Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

[Dudley Ibbett]

landuse=flowerbed already exists in the wiki.  Personally I would just use this 
but if another tag is to be developed one consideration with regard to using an 
"landuse" tag is, should it be more widely applicable?

"landuse=ornamental_planting" for example with another tag to describe the type 
of plant, i.e. flower, shrub, grass etc. would allow it to be used much more 
widely.

Regards

Dudley 



  

From: jo...@mac.com
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 19:54:56 +0900
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)


On Dec 1, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
2015-12-01 9:02 GMT+01:00 John Willis :
So landuse=ornamental_flowers is the current value I will propose, as it has no 
size connotations

yes, it has no size connotations, but it is about "ornament"? Or am I 
misreading this? 
You keep speaking of "flower fields", so I think this is the tag to go.

well, ornamental flowers are flowers that are for display purposes. Flower 
fields sounds like it is just for flowers in a large field, rather than an area 
of flowers for all sizes. I liked the suggested value of ornamental_flowers.
Do you think there is a need for a landuse=flowerbed and landuse=flower_field? 
I thought landuse=ornamental flowers would cover both quite well. 
thoughts?

___
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 - Level:ref=*

[Simon Poole]

Am 30.11.2015 um 10:26 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
> 2015-11-29 22:05 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole  >:
>
> I would rather be looking for something that fits in with SIT
> (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Simple_Indoor_Tagging) better.
>
>
>
> I don't see why this doesn't integrate. E.g. your example
> shop=supermarket
> level=0
>
> could have the tags added:
> level:ref=EG
> level:name=Erdgeschoss
>

In a typical mall (were the non-floor plan variant is most  useful) you
can easily have 20, 30 shops per level.

> This might look unneccessary at first glance (and in many cases it
> is), but there are cases with particular floor numbering and naming
> schemes where it is helpful.
>
>  
>
> Since SIT works really well (see OpenLevelUp),
>
>
>
> The min_level-idea doesn't work AFAIK in all cases, where storey
> heights of adjacent buildings are different and they are connected by
> a bridge, and more general, it doesn't work where levels aren't simply
> stacked and uniform for the whole part/buidling but are inclined or
> have varying absolute elevations in different rooms (e.g. connected by
> a ramp). The min_level of which building should apply? I still suggest
> to use building_levels for the amount of all levels of that building
> part / building, not the concept of "building_levels=min_level of a
> neighbouring building until first level+amount of building levels of
> the part that is tagged".
>
> Also buildings with varying floor heights are not depictable (AFAIK).

SIT is not intended as a replacement for S3DB which you seem to be
implying and I'm not quite sure why you believe you can't model a
connection between two floors potentially with different numbering
schemes  in two different buildings given that the numbering -is- local
to the building or building:part.

Simon


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-12-01 8:15 GMT+01:00 Dudley Ibbett :

> In the context you are describing (park, garden) these would be
> "landuse=flowerbed".  There is no size restriction.  I.e. They may look
> like an "open field".  There appears to be a wiki entry for this tag
> already.
>
> If it is farmland being used to grow ornamental flowers for display then
> it would probably be a type of meadow.
>



I would see it as flowerbed if the flowers are set in an ornamental way
(geometrically), but less in case of an "open field" where the borders are
smooth / not distinct.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=bicycle_repair_station

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Andy Townsend  wrote:
>
> My first thought is that even fewer people will understand what this is
> than understand what a "bicycle repair station" is.  As I said back in
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-November/027436.html
> I'd suggest that you try and understand what's happening rather than just
> picking another key name and hoping for the best.
>

I've now interacted with over a dozen mappers who used the original tag in
novel and interesting ways.  The old tag is interpreted wrongly across
continents, cultures and languages.
*I feel that I screwed up naming the tag in the original proposal, and now
I want to fix it.*

-
I think most people have never encountered a self-service stand with bike
tools.  It's just not in their mental set.  Thus when the tag shows up in
their editor, they mentally map it to the thing they are actually mapping.

One of the nice things about the proposed schema is that it involves
*correctly* making *two* tagging operations
(the generic tool stand tag, plus the type of tools offered).  Any node
mapped without *both* is mechanically findable, and allows for deeper
investigation of mapper intent, and perhaps mapper-to-mapper
communication.  It raises the bar past the level of "iD brought this tag up
for me to use".


My goal is to enable mobile apps useful to a stranded cyclist. * Thus
accuracy is key.*
The data is also used commercially (
http://www.dero.com/fixitmap/fixitmap.html - despite the lack of
attribution).
And in apps such as http://www.bikeaidapp.com/.

The current growth in awareness the tag is encouraging, but the error rate
is pointing toward eventual failure and irrelevance.
I'm not going to walk a mile with a broken bike, unless I'm pretty sure the
map is reliable.

-
The scope of the tag is meant to be DIY tool stands, usually free, usually
open 24/7 or as long as the enclosing facility. Examples:

   - Bike tool stands (such as a "Dero Fixit" installed near bike trails)
   - Skateboard repair tools at a skatepark.
   - Ski/Snowboard tuning stations at ski areas or along winter trails.
   - Perhaps tools for removal or bending of fish hooks, at a fish cleaning
   station.
   - Maybe eyeglass repair tools, freely made available by an optometrist?

Tool lending libraries (
https://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org/locations/tool-lending-library ) are
certainly interesting to map, but probably something different, as the
tools do not remain fixed in place.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-12-01 9:02 GMT+01:00 John Willis :

> So landuse=ornamental_flowers is the current value I will propose, as it
> has no size connotations



yes, it has no size connotations, but it is about "ornament"? Or am I
misreading this?
You keep speaking of "flower fields", so I think this is the tag to go.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-12-01 5:18 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> Better might be: nodes (the node should be placed in the centre of the
> area occupied by the adoption agency)



you can also use an area instead of the node. An area has certain
advantages (says something about the size, can contain further objects like
areas and nodes) and some disadvantages (more work to draw, more complex to
edit) and requires more information (an idea about the extent of the thing).


I think an 'adult' cannot be 'adopted' - they are legally independent - not
> subject to guardianship by parenting.
>

it is not about legal dependency or guardianship, but rather about titles
and inheritance rights. Wikipedia has a short article on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_adoption

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

[John Willis]

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Dudley Ibbett  wrote:
> 
> landuse=flowerbed

To me, flowerbed has connotations of a little area beside a house.  

I also think purpose should be there (to avoid the farm/farmyard issue),

So landuse=ornamental_flowers is the current value I will propose, as it has no 
size connotations - but purpose is strictly defined - it is for viewing, not as 
a crop for commercial harvest (sale/food).

Javbw
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

[johnw]

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 2015-12-01 9:02 GMT+01:00 John Willis >:
> So landuse=ornamental_flowers is the current value I will propose, as it has 
> no size connotations
> 
> 
> yes, it has no size connotations, but it is about "ornament"? Or am I 
> misreading this? 
> You keep speaking of "flower fields", so I think this is the tag to go.

well, ornamental flowers are flowers that are for display purposes. Flower 
fields sounds like it is just for flowers in a large field, rather than an area 
of flowers for all sizes. I liked the suggested value of ornamental_flowers.

Do you think there is a need for a landuse=flowerbed and landuse=flower_field? 
I thought landuse=ornamental flowers would cover both quite well. 

thoughts?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - tag: office=adoption_agency

[Dominic Coletti]

>
> it is not about legal dependency or guardianship, but rather about titles
> and inheritance rights. Wikipedia has a short article on it:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_adoption
>
​That is correct, but note that there are no adoption agencies for adults,
it is predominately handled in probate court or other courts (see Wikipedia
article)​


On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:35 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> 2015-12-01 5:18 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Better might be: nodes (the node should be placed in the centre of the
>> area occupied by the adoption agency)
>
>
>
> you can also use an area instead of the node. An area has certain
> advantages (says something about the size, can contain further objects like
> areas and nodes) and some disadvantages (more work to draw, more complex to
> edit) and requires more information (an idea about the extent of the thing).
>
>
> I think an 'adult' cannot be 'adopted' - they are legally independent -
>> not subject to guardianship by parenting.
>>
>
> it is not about legal dependency or guardianship, but rather about titles
> and inheritance rights. Wikipedia has a short article on it:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_adoption
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> 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 - tag: office=adoption_agency

[Dominic Coletti]

>
> Better might be: nodes (the node should be placed in the centre of the
> area occupied by the adoption agency)
>
​Better might be: "Definition: A place where prospective parent/s may adopt
> a child or children"
>
​​
 Both fixed.​


[image: CAP Banner]




*C/TSgt Dominic Coletti, CAP*Cadet Public Affairs NCOIC, Raleigh-Wake
Composite Sqdn.

U.S. Air Force Auxiliary

gocivilairpatrol.com 






On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/12/2015 12:05 PM, Dominic Coletti wrote:
>
> I appreciate the feedback and was able to check out the Taginfo. One
> solution I saw was shop=charity. One thing that could be used is
> shop=charity and type=adoption_agency or something similar. The problem of
> the office (or shop) tag describing the whole building would be tagging a
> node on the building, along with nodes representing other offices or what
> have you within the building.
>
> Thanks for all of your feedback.
>
>
> shop=charity is not what you want! Please read the wiki?
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcharity
>
> It says "selling a mixture of second hand goods, donated by the public. eg
> books, clothing, toys, furniture. May also sell some new products, eg
> confectionery, crafts."
>
> --
> +1 for the intention of the tag.
>
> -
> Trivial nit picking - this is not a rejection. Nor a compliant. Unlike
> some I would not reject a proposal due to the wording!
>
> "*Definition: A way to tag places where prospective parents can adopt
> children"*
>
> This should be the definition of what you want to tag...
>
> Better might be: "Definition: A place where prospective parent/s may adopt
> a child or children"
>
> And
> "*Applies to*
>
> *The proposed tag **office
> =adoption_agency
> **
> would be used on either: *
>
>-
> * nodes (in which case the node should be placed near the middle of the
>building in which the adoption agency is contained) *
>
> This assumes that the adoption agency occupies the whole thing. If the
> adoption agency only occupies a section of the building?
>
> Better might be: nodes (the node should be placed in the centre of the
> area occupied by the adoption agency)
>
> == children vs adult
> I think an 'adult' cannot be 'adopted' - they are legally independent -
> not subject to guardianship by parenting.  Again this is just a note - for
> information and consideration by those concerned.
>
> ___
> 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 - tag: office=adoption_agency

[Dominic Coletti]

>
> you can also use an area instead of the node. An area has certain
> advantages (says something about the size, can contain further objects like
> areas and nodes) and some disadvantages (more work to draw, more complex to
> edit) and requires more information (an idea about the extent of the thing
> ​).
>
​The proposal does specify that areas can be used. In this case, they
should outline the area of the agency.​


> ​
>
>
[image: CAP Banner]




*C/TSgt Dominic Coletti, CAP*Cadet Public Affairs NCOIC, Raleigh-Wake
Composite Sqdn.

U.S. Air Force Auxiliary

gocivilairpatrol.com 






On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:34 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> 2015-12-01 5:18 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Better might be: nodes (the node should be placed in the centre of the
>> area occupied by the adoption agency)
>
>
>
> you can also use an area instead of the node. An area has certain
> advantages (says something about the size, can contain further objects like
> areas and nodes) and some disadvantages (more work to draw, more complex to
> edit) and requires more information (an idea about the extent of the thing).
>
>
> I think an 'adult' cannot be 'adopted' - they are legally independent -
>> not subject to guardianship by parenting.
>>
>
> it is not about legal dependency or guardianship, but rather about titles
> and inheritance rights. Wikipedia has a short article on it:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_adoption
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> 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] Fwd: Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)

[John Willis]

Accidentally sent just to Marc

Javbw

Begin forwarded message:

> From: johnw 
> Date: December 1, 2015 at 8:42:17 PM GMT+9
> To: Marc Gemis 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Decorative flower fields? (not as a crop?)
> 
> 
>> On Dec 1, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
>> 
>> John, so landuse=ornamental_flowers could be used for each individual
>> area with flowers in this picture [1] ?
> 
> if I was micromapping, that is exactly what I would do. 
> 
> 
> I was originally mapping these 
> 
> big fields at hitachinaka:
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/11094010745/in/dateposted-public/
> new picture, for the fall:  Same field, totally different flowers
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/23417161516/
> 
> and the lavender fields at a ski park in summer (no mountain biking here) 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/23334846172/
> 
> Chichibu: the same display is kept year round, it only flowers in summer 
> (AFAIK). 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/23075345199/
> 
> 
> But I also want to map the individual rose beds here at the Rose park in 
> Maebashi
> http://en.japantravel.com/photos/maebashi-rose-park
> 
> This looks very similar to your picture. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: to the meadow guy:  this is a flower filled meadow. These are naturally 
> occurring flowers, not taken care of. 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/11091436493/
> This was a greenfield building site, and was abandoned so long it became a 
> meadow. 
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/11091329464/
> This is a meadow on top of an unstable bluff . these are natural coastal 
> Flowers in California. They are everywhere there. 
> 
> J
> 
> 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road Running Railways

[Paul Johnson]

Nope, that's it.  Center the line between the rails for the railway.
Optional:  landuse=highway for the ROW of the road.

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Dominic Coletti 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have noticed that there is no set tag for rails that are embedded within
> the road. One strategy I have had is to tag the road as highway=* and add
> another line with railway=rail. I just wanted to reach out to the community
> and see if there is another way.
>
> --
> Dominic Coletti
> President & CEO
> 3Dreams Design
> 205 Anamoor Dr
> Cary, NC 27513
> (919) 463-9554
>
> NOTICE: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the
> system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
> intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee
> you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify
> the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by
> mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the
> intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing
> or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is
> strictly prohibited.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging