Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Bryan Housel]

> On Jun 24, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> Ok..
> I’ve decided after talking to a few more people about this that I’m going to 
> just support things in iD the best I can, and pull back from tagging 
> discussions.  
> 
> "just support things" sounds fine, if this means adding support for 
> established tags. I would not consider introducing new tags to be covered by 
> "supporting things", or would you? What are your criteria to determine an 
> "established tag"?


I’ll decide on a case-by-case basis.  The main goals are to let people map what 
they want to map, and to make it easy for novice users to figure out.

Thanks, Bryan

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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-24 18:01 GMT+02:00 Bryan Housel :

> Ok..
> I’ve decided after talking to a few more people about this that I’m going
> to just support things in iD the best I can, and pull back from tagging
> discussions.
>


"just support things" sounds fine, if this means adding support for
established tags. I would not consider introducing new tags to be covered
by "supporting things", or would you? What are your criteria to determine
an "established tag"?


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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Bryan Housel]

Ok..
I’ve decided after talking to a few more people about this that I’m going to 
just support things in iD the best I can, and pull back from tagging 
discussions.  

Thanks, Bryan



> On Jun 24, 2018, at 11:42 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 24. Jun 2018, at 16:19, Bryan Housel  wrote:
>> 
>> I can’t be any more clear than this:
>> 
>> I will support `covered=yes/no` as a checkbox.
>> I will support `booth=*` as a dropdown
>> I won’t support `covered=booth` .  
> 
> 
> that’s all fine, but you should not retag the objects and should not change 
> the wiki as proposed above, it is not justified by the numbers and the way 
> things currently are tagged. Do you read what I write? You proposed to retag 
> 5000+ objects to a tag that is now 134 times used and where the value is 
> essentially an outlier among the other values for the key.
> 
> 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] drop covered=booth?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 24. Jun 2018, at 16:19, Bryan Housel  wrote:
> 
> I can’t be any more clear than this:
> 
> I will support `covered=yes/no` as a checkbox.
> I will support `booth=*` as a dropdown
> I won’t support `covered=booth` .  


that’s all fine, but you should not retag the objects and should not change the 
wiki as proposed above, it is not justified by the numbers and the way things 
currently are tagged. Do you read what I write? You proposed to retag 5000+ 
objects to a tag that is now 134 times used and where the value is essentially 
an outlier among the other values for the key.

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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Bryan Housel]

> On Jun 24, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> what about modifying all booth=yes on telephones to covered=booth ?



No.  That’s the exact opposite of what I’m trying to achieve.  I feel like you 
might not have read very carefully any of the emails that I’ve sent on the 
subject.

I can’t be any more clear than this:

I will support `covered=yes/no` as a checkbox.
I will support `booth=*` as a dropdown
I won’t support `covered=booth` .  

I’m not going to add special code to iD to make the `covered=yes/no` checkbox 
field (which is used on many other presets) do a special and unnecessary thing 
only when it is used on the telephone preset. 


Thanks, Bryan


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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 24. Jun 2018, at 00:55, Bryan Housel  wrote:
> 
> The only features I’m modifying have the tags `amenity=telephone` and 
> `covered=booth`.
> I will change `covered=booth` to `covered=yes`
> I will add a tag `booth=yes` but only if there is not already an existing 
> `booth*` tag.
> 
> The reason I’m doing this is so that we can offer users a `covered` checkbox 
> for the telephone preset in iD.
> This checkbox really wants to assign values like `yes` and `no` -- not 
> `booth`.
> Make sense?


what about modifying all booth=yes on telephones to covered=booth ?

Looking more at it, there are only 143 booth=yes the key is apparently used to 
tag the specific type of booth, vs. more than 5000 covered=booth

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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Jun 2018, at 18:39, Bryan Housel  wrote:
> 
> "Consensus on list is that covered=booth offers no additional information 
> over booth=* and conflicts with existing semantics for covered=yes/no. We'll 
> replace all instances of covered=booth with covered=yes and add a booth=yes 
> to any features that don't already have a booth tag.”


covered has been defined as yes/no/covered by what since 2013, there is no 
conflict at all.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:covered=918451

There are 4300 booth=* but there are 20% more covered=booth

The booth key has no wiki definition, so it remains completely obscure what it 
is intended to mean.

I do not see a basis for modifying the wiki in the suggested way, even less for 
an automated edit in favor of the less used, undocumented tagging style.

Cheers,
Martin


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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Craig Wallace]

On 2018-06-18 21:00, Bryan Housel wrote:

*Proposal:*
I’d like to drop `covered=booth` as a suggested tag, as it’s 
superfluous.  If the telephone feature has `booth=yes` or `booth=K6` 
you know it’s a booth.  Then we’re not repurposing the `covered=*` for 
a thing that it doesn’t normally do in other situations and isn’t 
documented on the main `covered` page.


Thoughts?
Booth is a rubbish name for a tag. It is an obscure, American term. Many 
things could be a booth, eg a shop, or a photo booth, or a ticket booth.
In UK English, it is a "telephone box". If you want to tag a telephone 
box, why not a tag for man_made=telephone_box?


It actually tells you what it is. You can add extra tags for the 
specific style or model if you care about that.


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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Warin]

On 24/06/18 08:55, Bryan Housel wrote:


On Jun 23, 2018, at 6:00 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


We’re not adding `booth=yes` to all phones.  Just the ones that
- don’t already have a `booth=*` tag and

That is not right. If they don't have a booth=* tag then don't think that these 
all have a booth.
So I would not add a tag here that maybe wrong.


- do have a `covered=booth` tag

This is correct .. they have a booth so adding booth=yes is correct.


It sounds like you are very confused.


Yes..



I’ll try again.

The only features I’m modifying have the tags `amenity=telephone` and 
`covered=booth`.
I will change `covered=booth` to `covered=yes`
I will add a tag `booth=yes` but only if there is not already an existing 
`booth*` tag.


Good for the booth=yes.



The reason I’m doing this is so that we can offer users a `covered` checkbox 
for the telephone preset in iD.
This checkbox really wants to assign values like `yes` and `no` -- not `booth`.
Make sense?


Sense .. yes of a sort.

But the offering of a covered check box is not a good idea.
It is not the same as a 'booth'. A booth will usually have 3 sides as well as a 
top - this aides hearing and speech to the telephone.
Sometimes the sides are not very large and you have to lean in .. but they help 
a lot in noisy circumstances.

A 'covering' may just be a shop awing - separate from the phone but still a 
covering. Or the phone could be under a stairway or bridge, all coverings but 
not a booth.

Words are important particularly when used singularly and also with people who 
are not that familiar with the language.

Take care.


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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Bryan Housel]

> On Jun 23, 2018, at 6:00 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> We’re not adding `booth=yes` to all phones.  Just the ones that
>> - don’t already have a `booth=*` tag and
> 
> That is not right. If they don't have a booth=* tag then don't think that 
> these all have a booth.
> So I would not add a tag here that maybe wrong.
> 
>> - do have a `covered=booth` tag
> 
> This is correct .. they have a booth so adding booth=yes is correct.


It sounds like you are very confused.

I’ll try again.

The only features I’m modifying have the tags `amenity=telephone` and 
`covered=booth`.
I will change `covered=booth` to `covered=yes`
I will add a tag `booth=yes` but only if there is not already an existing 
`booth*` tag.

The reason I’m doing this is so that we can offer users a `covered` checkbox 
for the telephone preset in iD.
This checkbox really wants to assign values like `yes` and `no` -- not `booth`.
Make sense?

Thanks, Bryan


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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Warin]

On 24/06/18 03:07, Bryan Housel wrote:


Somebody has already posted a picture to the list of a public phone with no 
hood, no booth, and no cover, so
adding booth=yes to all phones could be an error.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

We’re not adding `booth=yes` to all phones.  Just the ones that
- don’t already have a `booth=*` tag and


That is not right. If they don't have a booth=* tag then don't think that these 
all have a booth.

So I would not add a tag here that maybe wrong.


- do have a `covered=booth` tag


This is correct .. they have a booth so adding booth=yes is correct.

 



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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Bryan Housel  wrote:

> > Somebody has already posted a picture to the list of a public phone with
> no hood, no booth, and no cover, so
> > adding booth=yes to all phones could be an error.
>
> Are you being deliberately obtuse?
>

I am not being deliberately obtuse.  Accidentally obtuse, perhaps.

What you wrote was this:

We'll replace all instances of covered=booth with covered=yes

I don't see the point of that if we're trying to lose covered=* on phone
booths.  I thought
moving to booth=* was to avoid having covered=* for phones.  If it has a
booth it's
covered so you don't need to tag it as covered.  So what am I missing?
 and add a booth=yes to any features that don't already have a booth tag.”

Obviously I parsed it wrong.  I parsed it as I split it above, two
sequential and independent
actions.  I wasn't expecting short-circuit evaluation of that particular
and expression.

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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Bryan Housel]

Looks like we can wrap up discussion on this.
Per Paul Allen’s suggestion, mappers can continue use `covered=yes` for 
telephones with a hood.
Opened https://github.com/osmlab/osm-tagging/issues/8 
  to track next actions for 
this.

"Consensus on list is that covered=booth offers no additional information over 
booth=* and conflicts with existing semantics for covered=yes/no. We'll replace 
all instances of covered=booth with covered=yes and add a booth=yes to any 
features that don't already have a booth tag.”

Thanks, 
Bryan




> On Jun 19, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Bryan Housel  wrote:
> 
> Sounds good to me.
> We can leave the thread open a few more days to see if anyone cares that much 
> about `covered=booth`.
> I think 5 days is plenty.
> 
> If nobody is using it, I’ll open an issue on 
> https://github.com/osmlab/osm-tagging  
> on or around June 23 to start the cleanup..
> 
> As always, looking for volunteers to do the actual work of replacing the tags 
> and cleaning up the wiki.
> 
> Thanks, Bryan
> 

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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:37 AM, Andrew Davidson 
wrote:

> Boothless is also common in North America:
>

Just to complicate matters, Wikipedia refers to phones with acoustic hoods,
even minimal ones, as booths.  See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_booth  It may be just me, but I
think that's stretching the term "booth"
a little too far.  Perhaps we need booth=not_really_a_booth_just_a_hood.

Actually, the wikipedia article on phone booths cited above has a photo of
phones which are not in (what I'd call)
a booth for which covered=yes is actually appropriate.  Doubly so, in
fact.  The phone installation has a cover and
it's also under building=roof.

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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. Jun 2018, at 15:59, Tobias Wrede  wrote:
> 
> You might be surprised. Deutsche Telekom's answer to vandalized phone booths, 
> the "Basistelefon": 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Öffentliches_Telefon.JPG


in Italy there was also a period when uncovered phones were occasionally set 
up, and while Telecom Italia usually puts their phones in booths, I have seen 
types like this or similar without cover and outdoors: 
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7747/18314541105_0ec9348d90_h.jpg

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Andrew Davidson]

Boothless is also common in North America:

https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1177/539646770_464dffea77_b.jpg

On 19/6/18 23:59, Tobias Wrede wrote:

Am 18.06.2018 um 22:21 schrieb Paul Allen:


Then again, I've never seen an outdoor public phone that isn't in a 
booth also lack an acoustic hood.  So should
mappers and consumers assume a hood is present unless booth is 
specified?  Except I can conceive of a phone
in a building passage having neither a booth nor a hood (seems 
unlikely, but possible).


You might be surprised. Deutsche Telekom's answer to vandalized phone 
booths, the "Basistelefon":

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Öffentliches_Telefon.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] drop covered=booth?

[marc marc]

Le 19. 06. 18 à 15:41, Bryan Housel a écrit :
> the actual work of replacing the tags

I never used the tag covered=booth but I don't understand
the advantage of what you want to do.
To know if an object is covered, just look at the tag covered=*.
With your proposal, the tag to analyze will depend on the object?
booth=* for a phone?
and then another one for bike parking ?
and another one for building entrances ?
it seems to me on the contrary very practical to have a unique tag to 
describe "this poi is covered" and therefore covered=yes could be added 
in the present of at least the 5 most frequent objects in stead of a new 
tag for "this public phone is covered"

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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 3:08 PM, Andy Townsend  wrote:

If you can find out who mapped them then you can at least ask why they
> tagged them like that.  What information do they think would be lost if
> that tag was removed?
>

I can tell you why I used covered=booth.  Because, at the time I mapped
those public telephones the wiki said that if
they were in a booth to use covered=booth.  It also said that if I knew the
booth type (I'm not a booth spotter, so I don't)
I could additionally use booth=*.

If covered=booth were removed we'd lose the information that the phone was
in a booth unless booth=* had also
been specified.  If it were replaced with booth=yes (where no booth=* is
already present) I'd be a happy bunny.

I'd still like to see a proposal for how to deal with phones that have an
acoustic hood (which provides partial cover)
as opposed to phones with no cover at all (see picture of Deutsche Telecom
phone posted elsewhere in the thread).

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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Andy Townsend]

On 19/06/2018 14:41, Bryan Housel wrote:

Sounds good to me.
We can leave the thread open a few more days to see if anyone cares 
that much about `covered=booth`.

I think 5 days is plenty.


I'd suggest that you'd wait longer than that, and also attempt to find 
out where the 5k current examples came from.  Is it an import? A 
previous mechanical edit?  One or two _very_ enthusiastic mappers?


If you can find out who mapped them then you can at least ask why they 
tagged them like that.  What information do they think would be lost if 
that tag was removed?


Like you I can't see what value "covered=booth" adds here, but let's try 
and be inclusive to people who might not read mailing lists (especially 
not this one) and give them a chance to put their point of view too.


Best Regards,

andy



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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Tobias Wrede]

Am 18.06.2018 um 22:21 schrieb Paul Allen:


Then again, I've never seen an outdoor public phone that isn't in a 
booth also lack an acoustic hood.  So should
mappers and consumers assume a hood is present unless booth is 
specified?  Except I can conceive of a phone
in a building passage having neither a booth nor a hood (seems 
unlikely, but possible).


You might be surprised. Deutsche Telekom's answer to vandalized phone 
booths, the "Basistelefon":

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Öffentliches_Telefon.JPG

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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[Bryan Housel]

Sounds good to me.
We can leave the thread open a few more days to see if anyone cares that much 
about `covered=booth`.
I think 5 days is plenty.

If nobody is using it, I’ll open an issue on 
https://github.com/osmlab/osm-tagging  
on or around June 23 to start the cleanup..

As always, looking for volunteers to do the actual work of replacing the tags 
and cleaning up the wiki.

Thanks, Bryan




> On Jun 18, 2018, at 4:21 PM, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Bryan Housel  > wrote:
> from https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5088 
> 
> 
> Proposal:
> I’d like to drop `covered=booth` as a suggested tag, as it’s superfluous.  If 
> the telephone feature has `booth=yes` or `booth=K6` you know it’s a booth.  
> Then we’re not repurposing the `covered=*` for a thing that it doesn’t 
> normally do in other situations and isn’t documented on the main `covered` 
> page.
> 
> The only possible problem with this is that many public phones in the US have 
> an acoustic hood which shields
> the phone from rain and may provide a degree of rain protection to the user.  
> In which case the acoustic hood
> provides cover, just no as much as a booth.
> 
> Then again, I've never seen an outdoor public phone that isn't in a booth 
> also lack an acoustic hood.  So should
> mappers and consumers assume a hood is present unless booth is specified?  
> Except I can conceive of a phone
> in a building passage having neither a booth nor a hood (seems unlikely, but 
> possible).
> 
> Otherwise, I have no problems with the change.  By all means drop an 
> inappropriate, repurposed tag for something
> better.  Once we're sure we're not going to hit further problems because we 
> didn't think of all use cases.
> 
> If we do go down this route, then I think an automated edit is justified 
> which drops covered=booth where booth=* is
> specified and replaces covered=booth with booth=yes where booth isn't 
> specified.
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> 
> ___
> 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] drop covered=booth?

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Bryan Housel  wrote:

> from https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5088
>
> *Proposal:*
> I’d like to drop `covered=booth` as a suggested tag, as it’s superfluous.
> If the telephone feature has `booth=yes` or `booth=K6` you know it’s a
> booth.  Then we’re not repurposing the `covered=*` for a thing that it
> doesn’t normally do in other situations and isn’t documented on the main
> `covered` page.
>

The only possible problem with this is that many public phones in the US
have an acoustic hood which shields
the phone from rain and may provide a degree of rain protection to the
user.  In which case the acoustic hood
provides cover, just no as much as a booth.

Then again, I've never seen an outdoor public phone that isn't in a booth
also lack an acoustic hood.  So should
mappers and consumers assume a hood is present unless booth is specified?
Except I can conceive of a phone
in a building passage having neither a booth nor a hood (seems unlikely,
but possible).

Otherwise, I have no problems with the change.  By all means drop an
inappropriate, repurposed tag for something
better.  Once we're sure we're not going to hit further problems because we
didn't think of all use cases.

If we do go down this route, then I think an automated edit is justified
which drops covered=booth where booth=* is
specified and replaces covered=booth with booth=yes where booth isn't
specified.

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

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

[marc marc]

Le 18. 06. 18 à 22:00, Bryan Housel a écrit :
> Someone has asked me to add a `covered=booth` field to the telephone preset.

imho he need at least to document it

> Generally the tag `covered=*` (usually ‘yes’)  is used to indicate that 
> a highway goes under a building part, so that linters and validation 
> tools can not flag the crossing as an error..

but not only.
the wiki said "covered=* is used to denote that an object represented
by a node, way or area is covered.

you can use it for a lot of objets like a bicyble parking, entrance.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=covered#combinations
159k highway - 42k highway=bus_stop = 117k
less than 1/3 of all combinations are related to a highway

I myself use covered=yes for a lot of not-highway objects

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