Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=vending_machine AND amenity=post_box: what about?
vegard a écrit : > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 06:40:59AM -0700, Karl Newman wrote: >>> So personally I think duplicate keys would be the easiest and best way to >>> tag such double-uses. >>> >>> Norbert >>> >> Just make two different nodes, each located closest to the amenity >> concerned. There's nothing that makes it non-routable. It's just a > > Well - apart from the fact that it actually makes it difficult to render > In many cases, the supermarket *is* the post-office, I agree fully with it. Here for example, at railways stations (let say middle class) you can buy train tickets (hopefully), but also book your travel or get some foreign money. At the same desk, deserved by the same person. I really have here 3 amenities as one point. The easy answer of some people " map the world as it is... " is here just too short. The fact that neither API 0.5 nor API 0.6 (will) support it is a good point for not using it. But not to forget to think about it ? Then in short, what is the process for API specifications inputs? :-) by the way: I just had a look at http://dev.openstreetmap.org/~kleptog/osm-0.5.dtd and from the current dtd definition, I could not see anything saying that it is forbidden to use twice the key amenity for a node or a way. Or did I missed something? best regards Pierre-André ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=vending_machine AND amenity=post_box: what about?
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Norbert Wenzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Karl Newman wrote: > >> Just make two different nodes, each located closest to the amenity >> concerned. There's nothing that makes it non-routable. It's just a >> point--the routers will get you as close to the point on the road as >> possible. The addr: property definitely isn't going to help in making it >> routable. >> > > You're right with the addr: property, that was not well thought from my > side. But I'd nevertheless prefer the double amenities, just because the > that's what those nodes are. One building or machine with multiple uses at > the very same place. > > Norbert > I understand your concern about overlapping icons, but in a device such as a GPS, it will be considered as two separate points of interest (POI), because it really is two different services (or amenities or whatever); they just happen to be at the same location. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=vending_machine AND amenity=post_box: what about?
Karl Newman wrote: Just make two different nodes, each located closest to the amenity concerned. There's nothing that makes it non-routable. It's just a point--the routers will get you as close to the point on the road as possible. The addr: property definitely isn't going to help in making it routable. You're right with the addr: property, that was not well thought from my side. But I'd nevertheless prefer the double amenities, just because the that's what those nodes are. One building or machine with multiple uses at the very same place. Norbert smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=vending_machine AND amenity=post_box: what about?
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 06:40:59AM -0700, Karl Newman wrote: > > > > So personally I think duplicate keys would be the easiest and best way to > > tag such double-uses. > > > > Norbert > > > > Just make two different nodes, each located closest to the amenity > concerned. There's nothing that makes it non-routable. It's just a > point--the routers will get you as close to the point on the road as > possible. The addr: property definitely isn't going to help in making it > routable. > Well - apart from the fact that it actually makes it difficult to render properly (things tend to overlap), it's not correct either. In many cases, the supermarket *is* the post-office, at least here in Norway. It might be implemented with a separate counter, but other places perhaps it might be different. And likewise, with oter dual-use amenities... While I for now use the dual-node mechanism, I don't like it because of the above reason. -- - Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=vending_machine AND amenity=post_box: what about?
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Norbert Wenzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shaun McDonald wrote: > >> The problem with this is that none of the editors support having >> duplicate key values, even so the 0.5 API supports it. The 0.6 API will >> not support duplicate key values. >> > > I think the support of duplicate keys is a very much needed feature and I > personally would drop it only, if there are really good reasons (e.g. > breaking fast queries, etc.) to drop it. > > It would be possible to tag something like "amenity=supermarket; > post_office;" but as stated in another discussion yesterday that would make > searching for entries much more complicated. > > Just to name a few very common cases where duplicate keys would be > necessary I'd like to point out the very common case of hotels also having a > publicly available restaurant. Of course one could draw a building and drop > all needed amenities inside, but I think that wouldn't be routable unless > you add the addr: properties to every node inside that building. > > So personally I think duplicate keys would be the easiest and best way to > tag such double-uses. > > Norbert > Just make two different nodes, each located closest to the amenity concerned. There's nothing that makes it non-routable. It's just a point--the routers will get you as close to the point on the road as possible. The addr: property definitely isn't going to help in making it routable. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=vending_machine AND amenity=post_box: what about?
> Currently, I have never seen a stamp vending machine without its > post > box. That is why I intended to mark these with something like: > > amenity=post_box > vending_machine=yes Hi, if you have not seen a stamp vending machine without a post box nearby, that means that - you are lucky or - you have not been to Germany since the Deutsche Bundespost tries to save money whereever it can. I know several of those strange occurances. Don't create a data model where the world has to follow. Create a data model that follows the world as it is. Regards Lulu-Ann -- GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen! Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=vending_machine AND amenity=post_box: what about?
Shaun McDonald wrote: The problem with this is that none of the editors support having duplicate key values, even so the 0.5 API supports it. The 0.6 API will not support duplicate key values. I think the support of duplicate keys is a very much needed feature and I personally would drop it only, if there are really good reasons (e.g. breaking fast queries, etc.) to drop it. It would be possible to tag something like "amenity=supermarket; post_office;" but as stated in another discussion yesterday that would make searching for entries much more complicated. Just to name a few very common cases where duplicate keys would be necessary I'd like to point out the very common case of hotels also having a publicly available restaurant. Of course one could draw a building and drop all needed amenities inside, but I think that wouldn't be routable unless you add the addr: properties to every node inside that building. So personally I think duplicate keys would be the easiest and best way to tag such double-uses. Norbert smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=vending_machine AND amenity=post_box: what about?
On 7 Sep 2008, at 19:08, Pierre-André Jacquod wrote: > Hi, > vegard a écrit : Currently, I have never seen a stamp vending machine without its post box. That is why I intended to mark these with something like: amenity=post_box vending_machine=yes >> There will be a lot of such cases of things with dual use. I did send > a mail about it >> a few days ago. >> >> There's: >> >> shop=supermarket with amenity=post_office >> shop=supermarket with amenity=pharmacy >> >> amenity=bank with amenity=atm (this is already made a special case >> for) >> >> and I'm sure the list is endless. >> >> I feel we need a generalized solution, > > I did not saw your mail before, but I would propose the following > notation: > for a place with several kind of services like a post office into a > supermarket, I would propose the following: > > tag: > amenity=supermarket > amenity=post_office > The problem with this is that none of the editors support having duplicate key values, even so the 0.5 API supports it. The 0.6 API will not support duplicate key values. > then for the properties, we could still use the description as usual, > just extending the naming convention further: > > name:supermarket=Systembolaget > operator:post_office=Deutsche Post > What I would do is draw the outline of the supermarket, and then place a node for the approximate location of the post office inside the supermarket area. That would then work without breaking anything. > and so one. > Could it be a possibility which will also not break the rendering? > regards > Pierre-André > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=vending_machine AND amenity=post_box: what about?
Hi, vegard a écrit : >>> Currently, I have never seen a stamp vending machine without its post >>> box. That is why I intended to mark these with something like: >>> >>> amenity=post_box >>> vending_machine=yes >>> > There will be a lot of such cases of things with dual use. I did send a mail about it > a few days ago. > > There's: > > shop=supermarket with amenity=post_office > shop=supermarket with amenity=pharmacy > > amenity=bank with amenity=atm (this is already made a special case for) > > and I'm sure the list is endless. > > I feel we need a generalized solution, I did not saw your mail before, but I would propose the following notation: for a place with several kind of services like a post office into a supermarket, I would propose the following: tag: amenity=supermarket amenity=post_office then for the properties, we could still use the description as usual, just extending the naming convention further: name:supermarket=Systembolaget operator:post_office=Deutsche Post and so one. Could it be a possibility which will also not break the rendering? regards Pierre-André ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=vending_machine AND amenity=post_box: what about?
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 03:30:26PM -0400, Adam Schreiber wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Pierre-André Jacquod > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Currently, I have never seen a stamp vending machine without its post > > box. That is why I intended to mark these with something like: > > > > amenity=post_box > > vending_machine=yes > > > > Is there a (strange:-) country where both are disconnected? > > Here in the States, very rarely does an outdoor post box have a stamp > vending machine attached. However, your proposal of adding > vending_machine=yes makes sense especially if you added a type=postage > or stamps tag. > There will be a lot of such cases of things with dual use. I did send a mail about it a few days ago. There's: shop=supermarket with amenity=post_office shop=supermarket with amenity=pharmacy amenity=bank with amenity=atm (this is already made a special case for) and I'm sure the list is endless. I feel we need a generalized solution, and then come up with rendering as needed for the most used combinations? -- - Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=vending_machine AND amenity=post_box: what about?
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Pierre-André Jacquod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Currently, I have never seen a stamp vending machine without its post > box. That is why I intended to mark these with something like: > > amenity=post_box > vending_machine=yes > > Is there a (strange:-) country where both are disconnected? Here in the States, very rarely does an outdoor post box have a stamp vending machine attached. However, your proposal of adding vending_machine=yes makes sense especially if you added a type=postage or stamps tag. Cheers, Adam ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
