Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

+1 On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:45 AM David wrote: > "I think this should be resolved with lots and lots of photos.." > > I think it would be a mistake to put too much emphasis on photos. In my > experience, photos very rarely show the true "usability" of a road or > track. It does really need to b

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

- Of course it is not tourism, but amenity: it is not a goal by itself, but an amenity of something larger. There probably more reception desks at industrial compounds etc. than at campsites; - If you can't tag it as an area you still will place the note as accurately as possible whe

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

+1 On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:05 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2015-03-12 2:53 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt : > >> >> The level of opposition -- regardless of the technical count -- indicates >> the proposal can use some improvement. >> I urge any person getting this level of opposition to recons

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

There are two fundamental approaches to this and I believe that in this discussion the two are mixed: 1. The physical status of the road is described as well as possible and it is left to the receiver of this information to judge if he/she can use the road. This is quite complex as many p

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

mation. Honestly, while not very clear, the pictures look about right > to me. > > David > . > > Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > > >On 11.03.2015 17:29, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > >> Perhaps we can extend the library of pictures in the wiki to give > people a > &

Re: [Tagging] Current status of the key smoothness=*

I fully agree with Martin. Availability of a tag like this is very important. I have to be able to enter a value while I am driving without sophisticated measuring equipment. I rather have a rating that is one step off on the scale than no rating at all. Many of these roads are in areas where few

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

for the proposal as it is a bit more in the paragraph "Tagging". Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:13 PM Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > There a "move page" link that leads to Special:MovePage, for renaming > pages. >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

Hi Bryce, How can I rename the wiki? Do I need to create a new one and copy/paste the contents? Regards, Jan On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:32 PM Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > Jan, > > I think it would help if you renamed the page title in the wiki, and > edited the text of the proposal for clarity. > Th

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

hop is the better alternative. It remains a bit fuzzy, just like the real world. I have tried to explain that in the updated proposal. Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 7:15 PM Andreas Goss wrote: > Was this RFC ever submitted to the mailinglist? > > Shop sounds a bit s

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage

As the comments period is over and no comments have been received lately I would like to move the proposal shop=storage to stage voting. I have done some final editing to cover the received feedback. Instructions for vot

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Reception Desk

+1 On Sun, Mar 8, 2015, 23:09 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/03/2015 1:22 AM, Andreas Goss wrote: > > Why do you even bother with a proposal when you bascially don't care > > about tagging? > > I care to get good, if not the best, tags. I try to get ideas for these > from the taggin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - register

When you enter a National Park in a country in Africa you usually have to register with the gatekeeper (not the same as the ticket counter) On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:47 PM Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > On 06.03.2015 12:09, Paul Johnson wrote: > > May be related to the United States Department of A

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk

Why not? On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:54 PM Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Time to vote .. on a fairly simple thing .. >> > > > Why does reception disk already appear in: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity > > And the

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule

s here <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent#Voting> . Regards, Jan van Bekkum ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D* Regards, Jan On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:49 AM David Bannon wrote: > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 13:35 +0000, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > Jan, for a non English speaker, you put it very well ! > > I agree with what you have said except, perhaps dropping the voti

Re: [Tagging] Wiki vote threshold

r definition under what condition a proposal passes. For example what are *significant *negative comments? In summary I doubt if the proposed changes will bring an improvement, but I wonder if we need voting at all, or only the preceding discussion. Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue, Mar 3, 2

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:waste_collection

*Ones that won't annoy those who lurk silently until voting time ?* Well said! On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:24 AM Dave Swarthout wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:07 PM, David Bannon > wrote: > >> I agree with Jan in that a small set of (universally acceptable) values >> would make the proposal m

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:waste_collection

Warin, Don't you van a few possible values that create little controversion to be included in the proposal. The ones that cause more discussion can be added later. In this way you have a complete proposal without losing the main key because of disagreement about proposed values. On Mon, Mar 2, 20

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

I have adapted the proposal to reflect the results of this discussion. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:53 AM, johnw wrote: > > On Feb 24, 2015, at 2:26 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > > >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

*Camping categories* >From this discussion I propose to maintain three categories, but name them as listed below. I give examples from own experience from our overland trip from the Netherlands to South Africa in an attempt to answer the question why we would want them on the map: - Designated:

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

The proposal <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent>has been updated to reflect the outcome of the discussion. Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer

[Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings

Please have a look at this <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site%3D*> proposal. Regards, Jan van Bekkum ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

You never can do it fully correct: - The breakfast restaurant in a two-star hotel just for residents is an amenity - A restaurant in a five-star hotel has to be present to qualify the for five stars, just like a gym, so it is an amenity, although you have to pay separately for the s

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

bruary 20, 2015 4:34:16 PM John Willis wrote: > >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Feb 20, 2015, at 9:47 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer >> wrote: >> >> >> 2015-02-20 13:42 GMT+01:00 Jan van Bekkum : >> >>> So it would become: >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

Sure, see my feedback there. On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 9:35:43 AM François Lacombe wrote: > Hi, > > I've put some feedbacks on the Talk page of this proposal. > > It would be good to discuss those points before the vote start. > > > Cheers. > > *François Lacombe* > > fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

Thanks again, makes sense. What is the best way to map what vehicles the storage is intended for? motorcar=yes? Access=motorcar, access=caravan would duplicate the key So it would become: shop=vehicle_storage covered=yes motorcar=yes caravan=yes On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 9:35:09 AM johnw wrote: >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

shops are not delivering a service, but goods only; this is comparable with other types of parking Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Fri Feb 20 2015 at 5:09:59 AM Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:22 PM, johnw wrote: > >> I think he’s trying to say that “a storage

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - parking=storage: additional values for key parking

Please have a look at this feature proposal <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage> . *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetm

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station. My main reason is that it consistent with the existing system and that there will not be yet another node if more than one type of waste is collected. On Wed Feb 18 2015 at 4:52:39 AM David Bannon wrote: > On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 08:52 +1100, Warin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

to empty waste water tanks that are fixed in the car Or do you also want to cover split collection of glass, plastic, organic material, etc.? Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 12:16:29 PM Dave Swarthout wrote: > I'm lurking but you know where I stand on this tag. &g

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

- The community supply is not reliable and fails at random moments *during the day...* On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 7:09:33 AM Jan van Bekkum wrote: > The proposal comes from experience while traveling through Africa. > Electricity failing three times per year probably isn't ve

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

than power_supply:schedule= intermittent? Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 4:32:54 AM David Bannon wrote: > On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 20:47 +0100, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > > Please comment the proposal to add the value intermittent to the key > > power_supply. > > > Jan, good move,

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

Please comment the proposal <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent>to add the value *intermittent *to the key* power_supply.* Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoor

<    1   2