Re: [Tagging] Open stable / feeding station

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

In the UK we have field shelters for horses.  It can be very difficult to get 
planning permission for a fixed building in a field so people have these 
shelters that are movable.  This gets round the planning restriction.  Some 
people do move them around to protect their fields so they would probably need 
remapping on a regular basis.

Our horse has an open stable (I think).  The door is left open and he is free 
to come and go.  In this context I would probably map the area into which he 
can go according to the tag landuse=meadow  
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vegetation

Could this be a paddock or pen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddock  Paddocks 
are generally small fenced off areas.  I'm not sure when a Paddock becomes a 
field!

Interestingly if you search on the OSM documentation on paddock it takes you 
to the Vegetation webpage.  

Dudley






 Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 16:03:03 +0200
 From: imagic@gmail.com
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Open stable / feeding station
 
 2012/9/13 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk:
  Martin Vonwald wrote:
 
  How would you tag an open stable? landuse=open_stable?
  And how the feeding stations within the open stable?
  amenity=feeding_station?
 
 
  You might want to link to a picture of an example - as an English speaker
  I'm not sure exactly what an open_stable would be.
 
 Open stable aka free stall barn aka loose barn. Contrary to a stable
 the animals have free access to a large open-air area. Within the open
 stable there are usually some watering places and feeding stations to
 provide food and water at any time.
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Open stable / feeding station

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I decided to get the wife to look at these.  She's the horse expert.

[1], [2],  [3] she would call a paddock.  The shelters in [1] and [2] she 
would call field shelters.

The small area in [4] would be a turn out.

Not sure this helps!

Dudley



 Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 20:11:39 +0200
 From: imagic@gmail.com
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Open stable / feeding station
 
 2012/9/13 Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com:
  Hi
 
  In the UK we have field shelters for horses.  It can be very difficult to
  get planning permission for a fixed building in a field so people have these
  shelters that are movable.  This gets round the planning restriction.  Some
  people do move them around to protect their fields so they would probably
  need remapping on a regular basis.
 
 What you describe is not an open stable. See below
 
  Our horse has an open stable (I think).  The door is left open and he is
  free to come and go.  In this context I would probably map the area into
  which he can go according to the tag landuse=meadow
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vegetation
 
  Could this be a paddock or pen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paddock
  Paddocks are generally small fenced off areas.  I'm not sure when a Paddock
  becomes a field!
 
 No. A paddock is (usually) simply an area for grazing. But this term
 is also sometimes used for a small, fenced open-air area without any
 grass. An open stable may or may not contain an area for grazing, but
 always contains feeding stations, watering places and shelters. Have a
 look at the attached photos.
 In [1] you see two feeding stations in the background. In [2] you see
 the area for grazing. This area is usually not accessible for horses;
 otherwise there won't be any grass within days. In [3] you see another
 feeding station in the background. In [4] you see a watering place. In
 the background of [4] you see paddock boxes, i.e. stables with an
 attached small, fenced open-air area.
 
 Hope this helps!
 Martin
 
 [1] 
 https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/8PSzD0F9AEF5015wGlJtvcw9hZXChpmM2FaSiVFaMJw?feat=directlink
 [2] 
 https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/cqzX0WjoIvRLJbQHNoguxcw9hZXChpmM2FaSiVFaMJw?feat=directlink
 [3] 
 https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/FfGptElSx0d0RfNbIsHjfcw9hZXChpmM2FaSiVFaMJw?feat=directlink
 [4] 
 https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/gAIgfmz53PI2qVI1Y0tsbMw9hZXChpmM2FaSiVFaMJw?feat=directlink
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reconstructing «Dificult passability» proposal to «Obstacle»

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

In the UK local authorities are responsible for public rights of way.  Paths, 
bridleways etc.  There are so called Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI) 
that require them to survey a certain % length of these each year to measure 
the ease of use of the network.

Documentation and forms for this are on the web.  
http://www.iprow.co.uk/gpg/index.php/Performance_Indicators

In this they talk on terms of Obstruction.  These are either points or lengths.

Point Obstructions (i.e. a discrete obstruction, on or too close to the path)

Wall/fence/hedge/electric fence/ other barrier
Tree/bough
Temporary Deposit (e.g. Straw bales)
Illegal or misleading sign
Building
Muddy/Boggy hole
Upgrowth (localised)

Linear Obstruction (Surface)

Cross-field not reinstated
Headland ploughed
Surface path our of repair
Flooded/muddy/boggy/rutted
Upgrowth

Linear Obstruction (Other)

Overgrowth
Standing water e.g. pond/lake
Barbed wire/electric fence adjacent
Intimidating beast/person
Encroachment (not ploughing) e.g. garden extension
Quarry
Plantation

It may be that this should be a different tag i.e. Obstruction as the objective 
of recording the above is to get the Obstruction removed and the right of way 
re-instated.

Regards

Dudley

Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:47:32 +0200
From: lakonfrariadelav...@gmail.com
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Tagging] Reconstructing «Dificult passability» proposal to «Obstacle»

Hi!

I'm reconsidering my proposal...
Before introduce in the wiki, I wanted to show you a scheme of the purpose... 
to see the viability of this.
I nedd help and comments ;)

I think that the name «Difficult Passability» could be changed for «Obstacle=*» 
(I see that this name is used in OSM: 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/obstacle#values especially in Germany).


For values, I want to propose:
- obstacle=yes
- obstacle=fallen_tree
- obstacle=dense_vegetation -- you could combined with seasonal=yes

- obstacle=unevenness --- when you probably need hands, but not only in 
technical hiking also could be a small wall of 1,5 meters height that you 
should overcome to continue the route, for example. It could be combined with 
«Safety measures on hiking trail»

- obstacle=narrowness (like this: 
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/4315/11passetdelarabosa.jpg )
- obstacle=water -- and you could combine with ford=yes, for example or 
natural=wetland


I'm not sure what to do with the value obstacle=with_precipe... ¿Rename it? 
¿Omit it? ¿obstacle=precipice? ¿obstacle=cliff?

A «obstacle_description=*» key could be added for text (especially if only 
obstacle=yes you use).


The key refers to pedestrian and generalizes for bicycles or motor vehicles... 
perhaps a obstacle affects only to motor vehicles...
In this case, could be interesting to use especification like in the key 
access? obstacle:horse=yes , for example?

Thanks a lot!!
-- 
KONFRARE ALBERT
La Konfraria de la Vila del Pingüí de La Palma 
WEB:http://www.konfraria.org

TWITTER: http://twitter.com/La_Konfraria 
FACEBOOK: 
http://ca-es.facebook.com/people/Konfraria-Vila-Del-Pingui/11918952076





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

Re: [Tagging] Multiple purposes for buildings

[Dudley Ibbett]

I've not used this but if you're using JOSM this plugin might help.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/JOSM/Plugins/Terracer

Dudley

From: p...@trigpoint.me.uk
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
CC: 
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:25:47 +
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Multiple purposes for buildings


In the UK many premiere inns are converted office buildings. 


 How does one go about mapping a row of terraced houses, where a single 
building will contain 20 our so houses, often with a corner shop at the end? I 
would have drawn each house to maintain numbering, is that the correct way?


Phil
--
 
Sent from my Nokia N9
 
On 02/01/2013 10:16 Simone Saviolo wrote:
2013/1/2 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com


2013/1/2 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com:

 What you are trying to tag is the

 *use* of the building, and not a property of the building per se. Unless

 it's a mall, a retail store's interior is not structurally different from an

 office space or apartments - it could be converted, in fact.





well, true and not. [...]
I agree, what I said is not universally true. However, often those mixed-use 
buildings feature units that can be easily converted. In Italy for instance it 
is common to find apartments used as offices for small companies, and shops in 
the floor level of a building that could be converted to an apartment (I know 
because I did). While the use change doesn't happen at the blink of an eye, and 
you usually have to obtain permits to do that, I fail to see what makes those 
rooms a residential or a commercial building - especially considering, as you 
said, that commercial and residential may mean a lot of different things. 


Regards,
Simone


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

Re: [Tagging] Source tag - deprecated for use on objects?

[Dudley Ibbett]

As a relatively new mapper I am rather confused about this discussion about 
source.  To quote the wiki for the tag, source:  

The source tag is a meta-tag, used for categorising the source of
 information added to the database. It is not usually used for 
rendering, but it assists with the verification of data, and informs future 
editors about the origins of the data they are modifying.


In term of the changeset this is what you find for the change set under 
proposed features/changeset

This tag is to be used the same way as source=*
 on objects and may be a future replacement to object level source 
tagging, when using it, it is highly recommended that your edit should 
only contain data from that source.

The former is quite well documented and readily seen by newbies under the 
properties window in JOSM.  I've no idea how to find the latter within JOSM for 
a particular object.

I can be a pain to add source tags to each object but I just hacked the presets 
and added a drop down box for these.  I though it was good mapping practice as 
per the wiki.

I would be tempted to just to tag the changeset but I would have to change the 
way I edit and use many more changesets during a typical session. Perhaps I 
should and this is why my stats are so bad in this respect!!!

If putting source on the changeset is to be the way forward then it should be 
better documented for Newbies and also the changeset tag needs to be readily 
viewable for an object in editors.  i.e. there when you select it in the 
editor.  If it already is and I'm missing this, it would be good to know how 
you can view this information as I tend to be more likely to change an object 
where there is no object source tag.

Dudley


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

Re: [Tagging] Source tag - deprecated for use on objects?

[Dudley Ibbett]

Interesting point about the wiki.  I do think you need to be brave to update.   



Sent from my iPad

On 7 Jan 2013, at 19:17, Jeff Meyer j...@gwhat.org wrote:

 Hi Dudley - 
 
 Welcome to OSM! I think you've done great work  done everything you're 
 supposed to do.  Then again, I'm pretty much a newcomer, too.
 
 One warning: the whole topic of the wiki / tagging / etc. is a little more 
 chaotic than you might expect kas a newcomer. 
 
 For whatever reason, some people believe the wiki is out of date, or not 
 relevant. I and many others believe this is a silly perspective  that the 
 wiki is correct and up to date until it is changed.
 
 Stay tuned, hang in there, and keep mapping!
 
 Thanks, Jeff
 
 
 On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Dudley Ibbett dudleyibb...@hotmail.com 
 wrote:
 As a relatively new mapper I am rather confused about this discussion about 
 source.  To quote the wiki for the tag, source:  
 
 The source tag is a meta-tag, used for categorising the source of 
 information added to the database. It is not usually used for rendering, but 
 it assists with the verification of data, and informs future editors about 
 the origins of the data they are modifying. 
 
 In term of the changeset this is what you find for the change set under 
 proposed features/changeset
 
 This tag is to be used the same way as source=* on objects and may be a 
 future replacement to object level source tagging, when using it, it is 
 highly recommended that your edit should only contain data from that source.
 
 The former is quite well documented and readily seen by newbies under the 
 properties window in JOSM.  I've no idea how to find the latter within JOSM 
 for a particular object.
 
 I can be a pain to add source tags to each object but I just hacked the 
 presets and added a drop down box for these.  I though it was good mapping 
 practice as per the wiki.
 
 I would be tempted to just to tag the changeset but I would have to change 
 the way I edit and use many more changesets during a typical session. 
 Perhaps I should and this is why my stats are so bad in this respect!!!
 
 If putting source on the changeset is to be the way forward then it should 
 be better documented for Newbies and also the changeset tag needs to be 
 readily viewable for an object in editors.  i.e. there when you select it in 
 the editor.  If it already is and I'm missing this, it would be good to know 
 how you can view this information as I tend to be more likely to change an 
 object where there is no object source tag.
 
 Dudley
 
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 
 
 -- 
 Jeff Meyer
 Global World History Atlas
 www.gwhat.org
 j...@gwhat.org
 206-676-2347
 www.openstreetmap.org/user/jeffmeyer
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Amenity=shelter for field shelter?

[Dudley Ibbett]

Sorry, but the picture is not a stable.  It is, in the UK, a field shelter.  
The other problem with mapping some of these is they are often designed to be 
mobile to get round planning rules.  The image is a mobile version.  There have 
been previous discussions on this, so you might want to search on the mail 
group.

I'm not sure I'd map this mobile type as it will probably/should move in the 
next year!

Dudley

Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:

Are they not stables? Am not sure about amenity, that implies public use.
I would suggest building = stable.

Phil
--

Sent from my Nokia N9



On 06/02/2013 7:03 Martin Vonwald (imagic) wrote:

Hi,


Are there any arguments against using amenity=shelter + 
shelter_type=field_shelter for field shelters (see [1]) for horses?


From the wiki:
The amenity=shelter tag marks all sorts of small shelters to protect against 
bad weather conditions.


Sounds good to me.


Regards,
Martin


[1] http://www.herefordstables.co.uk/imgs/gallery/10_12ft-field-shelter.jpg

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=marker

[Dudley Ibbett]

In the UK many of these would come under the heading of blue plaques.  If you 
follow wikipedia through on this topic it talks about historical marker in 
the first sentence so people wishing to map these features may well search for 
this on the OSM wiki.  historic=marker would there for seem to be a reasonable 
tag in this context. 

Dudley

 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:38:26 -0700
 From: ericp...@ca.rr.com
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=marker
 
 Perhaps tagging this as tourism=historicmarker would be a better 
 option.  Thoughts?
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] When was barrier=entrance abandoned ?

[Dudley Ibbett]

I'm afraid to say that it isn't abandoned as I am also using it in rural 
mapping as described below.

I would agree with the comment that people could tag, barrier=gate and 
entrance=yes and this would then no longer identify the current use of 
barrier=entrance which is a gap in the barrier.  Changing to using entrance=yes 
could therefore result in a loss of useful information.

I did look at entrance=* when deciding which tag to initially use and the wiki 
seems to be written in the context of an urban environment and entering 
something.  This left me with barrier=entrance.  I would think in terms of 
passing through barrier so this is easier to remember as a tag.   The wiki 
could do with some more detail but it seemed to fit better with the the general 
use of barrier=* in a rural context.  I must admit I was under the impression 
that a tag only became abandoned when it failed to progress in the proposal 
stage.  This tag seems to be in use given the taginfo is at more than 36000 so 
I don't quite understand how it can be abandoned.

I think that the status of abandoned should be removed.  I do however note that 
entrance=* is in the barrier=hedge wiki page for a gap, which adds to the 
confusion. There is no such description in the fence or wall wiki page but I 
was told that such a description should really be in the general barrier wiki 
page as it is relevant to all barriers.

Dudley


 Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 04:01:51 +0200
 From: lowfligh...@googlemail.com
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] When was barrier=entrance abandoned ?
 
 On 08.05.2013 03:32, Tobias Knerr wrote:
  On 08.05.2013 02:56, fly wrote:
  On the wiki [1] barrier=entrance is marked as abandoned. Did I miss
  something or was this another edit without discussion ?
  
  I don't remember a discussion about this.
  
  A problem with the edit is that entrance=* is not limited to the cases
  that barrier=entrance covers. For example, a barrier=gate could also be
  an entrance=yes/main.
  
  Of course we could adopt the assumption that a node of a linear barrier
  with entrance=* and without any barrier=* tag has the same meaning as
  barrier=entrance does now, but imo that interpretation should be
  confirmed by a discussion.
 
 I do use the two tags in a different way. If it is an entrance leading
 to something (eg. building/amenity) I would use entrance=* but for a
 small opening within a wall/fence I use barrier=entrance. This way I do
 not have to cut the linear barrier.
 
  PS - fixed link:
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier=entrance
 
 Sorry
 
 fly
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=pasture

[Dudley Ibbett]

With regard to your comment below I am aware of mappers that use meadow because 
there are horses in a field year round.  Personally, I don't think this is the 
way to identify a meadow.  

We currently have the farmland/farm landuse tag.  It would seem that this 
should be the primary tag and then other tags should be used to identify the 
actually landuse in this context.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_land  This would seem to devide 
farmland into crop/arable/pasture.  We have the crop tag so perhaps we should 
have arable and pasture.  Unfortunately it the goes on to describe pastures  as 
pastures and meadows.

I must admit I would map meadows in the context of conservation as we have lost 
so many in the UK as farming has become more intensive and they have been 
turned into improved pasture for intensive grazing.  
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/biodiversity/englands/habitatofthemonth/lowlandmeadows.aspx

Interestingly there are 800 natural=meadows in taginfo.

It is good that you have raised this issue.

Regards

Dudley




 Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 17:33:11 +0200
 From: volker.p...@v-paul.de
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse=pasture
 
  Think the major problem is who should a normal mapper determine the
  differences. Not talking about mappers using aerials.
 
 Well one of the differences is that on a pasture there are animals
 and on a meadow usually not. Please read the proposal for more details.
 
 Segatus
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Hiking tracks as POIs in Brazil

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

In the UK we tend not to have trailheads.  We do however have a variety of 
guideposts.  

The following link provides an example which may be of help in this discussion:

http://www.peakandnorthern.org.uk/signposts/about-our-signposts.htm

This is tagged with the following:

information=guidepost
operator=Peak  Northern Footpaths Society
ref=1234
source=survey;gps
tourism=information

These would generally be mapped as a separate node.

Where the start of a footpath is identified but the route not mapped it has 
been common practice to mark the start of the way and put in a fixme.  This is 
certainly very helpful when seeking to find footpaths that need mapping.

Regards

Dudley

 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 19:47:37 +0200
 From: pier...@gmail.com
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Hiking tracks as POIs in Brazil
 
 On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
 
  I also think that a trailhead tag is needed.
 -1
 
  I don't believe that implicitly determining trailheads will work.
 Why not ? Eventually, enhance the route relation with a specific
 element/role (e.g. roundtrips).
 
  A trailhead is more than where a trail crosses a road; it's a
  significant place to access a trail in the eyes of the hiking community,
  typically (but not always) with parking and typically (but not always!)
  a sign of some sort.
 
 Then map the sign, mark, board or guidepost with the already existing tags.
 
 Pieren
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
  ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Ferry frequency

[Dudley Ibbett]

One thing that you may also need to consider is that the timetables and 
therefore number of journeys a day may depend on the month as there are often 
summer and winter timetables.

Regards

Dudley

 Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 07:28:26 -0700
 From: rich...@systemed.net
 To: Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Ferry frequency
 
 Thanks all - some great suggestions. To clarify, I'm not looking to put
 detailed timetable information in (that properly belongs in a GTFS feed or
 somesuch, not OSM), just a broad-brush indication to help routing engines.
 
 Based on Richard M's and Janko's suggestions, I'm tempted to use:
 
 journeys=4/hour
 journeys=2 orjourneys=2/day
 journeys=on_demand
 
 to indicate, respectively, four journeys in each direction per day; two
 journeys in each direction per day; and the sort of ferry where you go to
 the bank, wave the ferryman down, and he comes to take you across.
 
 That avoids any confusion about frequency (a tram might have both
 meanings!) and is simple both for the mapper and for the consumer.
 
 I note there's also a reservation= tag
 (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:reservation) which will be useful
 for ferries where booking in advance is required.
 
 cheers
 Richard
 
 
 
 
 
 --
 View this message in context: 
 http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Ferry-frequency-tp5780010p5780141.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

Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?

[Dudley Ibbett]

From a tourists perspective it is quite important to know whether it is self 
catering accommodation or not.  It is also important to know whether it is a 
single building unit (i.e. house,cottage,chalet) as opposed to a number of 
units in a building (i.e. apartments).  I would be inclined to use 
tourism=apartments for the latter.  Types of tourist accommodation do seem to 
be quite country specific.  There are very few tourist apartments in the UK 
but they are very common in Croatia for example. I would agree that 
tourism=chalet would seem to be the most appropriate tag for a gîte.

Dudley

 Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 12:51:10 +0100
 From: craig...@fastmail.fm
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?
 
 On 2013-10-17 09:52, Pieren wrote:
  Could someone explain the difference between tourism=guest_house and
  tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?
  Both are suggested here:
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dguest_house
  but only guest_house is really documented in the wiki.
 
  In taginfo, we find 527 tourism=bed_and_breakfast and 32382
  tourism=guest_house (accidentally, taginfo says Guest house and
  BedBreakfast for tourism=guest_house)
 
 In UK terms, they are much the same thing. Some places refer to 
 themselves as BBs, some as guest houses, sometimes both.
 Usually a BB would be smaller, ie one or two rooms, with the owner also 
 living in the house, and doing most of the work. Whereas a guesthouse 
 may be bigger, more like a hotel, and more staff etc. But I have seen 
 plenty of small places calling themselves guesthouses. I don't think 
 there is any legal distinction.
 
 So it makes sense to tag both as tourism=guest_house. Plus tag the 
 number of rooms/beds to indicate how big it is.
 
  I'm asking because in France we do have a diffence when guests are in
  an independent building (gîte [1]), usually for at least a week or a
  week-end, or just special bedrooms (bedbreakfast) as guests in
  private homes. So, I'm looking if we could reuse the two existing tags
  or if I should create a sub-tag like tourism=guest_house +
  guest_house=bed_and_breakfast or
  guest_house=whatever_in_an_independent_building
 
 If its a separate building (with self-catering), I wouldn't call it a 
 guest house. That's more like tourism=chalet.
 Though maybe a more generic term for holiday chalets/cottages/apartments 
 etc would be good. And some way of distinguishing a single holiday house 
 to rent, from a larger 'holiday park'.
 
 Craig
 
 ___
 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] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?

[Dudley Ibbett]

As a humble surveyor and editor I would ask that we have tourism=apartment at 
the first level.  An apartment is quite distinct from a hotel and a guest_house 
and we already separate out these along with motel, hostel and chalet at this 
level.   The only debate for myself would be is at to whether it should be 
tourism=apartment or tourism=apartments.  In many cases you will have a number 
of apartments for rent in a apartment building block but not necessarily all.  
In which case I presume it would be most appropriate to put a node in the 
building area rather than tagging the building area.  Would you therefore need 
to put in a node for each apartment if it was tourism=apartment?

Regards

Dudley

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:21:44 +0200
From: dieterdre...@gmail.com
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tourism=guest_house or tourism=bed_and_breakfast ?


2013/10/18 Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com

Surely it's simply a matter of tagging There is accommodation of some kind

here and including a URL to the website?  There is very little point in

slicing the data so thinly, especially since renderers will paint a little

picture that probably looks identical for any class of tourist accommodation.

IMHO this isn't about rendering, few people would look at a rendered map when 
looking for accomodation (usually you'd search in a db / with a query). We 
already have a system where we distinguish on the first level much more than 
there is accomodation of some kind here, (IMHO that's good), so 
distinguishing an apartment from a hotel or a BB / guest house or from a 
hostel does make sense - IMHO also at this very first level. 


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] How to map holiday flats? New tag tourism=holiday_flat or extend existing tourism=chalet

[Dudley Ibbett]

I thought I should own up as to someone that has used tourism=apartments.   
Although I am from the UK this was actually in Croatia as this type of 
accommodation is very common and well advertised as such.  Even in the UK I 
would agree that apartment/s would be the more common usage when it comes to 
looking for this type of holiday let.  I debated as to whether it should be 
singular or not but by definition mostly there is more than one so the plural 
seemed a better choice.  I would also say that from the outside it was quite 
difficult to determine if the whole building was an apartment block.  I would 
keep to a more generic description.  Mostly, I have just drawn the outline of 
the building and tagged this as building=yes and then put a node in with a 
name=* and tourism=apartments.  

This type of accommodation is quite distinct from a chalet.  The wiki 
description gives chalet quite a wide usage: one or more detached cottages 
with self-contained cooking facilities and/or bathroom and toilet facilities 
and it seems that attempts to introduce holiday cottage were abandoned in 
favour of this tag.  These are however detached where as apartment/s generally 
aren't and this is why I don't think chalet should be used.  Whether the 
accommodation is attached or detached is probably the most important 
information from a user perspective once you know where it located.

If you look at the tourism wiki page, none of the tags have holiday in them so 
I'm not sure that there is any need for holiday in the tag as it would seem 
that this is implied by the use of the tourism=* tag.

Personally I would go with tourism=apartment or apartments.  When it comes to 
the wiki the main thing is to help people in searching and finding what they're 
looking for. 

Regards

Dudley

 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 12:08:52 +
 From: doerr.step...@gmail.com
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to map holiday flats? New tag 
 tourism=holiday_flat or extend existing tourism=chalet
 
 Yes, I'm saying that British people booking holiday accommodation will 
 mostly talk about 'apartments', not 'flats' - perhaps partly because 
 that's what they will see in the brochures. I'm saying that the famous 
 US/UK split between 'apartment' and 'flat' is largely confined to 
 residential accommodation, and that once we talk about holidays 
 (vacations) both sides of the Atlantic will mostly use the term 'apartment'.
 
 'Chalet' might pass for a holiday apartment in a single-storey block, 
 where the apartments are next to each other but not on top of each 
 other. It would seem very strange, though, to use 'chalet' for an 
 apartment in a multi-storey block. (That's not to say, of course, that a 
 standalone chalet cannot itself have multiple floors - of course it can. 
 It's the idea of chalets stacked on top of each other that would be 
 ludicrous.)
 
 The other point you should consider is that what you will mostly be 
 tagging is not an apartment but a block of apartments - a building 
 containing several apartments. (Same applies to residential flats - 
 you're normally mapping the block, not the individual flats.) So maybe 
 you need tourism = apartment_block or just tourism = [holiday_]apartments.
 
 Steve
 
 On 03/01/2014 10:13, nounours77 wrote:
  Dear Dave, Steve, Philip
 
  Thank you very much for your replies.
 
  If I understand correctly, you all advocate to use apartment instead of 
  flat.
 
  As being non-native English, I can not really judge on this (I just learned 
  flat in school, so ... at may age :-) ), so no problem for me to change.
 
  On the other hand, I think it's important to keep the part holiday in it, 
  since the term apartment is already used in normal buildings to specify 
  the type of building (e.g. being residential apartments), or the number of 
  apartments or so, and though this might lead to confusion.
 
  @Philip: I agree that we should wherever possible respect actual use of 
  tags. But for me, 237 uses is not strong enough to make a prejudice. If the 
  proposal is accepted, I think this can be changed later if wished.
 
  So, tourism=holiday_apartment should be clear that this is a flat you can 
  actually rent for a weeks vacation or so.
 
  Do you agree on that?
 
  In general, do you think it's worth making a new tag?
 
  Thanks, Nounours
 
 
 
  P.S.: The page is still under the old name, it will be moved when (if) we 
  get to the voting stage:
  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/holiday_flat
 
 
  Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 08:31:04 +0700
  From: Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com
  To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
 tagging@openstreetmap.org
  Subject: Re: [Tagging] How to map holiday flats? New tag
 tourism=holiday_flat or extend existing tourism=chalet
  Message-ID:
 cakwfyhxjdyjf2u+gpf-p65kmjxun8nqtm3on82caz1t9evv...@mail.gmail.com
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
 
  I think of the word flat as being 

Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts

[Dudley Ibbett]

Could the more general description found for  mountain hut 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_hut be used in the context of 
alpine_hut as this would make it more universal.   This would then cover the 
climbing huts found in the UK as described in the wikipedia article.  
Additional tags could then be used to state whether it provides food, bedding, 
has a warden etc.   Alpine Huts don't always provide food and bedding.

As has already been mentioned, Bothies are probably the equivalent of a 
wilderness_hut in the UK but to make this fit the requirement with fire place 
really needs be removed.The wikipedia article description 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_hut  would cover these.

We also have a few hostels that are remote to the extent that you have to walk 
or cycle to them.   Some provide food and have a warden, some don't.

Another type of accommodation that it would be useful to map is the emergency 
shelter.  It is always good to know where these are, just in case!

Regards

Dudley  

Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:13:44 +0200
From: dieterdre...@gmail.com
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Wilderness huts


2014-04-01 4:20 GMT+02:00 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com:

 Wikipedia shows several huts of the type I mean here:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_hut .Their definition says these

 are free — that is not the case in Alaska but is mostly true elsewhere

 in the U.S. AFAIK



We have access=* and fee=* to state this information.




Yes, I believe we shuldn't introduce the requirement free for wilderness_hut. 
It is common to give some sort of voluntary donation if you sleep in one of 
those huts around here, a contribution to the maintenance efforts for these 
places. They are also often locked up so you will have to contact the local 
operator in order to get access, still I don't see how access will come 
into play here.


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] Suggestions for the correct tagging of Field borders

[Dudley Ibbett]

In the UK what you describe sounds like a “field margin”.  



Here is an example web page, but search on google  under “field margins” for 
more information.  

http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife/habitats/arable-field-margins

Farmers generally cultivate up to the field boundaries in the UK but there have 
been schemes to encourage them to leave “field margins”  to support wildlife.


Regards


Dudley






Sent from Windows Mail





From: Yves
Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎13‎ ‎June‎ ‎2014 ‎15‎:‎33
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools, Simone Saviolo



Field border literally means the border of a field, so I fear the tag meaning 
is not as clear as it should.



On 13 juin 2014 14:35:34 UTC+02:00, Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com 
wrote:

2014-06-13 14:15 GMT+02:00 Simon Wüllhorst m...@simon-wuellhorst.de:



Hello Guys,

currently I’m tagging the country around my place (farmland, farmyards, meadow 
and so on). Farmlands are typically surrounded or seperated by small 
areas/borders of several vegetations (trees bushes, at least in Germany), 
called Field Borders (or Feldrain in German, more Informations: 
http://extension.missouri.edu/p/g9421 or 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldrain). They are important for farmers (to 
improve crops growth) and they also useful for a better orientation and 
navigation in this country.


I started a thread on forum.osm.org (It’s a german thread, so if you have 
questions, please ask me) to get tips for the correct/ideal tagging of these 
areas (important:it’s an area, not a way!). 


In summary I got a lot of suggestions, for example natural=scrub or 
natural=wood, ….


The problem of all these suggestions were, they all describe the type of 
vegetation and not the purpose of these areas. Besides the vegetation of these 
areas are much various, so you can’t describe them by using one or two 
“vegetation”-tags.


According to the post of “dieterdreist” 
(http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=422045#p422045) I thought 
about to create/use a completely new tag/value.


At this point I’m not shure which key would be correct. I’m thinking about 
natural=fieldborder or landuse=fieldborder. On the one landuse=fieldborder 
seems to be the better choise, because field borders have got a farming 
purpose. But on the other hand they are grown as they are and are not really 
managed.


So what whould be your favourite key/value for Filed Borders or what are you 
thinking about this topic in general.


PS: After the latest update of the mapnik style farmlands/farmyards are 
sourrounded by a little border. Some people say that would be raise the 
motivation to create smaller seperations of farmland-areas (an own 
farmland-area for every farmland and not a farmland-area for a whole region). 
In my opinion the inroduciton of a Filed Border tag would support these idea, 
too.




I'm a big supporter of small farmland areas too, and I'm starting to pay more 
attention to what lies between a field and its neighbour. In my case, though, 
most fields are rice fields, which are only separated by a small earth levee 
(http://www.ecori.it/images/gallery/1.jpg). When they're not close to each 
other, it's because a track or a waterway runs in that space. While some of the 
larger levees are often lined with trees or bushes, I'm not sure this would 
still qualify as field border, in the sense of the landuse (in other words, I 
wouldn't think that that vegetation is provided for agricultural/habitat 
reasons, but it may be, I'm no agronomist). Anyway, some such areas have been 
tagged by their vegetation characteristics. 





I think the best solution is to provide both tags, one about the vegetation, 
one about its agricultural function, as these two functions are largely 
orthogonal in my view. 




Ciao,




Simone




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


-- 
Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___
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] Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I was going to say that from a UK English perspective I have never seen 
dormitory used in this way.  However, in the context of a dictionary definition 
the proposal seems to relate to the definition with regard to a suburb  A 
small town or suburb providing a residential area for those who work in a 
nearby city.It also appears that it would be used as a modifier.  i.e. a 
dormitory suburb. 

I may have got this wrong but the proposal would seem to be extending this 
definition to mean a type of suburb of the University.   UK Universities are 
rather small to have dormitory suburbs and you would generally just talk 
about the halls of residence or the perhaps the residential area of a 
campus.

Regards

Dudley


From: christoph-jai...@gmx.de
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:17:27 +
Subject: [Tagging] Future proposal - RFC - amenity=dormitory

Hey, I just need some opinions to a 
proposal:https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/amenity%3Ddormitory
 Greetings Gesendet von Windows-Mail 
___
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] Suggestions for the correct tagging of Field borders

[Dudley Ibbett]

Hi

I'm trying to work out exactly how a generic field would be mapped using this 
new tag.  I am assuming you would have a way that marks the field boundary and 
in many cases this would be tagged with the barrier=fence/wall/hedge.  This is 
what much or my mapping currently consists of.   What is enclosed by the field 
boundary is arguably the field but it seems the use of landuse=field for such 
an area isn't encouraged where the wiki is concerned.  With this new tag 
presumably you would mark out any areas of field margin with any appropriate 
additional tag to describe what is in the field margin.  The area left within 
the field would then be tagged with the crop. 

 Field margins have a much tighter definition in the UK, most likely due to 
the use 
of payments to encourage farmers to create these for conservation 
purposes.   Wood and scrub wouldn't fall under this definition, nor would 
hedges so I wouldn't be keen to see these additional tags used.  Hedges vary 
considerably in size around where I live depending on whether they are cut 
regularly or not but they are still hedges and not field margins.  Natural tree 
rows are also found quite commonly along rivers and streams that form field 
boundaries.  natural=tree_row fits with this feature as they are not field 
margins.

Would it not be better to have a tighter definition of this particular 
field feature when it comes to the use of any additional tags?

Kind Regards

Dudley
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:11:49 +0200
From: m...@simon-wuellhorst.de
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Suggestions for the correct tagging of Field borders

Hello,thanks for your feedback. I created a proposed features page for 
fieldmargins where I wrote down my ideas about this topic. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/fieldmargin 

Please give me feedback (here or on the wikipage) to improve this propose.
Greetings,Simon

2014-07-05 19:00 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:





 Am 05/lug/2014 um 11:08 schrieb Simon Wüllhorst m...@simon-wuellhorst.de:



 Is a proposal-page in the wiki needed?







It is Not strictly needed (you can use the tag straight away), but it is 
recommended in order to have some documentation remaining. I'd also suggest to 
put a link (see also) on landuse farmland





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

Re: [Tagging] Truckage company

[Dudley Ibbett]

Other possible descriptions would be:


“haulage” for large loads.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haulage

“courier” for smaller items. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courier


Dudley





From: John Sturdy
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎9‎ ‎October‎ ‎2014 ‎12‎:‎26
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools




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

Re: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station

[Dudley Ibbett]

An alternative description found on camping/caravanning sites in the UK is a 
Chemical Disposal Point or CDP.

Dudley

 From: dban...@internode.on.net
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:33:31 +1100
 Subject: [Tagging] elsan v dump_station
 
 On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 12:33 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
  amenity=elsan_point ?
  While it's opaque in the usa, at least it's not ambiguous.
  or
  
  amenity=checmical_toilet_disposal_point.
  
 Bryce, here in Australia, we use a lot of UK terms (and frown on the
 horrid American ones creeping into our vocabulary). But no one here uses
 Elsan.
 
 There is no wikipedia page (yet!) for Elsan. Appears its a brand name,
 I'd prefer not to use a brand name if possible.
  
 This (very long) discussion started with complaints that
 waste=chemical_toilet is almost unused. Chemical_toilet_disposal_point
 is very long !
 
 David
 
 
 
 ___
 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 - register

[Dudley Ibbett]

The Dartmoor Letter Box dates back 50 years.   It was setup as a letter box.  
i.e. you would leave a card or letter and the next person to visit would take 
the latter and the put it in an proper letter box.  My experience dates backs 
35 years.  If they are still used in this way then perhaps they should be 
tagged as amenity=post_box, operator=next person to visit!



From: bry...@obviously.com
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:00:13 -0800
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org; b...@volki.at
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - register

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 May be related to the United States Department of Agriculture's National 
Forest Service use permits.  Typically a small wooden box with some pencils and 
waterproof application cards inside, on which you are either strongly 
encouraged or legally obligated to spell out where you're going, who's with 
you...

There are various types in the USA:

A trail register is at the trail head (start of a trail) or a wilderness 
entrance.  It's used to track visitor counts for statistics purposes, and for 
gaining hints about lost people after they are reported lost.  It's left by an 
official agency (official=yes).

A log book or peak register is a social creation, unrelated to the above.  
These are placed at peaks, in caves, or or at nice destinations.  Visitors are 
encouraged to flip through past responses and leave their own.  People revisit 
old sites, perhaps with kids, and show off their entries.  These are typically 
kept in an old jar and hidden under a rock (official=no).
Some of the hardest to get to peaks in California have registers from 50 or 
more years back, which are still readable.  In some cases the registers, 
especially those signed by famous people like John Muir, have been archived 
elsewhere.  These are a social creation, not an official register.  In the USA 
the official land managers rarely if ever place a true log book, though they 
occasionally read them.

A letterbox and geocache are related extensions of the idea, developed 
later.  There are well developed sites outside of OSM for locating geocaches, 
in particular.  They are not the same as as peak register, and appeal to 
different use cases. 


___
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 Parapets

[Dudley Ibbett]

It would appear that the rendering for a bridge might include the parapet.  
Much of my local mapping however includes barriers along roads.  These are 
generally connected to the bridge parapet.  It would seem reasonable to 
therefore have a seperate way for each bridge paparet that links the barriers 
either side of the bridge.  Perhaps, barrier=wall, wall=parapet.   Parapet is 
however  used in more that one context http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapet   
If bridge parapets were to be mapped would they therefore need a more distinct 
name in this context bridge_parapet of should there be some sort of relation 
between the highway segment of the bridge and its associated parapets?  

At the moment I just leave the barriers hanging but it doesn't seem like a 
very satisfactory approach to mapping given they are attached to the bridge.

Regards

Dudley


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

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

[Dudley Ibbett]

In think the word you may be looking for is "ornamental".  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornamental_plant

Could you use landuse=field?  The wiki suggests it has been abandoned but 
perhaps it should be used in the context.  Presumably you could then add, 
field=ornamental_flowers. 

Regards

Dudley



> From: dieterdre...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 14:53:45 +0100
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > Am 29.11.2015 um 14:02 schrieb John Willis :
> > 
> > Thinking of creating landuse=flower_display For sections of land that a 
> > cultivated with flowers for decorative/attraction purposes -
> 
> 
> I think that's too specific for landuse. "exhibitional" isn't a proper word I 
> guess, but something like it might be a more generic approach. Still, if 
> there are just some foreign  flowers brought into a natural setting, and 
> without maintenance, I would prefer an attribute approach which doesn't 
> "occupy" the landuse object but can be associated to other features like 
> forests, meadows etc. (this for cases where you are not tagging the 
> individual plant)
> 
> 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] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

[Dudley Ibbett]

landuse=flowerbed already exists in the wiki.  Personally I would just use this 
but if another tag is to be developed one consideration with regard to using an 
"landuse" tag is, should it be more widely applicable?

"landuse=ornamental_planting" for example with another tag to describe the type 
of plant, i.e. flower, shrub, grass etc. would allow it to be used much more 
widely.

Regards

Dudley 



  

From: jo...@mac.com
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:54:56 +0900
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)


On Dec 1, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
2015-12-01 9:02 GMT+01:00 John Willis :
So landuse=ornamental_flowers is the current value I will propose, as it has no 
size connotations

yes, it has no size connotations, but it is about "ornament"? Or am I 
misreading this? 
You keep speaking of "flower fields", so I think this is the tag to go.

well, ornamental flowers are flowers that are for display purposes. Flower 
fields sounds like it is just for flowers in a large field, rather than an area 
of flowers for all sizes. I liked the suggested value of ornamental_flowers.
Do you think there is a need for a landuse=flowerbed and landuse=flower_field? 
I thought landuse=ornamental flowers would cover both quite well. 
thoughts?

___
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] Hospital vs. Clinic refinement; Hospital departments

[Dudley Ibbett]

A requested, a few thoughts.

This can get vary complicated and confusing given the size and complexity of 
many hospitals and the different local naming that can be used.  

You may want to consider using two tags.  One for the actual name used within 
the hospital to describe the facility and one for the actual speciality.  Our 
local hospital has a "Puffin" ward for example.  It is actually the Children's 
ward.  If you were using a map to try and find it you would want the local name 
but it would also be helpful to know the speciality.  So perhaps, name=* & 
healthcare:speciality=*

Most of the specialities are listed under the healthcare tag so this would be a 
good place to start.  A few are missing.  

Most people will want to know the entrance to the particular facility within 
the hospital.  If there is an external entrance you could consider putting the 
name=* and healthcare:speciality=* tag on the entrance=* tag.  Otherwise, I 
guess this is indoor mapping of groups of rooms that make up the particular 
department, ward, unit theatre etc.Perhaps a single node at the position of 
the entrance to the facility within the building with the local name, the 
healthcare speciality and the floor level would be a simple first step.  

Regards

Dudley



> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> From: t.pfei...@computer.org
> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 15:51:21 +0100
> Subject: [Tagging] Hospital vs. Clinic refinement; Hospital departments
> 
> I would like to sync the distinctive criterion when to use amenity=hospital 
> or amenity=clinic.
> 
> The hospital page says "often but not always providing for longer-term 
> patient stays"
> which is a bit fuzzy, while the clinic page clearly says it is a hospital 
> when it
> "offers inpatient care (beds for long stays)".
> 
> Thus having in-patient beds would be a good criterion, which could be 
> clarified on the hospital page.
> 
> Oxford defines hospital as
> "an institution providing medical and surgical treatment and nursing care 
> for sick or injured people."
> thus includes the nursing care.
> 
> Or are there any clear cases of hospitals that do not have in-patients?
> 
> Another clarification that would be necessary is how to tag hospital 
> departments.
> The wiki discourages the repetition of amenity=hospital, and recommends to use
> building=hospital on buildings.
> 
> The buildings can be used for naming departments/stations/wards. I becomes 
> tricky
> however when these stations are just in different levels. Maybe some tagging 
> from
> the healthcare proposals would help.
> 
> In any case, I would not want any amenity=[clinic|doctors|hospital] nodes 
> within
> the amenity=hospital campus area (as long as they are operated by the 
> hospital, and
> not e.g. a private surgery renting space there).
> 
> However I have seen mappers been tempted to tag departments as amenity=clinic,
> mainly because some hospital departments like to call themselves "Clinic of 
> ABC therapy".
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

[Dudley Ibbett]

In the context you are describing (park, garden) these would be 
"landuse=flowerbed".  There is no size restriction.  I.e. They may look like an 
"open field".  There appears to be a wiki entry for this tag already.

If it is farmland being used to grow ornamental flowers for display then it 
would probably be a type of meadow.  You do get "flower meadows" in the UK but 
they are normally wild flower displays.

Regards

Dudley

Sent from my iPad

> On 30 Nov 2015, at 21:31, John Willis <jo...@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Javbw
> 
>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 4:23 PM, Dudley Ibbett <dudleyibb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> leisure=garden
> 
> I am mapping inside gardens/parks, and I have basically all the tags I need - 
> walkways, hedges, trees, grass, fountains, walls, steps, greenhouses, 
> drinking fountains, toilets, fences, gates - everything - except the the 
> flowers themselves. 
> 
> Here is the Bara-en flower park I stopped mapping a while ago until I 
> understood what do do with the flowers. 
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/36.41943/139.04933
> 
> Here is the big flower field (changed 3-4 times a year for different flowers 
> for the seasons) in the massive "Hitachi Seaside Park"  look for the peak 
> marker. It is the highest point in the city. I ca map the unmanaged woods, 
> the scrub, and bits of forest (pine trees), but not the actual attraction 
> (the flowers). 
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/36.4005/140.6004
> 
> The flowers are often cultivated as open fields for park visitors to see, or 
> as small displays for garden visitors. 
> 
> Either way, the actual flowered area is not a path nor grass nor scrub an 
> amusement park. It is flowers. ^_^ 
> 
> 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] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

[Dudley Ibbett]

Do you need a landuse tag for the last two as they would be called gardens (in 
the UK) if people can move round them.  Could you not just use leisure=garden 
for these?

Regards

Dudley 

> On 29 Nov 2015, at 22:16, John Willis <jo...@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 5:18 AM, Dudley Ibbett <dudleyibb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> field=ornamental_flowers.
> 
> In some cases, they are fields (nemophila, daffodils, lavender). 
> https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/javbw/11094010745/
> 
> In other cases, the long strips of flowers between a maze of walkways (rose 
> garden),https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/javbw/11091430663/
> 
> large rows of hedges or individual plants (wisteria and azalea, iris) with 
> concrete paths between for wheelchairs. 
> https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/javbw/11091328063/
> 
> All of these places have land used for the display of flowering plants - and 
> are usually famous for them. 
> 
> Ornamental flowers is a great suggestion, though! 
> 
> Landuse=ornamental_flowers
> 
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox

[Dudley Ibbett]

In the UK "Letterboxing" has been a practice on Dartmoor for quite a few years. 
  

http://www.legendarydartmoor.co.uk/lett_box.htm

As suggested it isn't a common practice when it comes to summits in the UK.

Regards

Dudley

From: santiago06d...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 17:04:43 +0200
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mountaineer's mailbox

Page on OSMWiki.
Some mountains have a "mailbox" at the summit. When mountaineers reach it, they 
may leave a card where they write down their contact data, weather, date of the 
hike... Then, the next mountaineers who reach the summit pick the card in order 
to give it back to the owner (sending it via mail, for example).

I think mountaineer's mailboxes aren't extended into English-speaking 
countries, so if there's a more appropriate term for them, feel free to move 
the proposal page (I took the name from the Wikimedia Commons category) .


___
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] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Dudley Ibbett]

I’m slightly confused by this discussion.  I live in a “hamlet” which is within 
a “dispersed settlement”.  “Dispersed settlement” describes the pattern of 
isolated dwellings, farmyards, hamlets, villages etc. on a much larger scale.

We don’t really seem to have tags that currently describe settlement patterns.  
If we did then we would need “linear” & “nuclear” as well as “dispersed”.

The “hamlet” has a name (which is used in the address) but the “dispersed 
settlement” doesn’t as it is just describes a pattern of buildings, hamlets, 
farmyards etc.

Regards

Dudley




From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Sent: 16 June 2017 13:56
To: Jerry Clough - OSM; Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements


2017-06-16 15:50 GMT+02:00 Jerry Clough - OSM 
>:
In summary: we have an excellent source of mapped dispersed settlements in 
Europe; absence of any specific tags for such places has only slightly impeded 
mapping (although perhaps a rigorous insistence on locality having no 
population may make it harder);



yes, basically what you are telling us is that you've mapped these settlements 
as place=locality, which is not in line with the wiki definition of 
place=locality.

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