Re: [Tagging] Key:visibility

Given good elevation data and feature height, the "visibility" of tall structures can surely be calculated geometrically. Factor in the width, the human-eye factors (angular resolution) and maybe atmospheric distortion and you are there, in an objective sense. The distance will be dependent on the

Re: [Tagging] Key:visibility

Do you mean visibility, or would legibility be better here? Maybe I can see a clock from 100m away, but it is not actually useful until it becomes legible at 20m. You use the word "readable" (=legible) yourself. //colin On 2016-11-28 12:30, Paul Desgranges wrote: > Hello, > > Can we

Re: [Tagging] Proper Tag for Not-a-Roundabout

Wrong - the lights are on top of the priority rules of the roundabout, not instead of them. If the lights are not operating, be that due to a time switch or a defect, what remains is still a roundabout. //colin On 7 November 2016 21:59:45 GMT+05:30, Bill Ricker wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

Are you talking about the "default map", or the underlying data (i.e. the contents of name and name:xx tags)? This is the wrong place to discuss rendering of the default map, and I thought this thread was about the contents of the name tag. It is probably not a good idea to discuss rendering

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

On 2016-10-25 23:32, Warin wrote: > ? You are not proposing removing all the English names from the data base?! > > The entered tags should be left in the data base. If they are considered to be in agreement with the consensus view as to their contents. > How they are used (rendered) is your

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

Imagine for a moment an OSM world without the simple name=* tag. All names have to be qualified with their language, so even in the UK we would use name:en=*. This would make several things clear: * every name is in some language or other - useful for pronunciation, prefix/suffix recognition,

Re: [Tagging] Admin_level=2 for non-independent countries

ce between "independent" and > non-independent should be developed there if needed. > > 2016-10-08 14:32 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > >> Instead of labelling the city itself with capital=yes, consider adding the >> city to the admin bou

Re: [Tagging] Admin_level=2 for non-independent countries

Instead of labelling the city itself with capital=yes, consider adding the city to the admin boundary with a role of "capital". Like that a city can easily be capital of multiple administrative units (it might be a national capital and a provincial capital at the same time) and it stays distinct

Re: [Tagging] Capital=* and admin_level on cities

On 2016-10-03 18:23, Joachim wrote: >> Wouldn't look right for the Netherlands. The capital is Amsterdam, but the >> seat of government (admin_centre) is The Hague. So capital and admin_centre >> are different things here. > > I see no problems giving both the role admin_centre. The naming of

Re: [Tagging] Capital=* and admin_level on cities

On 2016-10-03 16:59, Joachim wrote: > Just a heads-up: the long-term solution is to use admin_centre on > national boundaries. Wouldn't look right for the Netherlands. The capital is Amsterdam, but the seat of government (admin_centre) is The Hague. So capital and admin_centre are different

Re: [Tagging] tagging floodplain

icence. The latter is controversial because of the indefinite boundary, and belongs in the same category as mountain ranges, where we also don't have a way of drawing a sharp boundary. //colin On 2016-09-26 11:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > > Il giorno 26 set 2016, a

Re: [Tagging] tagging floodplain

On 2016-09-26 09:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > > Il giorno 26 set 2016, alle ore 02:00, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> ha > scritto: > >> I don't have my own definition, and I don't want to make up a new one. A >> quick search r

Re: [Tagging] tagging floodplain

On 2016-09-26 01:18, Warin wrote: > On 26-Sep-16 08:58 AM, Colin Smale wrote: > >> On 2016-09-26 00:17, Warin wrote: > Perhaps you could state your definition? > One definition I saw briefly said something about the maximum expected area > ... I only skimmed it .. looking

Re: [Tagging] tagging floodplain

On 2016-09-26 00:17, Warin wrote: > On 25-Sep-16 08:48 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > >> Where would the boundary be? How could we describe it objectively? In low >> lying areas such as the Netherlands there are sometimes so called winter >> dykes which give a sharp

Re: [Tagging] tagging floodplain

Where would the boundary be? How could we describe it objectively? In low lying areas such as the Netherlands there are sometimes so called winter dykes which give a sharp edge to the flood plain. Otherwise it would all be a bit vague around the edges. //colin On 25 September 2016 12:30:50

Re: [Tagging] Sport pitch surfaces: artificial/man_made

On 2016-09-24 16:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > > Il giorno 24 set 2016, alle ore 14:39, Andy Townsend ha > scritto: > > 'tartan' seems the most used, 'artificial_turf' is also used quite a lot > "Tartan" is also a trade name as I understand it.

Re: [Tagging] Sport pitch surfaces: artificial/man_made

F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com> wrote: > >On 24/09/2016 12:59, Colin Smale wrote: >> >> Artificial is what I have seen used and what I use myself, mainly for > >> soccer and (field) hockey. Although there are different types, the >> effect is the same - ar

Re: [Tagging] Sport pitch surfaces: artificial/man_made

"tartan" is for athletics tracks - also a trademark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartan_track --colin On 2016-09-24 14:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > > Il giorno 24 set 2016, alle ore 13:48, Dave F > ha scritto: > >> Artificial' is to

Re: [Tagging] Sport pitch surfaces: artificial/man_made

Artificial is what I have seen used and what I use myself, mainly for soccer and (field) hockey. Although there are different types, the effect is the same - artificial grass. For hockey many pitches are "wet" whereas soccer pitches are "dry", some based on rubber granules, others on sand. Would

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

ten be opposite to the natural flow of the river, is it then completely clear? I am not particularly a nautical type, maybe you could help here? How could the concept of upstream and downstream be applied to canals and lakes? //colin On 2016-09-18 12:00, Malcolm Herring wrote: > On 17

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

in this case, please enlighten me. Maybe an example would help? //colin On 2016-09-18 11:31, Dave F wrote: > On 17/09/2016 16:05, Colin Smale wrote: > >> So saying you can only map these short restrictions by creating a route >> relation for the whole length sounds a b

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

On 2016-09-17 16:36, Dave F wrote: > Clarification: I'm meant a route relation for the whole canal, not just to > define travel direction. That's exactly my point... The whole canal may be hundreds of km long, and the section where oneway vs. flow direction is actually an issue might be as

Re: [Tagging] Use of oneway=yes on waterways

I would expect that the situation where the flow direction conflicts with the traffic direction is likely to be quite short - under bridges, around obstacles etc. In these cases we could always call on our old friend "oneway=-1" or "oneway=reverse" to mean "traffic direction is opposite to the

Re: [Tagging] intelligence services

I am not sure they will appreciate being so easy to locate. Imagine someone printing up a poster-size map of Europe with big pushpins on the intelligence service installations! It reminds me of this: http://i829.photobucket.com/albums/zz216/poodlejumpy/secret_bunker_zpsc3bcd1a1.jpg That is of

Re: [Tagging] Roads with no speed limits

On 2016-09-03 16:39, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2016-09-03 15:57 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > >> That will only work if the road types are mapped correctly to their official >> legal status, and not to how they appear. > > There not th

Re: [Tagging] Roads with no speed limits

That will only work if the road types are mapped correctly to their official legal status, and not to how they appear. The legal maxspeed on a road is (unless otherwise signposted) derived from the official status of a road and should not be subject to "duck tagging". A trunk road may to all

Re: [Tagging] Roads with no speed limits

On 2016-08-30 13:59, David Marchal wrote: > AFAIK, no maxspeed value means that the default maximum speed for this type > of road in this area applies, so I wouldn't add this tag when there is no > sign; Are you sure the type of road *for these purposes* can be derived from the other tagging?

Re: [Tagging] Roads with no speed limits

Is there really no limit, or is is just not signposted? Maxspeed=none sounds like "unlimited" to me, and I find it difficult to believe you can drive at any speed you like. If it is just not signposted, I would suggest either to not tag it or to use the value the law prescribes. --colin On

Re: [Tagging] Multiple values for one key - the cuisine problem.

Marc, there was a discussion about multi-valued keys earlier this year, perhaps there is something in there to build upon. IIRC cuisine was one of the specific examples mentioned. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-January/028320.html

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for standardization of sidewalk schema (+ import)

On 2016-08-02 15:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > legally you can't cross anywhere you like but have to use crossings as long > as they are in proximity. That depends very much on the particular jurisdiction. In the UK it is not illegal to cross the road at an arbitrary point, however stupid it

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

On 2016-07-19 22:01, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>> Il giorno 19 lug 2016, alle ore 20:41, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> >>> ha scritto: >>> >>> If y

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

On 2016-07-19 21:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> Il giorno 19 lug 2016, alle ore 20:41, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> >> ha scritto: >> >> If you need explicit permission, it's access=private, even if there are >> loa

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?

On 2016-07-19 20:21, Kevin Kenny wrote: > Gentlebeings, > > In a discussion today on 'imports,' Martin Koppenhoefer raised a > concern that appears to have no answer in current tagging practice. I > suspect that it's yet another case where a fairly common case in the > US violates a hidden

Re: [Tagging] Bus routes forward/backward

...unless the way is tagged oneway=yes, in which case forward/backward is redundant On 2016-07-11 08:08, Hans De Kryger wrote: > If i remove the forward/backward tag on a section of a way (part of the bus > route) does that signify the bus goes both ways? > > REGARDS, > HANS >

Re: [Tagging] Additions to public_transport scheme

On 2016-07-07 08:15, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 07/07/2016 08:04 AM, Tijmen Stam wrote: > >> It's the place the stop is _in_. > > We usually resolve such issues by looking at the surrounding > administrative area polygons. You will see that, for example, we have > long since stopped

Re: [Tagging] Additions to public_transport scheme

We don't do it for street names... There is a High Street in every town and we seem to survive... You could use geolocation or your own geometry to find the place enclosing (or nearest to) the stop You could use the is_in tag to provide this information (not sure about the status of this tag)

Re: [Tagging] amenity=retirement_home and social facility

On 2016-07-03 02:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> Il giorno 02 lug 2016, alle ore 18:03, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> >> ha scritto: >> >> A commercial website is not the same as a dictionary Commercial entities >>

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

s any default based on administrative boundaries. > > Example 2: Set default for "right turn on red after stop" to true for all > U.S. But then set default for NYC to false. (However "right turn on red" tag > semantics are eventually defined. > > On Ju

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

One of these days someone will introduce the concept of defaults per territory. My prediction is that this suggestion will either get mercilessly shot down in flames, or be quietly accepted, probably depending on who suggests it. //colin On 2016-07-02 18:06, Johnparis wrote: > Ooh, I think

Re: [Tagging] amenity=retirement_home and social facility

A commercial website is not the same as a dictionary Commercial entities can have an interest in not using generic terminology, whereas a dictionary is all about ensuring a common understanding. A "group home" is, to me (UK English native speaker), a phrase consisting of two words, and I can

Re: [Tagging] amenity=retirement_home and social facility

Why not try taking a more objective approach with the tagging? I mean less emphasis on what it is called (which clearly varies widely and is subject to discussion) and more emphasis on what it is, which should be less controversial and give a quicker convergence. One might consider

Re: [Tagging] New tag

On 2016-06-30 09:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > If you put a ref on a shop it is clear that the ref refers to the shop. If it > isn't clear where the ref refers to (e.g. a building, another business or > amenity etc.) there is something wrong with the mapping and it combines > several

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

It's not a question of common sense, it's a question of law... Countries and states may differ, but they will all have a default plus a way of indicating any exceptions. In OSM we tend to omit values that are default; however there is always a way to make the default explicit if one requires.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

On 2016-06-24 11:47, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2016-06-24 11:20 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > >> In OSM there has always been "space" to add new detail. What one person >> finds a ridiculous level of micro-mapping, someone else may consi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

On 2016-06-24 10:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > so the idea is to tag all motorways with the no tag in the UK, and there are > no exceptions to this rule possible (e.g. by putting up traffic signs > "learners allowed")? > > In Italy there is a rule (likely elsewhere as well), that the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

On 2016-06-24 09:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> Il giorno 24 giu 2016, alle ore 08:24, Michael Tsang >> ha scritto: >> >> Learners can drive on most roads, therefore, the default is yes, with the >> exception of motorways where the default

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

On 2016-06-24 08:24, Michael Tsang wrote: > Learners can drive on most roads, therefore, the default is yes, with the > exception of motorways where the default is no. This could be more complex than you realise: What about full licence holders who are learning to drive a truck? What about

Re: [Tagging] Turn Lane Tagging?

I assume "transition" is meant, and not "transit"... On 2016-06-11 23:11, Tijmen Stam wrote: > On 11-06-16 04:16, James Mast wrote: > >> I've been using the "turn:lanes:*=none;slight_right" & >> "slight_left;none" tags to indicate which side a new lane has been added >> on a highway when

Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

I see two parallel subjects here: 1) how do we represent disputed borders and "different versions of the truth" in OSM 2) how do we use that mechanism responsibly Whatever criteria are used for 2), the chances are there is always going to be a need for 1). //colin On 2016-05-19 12:08,

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

If we can't mark polygons as fuzzy, then we can only allow 'accurate' polygons. Then we are back to square one, with no way of accommodating these regions except for a simple node. I think the problem is clear (how do we represent regions whose boundaries are not precisely defined). Time to talk

Re: [Tagging] service = parking_access for main ways on a parking lot

Whatever service=* value is used, we should try to make sure it is related to the construction or topology of the road in some way, and not to the many purposes to which it may be put is the necessity of multiple values is to be avoided. A service road giving access to parking areas may also be

Re: [Tagging] Tagging natural or historic regions

Good question. In the UK the word "country" is also used in that context, for example "Shakespeare Country", "White Cliffs Country", "Black Country". As to whether a node or a polygon should be used... Personally I would prefer an approximate polygon to a node. A node may indicate location,

Re: [Tagging] service = parking_access for main ways on a parking lot

Gets my vote. On 2016-03-26 17:15, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > The qualifier service=parking_aisle was originally introduced [1 [1]] to > structure car parks with a few main access ways and lots of small aisles, > to avoid clutter in lower zoom levels. > > It is highly successful with over 2 Mio

Re: [Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

The status should in some way make it clear to people who use the wiki as a tagging reference whether the contents of the page should be taken into account or not. If the proposal has been "abandoned" but what is suggests has nonetheless entered wider usage, then it is de facto accepted by the

Re: [Tagging] AirBnB

It looks like AirBnB are working on an API, including search by lat/lon. That might be a better integration mechanism for the "click here for more information" use case. https://www.quora.com/Does-Airbnb-have-a-publicly-accessible-programming-API http://airbnbapi.org/#listing-search --colin

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

We will need a definition of "building". Some may consider a terrace of houses to be a single building. One definition I have worked with involves assessing the ability of the "building" to remain standing and usable if the "buildings" on either side were removed. If a house in the middle of a

Re: [Tagging] building=yes for multiple building

On 2016-03-17 08:49, Simon Poole wrote: > - use of one building outline for a complex of potentially more than one > building that are adjacent and not easily divided in to individual > component structures (I had to laugh at the suggested "can stand on its > own" criteria, having seen other

Re: [Tagging] shop=marine RFC

How would you define "small" in this context? On 2016-03-15 11:32, Malcolm Herring wrote: > On 15/03/2016 09:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> and do you go to the same shops? > > Yes. Chandleries cater for all types of small craft. > > ___ >

Re: [Tagging] Draft of proposal tag 'sells' for shops..

that it exists, so we need to handle it (gracefully) in OSM, or explicitly exclude it from OSM. //colin On 2016-03-08 11:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2016-03-07 13:27 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > >> Have to? Is there some law or regulation in Belgium?

Re: [Tagging] Draft of proposal tag 'sells' for shops..

it. --colin On 2016-03-07 20:29, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> Even if this happens in Belgium, it is clear that we have to accommodate >> multi-brand dealerships in our tagging scheme because it most defi

Re: [Tagging] Draft of proposal tag 'sells' for shops..

be objectively justified. //colin On 2016-03-07 16:24, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> Have to? Is there some law or regulation in Belgium? > > I think it's required by BMW and VW/Audi. (or the company

Re: [Tagging] Draft of proposal tag 'sells' for shops..

building. //colin On 2016-03-07 12:57, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> Putting brand=X on a shop would indicate the branding of the shop, not >> necessarily the brands which are sold within. These day

Re: [Tagging] Draft of proposal tag 'sells' for shops..

On 2016-03-07 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2016-03-07 7:50 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > >> For example at present a mapper adding tags to a sewing shop that sells >> sewing machines can have >> >> paff=yes... that makes no sense unless you know Paff make sewing >>

Re: [Tagging] Draft of proposal tag 'sells' for shops..

How about limiting the list to product categories, according to an agreed taxonomy? Particularly categories which help to distinguish one shop from another. For example supermarkets might be expected to sell frozen food, but occasionally they might not. So frozen food would be a candidate for a

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to Change Road Classification, Road Surface, Road Condition, and Add Number of Lanes

In the UK you can add a fourth one to that list - where Royal Mail think you are, for the purposes of addressing post. Doesn't correspond to any of the first three options. On 2016-03-06 16:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> Am 06.03.2016 um 11:28 schrieb moltonel

Re: [Tagging] JOSM preset with strange tag values

Is there nothing for motorcycle clothing? Leathers, boots, gloves, helmets... That doesn't immediately appear to fall under m_parts, m_rental or m_repair. --colin On 2016-03-03 14:25, Dave Swarthout wrote: >> Rather than introducing new tags via editor presets people should "discuss" >> new

Re: [Tagging] Voting rules

Don't forget it doesn't really matter if the tag is jewelry or jewellery. It's about having a uniform way of tagging. Who would vote against that, I wonder? And if both values are currently considered equivalent in OSM, changing existing data from one spelling to another does not change the value

Re: [Tagging] landuse=commercial

a mall, but landuse=shoeshop is too detailed. //colin On 2016-02-19 16:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2016-02-19 14:57 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > >> I don't think anyone is expecting low-level, detailed categories to get into >> OSM. > > are

Re: [Tagging] landuse=commercial

o... //colin On 2016-02-19 14:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2016-02-19 12:11 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > >> If we can get back to basics for a minute: >> >> Commercial means commerce is occurring, i.e. buying and selling. > > just

Re: [Tagging] landuse=commercial

If we can get back to basics for a minute: Commercial means commerce is occurring, i.e. buying and selling. Industrial implies things are being made or repaired, e.g. factories. Zoning is administrative, and may differ from current land use. However it is probably a reasonable indicator of

Re: [Tagging] Wharf

So a mole is a form of construction (massive structure of masonry) which can have various functions (serving as a PIER or BREAKWATER, or both). On 2016-02-17 15:18, Malcolm Herring wrote: > From the IHO Hydrographic dictionary: > > breakwater. A structure protecting a shore area, HARBOUR,

Re: [Tagging] Do-it-yourself versus hardware stores

Couple of comments inline... //colin On 2016-02-12 22:50, John Willis wrote: > Javbw > > On Feb 12, 2016, at 4:26 PM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> John, I think you are talking from your US perspective. > > Yea, this is true. >

Re: [Tagging] Do-it-yourself versus hardware stores

location" Is the "list of hardware stores" the same as the "list of DIY stores"? When would a shop be included in one, but not the other? //colin On 2016-02-11 09:26, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> Am 10.02.2016 um 15:04 schrieb Colin Smale &

Re: [Tagging] Do-it-yourself versus hardware stores

Large stocks of building materials and supporting construction materials is what I would probably call a "builders merchant". http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/builders%27-merchant?q=builders+merchant But note the third example sentence: "The boundaries between builders'

Re: [Tagging] Art galleries/museums

Indications, may be, but no more than that. What it is actually called is subjective - it was a human decision at some point in the past. Politics often plays a big role in that decision... What is *IS* can be made more or less objective by reference to definitions. On 2016-02-11 10:06, Martin

Re: [Tagging] Do-it-yourself versus hardware stores

Are we writing our own dictionary? What's wrong with the OED? If everybody just says what they understand to be the definition, what are we going to do, have a vote on it? Then the US English speakers will probably win because there are more of them. Why not just save time by killing the

Re: [Tagging] Combined defibrillator with emergency phone

free to do so. //colin On 2016-02-06 18:22, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > >> Am 06.02.2016 um 16:17 schrieb Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: >> >> If one function is clearly the primary function of the location (e.g. >> mounting

Re: [Tagging] Combined defibrillator with emergency phone

I would say two nodes at the same location. They are unrelated functions, just co-located. They can have different operators, contact info, etc etc. Trying to put two whole sets of data on one node is going to get ugly. If one function is clearly the primary function of the location (e.g.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discourage tourism=gallery

Thanks Max - that sounds clear and objective to me, and from an informed source. Why don't we just copy this text to the wiki so (with a bit of luck) newly tagged museums/galleries/shops will follow this pattern. Then we can discuss the relative merits of a wholesale retagging of the "legacy"

Re: [Tagging] Formalising shoulder tagging

shoulder:motor_vehicle=* feels better. But you are not allowed to walk on the shoulder anyway, so actually something like shoulder:access=breakdown would be a better start. --colin On 2016-01-30 12:31, Warin wrote: > On 30/01/2016 9:54 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> motor_vehicle:shoulder=*

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

à la fois conseillers municipaux et conseillers départementaux." //colin On 2016-01-28 12:16, althio wrote: > Colin, > > Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Paris > and tell me if it answers your questions and if I understood your concerns. > > - alth

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

What do you mean with "institution"? Is that a single building housing multiple organisations, or is it a single organisation fulfilling multiple constitutional roles? A "City Hall" sounds like a building. Organisations sharing a building probably happens quite a lot, but I would expect that

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

On 2016-01-27 22:54, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: > On 27/01/2016, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> One way, using a "subscript syntax" with a "data structure" construct >> using a "." as a separator": >> lane[1].destin

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

mportant than bakeries, > or vice versa. But I think it's much more useful if the mapper decides > what's the main function, supermarket or bakery, rather than forcing > the renderer to make a choice. > > -- Matthijs > > On 27 January 2016 at 16:09, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

t; ? > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I have created a proposal page as a channel for constructive debate about >> the way forward. I hope you will all take a look and participate! >

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

gt; highway refs would look totally wrong if reversed. > > On Jan 27, 2016, at 11:36 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 01/27/2016 04:09 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > I have created a proposal page as a channel for constructive debate &g

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

A fundamental choice is whether we fix this in the Key domain or in the Value domain. Personally I tend towards the Key domain, as there are too many issues with "semicolon syntax" which compromise its suitability for the longer term. For example, the maximum length is going to be a problem

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

Now THAT I didn't see coming! Is this an alternative to add into the mix? If it was working at an API level, I am curious what considerations led to the decision to actively remove it in API0.6. --colin On 2016-01-27 19:45, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Colin Smale wrote: > >>

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

Hi Marc, On 2016-01-27 20:30, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> Excluding the argument that "that's the way it is now, why change", are >> there any arguments in favour of a value-

Re: [Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

15-11-21-Bazel-Kruibeke/i-KDSHQNR/0/X3/DSC_8025-X3.jpg > > regards > > m > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> Hi Marc, >> >> On 2016-01-27 20:30, Marc Gemis wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2

[Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

Dear all, I have created a proposal page as a channel for constructive debate about the way forward. I hope you will all take a look and participate! Although this subject is a bit more than just a proposal for a new tag, I have used the same template. I will try and flesh it out a bit more in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Remove name_1 and alt_name_1 from wiki)

Indeed, it is filling one hole with another. So how ARE we going to represent multi-valued attributes from real life in an OSM context? I am not detecting much progress on this, just negativity around all current attempts at doing it. //colin On 2016-01-26 17:21, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Removing name_1 and alt_name_1 from Wiki

e value "none" > >For example on German Autobahnen, where you can drive as fast as you >want is "maxspeed=none" which is different from having maxspeed not >set: >this means maxspeed is unknown or not tagged yet. > > > >On 20-01-16 09:06, C

Re: [Tagging] Removing name_1 and alt_name_1 from Wiki

can't think of any tag key which should be stored in OSM with a null value. > > In what case would that add valud information compared to having no such tag > ? > > Gerd > > - > > VON: Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> > GESENDET: Sonnt

Re: [Tagging] Removing name_1 and alt_name_1 from Wiki

Thanks for your comments Martin! On 2016-01-21 12:21, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2016-01-21 11:03 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > >> A few candidates I can think of for incorporation in to the OSM (meta)model: >> >> * date/time format >

Re: [Tagging] Removing name_1 and alt_name_1 from Wiki

It's a great shame that OSM seems incapable of moving its information model forwards. There have been so many discussions about the need for a way of representing multi-valued attributes (as occur in real life) within the OSM framework, and yet it keeps coming back again and again. Instead of

Re: [Tagging] Tagging scrapyards, junkyards

What is your linguistic frame of reference? In the UK, the word "junkyard" is not used often and I would go to a "scrapyard" (or even more likely a "breakers [yard]") for a "new" window for my old car. Far better to use longer, more descriptive words/phrases which are less likely to lead to

Re: [Tagging] Removing name_1 and alt_name_1 from Wiki

are for machine processing, not for direct human consumption; in order to be fit-for-purpose they have to lend themselves to machine interpretation, and that usually means well-defined rules of syntax. //colin On 2016-01-19 19:41, Hakuch wrote: > On 19.01.2016 19:25, Colin Smale wrote: > >

Re: [Tagging] Removing name_1 and alt_name_1 from Wiki

So how do you indicate a missing/empty value in the middle of the list? Does "a;;b" mean a single value of "a;b" or does it mean three values "a", "" and "b"? The "lanes" tag family uses a different delimiter ("|"), sometimes together with a semicolon to make a kind of 2-d array. A double pipe

Re: [Tagging] Removing name_1 and alt_name_1 from Wiki

I meant that there is a value missing "between the pipes", which at a slightly higher semantic level can mean "use the default". A definition which varies according to position doesn't feel well-formed to me. //colin On 2016-01-20 08:10, Gerd Petermann wrote:

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >