On 14/10/22 22:33, Peter Elderson wrote:
Just a remark: I think a mainly decorative object is not an amenity.
An amenity may be near it, or attached to it, but that still does not
make the object an amenity.
Some view works of art as amenities.
A road is an amenity .. yet they are not
On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 at 20:10, Davidoskky via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> I don't think the wall is so important frankly, but let's assume we agree
> on that.
>
> This fountain has the wall and thus is decorative and is amenity=fountain.
>
>
>
Just a remark: I think a mainly decorative object is not an amenity. An
amenity may be near it, or attached to it, but that still does not make the
object an amenity.
An object that provides water for actual use, such as a tap or a pipe from
which water permanently flows, is an amenity. It may be
Am Fr., 14. Okt. 2022 um 12:10 Uhr schrieb Davidoskky via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> This other fountain doesn't have such wall, thus it is not decorative
> and it cannot be tagged as amenity=fountain (assuming we disregard the
> recreational utility mentioned in the wiki).
>
>
On 14/10/22 11:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
no, I see the wall behind the trough with the water spout as part of
the fountain, it is a rock carved decorated wall. Or do you believe it
is there just for coincidence?
I don't think the wall is so important frankly, but let's assume we
agree
Am Fr., 14. Okt. 2022 um 10:22 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
> On 14/10/22 06:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It seems we are seeing different things, I can’t help if you cannot
> > recognize that the fountain is clearly decorated. It is not just an
> > utility,
On 14/10/22 06:27, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
It seems we are seeing different things, I can’t help if you cannot
recognize that the fountain is clearly decorated. It is not just an
utility, the wall is a part, isn’t it?
Yep.. there is the problem ... 'we' see different things even
On 11/10/22 20:03, Marc_marc wrote:
Le 11.10.22 à 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
Am Mo., 10. Okt. 2022 um 09:53 Uhr schrieb Davidoskky :
I would propose the deprecation of the value
fountain=stone_block since it could be tagged as
fountain=driking, material=stone.
There are
sent from a phone
> On 13 Oct 2022, at 18:35, Davidoskky wrote:
>
> It is currently tagged as natural=spring, which it clearly is not since it is
> not a natural formation and it is way too low altitude to be a spring anyway.
ask the mapper who put it, maybe they have more information. If
sent from a phone
> On 13 Oct 2022, at 18:25, Davidoskky via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> It is an old fountain, maybe 100/200 years old, but I don't see how that
> could be defined as historic since it has no historic importance, it's just
> an old fountain.
>
maybe I am using the word historic
why are you sure it is a fountain? And what has it to do with it having a tap?
if it isn’t a tap it will not help if it had one.
I'm not sure about anything anymore...
Maybe it is not a fountain, the problem is that I have no idea how that
could be tagged with the current tagging scheme.
On 12/10/22 10:32, Warin wrote:
I don't think the stream of water is the most useful feature .. it is
the water in the trough for animals to drink from .. horses, donkeys
.. etc.. I am assuming the lower structure contains some level of
water simply by its shape.
No, it does not contain any
it is a historic fountain that IMHO clearly is decorative
In my opinion the fountain is neither historic nor decorative.
It is an old fountain, maybe 100/200 years old, but I don't see how that
could be defined as historic since it has no historic importance, it's
just an old fountain.
I
On 12/10/22 10:36, Warin wrote:
Why not fountain:style=* and fountain:function=*? Could save some
misunderstandings and ease migration?
I was thinking about fountain:design since style is a generic attribute
that might be interpreted in many different ways.
What do you mean by
On 11/10/22 22:38, Marc_marc wrote:
Le 11.10.22 à 11:23, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit :
On 11/10/22 10:22, Marc_marc wrote:
you do not need to have the use of a key "approved for fountains"
that would respect the meaning of the approved tag.
however it would be useful to discuss/approve the
On 11/10/22 23:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
On 11 Oct 2022, at 13:30, Davidoskky via Tagging
wrote:
How would you tag this fountain I photographed the other day?
The water is not potable, the stream of water cannot be interrupted and
definitely is not a decorative
Vào lúc 01:22 2022-10-11, Marc_marc đã viết:
the namespace isn't needed, it's just a bad pratice due to a missing
feature in iD (another editor uses taginfo combinations to propose the
most relevant values, iD on the other hand proposes everything often
without filter, but as I said, it is not
sent from a phone
> On 11 Oct 2022, at 13:30, Davidoskky via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> How would you tag this fountain I photographed the other day?
>
> The water is not potable, the stream of water cannot be interrupted and
> definitely is not a decorative fountain.
>
>
sent from a phone
> On 11 Oct 2022, at 13:30, Davidoskky via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> If I have a fountain that is not decorative, doesn't have a tap and doesn't
> provide drinking water, this fountain cannot be tagged.
why are you sure it is a fountain? And what has it to do with it having a
sent from a phone
> On 11 Oct 2022, at 13:30, Davidoskky via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> This is problematic, since if you only tag amenity=fountain it will fall back
> to a decorative fountain since amenity=fountain appears to be defined in that
> way.
those fountains that supply drinking
Le 11.10.22 à 11:23, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit :
On 11/10/22 10:22, Marc_marc wrote:
you do not need to have the use of a key "approved for fountains" that
would respect the meaning of the approved tag.
however it would be useful to discuss/approve the most relevant values
to describe the
On 11/10/22 12:43, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
or you simply don’t put this detail.
This is problematic, since if you only tag amenity=fountain it will fall
back to a decorative fountain since amenity=fountain appears to be
defined in that way.
I'll repeat the problems with the current
Oct 11, 2022, 12:27 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>
>> On 11 Oct 2022, at 11:30, Davidoskky via Tagging
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Nobody is tagging the specific model type, such as distinguishing
>> nasone from the 1960s and nasone from the 1990s.
>>
>>
>> Should we
Le 11.10.22 à 12:27, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
When we tag a “model” it will sooner or later become a geek tag which
would indeed distinguish a 60ies from a 90ies nasone :D
model=nasone as a 1st step
if ppl want, model=nasone_1960 or model=nasone:1960 or :date isn't
an issue
sent from a phone
> On 11 Oct 2022, at 12:06, Davidoskky wrote:
>
> I do agree, and that is also my objective; but I do like the idea of having a
> very generic value you can fall back to when no other value applies.
I don’t like the idea, because it will only slow down development of
sent from a phone
> On 11 Oct 2022, at 12:06, Davidoskky wrote:
>
> Some are indistinguishable from drinking fountains, some have drinking water
> and can be used to wash clothes as well.
all drinking fountains can be used to wash clothes, although it may not be
legal in some instances,
sent from a phone
> On 11 Oct 2022, at 11:30, Davidoskky via Tagging
> wrote:
>
> Nobody is tagging the specific model type, such as distinguishing nasone from
> the 1960s and nasone from the 1990s.
>
> Should we introduce another key for the style and then tag the specific model
> of the
On 11/10/22 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
this is not a redefinition, it is already like this.
man_made=water_tap describes a water tap.
man_made=water_tap is de facto being used to describe larger structures
that contain a water tap. This wouldn't be a problem if there was a way
to
On 11/10/22 10:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Is it possible that drinking fountain in a given style has
multiple models?
absolutely yes.
Would this be a problem at the current state of things?
Nobody is tagging the specific model type, such as distinguishing nasone
from the 1960s
On 11/10/22 10:22, Marc_marc wrote:
you do not need to have the use of a key "approved for fountains" that
would respect the meaning of the approved tag.
however it would be useful to discuss/approve the most relevant values
to describe the known cases
We would need to approve that certain
Le 11.10.22 à 10:19, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
Am Mo., 10. Okt. 2022 um 09:53 Uhr schrieb Davidoskky :
I would propose the deprecation of the value fountain=stone_block
since it could be tagged as fountain=driking, material=stone.
There are many fountains made of stone, but not
Am Di., 11. Okt. 2022 um 10:24 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
>
> Is it possible that drinking fountain in a given style has multiple models?
>
absolutely yes.
Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Le 11.10.22 à 09:48, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit :
we just need to approve that it should be used for fountains as well.
you do not need to have the use of a key "approved for fountains" that
would respect the meaning of the approved tag.
however it would be useful to discuss/approve the
Oct 11, 2022, 09:48 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
>> Of course, this is not the key I'm actually proposing. I just don't want to
>> get in another discussion about semantics and thus I would like to simply
>> discuss the need of such a key without defining the actual name.
>>
>> If people
Am Mo., 10. Okt. 2022 um 09:53 Uhr schrieb Davidoskky via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> I do not believe
> anymore that man_made=water_tap should be deprecated but rather
> redefined to only describe the tap of a fountain and not the whole
> fountain.
>
this is not a redefinition, it
On 10/10/22 10:45, Marc_marc wrote:
it's vague and overlap drinking at least
Sorry, I didn't notice this and thus didn't reply to you before.
I want this to be a more generic value than drinking: thus if you're
unsure whether a fountain is a drinking fountain you can tag it as utility.
If
Of course, this is not the key I'm actually proposing. I just don't
want to get in another discussion about semantics and thus I would
like to simply discuss the need of such a key without defining the
actual name.
If people agree that such key is required I will then try to find,
I do not like very much at all the key
"new_key_describing_fountain_style" — if that is really a literal key
you (Davidoskky) are proposing here. If it is a place-holder for what
we eventually decide upon FOR the semantics of that key, then OK, I'm
nodding my head and continue to listen /
On Oct 10, 2022, at 3:22 PM, Davidoskky via Tagging
wrote:
>> Don't think it really needs anything more than you said earlier:
>>
>> amenity=fountain + fountain=decorative / utility / drinking
>>
>> should cover it?
Graeme, no, this isn't enough, as it oversimplifies too much.
> No, this is
Don't think it really needs anything more than you said earlier:
amenity=fountain + fountain=decorative / utility / drinking
should cover it?
No, this is not enough to cover the features that are currently tagged,
thus this would be a regression.
Currently you can tag nasone, toret,
On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 19:19, Davidoskky via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
> Would simply style work?
>
Don't think it really needs anything more than you said earlier:
amenity=fountain + fountain=decorative / utility / drinking
should cover it?
Thanks
Graeme
water_tap=yes/no already exist and I see no value to change
from water_tap=* to tap=*
I cannot find water_tap=* on the wiki, anyway taginfo shows 166 elements
tagged as water_tap=* and 470 tagged as tap=*.
I also find that you spread yourself too thinly by talking about
ideas that you
Le 10.10.22 à 09:49, Davidoskky via Tagging a écrit :
Introduction of the generic value fountain=utility, that describes the
fountain as non-decorative.
it's vague and overlap drinking at least
I'm unsure fountain:style is the best name for the key to describe those
fountains; if you have a
43 matches
Mail list logo
