On 15/1/20 4:55 pm, European Water Project wrote:
Dear All,
Would it be appropriate to use the tag "seasonal" for a water fountain
(whether tagged as "amenity=drinking_water" or "amenity = fountain and
drinking_water = yes" )?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seasonal
On the
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:16 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And that raises another point, how would you render disused physical
> objects???
> They should not be the same as a physical object that is 'in use', and some
> think they should be rendered, but how is that rendering to be
Since drinking fountains are man-made rather than natural features,
they usually have a date when they are turned on or off.
This can be specified with the key "opening_hours=*" - this is the
common British English term used to say "when is this this feature
open and available".
See
But Deposit Refund Scheme or (sorry, not deposit return scheme) is how it’s
most commonly known.
container_return isn’t clear whether there is a deposit, or if it’s even part
of a reuse/recycling scheme.
> On 14 Jan 2020, at 13:50, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
>> deposit_return_scheme=yes
>
>
Dear All,
Would it be appropriate to use the tag "seasonal" for a water fountain
(whether tagged as "amenity=drinking_water" or "amenity = fountain and
drinking_water = yes" )?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:seasonal
On the natural=spring page, the combination "natural=spring and
On 15/1/20 6:32 am, marc marc wrote:
Le 14.01.20 à 19:34, Markus a écrit :
If i understand it correctly, building=* values describe how the
building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now
used as a pub still remains a building=church.
I fully agree with that.
note that
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski
> :
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer
>> wrote:
>> > Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural
>> > language.
>>
>> Here's how
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 20:21, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> I think that the point has just been reinforced that debates over
> subtle ontologic questions, such as "is the building that the shop
> occupies a shop, or not?" are the usual outcome of this sort of
> discussion,
My point was that the
Le 14.01.20 à 19:34, Markus a écrit :
> If i understand it correctly, building=* values describe how the
> building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now
> used as a pub still remains a building=church.
I fully agree with that.
note that building:use may record the current
Le 14.01.20 à 18:33, António Madeira via Tagging a écrit :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/olive_oil_mill
> What can I do to revive this proposal and implement this tag?
for small changes :
check taginfo if another tag/value exist with the same meaning.
check if the most
Hi!
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 18:35, António Madeira via Tagging
wrote:
>
> What can I do to revive this proposal and implement this tag?
I'm unsure whether taking over the proposal is a good idea, but you
could write a new proposal (see [1]).
However, note that there is already craft=oil_mill
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:03 PM Markus wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 19:44, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > For a vacant shop, I might tag 'building=yes' for the renderer (it is
> > indeed a building, I'm not lying!) and 'disused:building=shop' or
> > 'disused:shop=*' I don't have quite as good an
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 19:44, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> For a vacant shop, I might tag 'building=yes' for the renderer (it is
> indeed a building, I'm not lying!) and 'disused:building=shop' or
> 'disused:shop=*' I don't have quite as good an answer for buildings
> that fall in the area of, 'is a
Thanks for all the replies.
Just a note on verifiability; always assuming they are waymarked:
- for car routes, it's pretty obvious whether it's part of a functional
network (say A8 or E40) or a pretty network (with a nice name and a
roundabout layout)
- for cycle networks, in the cases I know,
Sorry, I didn't get your point, Andy.
The tag was used 32 times, that doesn't seem a "relatively popular" use
of the tag.
Someone using iD (newbie or not) doesn't have any idea on how to map
this structure.
I would like to make a proper wiki and add that feature to iD, but I
never done that and
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:22 PM Paul Allen wrote:
> Yes, I'm aware there are other cartos that may handle things differently.
> But the
> standard carto is the one we use to check what we've done.
Whenever I raise a point like that, there is a chorus of 'don't tag
for the renderer.'
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 19:02, Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
> JOSM warns me that "building=disuse" is deprecated, but doesn't tell
> me what to use instead.
>
> On the wiki, nether [[Key:building=disused]] nor
> [[Tag:building=disused]] exist, and [[Key:building]] says nothing aout
> how to tag "disused",
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 18:12, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> If I recall correctly, JOSM favours lifecycle prefixes
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix, so you'd tag
> `disused:building=*` or `abandoned:building=*` depending on how much
> disrepair the building has fallen into.
>
The
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Andy Mabbett wrote:
>
> JOSM warns me that "building=disuse" is deprecated, but doesn't tell
> me what to use instead.
>
> On the wiki, nether [[Key:building=disused]] nor
> [[Tag:building=disused]] exist, and [[Key:building]] says nothing aout
> how to tag
JOSM warns me that "building=disuse" is deprecated, but doesn't tell
me what to use instead.
On the wiki, nether [[Key:building=disused]] nor
[[Tag:building=disused]] exist, and [[Key:building]] says nothing aout
how to tag "disused", "derelict" or "empty" buildings.
Is JOSM correct, what's the
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 16:46, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, 14 January 2020, Paul Allen wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and
> I
> > > guess
On 14/01/2020 17:33, António Madeira via Tagging wrote:
What can I do to revive this proposal and implement this tag?
Just use the tag?
You can see existing values for "man_made" at
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/man_made#values , and you can
search in there for "mill" or "olive".
Greetings.
In Portugal there are olive oil mills all over the place, as I'm sure
there are in Spain, Italy and Greece. Unfortunately, there's no easy way
to map them on OSM.
I found an ancient proposal for this tag, but it never went forward:
On Tuesday, 14 January 2020, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
> Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I
> > guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no
> >
>
> It's not meaningless at all. It
On 1/14/2020 9:13 AM, Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
Here's how the mappers have seen the tags in question so far,
according to Taginfo:
oneway:foot=no 1267 occurrences (not all from one region)
oneway:foot=yes 89
oneway:foot=-1, 1 occurrence
foot:oneway=no 48
foot:oneway=yes 2
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:35, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I
> guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no
>
It's not meaningless at all. It says that although the road is oneway to
vehicular
traffic,
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 08:50, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> yes, it asks to apply the oneway restriction to foot travel, and the
> oneway restriction is: "only drive in this direction". You do not drive
> your feet, do you agree?
>
> In English, the term "oneway" or "one way" can apply to many
Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski <
ja...@piorkowski.ca>:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
> > Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural
> language.
>
> Here's how the mappers have seen the tags in question so far,
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural language.
Here's how the mappers have seen the tags in question so far,
according to Taginfo:
oneway:foot=no 1267 occurrences (not all from one region)
oneway:foot=yes
>
>
>
>1. Re: Tagging Free Water for cafés, bars, restaurant
> (Jyri-Petteri Paloposki)
> Jyri-Petteri Yes. information regarding on whether or not a
restaurant serves "free" water to a paying customer, is not part of our
project is important and is a factor in my decision on
> deposit_return_scheme=yes
This is trying to include too many things under one tag.
- Joseph Eisenberg
On 1/14/20, Jake Edmonds via Tagging wrote:
> I believe they are schemes where other items also have a deposit, such as
> newspapers. So rather then container_return, how about:
>
>
I believe they are schemes where other items also have a deposit, such as
newspapers. So rather then container_return, how about:
deposit_return_scheme=yes deposit_return_scheme:type=counter/machine
These tags can be added to shops, breweries, recycling centres, etc. Reverse
vending machines
On 14.1.2020 13.39, Sebastian Martin Dicke wrote:
But in some shops there are checkouts, where you can give yogurt jars or
some kinds of bottles and get the deposit refund. I know a shop, where
yogurt jars and some kinds bottles are taken at a checkout, but other
bottles at a reverse vending
But in some shops there are checkouts, where you can give yogurt jars or
some kinds of bottles and get the deposit refund. I know a shop, where
yogurt jars and some kinds bottles are taken at a checkout, but other
bottles at a reverse vending machine. Its usually one checkout in that
shop, in the
On 14.1.2020 13.06, Simon Poole wrote:
Currently I see the usual problem that the discussion is trying to solve
the general problem. Is anybody actually interested in if free water is
dispensed in other than bring your own container/bottle scenarios?
IMO this is also an interesting concept
Am 13.01.2020 um 21:23 schrieb European Water Project:
>
>
> Thanks Hauke
>
> The namespace scheme could work. It is very elegant and clean. The
> meaning of customer in container is a bit confusing... as it can be a
> paying or non paying customer.
>
> I could see :
> free_water =
>
> free_water:container =
bring_your_own is very explicit.
but "provided" or "establishment" is ambiguous.
from my experience, drinking a free glass of water in a cafe is not at
all the same as receiving a container filled with water (I have never
encountered this case).
so the choice should be
sent from a phone
> On 14. Jan 2020, at 10:13, European Water Project
> wrote:
>
> free_water = I think allowing yes is ambiguous and can lead to confusion, but
> if that is what is most acceptable fine. Someone could use yes to describe
> customers.
>
> I would suggest
>
> free_water =
Le 14.01.20 à 10:00, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> if you have to buy something in order to get "free" water,
> it isn't free, is it? It's included.
you're right, I often make that remark in everyday life.
but in osm terminology, how would you inform the private and free
swimming pool for
t? If I saw this tag as a mapper, it would be logical
> > to assume that the oneway restriction did indeed apply to foot travel.
> >
>
>
> yes, it asks to apply the oneway restriction to foot travel, and the oneway
> restriction is: "onl
Am Mo., 13. Jan. 2020 um 22:51 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> free_water_table= or free_water:table= will be confusing for places
> that sell take-out food and don't have tables, for examples small
> fast-food restaurants, convenience shops, etc.
>
> The word
Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 01:30 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> > following this logics, "oneway:foot" means the oneway restriction
> applied to pedestrians, and the result would be no restriction, because
> "oneway" already has no implication for pedestrian
>
> That
42 matches
Mail list logo
