need for parsing those last % of surface=* values, not sure it's worth it. To think that there is only one definition of paved=yes, is a big mistake. There are few tags in OSM that are specific enough to mean the same thing all over the world. On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:42 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 00:23 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote: ..A good suggestion ... So it seems that yet again, we are going to reject this attempt to solve a real problem. Looking at the neg replies, because its not useful for bike riders; not useful for a number of undefined edge cases; is a duplicate of surface=. Thats just plain not true ! There is no suggestion that paved= should be used instead of surface=. I use surface= on all unsealed roads I map and would continue to do so if I also used paved=no. But there are 34 official values for surface= and 3581 values used. It is very plain that the mapping community want surface= as a fine grained, very detailed key. And thats great, people making specialised maps or engines can use those values, display them in a meaningful way to people they understand. My data will help them. But the vast majority of people just want to know that the road may not be what they are used to. Thats all. And paved= does that easily. In places like Australia, that information can be a life or death thing. People die here because they are inexperienced or ill equipped for roads they tackle. Generally visitors from Europe or North America. Please folks, think of the big picture, not the edge cases. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Tagging for complex junctions or traffic signals that are named
So, if you have an intersection of two streets, with one traffic signal facing each direction, each of the four traffic signals will have its own distinct name? On September 29, 2014 4:45:33 PM CDT, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote: The case of Japan is different. In Japan, the name belongs to the _traffic signal_, and _not_ to the junction. We need to distinguish this, because they are usually differently rendered (traffic signal names usually with an icon and junction names usually without an icon). But what would we gain when we distinguish between th:junction_area and kr:junction_area - because here we have two values for the same feature. While the tagging has a certain focus on some asian countries, I would prefer to keep this country-independent. Lukas Sommer 2014-09-29 21:37 GMT+00:00 Никита acr...@gmail.com: Thailand has official signs naming the junctions/intersections. These names are also used when you give directions. As Imagic suggested, it not best way to use different tags for close meanings, single tag will be better option: junction=th:junction_area junction=jp:junction_area junction=kr:junction_area This will allow both simple processing and custom rendering for each case. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Forest vs Wood
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Guertin andrew.guer...@uvm.edu wrote: landcover=forest anywhere there's trees on the ground This doesn't agree with my (British English) understanding of the terms; a wood can be small, but a forest is always large. Small and large being loosely defined, but for something to be called forest I'd expect it to be many times larger than a typical farm field. Trying to pin down my intuition on it: a forest would be big enough to have one or more villages within its boundaries. However, the term woodland can be used at any scale, I think. __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] (Soapy) Massage Parlour
It is my understanding that Britain also uses the true statements that harm a reputation are libel, but that it is mainly used against the news media. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. On September 23, 2014 10:28:31 AM Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-09-23 16:56 GMT+02:00 Mishari Muqbil mish...@mishari.net: Even if it's the truth, it's criminal libel if you state it as a brothel. There's an interesting saying which you can Google that goes the greater the truth, the greater the libel. Libel is defined as false statement that harms the reputation of somebody/something. Are you serious that in Thailand they have something like criminal libel defined as any statement that harms the reputation of somebody/something? -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no
I am American, and the concept of a toll cycleway is not one I have encountered either. On September 22, 2014 3:55:03 AM p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: Toll? I assume that means the same in US English as in UK English? You really have to pay to use cycleways? How is the toll collected and enforced? Phil (trigpoint ) On Sun Sep 21 2014 23:36:04 GMT+0100 (BST), Paul Johnson wrote: Along with this, I really hope renderers start computing surface=* and toll=* values for ALL ways. I say this since surface=asphalt, highway=cyclway is an exceptionally rare combination in the midwestern US, but highway=cycleway, surface=gravel, toll=yes is not. On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Pee Wee piewi...@gmail.com wrote: -1 A renderer/router is perfectly capable of deciding what he thinks is paved/unpaved. He can decide whether he calls gravel / fine_gravel paved or unpaved. Do not leave the decision paved/unpaved up to the mapper. Map what you see. As you may have guessed I prefer surface=asphalt over surface=paved since the last one could mean that it is gravel. Cheers PeeWee32 2014-09-21 2:49 GMT+02:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net: yes, agree strongly. Surface= is a good tag, provides important info but it is far too fine grained. Someone setting up a route cannot be expected to sift through all the possible values. Similarly, we may well have a chance to get the renderers to respect a clear, on/off tag like the proposed and show it on the maps too. I see no problem with both tags being used. I think sometimes we put too much detail in the database and risk making the data unusable because of that. Mention making the data usable, we see charges of tagging for the renderer. But this is important, I have detailed life threatening issues resulting from unclear maps. This proposal will provide valuable, dare I say usable info for consumers ! David On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 23:42 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote: Hello all, I've posted the below message on the forum, and have been directed from there to this mailing list, thus re-posting it. Idea I would like to suggest making the paved key for highways (and probably other types of elements) official. Taginfo for paved: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/paved#values The above shows that the key is already being used, but the Wiki doesn't describe this key, instead redirecting Key:paved to the article about Key:surface. Rationale Currently, the surface key is being used as a way of saying that a given highway is paved or unpaved, but often the value for the surface key is not a generic paved or unpaved, but a specific surface type is given.This is of course very useful for describing the particular surface type a given highway has. However, in some cases, a simple information on just whether a highway is paved or not, would be very useful. One such case would be navigation software – if a user chooses to avoid unpaved roads, the software can check the value of the surface key, but in practice most (all?) of the navigation software only checks for a subset of all the possible values the surface key can have. This leads to incorrect (in terms of what the user expects) navigation when, for example, the surface is set to some value that describes an unpaved road, not recognized by the navigation software – if the software assumes that all highways are paved, unless explicitly stated otherwise (by recognized values of known keys), then, in consequence, it assumes that the road in question is paved. If the paved key was widely used, then the navigation software would have a simple and clear way of checking whether a given road is paved or not. The default value of the paved key for highways could be yes, so that it would be consistent with the assumption that highways in general are paved. I don't mean that we should stop using the paved and unpaved values for the surface key – I'm sure those generic values are useful in some cases. However, using the paved key would be also very useful. Also, the surface=paved could also implicate paved=yes and similarly surface=unpaved could implicate paved=no, so that duplication of the information could be avoided when the generic paved and unpaved values are set for the surface key. I believe that adding an article for the paved key to the Wiki would encourage people to use this tag, and navigation software makers to implement support for it in their applications. What do you think about that? Regards, Tomek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tagging for complex junctions or traffic signals that are named
It should be pretty trivial to have the area share nodes with the highway ways where the signals would normally be mapped. Like drawing a square around a tic-tac-toe board, but the shared nodes are only on one side at a time. Also, I think It could also share nodes with the walkways and other pedestrian oriented ways, as the signal would be part of their routing as well. Javbw On Sep 21, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote: So the nodes where the signals_area intersects the highways is where the signals would normally be mapped for complex intersections? Not exactly. It would be difficult to do so if you have really complex junctions with really many individual traffic signals and you want to catch all of them – a zickzack that is not easy to draw and not practical to maintain. The area is drawn just _around_ everything that is considered the junction. About the individual traffic signals. We recommand as current best-practice to not map them if you use the area. Means: Don’t do both things. (But maybe in the future this could be considered useful and it could be done without breaking the tagging scheme just like every other normal traffic signal with highway=traffic_signals on a node.) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] University accommodation (was Re: Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory)
Another difference between college dormitories and apartments is that dormitory rooms usually lack cooking facilities, and, at least in older buildings, may have communal toilet/shower facilities rather than en suite facilities. On September 20, 2014 8:47:08 AM sabas88 saba...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 Sep 2014 16:54, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: On 19.09.2014 14:22 Dan S wrote: for buildings: building=residential + residential=university + operator=* OR for sites: landuse=residential + residential=university + operator=* Note that the same scheme seems to me to work well for building and for landuse. I thought this had been discussed on tagging recently, but I can't find it, all I can find is the RFC for amenity=dormitory, currently used 263 times. (I will add that dormitory is certainly a little odd from a British English point of view, notwithstanding the comments already made to the RFC.) That proposal now suggests amenity=student_accommodation, precisely because of the oddness involved with the term dormitory. Personally, I prefer using the amenity key rather than building or landuse. Landuse lacks the implication that this is one distinct facility, and building values are not supposed to represent usage, but how the building is built. +1 I tagged some student residences as tourism=guest_house previously, but they aren't buildings (some are apartments inside buildings, but owned by the local government agency for student services). Stefano ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] (Soapy) Massage Parlour
The name tag can be whatever it is, but making a amenity=soapland might be what you are looking for. That way there is no confusion with massage places and clearly understood to be for adult services. Javbw. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 22, 2014, at 1:05 PM, Mishari Muqbil mish...@mishari.net wrote: Hi, To avoid having the word massage throwing off the discussion, I'll refer to it under it's legal name of entertainment place. I'll go ahead with the restrictions then, but the other issue is the specific legal classification that entertainment places fall under[1] as opposed to a regular, much smaller place which offer massages and have the same restrictions posted on the door. You need a specific license to operate a entertainment place which makes it subject to zoning, taxes and other laws and an establishment that operates under this legal definition and license should be tagged accordingly. [1] http://www.lawreform.go.th/lawreform/eng/index.php?option=com_homelawreformentask=showtoclid=705gid=6eword=Pename=Acts%20of%20Parliamentelawname=Public%20Entertainment%20Place%20Act,%20B.E.%202509%20%281966%29 On 9/21/14 22:07, Dan S wrote: Hi, Well, that suggestion specifies access limits (i.e. only males age 21 or more), and if those are true facts and they're what you want to indicate, then go ahead. The access limits don't really tell you if something is soapy or not, but if you decide you only want to imply that and not to state it explicitly, your approach sounds OK to me. However, there's NO reason to use amenity=massage_parlour when shop=massage already exists. Please use it. You said you want to avoid confusion between soapy and family-friendly, and your age-restriction works for that, no need to create a duplicate tag. Best Dan 2014-09-21 14:52 GMT+01:00 Mishari Muqbil mish...@mishari.net: Hi, I saw that, but I'm not convinced it's the right approach as what I'm referring require a specific massage parlor license to operate as opposed to a regular traditional massage establishment which is more suited for shop=massage. I think it would be akin to saying a convenience store and supermarket can all be tagged the same way. Also, I'm not comfortable with using sexual as it could be libelous to state that something illegal is taking place in these establishments (for example, you won't do shop=convenience+marijuana=yes in most parts of the world). How about something like a combination of: amenity=massage_parlour male=yes female=no min_age=21 This should be quite accurate. On 21/9/14 16:04, Dan S wrote: Hi - It looks like there's this tag, including a tag suggested for your specific issue: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dmassage Best Dan 2014-09-21 4:23 GMT+01:00 Mishari Muqbil mish...@mishari.net: Hi, Thailand has these places called entertainment complexes[1] that offers bathing + massage services and quite often the expectation is that there will be sexual services offered. However, I don't want to tag them as brothels as prostitution on the premises is legally not allowed[2]. I propose to tag this as leisure=massage_parlour since that's what the Thai English dictionary calls them[3] but I don't want it to be mistaken for more family friendly establishments in other parts of the world. Colloquially these places are called soapy massage so perhaps leisure=soapy_massage? :) One reason why they should be mapped is just how prominent they are as landmarks in general. For example, here's one called Utopia http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/z1A8OOUw01E5Jc84Mff-1Q this one's La Defense http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/ho84IFdUxupke-6pwrWW3g and Colonze http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/469ttdMVw4_1o3vkuvE_xw Any thoughts? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Thailand#Ab_Ob_Nuat [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Thailand#The_Entertainment_Places_Act [3] http://th.w3dictionary.org/index.php?q=%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%96%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%94 -- Best regards Mishari Muqbil EE32 64BD 7D1F 5946 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Best regards Mishari Muqbil EE32 64BD 7D1F 5946 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tagging for complex junctions or traffic signals that are named
Yeah sadly it is fairly complex to display different icons in different locations. Not something we will doing in OSM carto for a good while. From: jo...@mac.com Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 07:07:56 +0900 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tagging for complex junctions or traffic signals that are named I don't know much about how the rendering system parses the tags. I thought t would be non-trivial for it to work out how to display signal icons without a new tag, so I thought a new tag might be necessary, and gave my suggestion. I'm aware the current system is in use a lot for simple 1 node intersections, but as the number of complex intersections increases (?micro-mapping?), so will the need for a solution. Javbw On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:32 PM, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote: Differentiated tagging is needed for differentiated rendering. junction vs Signal. a single signal icon needs to be rendered in Japan for intersections. But that is yet working perfectly with the current tagging! In Korea, we have yet thousands of nodes with junction=yes and name=*, and they are rendered just with their name (and without any icon) at osm.org. Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/37.48391/126.65874 In Japan, we have yet thousands of nodes with highway=traffic_signals and name=*, and they are rendered with their name together with the icon at osm.org. Example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/34.43281/132.46446 (I know that the rendering style is not very “japanese”, but osm.org has worldwide coverage and has to render something that fits best at least a big part of the world. But this is a _rendering_ issue, not a _tagging_ issue.) There is only a problem when you have to tag complex junctions or traffic signal systems with dual carrigeways, because you want that the icon the the name show up only _once_ per junction/traffic signal system, and not _multiple_ times. That’s what is proposal is for. is there a way to tell the renderer to not render it's icon if it is part of another area's way? that would allow the intersection tag to take over for the rendering of the signals for it's single icon. I guess you want to say that we have to supress the rendering of individual traffic signals (nodes with highway=traffic_signals) if these node are located within the area element that marks the traffic signal system as a hole. So we render only the area element and we get only _one_ icon and name per traffic signal system. Indeed that is exactly what is necessary, and I’ve made my proposal based on this assumption. I assumed that this is tecnically easy, but I’ll check this again… if that's the case: landmark=intersection ?Intersection=signals for Japan, intersection=junction for korea, or other named junctions. Again, I do not see the point in introducing here a new tag. Using the existing junction=yes in Korea and the existing highway=traffic_signals in Japan – just not only on nodes but extending it also also on closed ways (=areas) – should be fine. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] The not-shops: industrial, industry, or business
Agreed. The general-purpose renderings, at least those intended for small-screen use, should use a limited number of icons, and those should each apply to a range of related object types. Large-screen and printed maps can use a wider range of icon types, since there is room for a map legend. Special-purpose renderings can use more specific icons, but may need to either include a legend or provide a link to a legend. On September 16, 2014 1:32:29 AM CDT, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 09/15/2014 07:43 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Maybe this is running up on the limit of only rendering shop values with 100 instances? I think that many people think too much information science (how can I compress the most information into the smallest room) and too little cartography (how can I make a map with a good user interface). A map icon is what, 32x32 pixels or so? A couple of millimeters on the screen. As long as you stick to 20 POI icons, you will be able to select icons that are instantly recognizable. Something with a film strip... must be a cinema. Once you introduce 100 icons, your map becomes unreadable without a legend. Yes you *can* devise a film-strip-and-pipe icon denoting a cinema that uniquely shows crime dramas but you're leaving the realm of the easy-to-use map (much like having 5 different types of dash-dot patterns for various types of tracks). It appears to me that unless the user actively requests to drill down deeper on something (and we have the technology to do that), we should stick with a very small number of icons. Maybe we can find a way to actually detect that shop=bicycle;skateboard is some kind of sports-related shop and display a generic sports-related-shop icon, the same that we would use for shop=bicycle or shop=skateboard alone. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] The not-shops: industrial, industry, or business
Yea, there needs to be a better framework for adding shops that are not in the system is a manner that is consistent, and possibly can work with -carto to have icons added by users without so much hassle. Here in japan, they have several different types of fast food, quick restaurants, and formal restaurants in categories everyone here recognizes - but get can't get put into a proper category or get a bad icon. Eg: an isakaiya is not really a pub. It's their own thing. And takoyaki is fast food, represented by a hamburger. - cuisine needs to have, probably, a thousand new tags added to cover this, and regional icons need to be paired with them. Making the maps more region friendly - to conform to the expectations and customs of the mapping language of the region is one thing I want to work on, and this is a part of it. Javbw Sent from my iPhone On Sep 13, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Michał Brzozowski www.ha...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/03/2014 11:26 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Another thing that comes to my mind: maybe we could indeed create this catalogue of tens of thousands of business types - who if not us will be able to do such a work? This doesn't imply the mapper would have to scroll long lists of thousands of entries, it could be well structured from coarse to fine. I too wondered about this problem. The current shop/craft tagging seems *very* broken for everything non-standard. We can't expect people to invent new tags for every type of service or merchandise, such as tractor repair or chimneys. You can use any tags you want, but think of the software, how can it deliver relevant results then? Think what people *need*. When they go to Google Maps, they don't look for a supermarket or grocery, they look for some specialized stores/services. Another issue is that people passionately add OSM notes for businesses there's no approved tagging for. I too, thought independently, about these human-readable description tags like shop:merchandise:language and how idiots (of which we have an abundance already) or diary spammers (who laugh in admins' faces) will abuse it. But who knows, this may be a viable solution. Compare with Business Name at https://support.google.com/business/answer/3038177?hl=enref_topic=4540086 . So, I checked how Google does this. And here you have all the 2200+ POI categories you can choose from when you add your business/institution/whatever. http://pastebin.com/BHqXvkS4 It seems they flattened their hierarchy here, for instance every cuisine has its own restaurant tag.. I guess internally there's some tree of categories, so that searching non-specific terms returns meaningful results. Anyway, our shop/service tagging system is quite flawed in its current form and is suitable for consumption only at a basic level. This presents an issue that too few people think of OSM as an ecosystem. We have disjoint teams (or individuals) developing tagging/website/editors/map style/map applications. This isn't good for creating a map that would serve users' needs (couldn't help myself but write the proverbial displace Google Maps ;-) ) Greetings Michał ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route relations - Forward Backward
If a bus route makes use of a one-way street, then the bus can only go one direction on that street. A pedestrian can go in either direction on a one-way street, and a bicycle may be able to do so, depending upon local traffic laws. Even if a given street allows two-way traffic, the bus route may use that street in a single direction, with the reverse route using a parallel street. On September 5, 2014 7:39:17 AM CDT, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 05/09/2014 12:31, Jo wrote: In bus route relations the ways don't get roles. Why's that? How would you tag a circular route that goes only clockwise? In this case some ways would be members twice. As the Relation's IDs aren't necessarily consecutive, how does a router know which to follow? Or is there a way to sort them into order? In walking and cycling route relations we do use them. Those are bidirectional, whereas the bus and tram routes describe start to terminus for all variations. I'm unsure how you can suggest bus routes aren't bidirectional. They can go both ways along a way the same as walkers/cyclists. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] cliffs and embankents or anything else
I suppose one could map both the spoil heap as a whole, as an area, and also the crest, as a line. The crest would be useful as a landmark, from a distance. The footprint of the spoil heap would be useful as a landmark, at close range. My impression is that no one would likely try climbing the spoil heap itself, as this is equivalent to climbing a talus slope, prone to triggering a landslide. On September 4, 2014 4:33:02 PM CDT, Zecke z...@saeuferleber.de wrote: Am 04.09.2014 22:09, schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: On 04.09.2014 21:19, Zecke wrote: Spoil heaps can be mapped as unclosed lines when they are attached to a (natural) mountain. Then only the visible part of the contour will be mapped as a line This does not sound right. Spoil heaps are areas and should be mapped as such, or abstracted to a node when you don't know the dimensions. Spoil heaps (positive landform) are the complement of quarries (negative landform). I have never seen a quarry mapped as a line. I'm mainly dealing with historic mining. Spoil heaps of historic mining however are very real. And they often developed directly in front of an adit at the base or slope of a mountain. I've seen a lot of them and because of their origination history they are at the flank of a mountain. Mapping of historic spoil heaps is at its beginning that is why I started this discussion. And I would say70% of them I would map as a line, 30% as an area because its surroundings are clear. But even for the area type I would need a way to map the slope as not every spoil heap has steep slopes. Discussion was about started slopes, not about spoil heaps. Zecke ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - nudism
*Voting starts today* and will *end on 19.07.2014* with hopefully many votes from all of you I think you mean 19.09.2014 ;-) 2014-09-02 7:03 GMT-03:00 Heiko Wöhrle m...@heikowoehrle.de: Hi everybody, i would like to bring the tag nudism to vote Several issues of the discussion have been included in the proposal page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Nudism *Voting starts today* and will *end on 19.07.2014* with hopefully many votes from all of you Best regards, Heiko Am 30.08.2014 14:24, schrieb Richard Z.: On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 01:08:25AM +0200, Heiko Wöhrle wrote: Hi, added a table to the page, maybe this way it is easier to see which additional cases should be added. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Heiko Wöhrle Lierstrasse 20 80639 München m 0176 56202550 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] floating or pontoon bridges?
Pontoon bridge is the only term I am familiar with for such bridges. On September 2, 2014 9:55:00 AM CDT, Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us wrote: Here in Western Washington we call them pontoons. See http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR520/Pontoons.htm We've never properly tagged the bridge type but they are pontoons. These pontoons do not look like the wiki picture, but are big boxes which are anchored to the lake/ocean floor. BTW - these are large, multilane structures with no sense of sway, except in the most extreme weather. And then they close the bridge. On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-09-02 16:14 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: Wikipedia does not agree with Martin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontoon_bridge it depends on the language ;-) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponton cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Unification of google-plus links
Why use contact: here, when it's not used by the majority anywhere else. +1 2014-08-29 22:46 GMT-03:00 Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de: I don't want to change the addr:-, website-, phone-, fax- or email-key!!! I never said it. As Tobias pointed out, we have to look at the bigger pucture. Why use contact: here, when it's not used by the majority anywhere else. The contact-namespace associate, that the defined facebook- or googleplus-page are a medium to communicate with the defined object. I know a lot facebook-pages, who are created from fans or generated from a wikipedia-pages. That are mostly not a communication channel. But those unofficial (fan) pages should not be linked anyway. It would always be the official page. In addition even a lot of those pages are not really used for communication, so that seems even more like a argument against contact:, especially as mappers are not going to first figure out which company replies on google+ and which doesn't. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] floating or pontoon bridges?
The key is to have enough empty space at the center, so that the overall density is less than that of water. On September 2, 2014 12:12:02 PM CDT, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-09-02 17:46 GMT+02:00 Clifford Snow cliff...@snowandsnow.us: Then again if I made a pontoon out of concrete, they'd just sink. While I generally agree with your agreement, this is not true, ships can be built out of concrete (think aircraft carriers for instance), and German universities even hold a regular competition who builds the best canoe out of (fibre)cement: http://www.betonkanu-regatta.de/ ;-) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Ablution area
amenity=religious_ablution or similar would be better indeed. 2014-08-31 10:19 GMT-03:00 Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com: I don't know about that. I only wanted to point out that there are other usages of that word. The religious context is only one of several so there might be some disagreement on dedicating any future tags to that use. On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote: On 31.08.2014 01:24, André Pirard wrote: On 2014-08-30 10:55, Dave Swarthout wrote : FWIW, I traveled extensively in New Zealand a few years ago and there an ablution block (or ablution area) is a place in a campground where one washes things — dishes, clothing, etc. That definition of ablution is also a sort of purification, I reckon. In French, ablution means hygienic body washing. Misleading. Purification is a secondary meaning. I think the intended use is for use in a religious context. The tag should be in a way that it's not used for dish-washing and ritual purification the same time. Do you think the word is too generic? or the amenity key not suitable for it? Stephan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Unification of google-plus links
The character plus (+) is an unusual character for keys indeed. I believe it's because people usually say x=y + a=b when talking about a combination of two tags. 2014-08-29 11:36 GMT-03:00 Andreas Neumann andr-neum...@gmx.net: The problem is the + and the space sign. Both are bad chars for a key. Maybe someone can tell why. [http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/contact%3Agoogle%20%2B] Andreas On 29.08.2014 11:57, Andy Mabbett wrote: This all seems sensible, with the exception that I can only ever recall seeing the former referred to as Google +, and I think most people will use the + sign. On Aug 29, 2014 10:39 AM, Andreas Neumann andr-neum...@gmx.net mailto:andr-neum...@gmx.net wrote: Hi, I would like to unify the keys for google-plus-pages of objects in the Database. In TagInfo I found this variants: contact:google+ contact:google_plus link:google_plus contact:google Google + Google Plus Google+ contact:googleplus contact:google + GooglePlus googleplus contatc:google+ google business [https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=google] I would like to change the Keys in contact:google_plus [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact]. I found also some Facebook-keys (with uppercase F). I would like to change them in contact:facebook [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:contact]. The same with Twitter (- contact:twitter). And I would like to move the social-network-links link:[facebook|twitter] in the contact-namespace. Andreas -- sorry for my bad english... Andreas Neumann http://Map4Jena.de http://Stadtplan-Ilmenau.de ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] leisure=common
On 08/28/2014 10:49 AM, Dave F. wrote: I've just looked up common on taginfo I'm very surprised to see virtually all are tagged with leisure= (39348). If I ever used it ( I'm unsure I have) I would have used landuse= (123). I genuinely believe this is an example of where it being the majority doesn't make it correct. In Britain a common is an area of land, usually grass, which is open for all to use, where any number of leisure activities could occur (sports, picnics, playgrounds etc), which is why I think it's vague. It needs a separate tag to able to map the leisure activities with the area. Again, I'm really surprised by the number of landuse= tags. Was there a mass edit? Dave F. On 28/08/2014 16:31, Pieren wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: I believe it was withdrawn as it vague. You logic is stated on one of the pages you posted. It was in the map features page for years : An area where the public can walk anywhere (UK) I guess it is also used in US. I found some examples : https://www.google.fr/search?safe=offhl=frsite=imghptbm=ischsa=1q=village+commonoq=village+commongs_l=img.3...11667.13247.0.13578.8.7.0.0.0.0.476.476.4-1.1.00...1c.1.52.img..8.0.0.cFS7KjyXTyo If you don't know what village common is then don't use it. If we start to delete all vague definitions in the wiki, we should better start with smoothness :-) The description an area where the public can walk anywhere fits many other things besides village commons. I agree that this is an overly-vague definition. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Contact-Tag for Webcam
That seems likely. On August 27, 2014 2:23:33 PM CDT, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 26 August 2014 18:44, Andreas Neumann andr-neum...@gmx.net wrote: there exists a tagging for webcams in the contact-namespace (contact:webcam=*) Is this a mis-named operator:contact= ? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] default value for oneway
For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays between no and unset, which is a smell for me. Either way means no. For the software? No, there isn't a difference. For the mapper? Yes, there is a difference. Since nowadays NULL for a street means oneway=no a change in the semantics would be still be possible as far as the database is concerned. If you go today to the database and update all oneway attributes for streets which are blank to no, the meaning of the database is equivalent. Theorically speaking, yes, you could add oneway=no to every street, and get a functionally equivalent database (from the software's POV). But, in practice, people most likely wouldn't agree with that (this change would be reverted). 2014-08-28 12:33 GMT-03:00 Xavier Noria f...@hashref.com: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: In any case there are roughly 45 million highway segments on which a oneway tag could make sense, vs. roughly 6 million oneway=yes and 1.5 million oneway=no. I suspect that it is really -far- too late to change the semantics of this specific attribute. Since nowadays NULL for a street means oneway=no a change in the semantics would be still be possible as far as the database is concerned. If you go today to the database and update all oneway attributes for streets which are blank to no, the meaning of the database is equivalent. Same for motorways, replace all NULLs with yes. Equivalent database. For a street, there is no practical difference nowadays between no and unset, which is a smell for me. Either way means no. I believe the default is useful for the UI, to preselect a value for example so that the user has to do nothing in the majority of street creations, less useful as a way to interpret NULLs because then you don't know what has been confirmed. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Map Features template
The purpose of such templates was to have the same list in all languages. If someone introduces a new entry, it's spread in all local pages. It's probably not translated immediately but it is by far much better to see it in English than to have to maintain manually separated pages/tables. [..] I don't see this as a big advantage nowadays. People still have to maintain manually separated pages/tables (and more pages than without these templates). And as far as I can see, the wiki translation is _mainly_ done for the sake of people that can't read english, so an entry in english doesn't really help. Also, if the original description is updated, the translated versions keep the old version unless updated manually. Soon the wiki will enable a rich text editor plugin to make the wiki easier to use (and consequently invite more participation), so I want to ask people to avoid using this kind of template, because they make some pages harder to edit, without considerable advantages. I think it has a good purpose in pages like the main Map Features page, so I'm not asking to replace it (while we don't have a better solution). The tag pages came later and probably many of them are even not listed in the Map Features where we only show the most popular and commonly agreed tags. We can also sort and group them differently from a simple alphabetic order or key string. Not something we can program easily. This kind of page I suggested would only show the tags from a list, and not every tag. Ideally it would allow the users to either let the wiki automatically query the metadata from that tag's page, or let the user specify what to show (useful when there isn't a tag page for that right now). But personally I don't intend to solve the redundancy problem with the main Map Features page right now. I just want people to avoid this kind of Map Features Template on normal pages. Cheers, John 2014-08-27 5:22 GMT-03:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 7:36 PM, John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com wrote: Some people like these templates because it seems they can make new tag values appear in non-english pages by adding them in the english page. But this new value appears in english, so in my opinion it kinda defeats the purpose of the non-english page... The purpose of such templates was to have the same list in all languages. If someone introduces a new entry, it's spread in all local pages. It's probably not translated immediately but it is by far much better to see it in English than to have to maintain manually separated pages/tables. We don't have enough active wiki contributors for such solution. The tag pages came later and probably many of them are even not listed in the Map Features where we only show the most popular and commonly agreed tags. We can also sort and group them differently from a simple alphabetic order or key string. Not something we can program easily. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Religious landuse
Hi, How did this topic turn out in the end? The wiki page Tag:landuse=religious [1] was translated to yet another language (japanese), and this tag is getting more uses (most likely due to being included as a preset in JOSM[2]), so I assume it's becoming de facto I'm not against landuse=religious, but I'm not satisfied with it's current description: The area surrounding a amenity=place_of_worship used for religious purposes I believe a tag such as landuse=religious is inevitably going to be used as indicating any kind of religious activity, not necessarily with amenity=place_of_worship. Also, I believe amenity=place_of_worship is enough for indicating the religious area in most cases. Cheers, John [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Alanduse%3Dreligious [2]: http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/10262 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Map Features template
I'm not sure that's the right mailing list for talking about this, but it's probably the closest Am I the only one that dislikes the Map Features templates on the wiki? (example: [1]) I think they make it harder to edit the wiki. People can find it hard to find out how to edit the template. Also, it uses this ugly and highly redundant syntax not used anywhere else. It should eventually become a relic of the past, and be changed for some kind of smart page that reads a list of tags classified into sections and queries the metadata from their tag pages (avoiding any duplication of information). I wasn't complaining because I am not willing to learn how to program the wiki to do that, but it seems lately there is a trend to create these templates and replace them on some pages. Some people like these templates because it seems they can make new tag values appear in non-english pages by adding them in the english page. But this new value appears in english, so in my opinion it kinda defeats the purpose of the non-english page... Cheers, John [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:contact ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Contact-Tag for Webcam
On 08/26/2014 05:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Il giorno 26/ago/2014, alle ore 19:44, Andreas Neumann andr-neum...@gmx.net ha scritto: I don't understand, why a webcam is a communication channel. I agree ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging It is a communication channel, but only one-way. The image seen by the camera is communicated to whomever is watching it at its destination, or whomever may watch the recorded image later. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Reproposal of tourism=aquarium
And I feel like most of the values would better fit with a key like amusement _ride= or amusement _ride:xxx=yes. Now that you mentioned I just remembered. There is a proposal that uses the key attraction=* for describring objects from theme parks, zoos, etc. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:attraction So apparently the key attraction=* is already used for something else. 2014-08-25 7:40 GMT-03:00 Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de: +1, tourism=attraction is a poor scheme from the early days, maybe we should deprecate it all together, either without alternative or in favor of a flag like attraction=yes (or level0 - level 3 etc), or tourist_attraction=* I also just see it ending up in 2x tagging everything. leisure=waterpark tourism=attraction + attraction=waterpark; amenity=restaurant tourism=attraction + attraction=restaurant etc. And I feel like most of the values would better fit with a key like amusement _ride= or amusement _ride:xxx=yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusement_ride I mean for example a kiddie_ride you find at a supermarket is not a (tourist) attraction. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] minus or underscore in attribute values?
If the term in question is normally written as two or more words, connected by hyphens, then hyphens should be used. If the term is normally written as two or more words, separated by spaces, then the spaces should be replaced by underscores. Replacing a hyphen by an underscore changes the meaning. On August 25, 2014 7:46:33 AM CDT, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: the space gets replaced by an underscore +1 The problem is not to have a preference between underscore and hypen but to know if our English colleagues can agree on the separator space or hyphen. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Reproposal of tourism=aquarium
I don't agree with the tourism=attraction argument. Isn't a museum a touristic attraction too? At least as much as an aquarium. Yet we don't tag it as tourism=attraction + attraction=museum As long as it is documented on the wiki, it shouldn't be a problem for people making queries in OSM. 2014-08-24 13:10 GMT-03:00 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: The two-tag solution is definitely better Volker On 24 August 2014 12:00, Fabrizio Carrai fabrizio.car...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Lorenzo, my personal opinion is for tourism=attraction + attraction=acquarium. My rationale comes from a potential utilization of the tag and tags combinations. If I wants to query for all and only acquariums, a query on attraction=acquarium will work. Viceversa, if we rise one step above and querying for tourism=attraction, the acquarium tagged as tourism=acquarium would not be reported, that is obviously not correct (the acquarium is a touristic attraction). Ciao FabC 2014-08-24 3:18 GMT+02:00 Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi lomastr...@gmail.com: I would like to submit a new request to vote for the tag tourism=aquarium. The proposal was first considered approved and then excluded due to lack of feedback. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approved_features/Aquarium Actually exists a very poor permanent page but it is non connected at any other but the proposal. I found also a german page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Daquarium http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:tourism%3Daquarium tourism=aquarium is actually used 186 times. It was 187 but someone moved the one I had put in a simple tourism=attraction and this is why I am here :) Other similar taggings i found: tourism=attraction + attraction=aquarium. 6 times tourism=zoo + zoo=aquarium. 3 times tourism=attraction + aquarium=yes. 1 time tourism=zoo + aquarium=yes. 1 time Several aquarium=yes have been used also for pet shops Look forward for comments before updating the proposal page and sending the request Lorenzo ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- *Fabrizio* ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] interpolated housenumbers on single objects
You will probably need to have the camera in video mode, and subsequently locate which frames give you the best view of the house number. Trying to both watch where you are going, and also pick the best location for a single shot, would be about as risky as trying to send text messages while pedaling. Also, you probably need to have the camera mounted on a pole so that it can see over parked vehicles and pedestrians. On August 20, 2014 10:25:15 AM CDT, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Wed Aug 20 2014 15:27:06 GMT+0100 (BST), Janko Mihelić wrote: I'm trying to find a way to photograph sideways from my bike and send photos to Mapillary. The day should be shiny with a lot of light so I don't have to go to slow, and the camera should be mounted just right so I don't lose too much numbers. Then when the photos are on Mapillary, anyone can map the address numbers in them (and shops and everything else). Three more cameras and then you have an openstreetview. Cool. Phil (trigpoint ) Janko 2014-08-20 14:19 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole si...@poole.ch: IMHO mapping house numbers while on a bicycle is one of those things that simply doesn't really work, contrary to other things that work well (road signs etc). Not that it couldn't be done, but the technical effort required to do so is significant (aka in the direction of googles streetview tricycle) and you still end up with having to post process, which again takes more time than doing it properly (at 1st glance slower) in the fist place. Simon Am 20.08.2014 13:52, schrieb Ilpo Järvinen: On Wed, 20 Aug 2014, Simon Poole wrote: Am 20.08.2014 12:11, schrieb Ilpo Järvinen: ... lots of stuff from past experiences ... There is no reason not to immediately enter the address data, preferably as entrance nodes if the building outlines exist, if they don't, placing an address node at an appropriate place is far easier if you are actually standing/walking past the building in question. All the address surveying I've done in the last couple of months has time wise been dominated by the time it takes to walk from building to building. Nice, but how would you do positioning of such nodes while cycling past the buildings? :-) I could make only trivial notes (to a draft SMS to be exact but that won't work with too fancy phones with touch keyboards though ;-)) that heavily depended near-term memory because the time available to mark individual address (or entrance) is very limited. Also, almost no time is wasted while moving from address to another. I was rather happy to have occassionally a short break in sequence to catch up/relax (or could use even higher speed, i.e., collect more addresses per time unit). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - nudism
Heiko, yes i would like to bring that to vote.It is an attempt to unify the tagging for this purpose. Ok, but it's not clear in the proposal what you are trying to do. Do you want to deprecate the key naturism=* in favor of nudism=*? Do you want to use both of them? (in this case, please explain the differences more clearly As other mentioned, the default value of the key nudism=* would change depending on the region, therefore it would be advisable for this key to have no default value (unknown), as is common for most tags. 2014-08-19 3:44 GMT-03:00 Heiko Wöhrle m...@heikowoehrle.de: Hi John, yes i would like to bring that to vote.It is an attempt to unify the tagging for this purpose. I just changed the status to proposed and set a voting date. Best regards, Heiko Am 19.08.2014 01:18, schrieb John Packer: Heiko, You added the key naturism=* to the proposal. Is this also being voted on, or is the proposal just mentioning there are some uses of this other key ? 2014-08-18 20:08 GMT-03:00 Heiko Wöhrle m...@heikowoehrle.de: Hi everybody, i'd like to readdress an old draft from Xan, that has never been voted but is nevertheless in use. Please feel free to comment the slightly changed proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Nudism Best regards, Heiko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Heiko Wöhrle Lierstrasse 20 80639 München m 0176 56202550 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wayside shrines that are not historic
Mateusz, You should use historic=wayside_shrine for wayside shrines, regardless of whether they are historic or not. Just like the tag amenity=place_of_worship is used even on grounds of gnostic or atheist religions. Cheers, John 2014-08-19 12:52 GMT-03:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: 2014-08-19 17:23 GMT+02:00 Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org: Mateusz Konieczny wrote, on 2014-08-19 16:45: How one should tag wayside shrine that is not historic? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wayside_shrine is not providing an answer. That question was asked 2010 already on the discussion page. I agree that 'historic' is ambiguous in the first place, since it does not specify if historic means old vs. recently built, or out of use vs. still being used. Secondly, they are certainly being used for acts of worshipping, historic or not, e.g. when sitting in a bus in Greece I see people worshipping even when the vehicle just passes by. Thus combining amenity=place_of_worship with the appropriate building tag building=wayside_[shrine|cross] appears plausible. Is is important here to give the renderer a clue at which zoom level to draw it, since amenity=place_of_worship is currently heavily used for buildings of significant size such as churches/temples/mosques (376000 as nodes and 232000 as ways, only 33% having a building tag). This would also emphasise to limit the use of amenity=place_of_worship to the actual place that is used for the worshipping, i.e. the weekly/daily congregation, and the individual praying; and not for larger areas/campuses around such places, where I prefer landuse=religious ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging As there is currently no clear tag, I would suggest man_made=wayside_shrine ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] problem with bicycle=designated
Are you allowed to walk on the cycle path while pushing a broken-down bicycle (for example, if the chain breaks)? I have been on some bicycle paths where brush grows up to the edge of the path, so there would not be room to walk next to the path. On August 19, 2014 3:23:51 AM CDT, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 22:00, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk ha scritto: They _exactly_ fit the British English definition of a cycleway, actually (in fact, most places that I've been apart from Germany) - you can both walk and cycle on them. In Germany, France and Italy (at least) you can't walk on a cycleway by default, i.e. unless there are additional signs permitting pedestrians. Thus a combined footwaycycleway is something different than a cycleway. FWIW, the documented default in OSM (if such thing as defaults is accepted anyway) is foot=no according to this page linked from the cycleway definition: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key
I'm not sure what is a gelateria. Couldn't this be tagged simply with amenity=cafe + cuisine=ice_cream ? 2014-08-18 8:23 GMT-03:00 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: 2014-08-14 10:40 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Hi, On 08/14/2014 08:09 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: shop=ice_cream (710, documented but difference between using amenity and shop keys is not documented) - amenity=ice_cream (4053) amenity=ice_cream sounds very strange to me. I can't imagine a lot of people actually coming up with that themselves - can it be a mass edit or an editor preset gone wrong? I mean, the amenity consists not in there being ice cream, but there being a place where you can get ice cream. That would like tagging amenity=bed for a hotel or amenity=food for a restaurant... Not really. A gelateria is a very different thing from a bar, and it's not a shop that sells ice cream. At most you could use ice cream parlour, but amenity=ice_cream_parlour seems worse to me than the current tag. Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes
Perhaps such a category should only be tagged exactly when it's not linked on a wikidata page. Otherwise it seems unnecessary. As Andreas mentioned, if people can add this tag even when it's linked on the wikidata page, eventually people will start adding wikiquote=* wikivoyage=* and so on. Indeed, in most cases wikipedia=* can be redundant when there is already a wikidata=* key, but wikipedia=* is a well-established key, which is not the case of wikimedia_commons=* In other words, don't need to fix what ain't broken. 2014-08-18 3:20 GMT-03:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: 2014-08-17 20:45 GMT+02:00 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: What should we sue to link to Wikimedia commons categories like: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:St_Paul,_Birmingham I've previously used Wikimedia_Commons=, but that's verbose; and I seem to be alone in doing so. Wouldn't linking using the wikidata=* tag be better as the Wikidata entry for St Paul's Church in Birmingham should link to the appropriate page or category on Wikimedia Commons? So I would tag the OSM object representing St Paul's Church as wikidata=Q915614 Some minor objects may have category/image on Wikimedia Commons but have no wikidata and never will have - see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] separator for addr:housenumber=*
I believe comma is used instead of semi-colon because the key addr:housenumber frequently gets rendered, and comma is the common separator symbol for end users. 2014-08-18 11:04 GMT-03:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Hey On the English wiki page [1] comma is the proposed separator for several values of addr:housenumber. This contradicts our rule of using semi-colon as separator of values and I do not have a clue why. I propose to deprecate comma and use semi-colon instead to harmonize our data structure and allow QA software to find problematic values. What do you think ? Cheers fly [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Addresses#Buildings_with_multiple_house_numbers ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes
Some automatically evaluations to find tags with low numbers under main name space would be useful, as I find these kind of page quite often and it would ease administration. I think that's the closest to what you want: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/taginfo/apidoc#api_4_keys_all 2014-08-18 9:43 GMT-03:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com: Am 18.08.2014 10:15, schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: 2014-08-18 9:25 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com: Il giorno 18/ago/2014, alle ore 00:44, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk mailto:a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk ha scritto: OK, how's this : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wikimedia_commons as a start? +1, but could have been in the proposal address space, given that it is not in use... +1, and now it is in use. Come one, some few uses are no argument for an established tag in common use. Please, move it under the proposal name space. Some automatically evaluations to find tags with low numbers under main name space would be useful, as I find these kind of page quite often and it would ease administration. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes
Andy, Usually there is no problem in creating a page documented the key or tag you want to use. I don't think this case is an exception. The only thing is that a key/tag documented without a proposal is more likely to have a future merge/redefinition/deprecation/etc. 2014-08-18 18:57 GMT-03:00 Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: On 18 August 2014 13:43, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Please, move it under the proposal name space. To what end? Is there a counter proposal that means this might not be used? Is there significant opposition, that means this might not be used? Or is this just needless bureaucracy? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Commons: mixed purposes
For example, I consider it problematic to duplicate the functionality of the image key by allowing links to individual images. And I guess there will be different opinions whether a wikidata link should always replace commons links or whether they should coexist. +1 2014-08-18 19:38 GMT-03:00 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: On 18.08.2014 23:57, Andy Mabbett wrote: Is there significant opposition, that means this might not be used? The key itself is probably relatively uncontroversial, but the details need some discussion. For example, I consider it problematic to duplicate the functionality of the image key by allowing links to individual images. And I guess there will be different opinions whether a wikidata link should always replace commons links or whether they should coexist. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - nudism
Heiko, You added the key naturism=* to the proposal. Is this also being voted on, or is the proposal just mentioning there are some uses of this other key ? 2014-08-18 20:08 GMT-03:00 Heiko Wöhrle m...@heikowoehrle.de: Hi everybody, i'd like to readdress an old draft from Xan, that has never been voted but is nevertheless in use. Please feel free to comment the slightly changed proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Nudism Best regards, Heiko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RENDER
- way: addr:housenumber=1; my_tag=nothing_known_elsewhere; render=pink - way: addr:housenumber=2; other_tag=known_only_by_me; render=yellow - way: addr:housebumber=3; my_private_tag=dont_use_it; render=violet - way: addr:housebumber=4; unique_tag=only_taginfo_knows_me; render=green Heck, we would be lucky if people were to add other tags besides render=* and maybe name=* 2014-08-15 12:05 GMT-03:00 Vincent Pottier vpott...@gmail.com: What a nice map we would get : - way: addr:housenumber=1; my_tag=nothing_known_elsewhere; render=pink - way: addr:housenumber=2; other_tag=known_only_by_me; render=yellow - way: addr:housebumber=3; my_private_tag=dont_use_it; render=violet - way: addr:housebumber=4; unique_tag=only_taginfo_knows_me; render=green - ... This map already exists : http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1EYAKZQ31ck/T0iWNbp34wI/BIs/oBJMF_ViWFM/s1600/smarties.jpg -- FrViPofm Le 15/08/2014 16:12, André Pirard a écrit : Hi, It's a well known fact that many people complain to tag in vain because what they tag doesn't show on the map (e.g. mini-golf vs tennis pitch), because they're told to open a rendering ticket which replies that only official tags are supported, and because they open a vote for an official tag and nobody signs. As a result they are accused of tagging for the renderer instead of 'being forced to tag for the renderer. The solution is simple however. A RENDER tag that, typically, would assign a color to an area. I'll let the rendering specialists define what else it can do. ⚠ ⚠ ⚠ RENDER only requests *by default* rendering. As soon as rendering is defined for an element, it is used instead and RENDER is normally ignored. For a better map, André. ___ Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
One question. How would people map a cave? As far as I know, GPSes don't really work underground, and obviously there is no sattelite imagery for them. I imagine that's why there is no scheme right now. 2014-08-14 8:22 GMT-03:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 12:31, Martin Vonwald wrote : 2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is valuable information. Obviously? Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted up for tourism, I wonder... Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not. tunnel is an attribute of an object called highway, including the paths in question. cave:NNN=* are attributes of objects natural http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural=cave_entrance http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcave_entrance, obviously speleology and not path oriented. cave=* is not defined. I know I still have to learn that OSM is fuzzy, but using cave=yes for paths would first need a definition of it in the highway=* page. This said, we could wait for years for a rendering of cave=yes, let alone routing support. Rendering and routing don't care if it's man-made or not. They just work or don't. Why not use the well established tunnel=yes and layer=-n? And cope with the subjective, cultural, etc. strangeness with an adorning cave or whatever made up tag? André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
Plus, our mapping scheme is limited in its ability to record three-dimensional spaces. I don't know how we would map this is one continuous passage, but with a deep pit in the center, so you will need special equipment to bridge the gap. On August 14, 2014 6:35:52 AM CDT, John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com wrote: One question. How would people map a cave? As far as I know, GPSes don't really work underground, and obviously there is no sattelite imagery for them. I imagine that's why there is no scheme right now. 2014-08-14 8:22 GMT-03:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 12:31, Martin Vonwald wrote : 2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is valuable information. Obviously? Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted up for tourism, I wonder... Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not. tunnel is an attribute of an object called highway, including the paths in question. cave:NNN=* are attributes of objects natural http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural=cave_entrance http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcave_entrance, obviously speleology and not path oriented. cave=* is not defined. I know I still have to learn that OSM is fuzzy, but using cave=yes for paths would first need a definition of it in the highway=* page. This said, we could wait for years for a rendering of cave=yes, let alone routing support. Rendering and routing don't care if it's man-made or not. They just work or don't. Why not use the well established tunnel=yes and layer=-n? And cope with the subjective, cultural, etc. strangeness with an adorning cave or whatever made up tag? André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not. On the whole, yes, but there are some artificial underground cavities that are referred to as caves, I think, such as large chambers in salt mines. __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
Forget routing in caves. There's no GPS. And those who get lost without routing apps will get lost in a cave anyway. +1 2014-08-14 12:32 GMT-03:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: On 14.08.2014 13:18, Dan S wrote: I think that it is an obvious idea, but wiki claimed that At the moment there just a tag to map the entrance to a cave. despite fact that existing tags fit well. No, they do not fit. Caves are complex three-dimenional structures. In most caves there are no paths. You go or climb or rope down whereever you feel like. This is the same as with a pedestrian square - there's no specific route in the square and you go wherever you feel. However it's useful to make them part of the OSM database, both for showing their existence and to help with various routing applications. Pedestrian squares are 2-dimensional. Caves are 3-dimensional. Many cave rooms overlap themselves a couple of times in the z-axis. Forget routing in caves. There's no GPS. And those who get lost without routing apps will get lost in a cave anyway. I'm afraid layer=-1 does not express that a feature is underground. It expresses that a feature is lower than all features at layer=0+, but there's no guaranteed relationship with ground level. In central Europe it is, but habits may vary around the word. Much chaos these days... In my opinion, there is some misconception by people who are used to image editing software such as Photoshop, Adobe illustrator, Gimp, Corel Draw, Inkscape, etc., as well as CAD software. In all of these applications, layers stand for rendering order. In OSM we need to think in physical layers. Caves are just an example. There are many more underground objects which are not tunnels. E.g. I used to go to school over a landfill for 8 years without knowing, because it was covered with soil and grass. The only way for renderers to know is by eveluating the layer tag. Of course you could set some additional tag like underground=yes, but having two concurrent tags for the same thing is just a mess. You'll soon get a lot of inconsistencies. There are quite a few objects with the implicit layer=0 but which are not at ground level (e.g. tunnel=culvert items: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4zE). Therefore we need to tag them all with layer0. There was a proposal for implicit default layer=1 for bridges and -1 for tunnels, but unfortunately it was voted down, so we are damned to set it manually every time. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
Just noticed that some mappers resort to adding building=yes or similar to make it render at all. Note that bridges that are buildings actually exist. [1] But adding building=* to a bridge when it's not the case would be tagging (incorrectly) for the renderer. [1]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dbridge 2014-08-13 9:09 GMT-03:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:12:07AM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote: Hi! 2014-08-12 22:57 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: what else can I do? Maybe it's time to open up a change request for the main map style? The tag man_made=bridge seems to be used worldwide [1] in some - more or less - consistent way. It provides useful data, is simple to tag, it should be easy to render and it solves some ugly rendering issue. yes I think it is about time that man_made=bridge is rendered. Is there a place where someone could take the main style, change it and see the difference in rendering? So we could not only open a ticket but also provide a patch. have no idea. Just noticed that some mappers resort to adding building=yes or similar to make it render at all. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale
I think it should be website:payment:bitcoin=yes instead of payment:website:bitcoin=yes 2014-08-13 9:20 GMT-03:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: I'm ok with that. A shop that has online Bitcoin paying: shop=computer + payment:website:bitcoin=yes + website=http://www.shop.com An office of a website without a cash register: office=e-commerce + e-commerce=computer + payment:website:bitcoin=yes + website=http://www.shop.com A shop with Bitcoin payment at the point of sale: shop=computer + payment:bitcoin=yes I think this is an ok scheme. 2014-08-13 13:57 GMT+02:00 Anita Andersson cc0c...@gmx.com: Janko Mihelić wrote: If you are going to tag online payment methods (and I'm not 100% sure that's ok for this database) then I would use payment:online:bitcoin=yes instead of payment:bitcoin=yes. Payment:xxx=* is a tag reserved for offline payment methods, so you can look at it as though it already has the offline tag. One idea that came up at the CoinMap thread was payment:website:bitcoin=yes After that payment is made you pick up the goods at a location. If that location is a normal store where you get to the cash registers/Points of sale like everybody else does to get their products for whatever currency they chose to pay with then I think that place should be tagged with payment:website:bitcoin=yes The payment goes through the website, then I get my products at the company's cash registers/Points of sale.(as mentioned above, like everybody else does) What do you all think about payment:website:bitcoin=yes? That payment is then tied to the shop's physical store/stores in contrast to stores where the payment is not tied to any location at all(in case of delivery=only) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge movable vs swing vs swinging
Richard, Perhaps these cases in which the outline of the bridge was drawn is related to this proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/man_made%3Dbridge I believe it's main purpose is to solve a known rendering problem in bridges. Nowadays, when two or more parallel ways are in a bridge/viaduct, they are drawn as separate bridges. Drawing the area of the bridge would solve that. Cheers, John 2014-08-12 6:26 GMT-03:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:23:35AM -0400, Christopher Hoess wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:57 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: For the benefit of anyone looking at taginfo stats in this thread, it's worth mentioning that there's some non-survey-based editing going on: http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/24690099 All bridge=drawbridge to bridge=movable bridge:movable=drawbridge. The bigger problem is that many of these bridges, whether originally tagged by local surveyors or not, are probably strictly speaking bascule bridges, drawbridge being used casually for any sort of movable bridge. it was a test to see what can go wrong during such conversion. There were quite some odd cases, like bridge=drawbridge used to draw the outline of the bridge. Some time in the future I would like to review all bridge=swing and fix at least those which are not movable at all but hanging rope bridges instead. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
