Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

On 2019-02-14 08:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Am Do., 14. Feb. 2019 um 08:19 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale > : > >> Tagging min and max withdrawals on the ATM is asking for confusion. The >> normal limits are set by the card issuer, > > by the network. Most (?) cards nowadays can use several

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

Hi, On 14.02.19 08:17, Colin Smale wrote: > Problem is, it will probably require data from multiple transactions > from small to large to work out the mix That's what I see as an issue too. Something that is only verifiable if you are a customer and can make a large number of withdrawals to

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

I’m surprised to hear this about ATMs in Europe. In Southeast Asia and in the USA, usually the ATM will only allow a certain max withdrawal. It’s also uncommon to have more than one denomination (though some do have 2 types). Perhaps this tag can’t be used in all countries, but it could still be

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

Am Do., 14. Feb. 2019 um 08:19 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale < colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > Tagging min and max withdrawals on the ATM is asking for confusion. The > normal limits are set by the card issuer, > by the network. Most (?) cards nowadays can use several different networks, some atms ask which

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

Tagging min and max withdrawals on the ATM is asking for confusion. The normal limits are set by the card issuer, and I can see many people mistakenly putting their personal card limits into these tags on the ATM. More relevant here would be the denomination mix. ATMs have a fixed number of

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

On 14/02/19 17:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 14. Feb 2019, at 07:29, OSMDoudou <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote: The minimum can also differ. Some banks allow their young customers to withdraw small amounts, like 5 EUR, whereas adults and even

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

I also created a proposal, but I knew in advance it wouldn't be practical to duplicate full GTFS functionality in OSM: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_timetables I'm creating this proposal, which does have information about the operators / agencies, which

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

sent from a phone > On 14. Feb 2019, at 07:29, OSMDoudou > <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote: > > The minimum can also differ. > > Some banks allow their young customers to withdraw small amounts, like 5 EUR, > whereas adults and even young customers with cards from other

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

The minimum can also differ. Some banks allow their young customers to withdraw small amounts, like 5 EUR, whereas adults and even young customers with cards from other banks will not be allowed to withdraw less than 20 EUR. So, it may create confusion between mappers because what you see as

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

> The last edit on that proposals says > > 'Made this proposal abandoned and noted that it has been replaced by the > proposed key "departures"' So look there? Yup. I've already read all proposal and it's no too clear for me where departures=* and interval=* go. I've understood that they go in

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

So I think I'm on board with using withdraw/withdrawal as opposed to transaction. The reason I formatted it as 'max_???' and 'min_???' is because there are already two tags in use with that ordering. I would also be sure to clarify that the limits are imposed by the ATM provider and not the

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

The maximum may also be limited by the card provider. Need some careful words on the proposal to say it is the limit of the ATM provider. On 14/02/19 13:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Withdrawals are not the only type of ATM transaction. So use withdraw_min=* withdraw_max=/* ??? /The

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

Withdrawals are not the only type of ATM transaction. Perhaps max_withdrawal would be clearer? On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 10:57 AM Nathan Wyand wrote: > Hello mappers, > > I frequently use OSM to find ATM's near me, but many of these machines > place limits on how much can be withdrawn in 1

[Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

Hello mappers, I frequently use OSM to find ATM's near me, but many of these machines place limits on how much can be withdrawn in 1 transaction. This can make it inconvenient and expensive to withdraw money, requiring several transactions. Another issue is that many machines only carry $20

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

On 14/02/19 11:05, santamariense wrote: Why did you abandon this proposal (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_schedules/Timetable_relations)? It seems to have never been voted. And, I support it. The last edit on that proposals says 'Made this proposal

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

Why did you abandon this proposal (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_schedules/Timetable_relations)? It seems to have never been voted. And, I support it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

>So waterway=fairway applies anywhere, but if it's a "major" (marked) channel, then it also gets seamark:type =fairway . >Does that work? Yes, indeed. That would work very well

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 04:05, Fernando Trebien wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:49 AM Dave Swarthout > wrote: > > > > The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot > see how anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or > seamark:type=fairway unless

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:49 AM Dave Swarthout wrote: > > The seamark definition in the supplied link is very general. I cannot see how > anyone could misinterpret this use of either waterway=fairway or > seamark:type=fairway unless they are specialists, in which case I'm sure a > response

Re: [Tagging] Public Transport Timetables Proposal RFC

Hi, Thanks for bringing up this discussion again! I have now opened up the departures tag proposal for voting, so please feel free to vote on the proposal if you would like. I had been tweaking it for a while, and it seems ready now. Thanks again, Leif Rasmussen On Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 4:54 PM

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

sent from a phone > On 13. Feb 2019, at 12:05, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > Certainly, the portion of a canoe trail that crosses a lake or pond is > indefinite. usually you would try to go in a straight line though, unless there are other factors like scenic highlights or currents, that seem

Re: [Tagging] Fwd: [tagging] Canoe route / nautical channels

Certainly, the portion of a canoe trail that crosses a lake or pond is indefinite. I assume also that any part that travels along a river would tend to follow its centerline. Such portions of a route can also be tagged as indefinite=yes but what do people think about the canoe route as

Re: [Tagging] tagging a public waste incinerator complex

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:25:22AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 13. Feb 2019, at 05:26, John Willis via Tagging > > wrote: > > > > I tagged it as a waste transfer station & power generator (for > > consistency), but I feel this is an error. > > if there isnt a power generator

Re: [Tagging] tagging a public waste incinerator complex

On 13/02/19 20:16, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > tag it with man_made=incinerator +1 + another 1 Use the description key if you think there should be any explanation e.g. description= waste incinerator On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:27 PM Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Re: [Tagging] tagging a public waste incinerator complex

> tag it with man_made=incinerator +1 On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:27 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 13. Feb 2019, at 05:26, John Willis via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > I tagged it as a waste transfer station & power generator (for >