Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

Thank you for all feedback. The feedback brought forward a couple of valuable points, but in my opinion these points don't require a change to the proposal. In particular, I don't think it's useful to explicitly state in the proposal whether or not customer parking should be included, and will leav

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

sent from a phone > Am 29.12.2015 um 10:43 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer : > > New Urbanism, a conservative retro movement of which besides other the Prince > of Wales is a big fan, and which being more than 30 years old isn't quite > "new" any more) sorry, wanted to write "reactionary" ;-)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

sent from a phone > Am 26.12.2015 um 22:21 schrieb John Willis : > > - but so many of the aquatics centers are going to be part of larger public > facilities like recreation centers or other civic complexes. > > Another good example why we need a government/civic/something landuse(s). no,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

sent from a phone > Am 26.12.2015 um 22:21 schrieb John Willis : > > Obviously the private facilities are landuse commercial (they are a company). it is not obvious (e.g. all retail facilities are companies as well, but are tagged with landuse=retail). Frankly, landuse tagging is not working

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

sent from a phone > Am 29.12.2015 um 00:09 schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > Much rather have sports_centre=athletics;ball_sports ... combinations using > ';' ... I know some don't like that .. but it makes the detail of what > 'multi' actually is. I agree that the well establishe

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

sent from a phone > Am 29.12.2015 um 00:25 schrieb johnw : > > Perhaps more detail on the court.. because having sport:1=foo sport:2=bar > or sport=foo;bar devolves into endless permutations - both in the data and > discussions. the attribute solution is sport:basketball=yes/dedicated...

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

On 29/12/2015 10:25 AM, johnw wrote: On Dec 29, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: sports_centre=ball_sports Perhaps there needs to be more detail on the field - a field type can tell you what can be done - we do that with “tennis courts”

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

> On Dec 29, 2015, at 8:09 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > sports_centre=ball_sports Perhaps there needs to be more detail on the field - a field type can tell you what can be done - we do that with “tennis courts” or “baseball diamond” - but for grass pitches and indoor wooden co

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

On 26/12/2015 7:41 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: tomoya muramoto wrote on 2015/12/26 00:40: Hi, I made a drawing comparison of aquatics_centre/sports_centre/water_park tagging. Is this correct? That would be my understanding as well. However we might need to explore if an aquatics_centre is a spec

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

> On Dec 26, 2015, at 9:30 PM, Matthijs Melissen > wrote: > > For indoor aquatics centres, I can imagine the leisure=aquatics_centre > would normally be placed on the building. This comes back to the landuse=civic (civic_admin /civic_services) discussion. Obviously the private facilities a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

On 25 December 2015 at 22:38, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > What about parkings for customers? Given that it is typical associated > amenity it may be a good idea to also list it after "small cafe or > bar". I had a look at the data, but for comparable facilities such as water parks, sport centres a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

> On Dec 26, 2015, at 8:40 AM, tomoya muramoto wrote: > > I made a drawing Looks great! Thanks for good diagram. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

tomoya muramoto wrote on 2015/12/26 00:40: Hi, I made a drawing comparison of aquatics_centre/sports_centre/water_park tagging. Is this correct? That would be my understanding as well. However we might need to explore if an aquatics_centre is a specific kind of a sports_centre, thus we could

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

Hi, I made a drawing comparison of aquatics_centre/sports_centre/water_park tagging. Is this correct? https://www.dropbox.com/s/35pq8kcld1a9ptj/OSM_aquatics_centre_tagging.svg?dl=0 muramoto ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://list

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

Mateusz Konieczny wrote on 2015/12/25 22:38: "The tag should be used for the entire facility, including all swimming pools, changing rooms, showers, and perhaps a small cafe or bar." What about parkings for customers? Given that it is typical associated amenity it may be a good idea to also list

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 21:42:06 +0100 Matthijs Melissen wrote: > Hi all, > > I have created a proposal page for the tag leisure=aquatics_centre: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Aquatics_centre > > The proposal is deliberately rather basic and does not contain a lot > of d

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Aquatics centre

Hi all, I have created a proposal page for the tag leisure=aquatics_centre: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Aquatics_centre The proposal is deliberately rather basic and does not contain a lot of documentation on suggested subtags, as I'd prefer to focus the discussion on th