Re: [Tagging] Open Defecation Areas

Hi, On 09.09.19 02:37, Warin wrote: > Quote: "Open Defecation, people going to the toilet in the open, > specially in dense urban areas. Open defecation areas ODA are use by > about 850 million people. If they each use 10 different areas a year > then that is 8.5 billion areas." I don't follow

Re: [Tagging] Open Defecation Areas

9 Sep 2019, 10:12 by jez.nichol...@gmail.com: > A 'watsan:' namespace appears unnecessary unless these are areas specifically > sponsored by Watsan. > Even in that case it would be unwanted, and something like operator or owner  or similar tag would be

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

pon, 9. ruj 2019. u 04:26 Joseph Eisenberg napisao je: > Also see Singapore: it's an island, city and country. And more? > It's quite obvious Q334 is not about the island, it's about the city-state. So wikidata=334 on relation 1769123 is just

Re: [Tagging] Open Defecation Areas

A 'watsan:' namespace appears unnecessary unless these are areas specifically sponsored by Watsan. and I noticed a typo/autocorrect from Warin "...posting on the HOT list is for Open *Deification* Areas" which may lead to the creation of gods rather than other items. On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 3:40

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

> > Monaco is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state I'm not convinced. If city-state is a city and a state in one, then why do we have two objects in Openstreetmap? Then it should be one relation with admin_level=2 + place=city. As I understand, City-state doesn't mean it is a dual entity,

Re: [Tagging] Open Defecation Areas

On 09/09/19 18:20, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 09.09.19 02:37, Warin wrote: Quote: "Open Defecation, people going to the toilet in the open, specially in dense urban areas. Open defecation areas ODA are use by about 850 million people. If they each use 10 different areas a year then that is

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

Settlements such as place=city are mapped as nodes, not areas, because the centre of the settlement called "Monaco" is different than the administrative boundary of the city-state of the same name. The island of Singapore is mapped as a different feature than the Country boundary=administrative,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

> How is this different from highway=corridor? The wiki for highway=corridor says that it was part of an older indoor tagging scheme, but doesn't link to that scheme, so it's hard to understand how it would fit into that scheme. The biggest difference of course is that footway=indoor tags

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

>I'm not convinced. If city-state is a city and a state in one, then why do we have two objects in Openstreetmap? imho: compatibility with (old) osm softwares; (old) data models ( see more https://2018.stateofthemap.org/2018/T107-Modding_the_OSM_Data_Model/ ) for example:

[Tagging] Tagging Governance

Hi all, I have got into the duty to talk about tagging governance on the SotM and I would like to develop that opportunity towards something that is rather helpful in the long term. To ensure that I am on the right track and not unintentionally after a personal agenda I would like to ask you to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

>shower:fee=yes I believe "yes/no" is better for fee, since the value may change frequently. If you are mapping detailed information about the showers, it would be best to map these as a separate node with amenity=shower, if you know it's correct location. In that case you could use

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

Le 09.09.19 à 16:18, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > > > > 9 Sep 2019, 15:14 by pella.s...@gmail.com: > > Imho:    the real problem, why we have multiple objects for > "name:*"   tags? ( admin_centre, label, relation, ... ) > > Label is an  attempt to manually > specify optimal place

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

9 Sep 2019, 11:46 by jan...@gmail.com: >> Monaco is a >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state >> >> > > I'm not convinced. If city-state is a city and a state in one, then why do we > have two objects in Openstreetmap? Then it should be one

Re: [Tagging] "part:wikidata=*" tag proposal for multiple elements connected to the same wikidata id

9 Sep 2019, 15:14 by pella.s...@gmail.com: > Imho:    the real problem, why we have multiple objects for "name:*"   tags? > ( admin_centre, label, relation, ... )   > Label is an  attempt to manually specify optimal place for placement of a label. It is therefore not reflecting reality, but

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=indoor

>I can see some value in mapping routes through a >room which is full of obstacles, but I don't like >the idea of using this where a routing graph >could be calculated from indoor=corridor/area/room >polygons just fine. >While the slow progress of OSM-based routing >engines in this regard is

Re: [Tagging] Turn lanes separated by road markings

On Fri, 6 Sep 2019, 22:42 Jan Michel, wrote: > We do have a (recently approved) relation type for this: 'connectivity': > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:connectivity Thank you, this is exactly what i was looking for! (Although, as you wrote, it doesn't seem necessary in this case.)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 11:22, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Another question :-) > & again! There are powered pitches available, but there are only 30 of them (mixture of tent & caravan), while there are virtually unlimited numbers of unpowered pitches. capacity:powered / power_supply=30 ?

Re: [Tagging] Open Defecation Areas Add disused or abandoned

One important thought. Past open defecation areas will need to remain mapped... but not as areas in use. I think these are clearly life cycle tags .. but disused does not appeal as it is unlikely that it could be used again until quite some time has past (pun sorry) abandoned might be

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Campsite properties

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 09:53, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Several new and existing property and feature tags for campsites Another question :-) There are hot showers available in a (different) camp ground so shower=hot, but you have to pay $1 for 5 minutes use, separately to paying to stay at