Re: [Tagging] addr:interpolation on highway
The most common physical signage in the USA gives just a number range: It would be nice to have a clutter free way to tag those, in part because they could be collected in bulk by drive cameras and OCR. It's less information than an interpolation line, but still very very useful. Many printed maps show the block ranges. This is very similar to the camp ground situation, where you might know a number range but not the details. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote: In the UK, the class is not printed huge letters. They main thing they are labelled with is the contents of the extinguisher, with a coloured stripe. ie red for water, blue for powder, black for CO2. Then tag whatever's visible if the goal is to help someone find the device: fire_extinguisher:label=Class B/C fire_extinguisher:label=Black Though anyone who consults their smartphone during a fire is probably missing the point :-). Class 8A 55B 75F is for the person purchasing the device, or learning what's available in a facility, not so much for during the emergency. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
On 2015-04-23 18:01, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:31 AM, p...@trigpoint.me.uk mailto:p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: That makes much more sense, and as you say, maps the physical characteristics. The letters seem like specialist knowledge that few people will be aware of. Phil (trigpoint ) But the letter codes are exactly what's printed in huge letters right on the extinguisher. That makes them easily verifiable, and instantly localized since you'd tag what's on the ground in your country. Class A In the UK, the class is not printed huge letters. They main thing they are labelled with is the contents of the extinguisher, with a coloured stripe. ie red for water, blue for powder, black for CO2. Some fire extinguishers also give more detailed specifications for the class etc. But this is usually not very obvious, you would have to look closely to spot it. Note a fire extinguisher can be suitable for several classes of fire, and it may give a rating for each. eg the specification might say: 8A 55B 75F I think it is worth tagging both the materials in the extinguisher, and the class/rating where it is known. And probably worth using different tags for the class in each country. eg something like this: fire_extinguisher:material=water fire_extinguisher:class:uk=8A 55B 75F ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:31 AM, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: That makes much more sense, and as you say, maps the physical characteristics. The letters seem like specialist knowledge that few people will be aware of. Phil (trigpoint ) But the letter codes are exactly what's printed in huge letters right on the extinguisher. That makes them easily verifiable, and instantly localized since you'd tag what's on the ground in your country. Class A Putting the translation into OSM will help exactly zero people use the right extinguisher in a real fire. It would take ages to agree on a scheme, and then mappers would not follow it anyway. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
The fire type is most important, but depending on the material used, it can be used on several types - So +1 for tagging the material first and foremost. Most common household extinguishers in the US are dry powder ABC extinguishers. At the bottom of the #united states section is a conversion chart - and they all lead back to what _type of fire_ is trying to be put out: Regular combustibles Liquids Gasses Electrical Metals Fats So my US ABC extinguisher in my garage would be: Fire_extinguisher=dry_powder Fire_extinguisher:regular=yes Fire_extinguisher:liquids=yes Fire_extinguisher:gasses=yes Fire_extinguisher:electrical=yes Fire_extinguisher:USA_code=ABC Fire_extinguisher:checked_date:old Colour=white Optional for my extinguisher Fire_extinguisher:cert_until:old Fire_extinguisher:signed=no Fire_extinguisher:metals=no Fire_extinguisher:fats=no Fire_extinguisher:label=no My old ABC ones are white, so color doesn't always denote what is inside. Trees are no label color codes in the U.S. The letter codes change per location, so noting if it is UK or NZ or US is important. Many fire extinguishers in public places are signed. In Japan they have cabinets, cases, lockers, little stands with a sign, and ones with a cone hat on top to keep the dust off. They have them everywhere in public buildings, sitting in a corner in a little stand with a little sign on a little pole. http://ec.midori-anzen.com/img/goods/L/4082101826.jpg http://media.mediatemple.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/uploader/images/signs/fire-extinguisher-operating-guide/full_nagoya-shopping-mall-fire-extinguisher-operating-guide.jpg Cataloging the check date could be very useful to some mappers. If it doesn't have a pressure dial and is passed its expiration, it should be marked =old - as it is assumed without inspection the extinguisher is old or expired, and may not be reliable. If it has no pressure gauge and is expired, then it is very important to tag =old/expired - but having used a couple expired ones to put out a fire, I'm glad they were there. For extinguishers with visible pressure gauges, the person collecting the data is the checker, and therefore the data collection date is the check date, since it can easily be seen on many fire extinguishers if it is correctly pressurized. Certified extinguishers have a cert tag that will note the date that the extinguisher is certified to. People managing extinguishers might find that really nice to know if they want to collect the data for their uses (like a fire dept or something). Javbw On Apr 24, 2015, at 3:24 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote: In the UK, the class is not printed huge letters. They main thing they are labelled with is the contents of the extinguisher, with a coloured stripe. ie red for water, blue for powder, black for CO2. Then tag whatever's visible if the goal is to help someone find the device: fire_extinguisher:label=Class B/C fire_extinguisher:label=Black Though anyone who consults their smartphone during a fire is probably missing the point :-). Class 8A 55B 75F is for the person purchasing the device, or learning what's available in a facility, not so much for during the emergency. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
Sent from my iPhone On Apr 23, 2015, at 8:40 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 15:16 +0900, johnw wrote: That’s why I thought informal yet legal spots would be good wording to cover this, and maybe link over to the camp_type proposal here - because with the wording for basic, the first thing I thought about was the legality or designation of the spot, thinking it would influence the camp_site= level - when it fact it is all inside the camp_type proposal. You will have to help me here John, I don't quite see what you are trying to achieve. Here in AU it is, sort of, legal to camp anywhere that is not private property and not declared no camping. I see camp_site= used only where there is some substantial legal basis, (where that is unclear, its camp_type=). * In countries/places where the default is to allow camping, no sign or official endorsement is needed, just lack of a sign saying no camping. * In other countries/places, where camping is not allowed unless its so stated, we'd need to see that statement. So, the term, 'legal' does have a slightly different meaning here depending on where you are. But if we try and define it too tightly, we may well end up excluding some local variation. Not sure thats a good idea. Would it work better if we added a small block that talks about just that, how 'legal' has that slightly different meaning ? That block would be a good place to say camp_type might be a better tag when the legal status is unclear or undefined ? David Basic+non_designated would be a common tag set for small road or track-side camping spots - but often camping at them can be trespassing or not allowed, which varies from country to country. The local variation is in the legalpart I wanted to impress upon people. Some countries have huge areas considered always open for camping. In the U.S. There are no such rules. Even on public land - it might be managed wilderness, a national park or a state park, and all have different uses on where camping is and isn't allowed, and informal camps by the roadside are often trespassing or doing environmental damage that the park rangers try to stop. Camp in marked places only is often noted. There are a lot of illegal informal camp sites in the U.S. They would be informal yet legal in your country. The people using them know they are trespassing or not allowed to be there, but they do so anyways. This is very true in Japan, and if you read blogs about Trekkers or road bikers, they often camp illegally on private property - they act in a nice manner, yet it is illegal to do so. I don't want people to map known illegal camp sites or places they just happened to spend the night and think are nice but are on a farmers private property just to complete the map, as map the ground truth means mapping basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality. People mapping in Sweden may not have to worry, but people in Japan would have to be very careful. Javbw. I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well. I think camp_type=non_designated + camp_site=basic will be used together quite frequently, so reminding people of that is pretty important - it lets voters know why these two proposals go together well. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes
On 23/04/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: you're suggesting smoking as a single namespace, which doesn't apply to vaporizers. Maybe inhaling? On the other hand, smoking is also forbidden when not inhaling... ;-) I think different namespaces make sense here, because they are different things. I fear at this stage we can only agree to disagree : to me using e-cigarettes *is* smoking. I don't care much for the physicist's definition of smoke. It's the social/medical definition that matters here, the one that gets turned into laws and ultimately into osm tags. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
Am 23.04.2015 um 19:01 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: Putting the translation into OSM will help exactly zero people use the right extinguisher in a real fire. why? There won't be a letter on the fire, so you would anyway have to make an adaptation to your situation. The tags won't necessarily be what you see on a map. The problem with classes was, that every region has their own classes, eg an American class B can be either class B or C in Europe while the American class C doesn't exist in Europe. cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path
On 24.04.2015 05:02, Warin wrote: The essence of a modern via ferrata is a steel cable which runs along the route and is periodically (every 3 to 10 metres (9.8 to 32.8 ft)) fixed to the rock. So you certainly agree that this is safer than an unsecured path. Nevertheless, a ferrata cannot be defined by the cable, because not all ferratas are that modern. E.g. the Wildenauersteig has no cable but rungs. Some ferratas have chains instead of cables because the chains do a better job withstanding rockfall, and they provide a better grip. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
While fire extinguishers have various codes ... Extinguishers are placed by the requirements of possible fires in that location. So if you find one local to the fire it should be suitable for use there. Thus added tagging should serve little to no purpose. Sorry to be so practical but people don't look for a map when faced with a fire .. they look for the red triangle that signifies a fire extinguisher location. They then take and try to use it on the fire, no stopping to read codes. === The problem becomes one of function .. 'refurbished' units have a very high failure rate. If you are in that situation .. try it before you drag it to the fire! The thing professional fire fighters go by is the colour ... in an emergency they don't stop to read the codes.. they look at the colour. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Proofread
User Xxzme wanted the recent dump station wiki pages reorganized. Anyone willing to proofread? No tagging changes were intended: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toilet_Holding_Tank_Disposal Unfortunately this messes with the recently translated Russian French and German versions of the page also. Sigh. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path
Some minor things .. overhang ? Should not 'covered' be used? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered Even more trivial ... Oneway .. should include the information that it is on the direction of the way ... -1 for reverse direction. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:oneway This tag should have been passed... Via ferrata should not be lumped into path or footway .. they are very significantly different and cannot be used in place of a path or footway. Would you take a 3 year old along it? On 23/04/2015 7:59 PM, Richard Z. wrote: Hi, there were ongoing discussions concerning this subject so I have ammended the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata#Criteria_for_taging_as_either_via_ferrata_or_path Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes
Sent from my iPhone On Apr 24, 2015, at 7:01 AM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: to me using e-cigarettes *is* smoking. +1 An i-phone is still considered a phone. The rules governing e-cigs will stem from smoking in most places. I'm not going to include BBQs in smoking rules because it happens to generate smoke (some are literally smokers!) and cut e-cigs out because they have a different delivery method for addictive substances. The rules for Asthma inhalers (if they existed) would not be under vaporizers, even though both are methods of inhaling chemicals. I recognize that rules governing them can be different, but they are a subset of smoking rules. They are not as separate from smoking as the rules for if pets are allowed, bicycle parking or no tattoos allowed. Socially, vaping and smoking are exactly the same. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
Jan, are you going to have another try at camp_type= ? I think the term non-designated was a contributor to it struggling. Trouble is, the idea you have here is an important one but one its quite hard to get your head around. David On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 05:05 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: My understanding is that this proposal is about sites that have been defined as campground. The purpose of the proposal that triggered this discussion (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_type%3D*) was to cover places that have not been defined as campground, but that are used as such for different reasons. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 06:47 +0900, John Willis wrote: I don't want people to map known illegal camp sites or places they just happened to spend the night and think are nice but are on a farmers private property just to complete the map, as map the ground truth means mapping basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality. Ok, I have added a section, Legal Camp Sites, to the proposal page. It says legal only. Mappers have responsibility to ensure accurate data where they are mapping ... Please let me know what you think. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
On Apr 24, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: they look at the colour. I agree that the letter codes wouldn't be used when looking for an extinguisher, but it is used for managing them. The color codes are not universal either. Also, here in Japan there are hello kitty fire extinguishers. I wonder what fire they put out. http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Sd55bFa_--/t9mjwszslwfxhxpqn9qu.jpg All public extinguishers are red (with a hose). I've used red, black, and white ones (all dry powder) in the U.S., and in my basement is a sea-foam green one (that's maybe 40 years old). I think it is a water filled one. Color codes only work in certain countries or regions. We may only need to render the extinguisher icon, but the other info can be useful to people checking on distribution or age, or looking to see what ones are mapped vs what exist (like looking for the black wall mounted one) Javbw. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] electric zigarrettes
2015-04-23 0:24 GMT+02:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: Your scheme uses exactly as many keys as mine for a given usecase. The only difference is that I put everything under a single namespace, which makes it tidyer and more discoverable. you're suggesting smoking as a single namespace, which doesn't apply to vaporizers. Maybe inhaling? On the other hand, smoking is also forbidden when not inhaling... ;-) I think different namespaces make sense here, because they are different things. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank
This idea of the linear river way being along the deepest part seems to have been created in this thread. No such 'rule' exists, either in practice, nor in Wiki tagging pages. The normal usage is to place the way along the approximate centre line of the waterway, just as we do with roads. As to the direction, this usually can be determined by watching the water flow, or simply by knowledge of the surrounding topography. There are some problematic cases: 1. Contour canals have no flow. The direction or the way is arbitrary. 2. Canals that pass over summits flow away from the summit reach, so the way must be split into two opposing directions at the point of the feeder reservoir. Likewise at lowest reach between two summits. 3. River deltas often have channels that cross between two branches of the same river. The direction of the way is arbitrary. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
On Apr 23, 2015, at 2:05 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: that have not been defined as campground, but that are used as such for different reasons. That’s why I thought informal yet legal spots would be good wording to cover this, and maybe link over to the camp_type proposal here - because with the wording for basic, the first thing I thought about was the legality or designation of the spot, thinking it would influence the camp_site= level - when it fact it is all inside the camp_type proposal. I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well. I think camp_type=non_designated + camp_site=basic will be used together quite frequently, so reminding people of that is pretty important - it lets voters know why these two proposals go together well. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Way inside riverbank
On Thursday 23 April 2015, Malcolm Herring wrote: This idea of the linear river way being along the deepest part seems to have been created in this thread. No such 'rule' exists, either in practice, nor in Wiki tagging pages. couch http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Driverbank#Old_tagging And note this is absolutely not an unreasonable suggestion. There are many rivers with strongly varying water levels where you can during dry season well see where the deepest part of the riverbed is while the riverbank polygon mapped at the median level covers a larger area. To some extent this even applies to central European rivers like the Rhine. You can also often infer this from where the current is strongest. Nobody should feel bad about not being able to accurately place the waterway at the right location in some cases but the aim to do this where possible is a sound one. 3. River deltas often have channels that cross between two branches of the same river. The direction of the way is arbitrary. On the contrary - this is where direction really matters since in contrast to elsewhere you cannot determine it from the river system structure. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] fire extinguisher class
Hi, it's the first time I write to this mailing list, I am a french contributor interested in train stations. I want to describe more precisely an extinguisher and I have seen the tag emergency=fire_extinguisher that is used de facto. What about adding some details regarding the type with fire_extinguisher=A for an extinguisher class A? Please comment my proposal on the discussion page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:emergency%3Dfire_extinguisher Have a good day -- *Florian Lainez* @overflorian http://twitter.com/overflorian ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
On Thu Apr 23 10:38:13 2015 GMT+0100, Florian LAINEZ wrote: Hi, it's the first time I write to this mailing list, I am a french contributor interested in train stations. I want to describe more precisely an extinguisher and I have seen the tag emergency=fire_extinguisher that is used de facto. What about adding some details regarding the type with fire_extinguisher=A for an extinguisher class A? Please comment my proposal on the discussion page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:emergency%3Dfire_extinguisher Have a good day Class A, B seems a bit confusing. I would not be able to map this without reference to the wiki. I have just checked the office extinguishers and can instantly see one powder and one foam. Neither is labelled with a letter. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path
Hi, there were ongoing discussions concerning this subject so I have ammended the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata#Criteria_for_taging_as_either_via_ferrata_or_path Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
2015-04-23 11:38 GMT+02:00 Florian LAINEZ winner...@free.fr: What about adding some details regarding the type with fire_extinguisher=A for an extinguisher class A? The classification system seems to vary between different regions, see here for a comparison table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher#United_States I suggest to use a more literal tag like fire_extinguisher_class=ordinary_combustibles etc. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
Thanks for the feedback. I am not expert at all on the topic therefore I am open to describe with literal description. I just double checked in my office (in France) and couldn't find easily any literal mention. One the other way the class A and B were clearly mentioned. Therefore I think we will have to create a conversion table. I tried to find an international standard for classes but couldn't find any. Therefore what if, instead of mentioning the combustible (e.g. ordinary combustible) we mention the powder. After all, in OSM we try to describe the physical elements themselves, not the use of them. Therefore I propose the categories mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher#United_Kingdom that are : water, foam, dry powder, Carbon dioxide (CO2), Wet chemical, Class D powder, Halon 1211/BCF An example would be fire_extinguisher_class=water instead of fire_extinguisher_class=ordinary_combustibles 2015-04-23 11:57 GMT+02:00 p...@trigpoint.me.uk: On Thu Apr 23 10:38:13 2015 GMT+0100, Florian LAINEZ wrote: Hi, it's the first time I write to this mailing list, I am a french contributor interested in train stations. I want to describe more precisely an extinguisher and I have seen the tag emergency=fire_extinguisher that is used de facto. What about adding some details regarding the type with fire_extinguisher=A for an extinguisher class A? Please comment my proposal on the discussion page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:emergency%3Dfire_extinguisher Have a good day Class A, B seems a bit confusing. I would not be able to map this without reference to the wiki. I have just checked the office extinguishers and can instantly see one powder and one foam. Neither is labelled with a letter. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- *Florian Lainez* @overflorian http://twitter.com/overflorian ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] addr:interpolation on highway
Am 23.04.2015 um 06:34 schrieb Bryce Nesbitt: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:13 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: Would you need to split the road into two ways, one for the left side and one for the right side, even if the roadway is not actually divided? This would cause a mismatch between the rendering and what is physically present. I would not do that. Highway tagging is only suitable for marking the range (e.g. 101-152) not the side. That's often all that's signed, and there may not be an odd/even convention. You are right that normally an interpolation way demands the overhead of three parallel ways (centerline, left side, right side). Please, no overlapping (overhead) ways, but the street as centre and parallel on both sides the interpolations. Thanks By the way, I count interpolations only as intermediate state and it is often not true for the whole street as you need to split them as soon as one housenumber is missing or as soon as you have additional numbers like alphabetical ones or 114/2. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] fire extinguisher class
That makes much more sense, and as you say, maps the physical characteristics. The letters seem like specialist knowledge that few people will be aware of. Phil (trigpoint ) On Thu Apr 23 13:11:46 2015 GMT+0100, Florian LAINEZ wrote: Thanks for the feedback. I am not expert at all on the topic therefore I am open to describe with literal description. I just double checked in my office (in France) and couldn't find easily any literal mention. One the other way the class A and B were clearly mentioned. Therefore I think we will have to create a conversion table. I tried to find an international standard for classes but couldn't find any. Therefore what if, instead of mentioning the combustible (e.g. ordinary combustible) we mention the powder. After all, in OSM we try to describe the physical elements themselves, not the use of them. Therefore I propose the categories mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher#United_Kingdom that are : water, foam, dry powder, Carbon dioxide (CO2), Wet chemical, Class D powder, Halon 1211/BCF An example would be fire_extinguisher_class=water instead of fire_extinguisher_class=ordinary_combustibles 2015-04-23 11:57 GMT+02:00 p...@trigpoint.me.uk: On Thu Apr 23 10:38:13 2015 GMT+0100, Florian LAINEZ wrote: Hi, it's the first time I write to this mailing list, I am a french contributor interested in train stations. I want to describe more precisely an extinguisher and I have seen the tag emergency=fire_extinguisher that is used de facto. What about adding some details regarding the type with fire_extinguisher=A for an extinguisher class A? Please comment my proposal on the discussion page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:emergency%3Dfire_extinguisher Have a good day Class A, B seems a bit confusing. I would not be able to map this without reference to the wiki. I have just checked the office extinguishers and can instantly see one powder and one foam. Neither is labelled with a letter. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- *Florian Lainez* @overflorian http://twitter.com/overflorian -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 15:16 +0900, johnw wrote: That’s why I thought informal yet legal spots would be good wording to cover this, and maybe link over to the camp_type proposal here - because with the wording for basic, the first thing I thought about was the legality or designation of the spot, thinking it would influence the camp_site= level - when it fact it is all inside the camp_type proposal. You will have to help me here John, I don't quite see what you are trying to achieve. Here in AU it is, sort of, legal to camp anywhere that is not private property and not declared no camping. I see camp_site= used only where there is some substantial legal basis, (where that is unclear, its camp_type=). * In countries/places where the default is to allow camping, no sign or official endorsement is needed, just lack of a sign saying no camping. * In other countries/places, where camping is not allowed unless its so stated, we'd need to see that statement. So, the term, 'legal' does have a slightly different meaning here depending on where you are. But if we try and define it too tightly, we may well end up excluding some local variation. Not sure thats a good idea. Would it work better if we added a small block that talks about just that, how 'legal' has that slightly different meaning ? That block would be a good place to say camp_type might be a better tag when the legal status is unclear or undefined ? David I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well. I think camp_type=non_designated + camp_site=basic will be used together quite frequently, so reminding people of that is pretty important - it lets voters know why these two proposals go together well. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
Good point David. Alaska has that same situation. One can camp pretty much anywhere on public lands. With the exception of parks and native holdings, Alaska is primarily public land. On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:40 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 15:16 +0900, johnw wrote: That’s why I thought informal yet legal spots would be good wording to cover this, and maybe link over to the camp_type proposal here - because with the wording for basic, the first thing I thought about was the legality or designation of the spot, thinking it would influence the camp_site= level - when it fact it is all inside the camp_type proposal. You will have to help me here John, I don't quite see what you are trying to achieve. Here in AU it is, sort of, legal to camp anywhere that is not private property and not declared no camping. I see camp_site= used only where there is some substantial legal basis, (where that is unclear, its camp_type=). * In countries/places where the default is to allow camping, no sign or official endorsement is needed, just lack of a sign saying no camping. * In other countries/places, where camping is not allowed unless its so stated, we'd need to see that statement. So, the term, 'legal' does have a slightly different meaning here depending on where you are. But if we try and define it too tightly, we may well end up excluding some local variation. Not sure thats a good idea. Would it work better if we added a small block that talks about just that, how 'legal' has that slightly different meaning ? That block would be a good place to say camp_type might be a better tag when the legal status is unclear or undefined ? David I’m sure this will come up with other taggers as well. I think camp_type=non_designated + camp_site=basic will be used together quite frequently, so reminding people of that is pretty important - it lets voters know why these two proposals go together well. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proofread
Bryce, I was away and inattentive while this discussion went on, so don't understand ! * amenity=sanitary_dump_station - Standalone facility for marine users * waterway=sanitary_dump_station - Standalone facility for land users Seem to be wrong way around to me ! Why is waterway used for land based users ? David On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 17:17 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: User Xxzme wanted the recent dump station wiki pages reorganized. Anyone willing to proofread? No tagging changes were intended: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toilet_Holding_Tank_Disposal Unfortunately this messes with the recently translated Russian French and German versions of the page also. Sigh. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
Seems great ! Javbw On Apr 24, 2015, at 9:52 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 06:47 +0900, John Willis wrote: I don't want people to map known illegal camp sites or places they just happened to spend the night and think are nice but are on a farmers private property just to complete the map, as map the ground truth means mapping basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality. Ok, I have added a section, Legal Camp Sites, to the proposal page. It says legal only. Mappers have responsibility to ensure accurate data where they are mapping ... Please let me know what you think. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
Dave, I wasn't intending to have another try at camp_type=*. We'll leave on our next trip in less than two weeks from now, so I don't have the time. I also will be not able to complete another voting cycle until I'll be without decent internet again. Furthermore I haven't seen better proposals lately for the used definitions and wording than what is in the proposal now. Camp_type=non_designated is intended to be used under the following conditions: - Camping is legal, either because camping is allowed anywhere except... (like in Sweden) or because the land owner has given explicit permission (from my experience: police stations and mission stations in Africa) - The place has a practical reason to be selected for camping. This can be security or nearby presence of accessible amenities - There are not many similar places in the environment. Places *not* to be mapped: - A place you select along the road to have a spot before it gets dark (any other place will do in a safe country) - A place you select solely for its natural beauty (other places around; don't spoil it by sending everybody there) - A farmer or (African) hamlet that gave you permission to use its land if other farmers/hamlets will likely will do the same or if you don't want to abuse the hospitality of the land owner by directing other people to it I can see camp_site=basic and camp_type=non_designated got together frequently as camp_site=* talks about available facilities and camp_type=* talks about how the place is designated and managed Regards, Jan On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:12 AM John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: Seems great ! Javbw On Apr 24, 2015, at 9:52 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Fri, 2015-04-24 at 06:47 +0900, John Willis wrote: I don't want people to map known illegal camp sites or places they just happened to spend the night and think are nice but are on a farmers private property just to complete the map, as map the ground truth means mapping basic+non-designated camps if there was no mention of legality. Ok, I have added a section, Legal Camp Sites, to the proposal page. It says legal only. Mappers have responsibility to ensure accurate data where they are mapping ... Please let me know what you think. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path
The ones in Japan ( I have seen) are chains. Some routes are easily passible without chains, some are beyond vertical in spots with the chain to climb. And grandpas were climbing them with a pair of gloves. occasionally there were big anchor rings used as handholds. For the easier and crowded routes, no one out on the mountain in Japan had any safety gear beyond a pair of leather gloves. The The upper mountain routes were all serious climbing routes, beyond the help of chains. Signs warning of death by falling were at the entrances to these upper routes. A few people with climbing harnesses, helmets, and ropes were the only ones on those routes. The lower ones - with chains, with 20m diagonal slopes or 3m vertical drops on the trail (and 50m vertical drops off the sides) were being climbed by people in sneakers and garden gloves. So just because there are chains, it doesn’t mean that a person would have any additional gear. I was just carrying 10KG of camera gear for pictures. Javbw On Apr 24, 2015, at 12:48 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: On 24.04.2015 05:02, Warin wrote: The essence of a modern via ferrata is a steel cable which runs along the route and is periodically (every 3 to 10 metres (9.8 to 32.8 ft)) fixed to the rock. So you certainly agree that this is safer than an unsecured path. Nevertheless, a ferrata cannot be defined by the cable, because not all ferratas are that modern. E.g. the Wildenauersteig has no cable but rungs. Some ferratas have chains instead of cables because the chains do a better job withstanding rockfall, and they provide a better grip. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path
On 24.04.2015 02:16, Warin wrote: Via ferrata should not be lumped into path or footway .. they are very significantly different and cannot be used in place of a path or footway. Would you take a 3 year old along it? Did you read the discussion tab? Farratas are not more difficult nor more dangerous than other paths. Where there's a ferrata and a parallel unsecured path in the same terrain, I would take the 3-year-old along the ferrata. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path
On 23.04.2015 11:59, Richard Z. wrote: there were ongoing discussions concerning this subject so I have ammended the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata#Criteria_for_taging_as_either_via_ferrata_or_path use highway=via_ferrata where people commonly use ferrata kits This is an individual decision. I know someone who did all ferratas (difficulty A-E) in eastern Austria without a ferrata kit. I also saw people using a ferrata kit on an easy ladder, and on a short wire rope that is meant as a handrail. There are ferratas which are more than hundred years old. Nobody used ferrata kits back then, because they simply did not exist. a path is way where a hiker can walk without a ferrata kit and without extensive use of arm muscles See above. What's an extensive use? Experienced climbers will tell you that they do it all by technique instead of muscle power. a path should be safely passable without a ferrata kit even in less than optimal weather So we need to delete all paths in high mountains, because they are neither ferratas nor safely passable when icy. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - Criteria for taging as either via_ferrata or path
On 24/04/2015 12:27 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: On 24.04.2015 02:16, Warin wrote: Via ferrata should not be lumped into path or footway .. they are very significantly different and cannot be used in place of a path or footway. Would you take a 3 year old along it? Did you read the discussion tab? Yes. Thank you. I also looked at the photos. And read the main page. And from the wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_ferrata The essence of a modern via ferrata is a steel cable which runs along the route and is periodically (every 3 to 10 metres (9.8 to 32.8 ft)) fixed to the rock. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proofread
Editorials ... The table of Describing the Connection Style ? I'd remove 'Style' ... And then for the table titles key:value Video Description And I'd rather that the description (text) came before the video? The example for a 'standalone boating' has amenity=sanitary_dump_station too. Describing the Connection StyleOn 24/04/2015 10:42 AM, David Bannon wrote: Bryce, I was away and inattentive while this discussion went on, so don't understand ! * amenity=sanitary_dump_station - Standalone facility for marine users * waterway=sanitary_dump_station - Standalone facility for land users Seem to be wrong way around to me ! Why is waterway used for land based users ? David On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 17:17 -0700, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: User Xxzme wanted the recent dump station wiki pages reorganized. Anyone willing to proofread? No tagging changes were intended: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toilet_Holding_Tank_Disposal Unfortunately this messes with the recently translated Russian French and German versions of the page also. Sigh. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
