Re: [Tagging] service= tag confusion

johnw wrote on 20.10.2014 05:21: > On Oct 20, 2014, at 11:22 AM, Jack Burke wrote: >> However, on the wiki page for the service tag >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:service >> it only mentions its use for highways, railways and waterways. > There are several other uses of the service ke

Re: [Tagging] service= tag confusion

2014-10-20 4:22 GMT+02:00 Jack Burke : > Is service a valid tag to use with shop=car_repair, and the wiki page for > service is deficient? Or is the wiki page for shop=car_repair in error? Maybe using the service namespace to create more specific tags would be more inline with the current tagg

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - (brickkiln)"

2014-10-19 7:10 GMT+02:00 Megha Shrestha : > Thank you for the suggestion. These are the details that are already > available to us and I think they can be huge help if made open which is the > reason for me to suggest this tag. I have gone through your suggestions and > will make the required edi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap

2014-10-18 23:20 GMT+02:00 Konstantin Karapetyan : > I have already corrected the proposal from man_made to amenity following > the suggestion at > https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/27869/how-to-tag-water-taps-not-intended-for-drinking-water. > So this is fixed. > IMHO this doesn't fix it

Re: [Tagging] service= tag confusion

I see from the page history that I added service=* to the wiki page, but I'm sorry to say I cannot remember exactly why. :( While service=* is definitely in use with car repair shops, it does seem to create the possibility of confusion. I'd be happy to at least change the wording to indicate this,

Re: [Tagging] [openstreetmap-carto] Drop rendering for landuse=field (#1074)

2014-10-20 13:50 GMT+02:00 Rovastar : > Sorry for derailing this I know it should be on tagging. > +1, I copied tagging so we can continue ;-) > > Landcover is from what I can see a pet project of yours and with minimum > adoption. > it is true that I have started using landcover and am advoca

Re: [Tagging] sport= non-physical tags and the exceptions people come up with...

2014-10-18 15:42 GMT+02:00 Andreas Goss : > Can you please stop trying to come up with exceptions for the sport= tag? > would you mind rephrasing this? I don't understand what you want to tell us, and I guess others feel similar, given that nobody has replied in the past 2 days... cheers, Marti

Re: [Tagging] cleanup of the key natural

2014-10-17 19:25 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann : > A cave is a hollow mould, thus a landform (or a georelief element, or > whatever). > I own several books on geomorphology, and each of them has a chapter on > caves. > > > If we did what you propose it would still be arbitrarily divided as there >

Re: [Tagging] cleanup of the key natural

On 20.10.2014 17:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > I propose to put beach in landforms and cave in water-related. Also > coastline could go into landforms. And moor into landforms. And mud in > water-related. What about putting fell into landforms? ... Most known caves are dry. I know because I hav

Re: [Tagging] sport= non-physical tags and the exceptions people come up with...

would you mind rephrasing this? I don't understand what you want to tell us, and I guess others feel similar, given that nobody has replied in the past 2 days... Using sport=scuba_diving for a dive spot. That would be like using sport=soccer for a soccer field without using leisure=pitch. And i

Re: [Tagging] sport= non-physical tags and the exceptions people come up with...

2014-10-20 19:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Goss : > would you mind rephrasing this? I don't understand what you want to tell >> us, and I guess others feel similar, given that nobody has replied in >> the past 2 days... >> > > Using sport=scuba_diving for a dive spot. That would be like using > sport=socc

Re: [Tagging] sport= non-physical tags and the exceptions people come up with...

Am 20.10.2014 20:37, schrieb Janko Mihelić: > > What people probably want to tag are waters that are interesting to > scuba divers. Maybe we should make a tag like > leisure=scuba_diving_attraction. . I beg to differ, there is a fairly wide range of restrictions at least on inland bodi

Re: [Tagging] sport= non-physical tags and the exceptions people come up with...

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Janko Mihelić wrote: > What people probably want to tag are waters that are interesting to scuba > divers. Maybe we should make a tag like leisure=scuba_diving_attraction. > I haven't followed this thread but Janko's comment reminded me that of dive sites that I

Re: [Tagging] sport= non-physical tags and the exceptions people come up with...

Leisure=scuba_diving would be ok to me. Let the divers refine the particular attraction according to their practice. Le 20 octobre 2014 22:19:14 CEST, Clifford Snow a écrit : >On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Janko Mihelić >wrote: > >> What people probably want to tag are waters that are inter

[Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=mall versus shop=shopping_centre

Dear all, We have currently two tags with a closely related, if not identical, meaning: shop=mall (26 643 instances) and shop=shopping_centre (182 instances). Is there a difference between these two tags, or should we deprecate shop=shopping_centre in favour of shop=mall? -- Matthijs __

[Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=stationery, shop=office_supplies

Dear all, We have currently two tags with a closely related, if not identical, meaning: shop=stationery (8038 instances) and shop=office_supplies (177 instances). Is there a difference between these two tags, or should we deprecate shop=office_supplies in favour of shop=stationery? For example,

Re: [Tagging] sport= non-physical tags and the exceptions people come up with...

+1 for leisure=scuba_diving_attraction or better yet, leisure=divespot and define the attraction or divespot further with subkeys On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Yves wrote: > Leisure=scuba_diving would be ok to me. > Let the divers refine the particular attraction according to their > practice

Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=stationery, shop=office_supplies

I don't think there's much difference in reality as both sell paper, pens, ink and etc. However, the newer office supply places like Staples and Office Max are superstores that sell desks, computers, and other office furniture as well. When I think of stationary shops I think of smaller, more intim

Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=stationery, shop=office_supplies

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Matthijs Melissen wrote: > We have currently two tags with a closely related, if not identical, > meaning: shop=stationery (8038 instances) and shop=office_supplies > (177 instances). > > Is there a difference between these two tags, or should we deprecate > shop=

Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=stationery, shop=office_supplies

When I think of a stationery shop, I think of something like a FedEx Office minus the copiers and shipping. When I think of an office supply store, I think of something like Office Depot, Office Max or Staples, which also sell office furniture, computers, adding machines, filing cabinets, etc. On

Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=mall versus shop=shopping_centre

At least in the USA, mall usually refers to a group of stores around a pedestrian-only courtyard, often with a common roof over both the stores and the courtyard space, and sharing a common parking lot. Shopping center usually refers to a linear or C-shaped group of stores, with a common parking

Re: [Tagging] service= tag confusion

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:58:20AM -0500, Brad Neuhauser wrote: > EDIT: looking into this further, service=tyres|dealer|parts|repair, which > are the largest usage of the car repair-service tags (500-1800 uses, > depending), all have wiki redirects to the Russian shop=car page ( > http://wiki.opens

Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=stationery, shop=office_supplies

I haven't noticed one for several years, but there used to be stores that specialized in selling greeting cards and small ornamental gifts. Hallmark greeting cards had a retail chain. On October 20, 2014 7:34:19 PM CDT, Paul Johnson wrote: >When I think of a stationery shop, I think of somethi

Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=stationery, shop=office_supplies

I know I have used office_supply for Staples. When I looked it up in the wiki, the stationery page did not include the examples of the office superstores and my impression was that it was intended for smaller shops, including the Hallmark shops that John mentions. I considered Staples to be differe

Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=stationery, shop=office_supplies

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Toby Murray wrote: > I know I have used office_supply for Staples. When I looked it up in the > wiki, the stationery page did not include the examples of the office > superstores and my impression was that it was intended for smaller shops, > including the Hallmar

Re: [Tagging] Pre-RFC: shop=mall versus shop=shopping_centre

I'm thinking this is a shopping mall , and this is a shopping center . Not to be confused with a mall . On Mon, Oct