[Tagging] Tagging suggestions for electricity
Hi, I was searching for a tag to indicate if a building has electricity or not, and if possible to specify the electricity source. I've found no documented tag, but a search on taginfo [1] led me to the key electricity=*. Currently it's being used mostly with values solar/none/generator/yes/always. On OSM Help [2] someone proposed the following tagging which seems better in my opinion too: - electricity=yes/no/intermittent - to indicate the presence of electricity - electricity:source=solar/generator/distribution_company/windmill... - to specify the electricity source - electricity:voltage=* - the electricity voltage - other details using namespaces... What do you think? Has someone here used the electricity=* tag before? Afterwards we might be able to start documenting the tag on the wiki. Cheers, Dolly [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/electricity [2] https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65477/indicate-if-a-building-has-electricity-or-not ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging suggestions for electricity
Thanks seirra for pointing to power_supply. But I don't know if it can really be applied to individual private buildings? Because as far as I understand it is to be used for services or amenities like camp sites, ie whether you can get power there to plug your electrical stuff? The difference is that electricity=* (or whatever should be used) is to indicate that there's a source of electricity power feeding a building/settlement but it doesn't have to be provided as part of a service for example. Le mer. 29 août 2018 11:56 AM, seirra a écrit : > you might find power_supply to be better suited as it is already > documented https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:power_supply it > already covers all of those topics except for intermittent, although if it > is relevant i don't see why you can't put it > > On 08/29/18 05:46, Dolly Andriatsiferana wrote: > > Hi, > > I was searching for a tag to indicate if a building has electricity or > not, and if possible to specify the electricity source. I've found no > documented tag, but a search on taginfo [1] led me to the key > electricity=*. Currently it's being used mostly with values > solar/none/generator/yes/always. > > On OSM Help [2] someone proposed the following tagging which seems better > in my opinion too: > >- electricity=yes/no/intermittent - to indicate the presence of >electricity >- electricity:source=solar/generator/distribution_company/windmill... >- to specify the electricity source >- electricity:voltage=* - the electricity voltage >- other details using namespaces... > > What do you think? Has someone here used the electricity=* tag before? > Afterwards we might be able to start documenting the tag on the wiki. > > Cheers, > Dolly > > [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/electricity > [2] > https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65477/indicate-if-a-building-has-electricity-or-not > > > ___ > 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] Tagging suggestions for electricity
I like the idea of keeping a namespace gathering utilities such as electricity, gas, internet or other. But the idea is also to be able to use a namespace for the utility to provide more details (source, voltage, fee...) or conditions (if there's schedule in availability) - and with *utility:electricity* this would easily generate a complex tagging of namespace under namespace, unless you say it is no problem to have *utility:electricity:voltage=** for example. 2018-08-30 19:05 GMT+03:00 François Lacombe : > *Ooops* > Qualify other buildings with electricity or gas availability is a good > idea, but it shouldN'T be done with 2 above keys. > > > Le jeu. 30 août 2018 à 18:04, François Lacombe > a écrit : > >> Hi all, >> >> power=* key is intended for infrastructure related power producing, >> transmitting or distributing the power. >> power_supply=* is here to map places where you can find power for >> different purposes (like water taps for water if I can make such a link) >> >> Qualify other buildings with electricity or gas availability is a good >> idea, but it should be done with 2 above keys. >> What about utilities:electricity=yes, utilities:gas=yes... ? >> It may be possible to complete "yes" with standard name. Have a look : >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_frequency >> >> Such a key could also be extended to roads or district areas to get where >> corresponding utility is available or not. >> >> All the best >> >> François >> >> -- >> *François Lacombe* >> >> fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com >> www.infos-reseaux.com >> @InfosReseaux <http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux> >> >> >> Le jeu. 30 août 2018 à 17:47, John Sturdy a >> écrit : >> >>> The tag "power" is already specifically for electrical power (see >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Power), so I would suggest putting >>> it under that. >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:48 AM Dolly Andriatsiferana < >>> privatemaj...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I was searching for a tag to indicate if a building has electricity or >>>> not, and if possible to specify the electricity source. I've found no >>>> documented tag, but a search on taginfo [1] led me to the key >>>> electricity=*. Currently it's being used mostly with values >>>> solar/none/generator/yes/always. >>>> >>>> On OSM Help [2] someone proposed the following tagging which seems >>>> better in my opinion too: >>>> >>>>- electricity=yes/no/intermittent - to indicate the presence of >>>>electricity >>>>- electricity:source=solar/generator/distribution_company/windmill... >>>>- to specify the electricity source >>>>- electricity:voltage=* - the electricity voltage >>>>- other details using namespaces... >>>> >>>> What do you think? Has someone here used the electricity=* tag before? >>>> Afterwards we might be able to start documenting the tag on the wiki. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Dolly >>>> >>>> [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/electricity >>>> [2] https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/ >>>> 65477/indicate-if-a-building-has-electricity-or-not >>>> ___ >>>> 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] Tagging suggestions for electricity
Also in developing countries in Africa some houses would be "connected" to an electricity distribution network (thus having an electric wire from the exterior entering the house), and some would have their individual (per building) source such as a small generator somewhere in the building itself or solar panels on the roof. And we would like to have a way to distinguish: - those who are connected to a distribution network of electricity - those who use individual power source for the building (generator/windmill/solar panel...) - those who have no electricity at all The original ideau was just that simple. And it's all verifiable on the ground with a simple survey (and we will do it). But it's worth debating about other possible details related while we're at it, omitting what's becoming complicated due to varying conditions across the countries. Le sam. 1 sept. 2018 1:53 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit : > On 01/09/18 07:51, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Going back to the original suggestion, wouldn't it be much simpler just to > say this house / building has power connected / available: electricity = > yes / no? :-) > > Could this actually be set up as a country default? > > eg in Australia, UK, Western Europe, US "most" buildings will have mains > power of one type or another connected, while in less developed countries > eg a lot of Africa, "most" buildings wouldn't? > > > If the requirement is for an indication that electricity is connected .. > then that should be easy to verify and map. > > electricity:connected=yes/no would be a good tag. It does not lend itself > to tagging other things, and is clear in meaning. I supose some will tag > electricity:connected=yes/no/single_phase/three_phase and possibly other > things .. I would discourage that. > > > ___ > 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 suggestions for electricity
Thank you all for your helpful inputs. - those who use individual power source for the building > (generator/windmill/solar panel...) > There are a few methods in the data base. I looked in taginfo for the > value solar; > the dominate one with over 160,000 uses is generator:source=solar > Of course this would need to be combined wit the tag power=generator. > This is an existing tag .. I see no limit on the size of the power > generation so small should be fine. > > - those who have no electricity at all > If it has none of the above tags ... then it may have no electricity. > Could be the default state for rural Africa. > Adding the tag power=no maybe an idea? > There is a little use of things like power_source=no, power_supply=no. > As already stated above: > power=* key is intended for infrastructure related power producing, > transmitting or distributing the power. > power_supply=* is here to map places where you can find power for > different purposes (like water taps for water if I can make such a link) both of power and power_supply already have their specific domains and aren't applicable to individual buildings. So for now we have: What about *utilities:electricity=yes* > *electricity:connected=yes/no* > wouldn't it be much simpler just to say this house / building has power > connected / available: *electricity = yes / no*? To make it simple, for our ongoing mapping project we're going to use the *electricity=yes/no/grid/solar/generator/whatever_the_source_is* system and omit any specific detail such as standard, current or grounding system to avoid possible conflicting tagging with other electricity-related tags (power, power_supply...). It's only very general and this way will be more coherent to almost of the ~ 400 current use of the tag. All the best. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging suggestions for electricity
> > I think this would be hard to maintain, and highly redundant since voltage > won't change for a given city or even country. > Think about standards names to fill utilities:electricity. > Each standard comes with frequency, voltage, rating... Yes, I agree that in most cases voltage doesn't change much for a given city. But something that will change frequently is the source (here in Madagascar mostly from a distribution company, a generator, or individual solar panels). And maybe another good idea is to omit those voltage and possibly redundant details, and put sources directly as values on the main tag (like how most of the few existing electricity=* tags seem to be used). So we would have something like: - utility:electricity=yes - there is electricity feeding the building but the source is not defined - utility:electricity=no - there is no electricity source at all - utility:electricity=generator/company/solar/windmill... - there is electricity and the source is known Thanks. 2018-08-31 1:47 GMT+03:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 31/08/18 05:20, François Lacombe wrote: > > Le jeu. 30 août 2018 à 19:12, Dolly Andriatsiferana < > privatemaj...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> I like the idea of keeping a namespace gathering utilities such as >> electricity, gas, internet or other. But the idea is also to be able to use >> a namespace for the utility to provide more details (source, voltage, >> fee...) or conditions (if there's schedule in availability) - and with >> *utility:electricity* this would easily generate a complex tagging of >> namespace under namespace, unless you say it is no problem to have >> *utility:electricity:voltage=** for example. >> > > I think this would be hard to maintain, and highly redundant since voltage > won't change for a given city or even country. > > > Most hoses in Australia have 240 v single phase supplied to them. Then > they have 'standard' (here) GPOs of 10 Amp capacity. Some have one or more > higher 15 Amp capacity outlets. > And then there are some houses that have 3 phase 415v supplied to them - > and they have 'standard' (here) GPOs of 10 Amp capacity, possibly one or > more 15 Amp capacity outlets and one or more 3 phase outlets. > > So here you have in one neighbourhood 3 different instances of electricity > presence in houses. > > > > Agreed with Paul statement about earthing system which is specific to each > building > > > Earthing systems are usually mandated and common to some bureaucratic > boundaries. > > ___ > 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 suggestions for electricity
> > But if your going to use it ..please document it on the OSM wiki so people > can find what it means. Just one question though: for the wiki page of this do I put "draft" or "proposed" or "de facto" or "in use" for the status? 2018-09-02 18:20 GMT+03:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > On 03/09/18 01:08, Dolly Andriatsiferana wrote: > > > To make it simple, for our ongoing mapping project we're going to use the > *electricity=yes/no/grid/solar/generator/whatever_the_source_is* system > > > I don't like it. But I'm not using it anyway. > But if your going to use it ..please document it on the OSM wiki so people > can find what it means. > > and omit any specific detail such as standard, current or grounding system > to avoid possible conflicting tagging > > > Good decision. > > > ___ > 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] Dispute on tagging place=* in Turkmenistan
> > I suspect this sort of classification can work even in places that do not > have good population figures available, like where I map in Indonesia. For > example: > a farm or isolated dwelling has only 1 or 2 households, a hamlet has a few > families but no services (maybe there is a tiny kiosk or a very small place > of worship) > A village has some services but only for the local community; people do > not travel to a village to go shopping, except from the closest farms or > hamlets. Probably there is a primary school, certainly there is some sort > of place of worship. > A town is a significant local destination. People from the surrounding > hamlets and villages will go to the nearest town to buy clothing, tools, > specialty foods and other necessities. There may be some cultural and > entertainment options, and usually some level of government services. Towns > always have secondary education (high schools) in the countries that I have > visited. > A city has all this as well as major healthcare and educational > institutions, and is often as administrative center for businesses, > organizations (NGOs, religious) and local government. People travel to > cities from the whole surrounding region, including from towns, for > business, entertainment, cultural facilities etc. generally a city should > have just about all of the services that a middle-class person would use > (though the rich may need to go to larger cities for some specialty and > luxury services - OSM doesn’t have a special class for large cities or > global cities however) > By population a hamlet has less than 1000 residents (often less than 100), > and a city has over 50,000 (usually over 100,000), but the population > cut-offs vary by region. > A very isolated settlement may still qualify as a town with a relatively > small population if it has the only high school, government office, > supermarket and airport on a large island, for example - in this case the > whole population of the island comes to the town for services even if they > do not live there, so I would be comfortable tagging a settlement of 4000 > people as a town on an island with 200,000 people but no other settlements > over 1000 people in size. +1 I totally agree with Joseph Eisenberg on this. When classifying settlements (place=*), I think that their 'relative importance' should be valued more than administrative status or population, although there are often overlaps (administrative unit centers are often where services exist, such as hospitals, schools, markets, offices etc.). That's according to the part of the world that I know, there might be exceptions for some countries. All the best. Le mer. 2 janv. 2019 à 07:45, Allan Mustard a écrit : > I put some examples in the table located here: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 11:17 PM Joseph Eisenberg < > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It depends on if it is part of a continuous urban settlement or not. >> >> I use “suburb” and “neighborhood” for places that are considered to be >> part of a larger place. Usually these are mainly urban places, where most >> people are involved in services and industry rather than agriculture or >> forestry or fishing, and a significant percentage of worker travel to the >> larger town center for work. >> >> Sometimes a suburb has it’s own government and town council, as is common >> in the USA. In other cases (Eg Shanghai), a municipality includes area of >> farmland and villages that are clearly separate settlements. So I don’t >> think that the government status can be the distinguishing characteristic. >> >> Perhaps you have a particular example in mind? >> >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 12:30 PM Allan Mustard wrote: >> >>> By that definition, then, calling an autonomous village with its own >>> council a "neighbourhood" would be erroneous, correct? >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 10:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg < >>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In OSM a neighborhood is a named part of a larger settlement, usually a town or suburb or city, though in Indonesia some “desa” (villages) consist of a dozen named “kampung” (neighborhoods). Suburbs are also considered parts of larger towns or cities. So a city can be divided into a dozen suburbs, each of which is divided into a half-dozen neighborhoods On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 11:19 AM Allan Mustard wrote: > Very interesting. In the Turkmen case, the classifications are > defined in law and involve both size (though population data are secret) > and type of governance structure (for full details please see > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Turkmenistan#Administrative_Structure). > > > Is it fair to call a settlement a "neighbourhood" when it has a > governance structure (a village council with a chair who serves > effectively > as the municipal
Re: [Tagging] amenity=taxi vehicle type
> > In a way they are all related, just like buses, streetcars and subways are > all forms of urban public transit, but I think most people do not expect a > motorcycle when they look for a “taxi”? > +1 I wouldn't be comfortable to tag a station for rickshaws as amenity=taxi. And then it renders on the map with a car icon. Unless there are stations with mixed vehicle types (in Madagascar they always have separate dedicated stations), wouldn't it be preferable using a different value of amenity=* or something else and leave amenity=taxi for "taxis"? Le sam. 5 janv. 2019 à 13:29, Tobias Knerr a écrit : > On 05.01.19 02:19, Warin wrote: > > On 05/01/19 10:34, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > >> taxi_type = car|motorcycle|rickshaw, etc, > > > > What does 'type' add to the above? > > The key taxi=* is already in use to tag access permission for taxi > vehicles, with values such as yes|no|designated|destination|permissive. > > So adding a "_type" here avoids clashing with an existing key that has a > different meaning and a different set of values. > > ___ > 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 sections added to "Good Practice" page?
> > Who did this and why? Was this an experienced contributor or a newbie? How do you define an "experienced" and a "newbie" contributor? The amount of map changes? The age of the account? The editor(s) he/she uses? I have see many mappers who do it very well in their first days of mapping. Maybe they make sure they follow our good practices before editing or they have been well trained. Giving less importance to the edits just because the mapper seems to have just started with OpenStreetMap isn't something I would do. On Sun, Jun 30, 2019, 2:54 AM marc marc wrote: > Le 30.06.19 à 00:57, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > > What is an "important object?" > > 2) "Don't map insignificant, perishable and mobile object" > > "Please do not map objects that are insignificant (like small plants), > > I find this "important" very subjective, it varies according > to the contributor's interest. > A motorist could consider the bench as insignificant. > A no-smoker may consider cigarette bin as insignificant. > > I think the paragraph would targeting only what is mobile (but we have > seen discussions here about how to describe that a park has X mobile > deckchairs) and perishable (although a tree is also perishable, it is > only a matter of time). > > a good practice would be to discuss "Good Practices" before modifying it :) > ___ > 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 - electricity=*
Hi all, Thanks a lot Lukas for reworking this proposal. I like Joseph's idea of *electricity=grid/offgrid/yes/no* if you're introducing *electricity:origin=**. I'd suggest dropping the generator value as it brings confusion and can be difficult to verify. Originally electricity=generator seemed to be intended for diesel devices, but I think we should use something like electricity:origin=diesel for it instead. @Volker, I understand the tag might be less relevant in developed countries where it is normal to have electricity. But electricity availability is an important information in many developing countries (like mine) where most of the population is not connected to the electricity grid. It would be useful for health facilities and accommodation buildings... - See Healthsites' data model at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Global_Healthsites_Mapping_Project where the tag is used. Good job, Lukas! -- Dolly Andriatsiferana On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 4:11 AM Lukas Richert wrote: > And, final email, I reworked the proposal page to include tagged examples > and explained some implicit defintions in more detail. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity > > Cheers > > > On 30/10/2020 13:44, Lukas Richert wrote: > > Since a lot of people apparently didnt see the RFC the first time, I'll go > back to RFC status for now. (I thought the threads were sorted by subject > title of the email and didnt check online if it was actually visible. ) > > > -- > > The original message: > > Hello all, > > after the comments on the confusing nature of the word 'source' in my > original proposal of 'electricity:source', I have now changed the name to > 'electricity:origin' as suggested on the discussion page. Furthermore, I > would like to revive and extend the proposal of the key 'electricity' as > this previously conflicted with parts of the electricity:source proposal > and was not consistent. > > Both proposal pages: > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity > > [2] > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/electricity:source > > The idea now is to allow for the tagging of buildings or amenities that > have electricity. The rationale is described in more detail at [1]. Tags > such as access, fee, schedule and origin can then narrow down the > availability to the public and the question of financial or direct origin > of the electricity. > > This is distinct from the drafted tag power_supply as it is used to > describe the type of sockets used at a specific outlet. The values for that > tag are still currently under discussion. > > I would also not tag this as a subset of power=* as this maps the > facilities and features that relate to the generation and distribution of > electrical power and should not be used to map the consumers of electricity. > > > I am eager to hear the feedback to the revised proposals! > > --- > > Also, perhaps relevant: both the power_supply > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:power_supply> and socket > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:socket> keys describe the same > feature. power_supply so far has occasionally been used in the manner that > electricity proposes to be. Unfortunately, the proposal for power_supply is > relatively inconsistent. I think the socket:* tag is better thought out and > also currently more used. I would be in favor of deprecating power_supply > and separating the two meanings it currently has into electricity=* and > socket:*=#. > > Regards, > > Lukas > > ___ > 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] Motorcycle taxis, pedicabs
Hello everyone, In Madagascar we have all of these : - motorcyle taxis (ojek/boda boda...) - bicycle taxis - auto rickshaws (tuk tuk/bajaj) - cycle rickshaws - human pulled rickshaws (pousse pousse) Tried to search the wiki, this mailing lists , taginfo... but havent found proper tags. Has the OSM data model evolved since and are there proper ways to tag these? Do these fall under amenity=taxi? Le ven. 20 sept. 2019, 04:57, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > In Yogjakarta (Indonesia) you can hire 5 different rides with different > names > > 1) taxi (motorcar) - called a “taksi” > 2) pedicab (pedaled tricycle) - called a “becak” > 3) motorcycle “taxi” - called a “Ojek” (a private motorcycle is a “motor) > 4) auto rickshaw - called a “bemo” or “bajai” > 5) horse-drawn carriage - called a “dokar” or “andong” depending on if 2 > or 4 wheels. These are becoming rare now, so I haven’t mentioned them > before. > > A horse-drawn carriage can hold 8 people with luggage, but a motorcycle > only carried 1 or 2 without luggage, so they are quite different features. > And the bicycle rickshaw/pedicab won’t go up hills and can’t carry too much > weight. I believe they deserve different tags. > > Joseph > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:21 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 19/09/19 15:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 13:57, Joseph Eisenberg < >> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Is "pedicab" the best British English / International English term for >>> these hired tricycles vehicles? >> >> >> That's what I've always known them as. >> >> >>> There are also "motorcycle rickshaws", called "tuk-tuk" in Thailand >>> and "bemo" or "bajai" here in Indonesia. They are 3 wheeled vehicles >>> with 1 or 2 covered bench seats in the back, and the front is like >>> part of a motorcycle. >>> >>> These probably need a different tag. Is there a standard British >>> English term for these? >> >> >> As they are not common in the UK (someone rode a tuk-tuk back from India >> so there is at least one there) they don't have a common term. >> >> I have had a local English speaker use the term "" in Yogyakarta, but >> that could have been for my benefit. >> >> If the local 'taxi' is a horse and carriage .. then so be it. >> >> Possibly the kind of taxi needs to be indicated? As noted on the wiki for >> taxi people are already trying to tag this. >> >> taxi_vehicle=car/motorbike/tuk_tuk/* may be a way forward?? This keeps >> the local use with the differences. >> ___ >> 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
