Re: [Tagging] A system structured approach rather than piecemeal

On 2018-06-10 01:30, Warin wrote: > One of the problem is that these main tags don't come through the tagging > group .. they arrive through common use that sees a demand and satisfies it. > > A problem with that is that the initial users see only their local issues and > don't see it on a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

Francois I'm a little bit confused over some of your definitions? You say man_made=telephone_exchange is to be replaced with telecom=central_office, but then also say that a telecom=central_office "is a small dedicated technical building hosting a main distribution frame to connect subscribers

Re: [Tagging] A system structured approach rather than piecemeal

On 09/06/18 21:53, Thilo Haug OSM wrote: I think what Mark wanted to express is more about some general guidelines which could be established. The  tagging systems are very inconsistent, just have a look at the different "service" syntax (namespaces) of a car vs. bicycle vs. motorcycle shop

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 5:57 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Francois > > I'm a little bit confused over some of your definitions? > > You say man_made=telephone_exchange is to be replaced with > telecom=central_office, but then also say that a telecom=central_office "is > a small dedicated

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: A 'benevolent dictator'. > > Let us know if you find one. > He's called Linus Torvalds. Unfortunately, he's too busy with Linux to be able to take control of OSM. And some people object to his use of expletives. If somebody

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

09-06-2018 16:56 tarihinde Paul Allen yazdı: > > > On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > A 'benevolent dictator'. > > Let us know if you find one. > > > He's called Linus Torvalds.  Unfortunately, he's too busy with Linux

Re: [Tagging] wall and block that aren't a barrier

9. Jun 2018 22:02 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com : > man_made=pillar ? but it's obsoleted > If it is the best fit it may be used.  Image of the fountain would be helpful. ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 09/06/18 21:13, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-06-09 13:00, Warin wrote: On 09/06/18 19:20, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: This analogy also means that competition is

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

I would think hotel lounges don't qualify, then, under what you're describing. I've never seen one that offers showers. Hotel lounges are just alcoholic bars in a hotel. You want a shower, you have to check in to the hotel. As a node or area (room?) within a public_transport=station, it makes

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

There are hotel lounges that offer showering facilities, but to access these lounges (executive lounges, clubs - they are called different names), you normally need to check in/be of elite status (hence the need for an access scheme described in the RFP). There are usually various amenities

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 07/06/18 23:00, Peter Elderson wrote: > >> I think landuse=forest should remain intact, for cases where forestry is >> actually how the land is used. >> So the tag is not deprecated, it's just applicated more consistently. >> > > So

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

sent from a phone > On 9. Jun 2018, at 11:13, Neil Matthews wrote: > > I quite often find "access=no", replaced by "motor_vehicle=no" by armchair > editors -- I think they want to make sure that horses can use the bus lanes? there’s a lot of vehicles and others that are allowed when

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

The term Lounge has several distinct meanings, amongst them Airport Lounge Hotel Lobby Alcohol Bar Which one do you have in mind? If the first one, then maybe a more general approach should be taken to deal with all kinds of waiting rooms (at a train station, at a bus station, at airports, at a

Re: [Tagging] wall and block that aren't a barrier

> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/ > Rehbrunnen_04.jpg/800px-Rehbrunnen_04.jpg > It strikes me that the water container was modelled after a horse trough. Some public fountains with that form may even have originated as horse troughs (and some may even be used as such

[Tagging] wall and block that aren't a barrier

Hello, a mapper map small fountain with polygon https://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/8322503 I have nothing against the idea even if I would have used a node for such a small object Of course amenity=fountain must be moved to the MP relation with 2 polygons in stead of a invalid one.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

For building constructed to house such equipmentI would expect building=service, not building=yes 9. Jun 2018 14:38 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com : > Hi all, > A new proposal is now available to describe telecom local networks, from > subscribers households 

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

Thanks for the reply Volker! I had in mind a tag to describe the first 2 of the definitions given by you (a hotel “lounge” in my mind is more like an airport lounge than a plain lobby). For alcoholic bars the current tagging scheme appears sufficient so I didn’t mean to cover that. That is not

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

Hi all, A new proposal is now available to describe telecom local networks, from subscribers households to first network premises. Have a look here : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Telecom_local_loop It introduces a brand new telecom=* key For now, only actual central

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

sent from a phone > On 8. Jun 2018, at 10:22, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I would start from easy wins, for example why we have both FIXME and fixme > tags? +1 We have done something similar in the past: unification of yes, 1 and true for example. > Why we still have wikipedia:pl,

Re: [Tagging] wall and block that aren't a barrier

Le 09. 06. 18 à 22:59, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > 9. Jun 2018 22:02 by marc_marc : > > man_made=pillar ? but it's obsoleted > > > If it is the best fit it may be used. > > > Image of the fountain would be helpful.

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 2018-06-09 10:00, Christoph Hormann wrote: >> This analogy also means that competition is essential for progress in >> OSM. How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is "better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more mature? Is our data quality improving? Do we

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: > >> This analogy also means that competition is essential for progress > >> in OSM. > > How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is > "better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more mature? Is > our data quality

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

I quite often find "access=no", replaced by "motor_vehicle=no" by armchair editors -- I think they want to make sure that horses can use the bus lanes? Neil On 08/06/2018 13:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2018-06-08 10:44 GMT+02:00 François Lacombe >: > > >

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On Saturday 09 June 2018, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote: > > I have been editing in OSM for almost four years, and I've been a > member of this mailing list almost since then.  I read every single > post. During that time I have never seen what I would consider a > consensus reached on anything.  I'm

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: This analogy also means that > competition is essential for progress > in OSM. How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is "better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 09/06/18 19:20, Colin Smale wrote: On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: This analogy also means that competition is essential for progress in OSM. How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is "better" than in the

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

IHi! I think bike/charriot/horse/motorbike access should not be taked for granted in bus lanes, as you said. In my city, bikes are forbidden in bus lanes. They are too narrow to allow a bus overpass a bycicle, and not all bycicles are faster than a bus. In Madrid, bikes should use the rightmost

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

On 2018-06-09 13:00, Warin wrote: > On 09/06/18 19:20, Colin Smale wrote: > > On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: This analogy also means that > competition is essential for progress > in OSM. How do we define "progress"? How do we

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 105, Issue 26

I think what Mark wanted to express is more about some general guidelines which could be established. The  tagging systems are very inconsistent, just have a look at the different "service" syntax (namespaces) of a car vs. bicycle vs. motorcycle shop (and none for others). There could be a system

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

Hey everyone, A prolonged waiting period spend sitting in a lounge gave me an opportunity to send out the draft proposal for lounges, which can be found here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lounges What is proposed: A distinct amenity