Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

Hi all I appreciate the discussions about tagging crossing - more examples and local usages are important! If possible, though, I'd appreciate feedback on crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no. A current rundown: Pro crossing=marked/unmarked: - Already in use in the wild. No

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

Neat! I've been seeing those FHWA guidelines in various state regulation PDFs, didn't know they were coming from the feds. On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:09 PM Clifford Snow wrote: > > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 6:27 PM Nick Bolten wrote: > >> Well, now I'm having trouble finding any real

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 6:27 PM Nick Bolten wrote: > Well, now I'm having trouble finding any real regulations saying so, so > take that with a grain of salt. I think someone from Austin, TX told me > that once... > > I believe the primary stated purpose of bars on a crosswalk is increased >

Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

Oof, sorry, I managed to discuss software despite your last message. Please disregard. On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:06 PM Nick Bolten wrote: > I like the thesis (and it's so organized)! I give it a. > > I like the idea of using discourse - or at least something similarly > flexible and open. In

Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

I like the thesis (and it's so organized)! I give it a. I like the idea of using discourse - or at least something similarly flexible and open. In discourse's case, it's all the same language/framework as openstreetmap.org (rails), which might be a plus. The ability to easily modify the platform

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 8:10 PM wrote: > And none of that matters for the broad classification that the crossing=* key > does, which is: > > You can’t cross here > > You can cross here, but there is no special legal status to it > > You can cross here, and it is a designated crossing place with

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a site with "Luxury Lodges"

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I personally would not tag a >20 foot wide manufactured home as a static > caravan > I'm just amused that staying in a trailer park is considered a high end tourism/glamping experience in the UK instead of a cheap form of permanent

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

Well, now I'm having trouble finding any real regulations saying so, so take that with a grain of salt. I think someone from Austin, TX told me that once... I believe the primary stated purpose of bars on a crosswalk is increased visibility to cars. On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 5:32 PM Jmapb wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> You can’t cross here Fully agree. This tag is the least ambiguous. There are some good discussions to have in the future to of whether to add language to the wiki to state whether the crossing must be illegal, or if it's also okay to tag if the crossing is unsafe or unreasonable. > You can

Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

Sorry in hindsight I should have left out the last paragraph, please ignore it. I would rather not discuss concrete suggestions for software but collect ideas for certain modes of communications that may make constructive communication happen more. On 25/05/2019 02:28, Tobias Zwick wrote: > >

Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 01:29, Tobias Zwick wrote: [Reasonable points, so far] > 3. Moderation and Edits. > > 3.1 Edit: Every now and then, people derail verbally, it happens. We are > all humans. So, to be able to edit your post after you realized that you > shouldn't have said something

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

From: Paul Allen Sent: Saturday, 25 May 2019 10:18 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no The labels chosen for these 4 categories are : no, unmarked, uncontrolled,

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On 5/24/2019 8:13 PM, Nick Bolten wrote: I do believe that in at least some parts of Texas, zebra crossings have some additional legal/right-of-way implications. In this case, when I say zebra, I mean the diagonal stripes enclosed by parallel lines that outline the crossing. Right, same --

Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

1. Thesis: Mailing lists (and to a lesser degree, classical forums) promote a culture of dissent. This is because if people just agree, they tend towards not answering at all on these mediums because they do not want to litter the conversation when they don't have something own to say. So, as

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 00:27, Silent Spike wrote: > > I find this extremely ironic after all that I've read today on this > mailing list. Have been internally debating calling you out on it, in some > sense it feels like stooping to your level. > But you stooped anyway. Fair enough, you're

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 01:10, wrote: > > And none of that matters for the broad classification that the crossing=* > key does, > +1 > which is: > > The labels chosen for these 4 categories are : no, unmarked, uncontrolled, > traffic_signals. But they may as well have been a, b, c, d. Don’t

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> Do you happen to know what the legal implication is, if any? Pedestrians have the right of way at both marked and unmarked crossings in Texas, which is pretty common in other states of the USA. Sticking strictly to legal implications, marked crossings define a space where cars can't occupy

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 00:50, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25/05/19 07:32, Paul Allen wrote: > > We also have; > tactile paving - a sequence of small raised bumps/dots on the paving that > can be sensed by walkers/wheelchairs > Indeed. In my town most designated crossings have

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

From: Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, 25 May 2019 09:49 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no On 25/05/19 07:32, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 22:12,

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On 25/05/19 07:32, Paul Allen wrote: On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 22:12, Kevin Kenny > wrote: Yeah, there really are combinations around here: does it have signs? does it have traffic signals? does it have specific pedestrian-facing traffic signals?

Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

> Sometimes, it goes the other way - the good way. There's consensus, or if > disagreement, the different options are offered constructively. You can see > that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more? The discussion pretty quickly drifted from considering technical solutions to

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

On 24/05/2019 23:47, Nick Bolten wrote: Of course, but this won't help new users asking questions. They will still have a negative experience. New users asking questions probably fall more within the remit of the help site ("how do I do X") rather than this list ("how should we change OSM's

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

Hi, On 25.05.19 01:12, Silent Spike wrote: > In support of Nick's points above, reading many of the discussions on > this mailing list today has me just about ready to unsubscribe. There are many reasons why someone could be disappointed by this mailing list, or by tagging discussions in

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> > It serves a purpose because the toxicity came with you. It wasn't here > before. It seems that anything > that runs counter to your viewpoint is toxic. Anyone who points out that > we didn't have any > noticeable toxicity before you appeared is toxic. In short, you appear to > be using

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On 25/05/19 09:05, Silent Spike wrote: It seem like generally sport in OSM is just any physical activity. However, it's key to note that features are only tagged with `sport` when specifically designated for that activity. For consideration, in the UK parkour is now officially recognised as a

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

I don't believe there is any purpose being served by this back-and-forth. I could kind of justify it for a bit in that it's demonstrating my original points about decorum, but that's a dead horse now. I think drawn-out rehashings of a particular proposal thread should probably go in that thread,

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

In support of Nick's points above, reading many of the discussions on this mailing list today has me just about ready to unsubscribe. On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:49 PM Nick Bolten wrote: > > What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone tries > to understand how points of view

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

Hi, On 25.05.19 00:11, Florian Lohoff wrote: > Its just a matter of > defining whom to exclude not if. True. My son attends a school that favours being inclusive, and this means that there's one student in the class who has a form of autism that lets him often loudly protest against

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

It seem like generally sport in OSM is just any physical activity. However, it's key to note that features are only tagged with `sport` when specifically designated for that activity. For consideration, in the UK parkour is now officially recognised as a sport. If you're not aware, parkour can be

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 23:38, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What definition of 'sport' would you now have? > landuse=sport Applied to the whole globe. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 23:16, Nick Bolten wrote: > Legally, it is. "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual >> impairment (...) > > > Nevertheless, I said low vision. > Potatoes, potahtoes. Actually, now I think about it, that's not a good analogy. Here's what you said:

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

> What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone tries to understand how points of view can be misunderstood and how conversations can go downhill, when each side believes that there is malice on the other. This thread is actually a pretty good example of it ... Yes, of course.

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

I think it is way too soon to summarize a discussion that started less than 1 week ago. If definition C is accepted then: Bicycle riding is an accepted 'sport'. Riding my bicycle is then a 'sport', as I do it on roads and cycleways around me I can then tag these as sport=bicycle. And that

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 02:10, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 24 May 2019, 17:20 by dieterdre...@gmail.com > > what about shooting or chess? Chess clearly isn't a physical activity, > while for shooting there may be discussion. > > Shooting is quite definitely a sport, represented in the Olympic

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> Legally, it is. "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual impairment (...) Nevertheless, I said low vision. > You implied it. I don't believe I did, but I apologize if that's the case. > It sure didn't read that way to me. Or, I suspect, to others. Not in the context of the

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote: I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own. What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:42:18AM -0700, Nick Bolten wrote: > I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an inclusive > community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal accusations so > easily? It hasn't happened on its own. I havent seen personal harassment so far and

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On 5/24/2019 5:27 PM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: (I'm not aware of anywhere in the USA where there are stripes without traffic signs/signals. I'm sure this exists somewhere but if I saw it I'd think that a sign was missing.) J There is at least one such crossing near the Museum of

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> Nothing I said changes the meaning of any existing tags. It does, because the tags did not specify your exact meanings. You're adding them: that's a change. > You seem to be one of very few people that is incapable of understanding the existing tags, and you shouldn’t be projecting your

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> Such purely implied crossings would be crossing=unmarked, and under the "do not map local legislation" rule, I would only map them if they have a physical presence (e.g. lowered kerbs). If we only mapped marked crossings and/or ones implied from curb ramps, then most sidewalks would be

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> AFAIK once traffic lights are present markings are not changing anything (and crossing with traffic lights without markings are really rare, I suspect that almost always result of worn-out painting or recent surface reconstruction). Change anything for whom? Markings and their location/style

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> What sort of feature gets tagged crossing=no? Does one draw a line or node to represent the footway that isn't there? Personally, I've tagged crossing=no on ways either when it's illegal (there's a sign saying no crossing) or when it appears to be very dangerous and it's already been tagged

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> crossing=traffic_signals – there are explicit traffic signals that tell pedestrians when to stop. There are very likely road markings, but even if not, the absence of road markings, in the presence of actual traffic signals, is irrelevant for how this crossing operates. I think the other

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 22:12, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Yeah, there really are combinations around here: > > does it have signs? > does it have traffic signals? > does it have specific pedestrian-facing traffic signals? (Some > intersections just have you cross at the same time as motor traffic in

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On May 24, 2019 4:08:45 PM CDT, Jmapb wrote: >On 5/24/2019 4:28 PM, Jmapb wrote: >> >> On 5/24/2019 4:10 PM, Paul Allen wrote: >> >>> Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? >>> >>> This is a very popular situation in Poland. >>> >>> >>> I knew there'd be at least

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 5:02 PM Paul Allen wrote: > However, they still pose a problem for the blind. With macular degeneration > you might be > able to make out stripes but not see the signals. Which would mean that > without OSM > making a distinction they wouldn't know which type of

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On 5/24/2019 4:28 PM, Jmapb wrote: On 5/24/2019 4:10 PM, Paul Allen wrote: Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? This is a very popular situation in Poland. I knew there'd be at least one.  :) It's common in the USA too. OK, so let me ask this.  Do

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:19, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Can you have zebra stripes without lights or are they only ever present > with lights? > You can have zebra stripes with lights and without lights. > > If you can have zebra stripes without lights that mean something different > to zebra

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:22 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:11 PM Paul Allen wrote: > > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:00, Mateusz Konieczny > > wrote: > >> 24 May 2019, 21:52 by pla16...@gmail.com: > >> Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? > >> This is

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> What can be done here is to basically define that the different crossing=* > values imply default values for various other tags (the same way as the wiki > currently already documents what e.g. crossing=zebra or crossing=pelican > implies). I'm interested in this, in theory, but

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 1:01 PM Paul Allen wrote: > > Have you tried running to the teacher? That's a third option you could > try. Tell the teacher that > poopy-head Paul called you a poopy-head and calling people a poopy-head is > bad and that's > why Paul is a poopy-head. > > Now you can

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> This is not in line with hat others have suggested (...) I think it's in line with what Mateusz suggested, but sorry if I mischaracterized your ideas. Also, apologies to you both because I somehow managed to screw up both names. > and invalidating 2.5 million existing crossing=* tags

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

From: Paul Allen Sent: Saturday, 25 May 2019 06:17 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no crossing=uncontrolled – there are road markings indicating this is

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On 5/24/2019 4:10 PM, Paul Allen wrote: Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? This is a very popular situation in Poland. I knew there'd be at least one.  :) It's common in the USA too. OK, so let me ask this.  Do zebra stripes on their own have any

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

> Does any of this change in a jurisdiction where there is an implied > crossing at every intersection unless posted otherwise? Such purely implied crossings would be crossing=unmarked, and under the "do not map local legislation" rule, I would only map them if they have a physical presence

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

24 May 2019, 22:16 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:09, <> osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au > > > wrote: > >> >> crossing=traffic_signals – there are explicit traffic signals that tell >> pedestrians when to stop. There are very

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:11 PM Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:00, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: >> 24 May 2019, 21:52 by pla16...@gmail.com: >> Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? >> This is a very popular situation in Poland. > I knew there'd be at least

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:15, Kevin Kenny wrote: Does any of this change in a jurisdiction where there is an implied > crossing at every intersection unless posted otherwise? > In the UK you can legally cross just about anywhere it's physically possible (with the exception of motorways).

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

24 May 2019, 22:10 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:00, Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > >> >> 24 May 2019, 21:52 by >> pla16...@gmail.com >> : >> >>> Motorists have right of way if their

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:09, wrote: > The way I see it: > > > > crossing=no – crossing here is not legal/possible > Yep. > > crossing=unmarked – there are no road markings (or traffic signals) that > indicate this is a designated crossing, but based on other factors, it’s a > location where

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 4:09 PM wrote: > The way I see it: > crossing=no – crossing here is not legal/possible > crossing=unmarked – there are no road markings (or traffic signals) that > indicate this is a designated crossing, but based on other factors, it’s a > location where pedestrians

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 21:00, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 24 May 2019, 21:52 by pla16...@gmail.com: > > Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes? > > This is a very popular situation in Poland. > I knew there'd be at least one. :) Motorists have right of way if their

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

The way I see it: crossing=no – crossing here is not legal/possible crossing=unmarked – there are no road markings (or traffic signals) that indicate this is a designated crossing, but based on other factors, it’s a location where pedestrians common cross, e.g. because of lowered kerbs,

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 20:01, Nick Bolten wrote: > How do you propose visitors of the mailing list address responses like > this, Andy? I'm not being sassy: I honestly want to know. > > Should it be ignored, becoming implicitly acceptable to the community? > > Should it be called out, creating a

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

24 May 2019, 21:52 by pla16...@gmail.com: > Have you ever seen a crossing with lights AND zebra stripes?  > This is a very popular situation in Poland. > Motorists have right of way if their signal is green; pedestrians have > absolute > right of way just by stepping on the crossing

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 20:06, wrote: > > > As you said, what others suggested, and what would be a welcome addition, > is to leave the existing tag untouched (it seems to work fine for most > people except you), and tag the special exception where a > crossing=traffic_signals doesn’t have road

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:57, Nick Bolten wrote: > > Yes. I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people. > > 1) I referred to people with low vision. That is not the same as blind. > Legally, it is. "Blind" in the UK legally covers a wide range of visual impairment: The *legal*

[Tagging] Investigation between iD developers and OSM community

Hi guys, I can do the investigation process ( https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pi permail/tagging/2019-May/045523.html ). It may be helpful when you concentrate on the purpose for which the thread "iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transports_platform ways and relations" (

Re: [Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

This is not in line with hat others have suggested, and invalidating 2.5 million existing crossing=* tags (everything with a value different from yes/no) is a complete no go. As you said, what others suggested, and what would be a welcome addition, is to leave the existing tag untouched (it

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

How do you propose visitors of the mailing list address responses like this, Andy? I'm not being sassy: I honestly want to know. Should it be ignored, becoming implicitly acceptable to the community? Should it be called out, creating a long-running petty thread? I've tried both. Maybe there's a

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> Yes. I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people. 1) I referred to people with low vision. That is not the same as blind. 2) I didn't say you hated anyone. 3) The question was rhetorical: the premise is that you don't actually believe that. The hope was that those making these claims

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:43, Nick Bolten wrote: > It's a two-pronged recipe for disaster: make it very difficult to > independently know what to do, then have an often toxic environment for > those who suss out the semi-official, non-obvious place to ask questions. > A toxic environment, eh?

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

> I don't doubt your last sentence at all - but these people are all (in some sense) people like you. They're people that you know personally well enough to meet personally or exchange emails with, or from a geographically-centred community (Slack) that you have both joined. Of course. Though

Re: [Tagging] Tagging buildings that people work in

I can see what maintenance burden this notation could bring, but I would need more information to see what we could gain from it. landuse=* seemed appropriate for most use cases I have encountered. Why do we need to tag this on a building resolution? What data consumers did you have in mind?

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:30, Nick Bolten wrote: > Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched. > Yes. I noticed when you implied that I hated blind people. I noticed when you called me condescending. claims about how mapping these things don't matter, despite the use cases I

Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM

Not sure about the context of this message but Andy's reasoning seems sound. On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 2:26 PM Andy Townsend wrote: > On 23/05/2019 20:58, Nick Bolten wrote (in the "solving iD conflict" > thread: > > OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of > > these

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

> Nick, making it personal also means making it about yourself. You've been self referential numerous times: "My experience with this mailing list" It doesn't, actually. "Making it personal" means unduly making it about someone else, personally. Making them have a personal stake. But even if it

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On 24/05/2019 18:56, Nick Bolten wrote: But Nick, /you/ made it personal. No, I didn't. I named nobody. Nick, making it personal also means making it about yourself. You've been self referential numerous times: "My experience with this mailing list" And yet, this thread is devolving

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

> But Nick, /you/ made it personal. No, I didn't. I named nobody. I kept it fairly vague. I made no references to any threads. I've actually explicitly avoided making it personal. And yet, this thread is devolving into personal attacks. I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of my

[Tagging] Non-orthogonal crossing=* tag proposals: crossing=marked/unmarked vs crossing:markings=yes/no

Hi everyone! I have two proposals out regarding the crossing tag and how it is not orthogonal, leading to all kinds of issues in mapping crossings and later interpreting that data. As currently written, if both proposals were accepted, crossing=traffic_signals/uncontrolled/unmarked would become

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On 24/05/2019 18:29, Nick Bolten wrote: Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched. But Nick, /you/ made it personal. I haven't seen any of the behaviour you claim. You probably need to grow some thicker skin. If you're looking for sycophantic agreement with any point you

Re: [Tagging] iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Hi I don't wish for another thread to go off on a tangent so may I ask you to read this one for my views on the hi-jacked 'platform' tag & the numerous current PT schemas and ask you to contribute there: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/2019-April/002052.html But to

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:18 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Friday 24 May 2019, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > > > Unless you intend to produce further evidence (to which I would > > listen), I consider the insinuation that the iD developers have a > > financial conflict of interest to be highly

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> What you mean by that? Edit wiki once it is useful, link back it at mailing list, update if there is something wrong with it? Yes, exactly! And sometimes the thing that's "wrong with it" is just that it's vague, does not adequately address exceptions, or doesn't have enough examples for people

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Notice the extent to which personalisms are being launched. I'm not going to participate in that, aside to clarify that the quote regarding use cases of crossings and their relevance to pedestrian safety and people with disabilities was in response to both a personal accusation ("obsessive") and

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

24 May 2019, 18:44 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:10 PM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> For example any definition that limits "sport" to competitions or only >> psychical activity is not >> fitting OSM use. >> > > I think you meant, 'physical' activity, although it

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

24 May 2019, 18:56 by nbol...@gmail.com: > Each of these steps could be improved by having better systems in place for > communication and specification. For example: have wiki editing action items > at the end of most discussions  > What you mean by that? Edit wiki once it is useful, link back

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 18:04, Nick Bolten wrote: > This is a pretty good example of some of that unhelpful behavior I > mentioned... > Projection much? There is a toxic habit that's far too common on this mailing list to > speculate about bad intentions and then state them as if they are fact.

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

I could try to investigate and I am neutral because I don't have an opinion on that topic yet. You have just to say it and I will prepare an investigation like pointing out my role in this process and some other things that needs to be done beforehand.Great wishes bySören alias Valor Naram

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

This is a pretty good example of some of that unhelpful behavior I mentioned... There is a toxic habit that's far too common on this mailing list to speculate about bad intentions and then state them as if they are fact. It serves no purpose other than to divide and denigrate and has no place in

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

You make good points. Creating tools for editing OSM is a bit of a nightmare already (we've had many students try and fail) before having to grapple with tag decisions. Here's what you have to do when figuring out how to implement most tags beyond the few "easy" ones like highway=primary: -

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing description

Ok. Changed itSee https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/changing_table Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - changing table - self referencing descriptionFrom: Martin Koppenhoefer To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: Am

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On 5/24/2019 12:44 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: I think you meant, 'physical' activity, although it would be interesting to see an event like competitive soothsaying! If you ask 100 different psychics to identify a Zener card, some will almost certainly get it right! You'll probably have a champion

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 17:02, Markus wrote: > What about competitive binge drinking, it is a physical activity, may > be organized and aiming at expressing physical fitness. > It involves physical activity. I'm not sure that it enhances fitness. It may or may not be competitive. But if

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> iD is not a general topic here, but with the tendency of introducing new tags via presets, sometimes even where there are established alternative tags (...) Sorry, I misstated my meaning. Instead of "the topic of this mailing list" it should say, "the topic of this thread". > I guess sooner or

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:10 PM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > For example any definition that limits "sport" to competitions or only > psychical activity is not > fitting OSM use. I think you meant, 'physical' activity, although it would be interesting to see an event like competitive

Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

> I think if you investigate, you will find that invariably such complaints (including the predictably, invariably going to be used,"toxic"), originate with people that didn't get their way, or associates of them ("didn't get their way" as in: there was a substantial body of opinions that

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a site with "Luxury Lodges"

I would also not classify them mainly according to the way they are constructed. There are all ranges of quality with buildings that are manufactored, from really cheap to really expensive. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

On 5/24/19 11:20 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 15:55 Uhr schrieb Markus > mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>>: > > I personally like the definition by the European Sports Charter > (article 2, paragraph 1a): > >    "Sport" means all forms of physical

Re: [Tagging] Definition of Sport

24 May 2019, 17:20 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 15:55 Uhr schrieb Markus <> selfishseaho...@gmail.com > > >: > >> I personally like the definition by the European Sports Charter >> (article 2, paragraph 1a): >> >>    "Sport"

  1   2   >