Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

Something like that is exactly what I as looking for… From: Graeme Fitzpatrick Sent: Tuesday, 19 June 2018 14:24 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard On 19 June 2018 at 08:45, Graeme Fitzpatrick mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> >

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

On 19 June 2018 at 08:45, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > That's the concern I have with "place" - our lifesavers operate out of a > surf club, a permanent building behind the beach (lifeguard=base). Each > morning, they will decide the safest part of the beach, so will set up 200 > m's right of

Re: [Tagging] New GitHub tagging repo "osmlab/osm-tagging" - was: emergency=lifeguard

> On Jun 18, 2018, at 8:16 PM, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar > wrote: > > Just to comment on the Microsoft side angle here…. Please try to stay on topic. We’re not going to change our approach to GitHub anytime soon. If

Re: [Tagging] Street exits

I wouldn't call it unmarked; uncontrolled would be more like it. The markings are just a permanent fixture of the surface in this case, kinda like how some American towns use brickwork instead of paint for crosswalks

Re: [Tagging] Street exits

Looks like a pretty typical Dutch pedestrian crossing? They're pretty good about organizing things so as to be unambiguously obvious when you do and don't have the right of way in regards to nonmotorized traffic. On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Peter Elderson wrote: > The street is

Re: [Tagging] New GitHub tagging repo "osmlab/osm-tagging" - was: emergency=lifeguard

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Just to comment on the Microsoft side angle here. Inasmuch as history has > been very unkind to Microsoft with respect to their treatment of open > source communities and technologies in the past (Linux, Mozilla, etc.), > I wouldn't

Re: [Tagging] New GitHub tagging repo "osmlab/osm-tagging" - was: emergency=lifeguard

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:20 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Frederik Ramm > wrote: > > Others have qualms about signing up to an American social network platform >> just >> > to participate in OSM discussions (remember - if the product is free, you >> are the > >

Re: [Tagging] A new Tag for "helicopter services"?

Thanks Graeme On 19 June 2018 at 00:14, Clifford Snow wrote: > office=air_charter should fit. The ones around here offer both fixed wing > and helicopter services. > > With office=air_charter you could also add > air_charter=helicopter > > Clifford > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:06 AM gorgonz

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

On 18 June 2018 at 21:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > "lifeguard=place" is currently not used at all, and I do not believe it > is a good tag. "place" is so generic, it doesn't allow for any deduction of > meaning more than "thing" or "feature", and it is used for toponyms as a > key in OSM.

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

On 18 June 2018 at 21:38, wrote: > > > > Well, take as an example this beach: https://www.openstreetmap.org/ > way/17960956 > > > > I don’t think a blanket supervised=yes or lifeguard=yes is appropriate for > that. > > > > But there are multiple areas, each maybe a few 100m, somewhere in which a

Re: [Tagging] New GitHub tagging repo "osmlab/osm-tagging" - was: emergency=lifeguard

> On Jun 18, 2018, at 5:27 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Jokes aside, there are many serious reasons why good old-fashioned > mailing lists should be the mainstay of important communication in OSM. I’m not suggesting to replace the mailing list. As you can probably tell form the past week,

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

On 18 June 2018 at 21:17, Andrew Harvey wrote: > >> Do we have any tagging scheme for “an area in which it is likely for a >> lifeguard to be”? I’m not sure if simply tagging an area with >> emergency=lifeguard lifeguard=place is appropriate for that. >> > > supervised

Re: [Tagging] New GitHub tagging repo "osmlab/osm-tagging" - was: emergency=lifeguard

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:27 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Others have qualms about signing up to an American social network platform > just > to participate in OSM discussions (remember - if the product is free, you > are the product). >From what I have read, others in the IT community have

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

On 18 June 2018 at 16:24, wrote: > > > I didn’t check it out myself, but, based on what you wrote, probably. > Also, probably means that it’s not a good idea to just do a mechanical edit > from the current tags to the new ones without reviewing all of them. > No, this will have to be a manual

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

Wow, thanks everybody for your thoughts. Going through a few comments On 18 June 2018 at 17:58, Marc Gemis wrote: > If you use Google translate from English "lifeguard" to Russian, you > get Спасатель > Doing the translation in the other direction, (so from Спасатель to > English) you get

Re: [Tagging] New GitHub tagging repo "osmlab/osm-tagging" - was: emergency=lifeguard

Hi, On 06/18/2018 03:37 PM, Bryan Housel wrote: > I think we should continue to make sure that every change > is raised on the tagging mailing list for WWIC [1] reasons. Using mailing lists provides no immunity against "WWIC", but it is certainly safer than Github for the time being (who knows,

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Bryan Housel wrote: > from https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5088 > > *Proposal:* > I’d like to drop `covered=booth` as a suggested tag, as it’s superfluous. > If the telephone feature has `booth=yes` or `booth=K6` you know it’s a > booth. Then we’re

Re: [Tagging] drop covered=booth?

Le 18. 06. 18 à 22:00, Bryan Housel a écrit : > Someone has asked me to add a `covered=booth` field to the telephone preset. imho he need at least to document it > Generally the tag `covered=*` (usually ‘yes’)  is used to indicate that > a highway goes under a building part, so that linters and

[Tagging] drop covered=booth?

from https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5088 `covered`, traditionally: Someone has asked me to add a `covered=booth` field to the telephone preset. I’m pushing back on the request slightly because `covered=*` already has a

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

On 18.06.2018 17:22, Kevin Kenny wrote: > Would it be feasible to say that building=yes is a default (except, > perhaps, for rock_shelter, sun_shelter) and that mappers are expected to > place an expected building=no on the exceptions? Using building=no is a bad idea, as any object tagged

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

Am 11.06.2018 um 23:09 schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick: Had a look at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserrettungsstation & it's a purely German organisation, which would appear to be life guards, although with possibly a bit of Coast Guard / Marine Rescue included? Actually, this would be the

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:33 AM marc marc wrote: > > Le 18. 06. 18 à 17:22, Kevin Kenny a écrit : > > Would it be feasible to say that building=yes is a default (except, > > perhaps, for rock_shelter, sun_shelter) and that mappers are expected to > > place an expected building=no on the

Re: [Tagging] Street exits

Hi, Am 15.06.2018 um 18:14 schrieb osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au: They DO have exactly this type of living street in the Netherlands too, see https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf But the particular street Peter is talking about is, on purpose, NOT such a living street. The street

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > >> > Would it be feasible to say that building=yes is a default (except, > perhaps, for rock_shelter, sun_shelter) and that mappers are expected to > place an expected building=no on the exceptions? > Tags are not hierarchical, let alone

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

Le 18. 06. 18 à 17:22, Kevin Kenny a écrit : > Would it be feasible to say that building=yes is a default (except, > perhaps, for rock_shelter, sun_shelter) and that mappers are expected to > place an expected building=no on the exceptions? please never do that. you never known if the mapper

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:08 AM wrote: > Personally, I would tag most bus shelters as building=roof. > > > > But for e.g. sun_shelter (which are usually just fabric spanned between > poles) building=roof would be wrong. > Would it be feasible to say that building=yes is a default (except,

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

Personally, I would tag most bus shelters as building=roof. But for e.g. sun_shelter (which are usually just fabric spanned between poles) building=roof would be wrong. From: Bryan Housel Sent: Tuesday, 19 June 2018 00:47 To: Jo Willems ; osm-tagging Subject: Re: [Tagging]

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

Thanks for clarifying Jo - I think this is all ok as long as we give users the option to say whether they think their `amenity=shelter` is a building or not. For the bus shelters I could see it as either way but would not override a local mapper’s choice. Maybe we should start a separate

Re: [Tagging] A new Tag for "helicopter services"?

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 03:06:37PM +0200, gorgonz wrote: > I'm looking for a tag, that describes an office, that offers helicopter > services. Jobs are emergencies, round trips and aerial views for > example. What is to be noted: this describes the place of the office and > not the according

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

shelter=yes on a highway=bus_stop NODE indicates there is a shelter nearby, but says nothing about where it is exactly nor its size. amenity=shelter shelter_type=public_transport on a CLOSEDWAY indicates where the shelter is. height is not super important. I guess most are about 2.3m high. If

Re: [Tagging] A new Tag for "helicopter services"?

office=air_charter should fit. The ones around here offer both fixed wing and helicopter services. With office=air_charter you could also add air_charter=helicopter Clifford On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:06 AM gorgonz wrote: > I'm looking for a tag, that describes an office, that offers

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

sent from a phone > On 17. Jun 2018, at 06:45, Bryan Housel wrote: > > Does `amenity=shelter` imply `building=yes`? it does not, many places tagged like this will be bus stops and dedicated structures set up for hikers, but there can also be other places e.g. offering shelter below a rock

[Tagging] New GitHub tagging repo "osmlab/osm-tagging" - was: emergency=lifeguard

> On Jun 17, 2018, at 7:34 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > If the consensus is to change it to emergency=lifeguard + lifeguard=*, then I > think this needs to be changed in: > > 1. The wiki > 2. Put forward a proposal to do a mechanical edit to change the existing tags > 3. Carry out that

Re: [Tagging] `amenity=shelter` implies `building=yes`?

> There are also picnic shelters .. here they can have no walls just a roof to > shelter from the heat of the sun or the occasional bit of rain. > e.g. > https://www.riversideca.gov/park_rec/sites/riversideca.gov.park_rec/files/pictures/Picnic%20Shelter%20Hunter%20hobby.JPG > >

[Tagging] A new Tag for "helicopter services"?

I'm looking for a tag, that describes an office, that offers helicopter services. Jobs are emergencies, round trips and aerial views for example. What is to be noted: this describes the place of the office and not the according landing field. I would setup a proposal for

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

On 18 June 2018 at 21:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2018-06-18 13:17 GMT+02:00 Andrew Harvey : > >> Do we have any tagging scheme for “an area in which it is likely for a >>> lifeguard to be”? I’m not sure if simply tagging an area with >>> emergency=lifeguard lifeguard=place is appropriate

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

From: Andrew Harvey Sent: Monday, 18 June 2018 21:17 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard Do we have any tagging scheme for “an area in which it is likely for a lifeguard to be”? I’m not sure if simply tagging an area with

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

2018-06-18 13:17 GMT+02:00 Andrew Harvey : > Do we have any tagging scheme for “an area in which it is likely for a >> lifeguard to be”? I’m not sure if simply tagging an area with >> emergency=lifeguard lifeguard=place is appropriate for that. >> > > supervised

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

On 18 June 2018 at 21:04, wrote: > > > While on the topic of lifeguards, lifeguard=place on a node doesn’t really > fit to beaches where there a lifeguard place is usually, but it can be > anywhere in a larger section of the beach on a day by day basis, depending > on the weather and sea

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

2018-06-18 13:04 GMT+02:00 : > > For what it’s worth, I fully agree with you. Any emergency=lifeguard[_*] > that’s not anywhere close to water is pretty much guaranteed to be a > tagging error. > > > > While on the topic of lifeguards, lifeguard=place on a node doesn’t really > fit to beaches

Re: [Tagging] [talk-au] Mapping houses and addresses in Sydney

Oops. Sorry, that went to the wrong mailing list :/ From: osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au Sent: Monday, 18 June 2018 21:07 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] [talk-au] Mapping houses and addresses in Sydney From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com

Re: [Tagging] [talk-au] Mapping houses and addresses in Sydney

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, 18 June 2018 20:57 To: talk...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping houses and addresses in Sydney On 18/06/18 20:30, Andrew Harvey wrote: On 18 June 2018 at 19:21, Dion Moult mailto:d...@thinkmoult.com> > wrote: Thanks Andrew

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

No worries. For what it’s worth, I fully agree with you. Any emergency=lifeguard[_*] that’s not anywhere close to water is pretty much guaranteed to be a tagging error. While on the topic of lifeguards, lifeguard=place on a node doesn’t really fit to beaches where there a lifeguard place

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

On 18/06/18 18:39, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: *From:*Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> *Sent:* Monday, 18 June 2018 17:35 *To:* tagging@openstreetmap.org *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard On 18/06/18 16:24, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

> I don’t think just because a lifeguard=place isn’t there 24/7, 365 days a year means it isn’t a lifeguard=place. Agreed, lifeguard=place might just have a flag/chair which is only there sometimes, which so long as there is some regularity to it, I think is fine for OSM. On 18 June 2018 at

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

> -Original Message- > From: Marc Gemis > Sent: Monday, 18 June 2018 17:59 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > > Subject: Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard > > If you use Google translate from English "lifeguard" to Russian, > you get Спасатель Doing the translation in

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, 18 June 2018 17:35 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard On 18/06/18 16:24, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote: From: Graeme Fitzpatrick

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

If you use Google translate from English "lifeguard" to Russian, you get Спасатель Doing the translation in the other direction, (so from Спасатель to English) you get first "rescuer" and as a second "lifesaver". Perhaps this has something to do with the lifeguards found away from water in e.g .

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

From: Graeme Fitzpatrick Sent: Monday, 18 June 2018 16:01 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard while some show a shape in one image, but other's, possibly during the northern winter, show an empty deserted beach. I would consider

Re: [Tagging] emergency=lifeguard

On 17 June 2018 at 21:34, Andrew Harvey wrote: > If the consensus is to change it to emergency=lifeguard + lifeguard=*, > then I think this needs to be changed in: > > 1. The wiki > > > I don't think it's far to the people who put the effort in to do a great > job on the wiki documentation and