Re: [Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

The tag content=water has been used over 24,000 times (mainly with man_made=storage_tank, sometimes with man_made=reservoir_covered), while content=drinking_water has only 62 times, so I would use content=water for storage tanks and reservoirs. I agree that the drinkability of a storage tank of wa

Re: [Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

And maybe it shouldn't be mapped that way because it is not observable. Up for discussion... Thanks, Stuart On Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 08:25 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21/2/20 6:16 pm, European Water Project wrote: > > Hi Warin, > > contents=water seems more appropriate > > That does

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

> In Paris there are parking shared between bicycle and motorcycle, and > parking shared between bicycle and dock less vehicles (scooters). Unlike parking spaces, a motorcycle taxi stand is never shared between motorcycles and cabs or tricycles here in Indonesia, since each type of vehicle has d

Re: [Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

On 21/2/20 6:16 pm, European Water Project wrote: Hi Warin, contents=water seems more appropriate That does not stipulate if it is drinking water. Thanks, Stuart On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 07:38, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: So a water tank with dri

Re: [Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

Hi Warin, contents=water seems more appropriate Thanks, Stuart On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 07:38, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > So a water tank with drinking water cannot be tagged as drinking water > because there is no local access. Fine. > Then it is only tagged as a tank with contents=

Re: [Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

So a water tank with drinking water cannot be tagged as drinking water because there is no local access. Fine. Then it is only tagged as a tank with contents=water, or should there be yet another value for it contents=drinking_water? Or a sub tag water=drinking water... On 21/2/20 5:10 pm, Eur

Re: [Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

Hi Martin, There are a couple of issues I see with drinking_water=yes not having a concept of access. 1. Where is the observability ? How can I know if a water tank has drinking quality water or just agriculture quality water ? >From the wiki : "One can assume that the water is pure when many pe

Re: [Tagging] Tagging venues which give away free condoms?

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 21:45 Uhr schrieb Rory McCann : > Some places give away free condoms to fight the spread of STDs (incl. > HIV/AIDS). Is there a good way to map that in OSM? > there's likely yet to invent a way to map it. > I suggest `free:condoms=yes/no`, since it's descriptive, matc

[Tagging] Tagging venues which give away free condoms?

Hello fellow tagging fans, Some places give away free condoms to fight the spread of STDs (incl. HIV/AIDS). Is there a good way to map that in OSM? I suggest `free:condoms=yes/no`, since it's descriptive, matches the `sells:X=yes/no` scheme. And the `vending:X=yes/no` scheme. `vending:condoms=y

Re: [Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

20 Feb 2020, 09:54 by vosc...@gmail.com: > This tag is a tag with very strong local restriction: 2823 of a world total > of 3166 are in the Polish city of Krakow. > And used by a single person (me). > The vast majority of dual-carriageway roads elsewhere are not tagged in this > way. > This fact

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

Hi, I'm always suspicious about tags with underscore in it, because they often mix different features together. My examples are parking, bicycle_parking, motorcycle_parking. In Paris there are parking shared between bicycle and motorcycle, and parking shared between bicycle and dock less vehicles

Re: [Tagging] decide on a meaning for what is not documented [way: Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?]

20 Feb 2020, 13:02 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > But > perhaps we will decided that database users should interpret the > geometry and name=/ref= tags of parallel highway ways to add this > information in post-processing. Does anyone know if that is feasible? > AFAIK no, I tried to do this and

Re: [Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 19:14 Uhr schrieb European Water Project < europeanwaterproj...@gmail.com>: > Dear All, > > I have noticed that the the key drinking_water = yes for ways is sometimes > used in a manner not described in the wiki. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adrinking_water

[Tagging] key:drinking_water for OSM ways

Dear All, I have noticed that the the key drinking_water = yes for ways is sometimes used in a manner not described in the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Adrinking_water The issue has to do with ways which might store drinking water which is not actually directly accessible. I t

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:13 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Oh, here in Indonesia you can find motorcycle taxis (ojek) everywhere, > including in all the towns where bicycle rickshaws / pedicabs operate. > > For example, all of the markets in my town have a pangkalan ojek > (motorcycle taxi stand)

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - drinking_water:refill_scheme

Hello, As per yesterday's note, I would like to make the following tweek to the tag pair as per the suggestion from Kovposch for the final write-up. drinking_water:refill=yes/drinking_water:refill=no drinking_water:refill:network=network-name1;network-name2;network-name3; instead of : drinking_

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 02:49, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > I would like to formally request comments on the proposal for > amenity=motorcycle_taxi: > > "A place where motorcycle taxis wait for passengers" > ... > While some have proposed using amenity=taxi plus additional tags for > motorcycle taxi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

Oh, here in Indonesia you can find motorcycle taxis (ojek) everywhere, including in all the towns where bicycle rickshaws / pedicabs operate. For example, all of the markets in my town have a pangkalan ojek (motorcycle taxi stand) and a separate pangkalan becak (pedicab stand), usually near the ma

Re: [Tagging] decide on a meaning for what is not documented [way: Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?]

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 13:47 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > Often it looks similar to the current highway=trunk rendering at in > the German map style used at openstreetmap.de - and I believe > "highway=trunk" is always for dual-carriageway "expressways" there. > >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 8:32 PM Joseph Eisenberg, wrote: > > I think using "motorcycle_taxi" as a tag value would be confusing. > > Unfortunately, the English language terminology for these things is > not very established, since they are not used in Britain or North > America (except for the touri

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 8:28 PM Martin Koppenhoefer, wrote: > > > Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar < > sea...@gmail.com>: > >> The only difference is one is human-powered while the other is >> engine-powered. >> > > > IMHO, if we distinguish automobile taxis from motor

Re: [Tagging] decide on a meaning for what is not documented [way: Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?]

> Why would it matter to someone that there is another highway going into the > opposite direction of where they want to go, that someone considers to be > part of the "same road"? Besides statistical purposes, it could be used for rendering at mid zoom levels. Many highway maps in the United S

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

> they use (pedaled) bicycles instead. These are called pedicabs... Yes, Indonesia has many of these too: we call them "becak," passengers sit up front on a bench, unlike in India bicycle rickshaws. There are even "bemo" which are motorized tricycles, where the bicycle part (in the back) has been

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar < sea...@gmail.com>: > The only difference is one is human-powered while the other is > engine-powered. > IMHO, if we distinguish automobile taxis from motorcycle taxis, we should also distinguish both from human powered vehicles. Th

Re: [Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

> I think that the tag itself is a bad idea Could you state why? The tag seems to have a clear use and meaning, and it is verifiable. Is the problem that it is redundant? Do you think database users should preprocess the parallel ways to determine dual carriageway status prior to rendering, routi

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

As a person from the Philippines who uses these "motorcycle taxis" (we call them tricycles here and they are basically motorcycles with an attached sidecar for passengers), I am in favor of having a new top-level tag for these "taxi" stations. The reason why we used "taxi" here is that this was the

Re: [Tagging] decide on a meaning for what is not documented [way: Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?]

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 13:07 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > > If people are interested in using it, I might make a proposal. But > perhaps we will decided that database users should interpret the > geometry and name=/ref= tags of parallel highway ways to add this >

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

Not all of these actually are in real-world use. The only 4 options in common use today are: 1) motorcar, 4 wheels, enclosed (amenity=taxi) 2) motorcycle, 2 wheels, open (amenity=motorcycle_taxi) 3) pedicabs / 3-wheel tricycles (amenity=pedicab?) - non-motorized 4) autorickshaws, 3 wheels, enclos

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 12:47 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > This is a very common feature in Southeast Asia, Africa and parts of > central and south America: there are hundreds of thousands of them. > > Can't we have an easy to use top-level feature tag, instead of

Re: [Tagging] decide on a meaning for what is not documented [way: Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?]

Taginfo shows that the tag has been used in just a few places (mostly one city in Poland) so it's not very well established, in spite of several thousand uses: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/dual_carriageway#map There are a couple similar tags that are a little less common: * https://tagin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

Le 20.02.20 à 12:45, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > Can't we have an easy to use top-level feature tag, instead of having > to add 3 tags like amenity=taxi + motorcar=no + motorcycle=yes to > define one very common, unique feature? did we need to have a top-level feature for every "unique" combinati

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

> use amenity=taxi with motorcycle=yes, motorcar=no for motorbike based taxi > stands. That combination has only been used 145 times, in spite of being including in the Phillipines tagging guidelines and previously on Tag:amenity=taxi: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/QTu There are more places with na

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

This new tag is meant for motorcycles (2 wheeled vehicles), not 3-wheel tuk-tuks and similar vehicles, which are enclosed and provide a separate seating are for passengers. They are more similar to 4-wheel motorcar taxis than to motorcycles. Yes, some places (like the Phillipines) have suggested u

Re: [Tagging] Landfills timespan

> But does it belong in OSM? You need to provide a very strong argument to go > against the maxims. Agreed. If you can verify the location of an abandoned landfill which is overgrown, and you really want to map it, it would be best to use abandoned:landuse=landfill (If the landfill is merely di

Re: [Tagging] Landfills timespan

> Lately in my area old landfills from the 60ies and 70ies have been > opened again for maintenance. They are forest by now but all trees have > been removed beforehand. So those landfills are now observable. Yes, you _could_ observe and map them nowand as soon as they cover them over again th

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - in-kind_donation

Am Mi., 19. Feb. 2020 um 23:50 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > My concern is still that it might be hard to translate "donation in > kind" from English into some languages, and that people with limited > English vocabulary might not understand the phrase. > > Automate

Re: [Tagging] Landfills timespan

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 11:34 Uhr schrieb Jez Nicholson < jez.nichol...@gmail.com>: > in the UK at least, people just didn't keep records because "out of sight, > out of mind". > that's what they tell you... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstree

Re: [Tagging] Landfills timespan

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:32:05AM +, Jez Nicholson wrote: > Mapping of things that cannot be verified on-the-ground has to be a very > special case. Such as underground power cables. > > A currently active landfill and a completed/capped-off landfill are not the > same thing. One is verifiabl

Re: [Tagging] Landfills timespan

Mapping of things that cannot be verified on-the-ground has to be a very special case. Such as underground power cables. A currently active landfill and a completed/capped-off landfill are not the same thing. One is verifiable on-the-ground, the other is not. One has a [surface] landuse of being a

Re: [Tagging] Landfills timespan

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 10:54 Uhr schrieb Cascafico Giovanni < cascaf...@gmail.com>: > Hello, > > I've an OSM compatible dataset that helps me to spot landfills. Older > ones are already covered by grass and/or trees. > > IMHO could be useful to save landfill locations for a future possible use.

[Tagging] Landfills timespan

Hello, I've an OSM compatible dataset that helps me to spot landfills. Older ones are already covered by grass and/or trees. IMHO could be useful to save landfill locations for a future possible use. Does it make sense tag the ones with surface alterations with level=-1 ? Or shall I consider lan

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

Am Do., 20. Feb. 2020 um 10:23 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt : > Do we have any idea how many amenity=taxi already in OSM are in fact > toctocs or similar? > I suspect that this number is huge, and introducing a new tag for them > will only create confusion, as we have no way of migrating the toktoks

Re: [Tagging] decide on a meaning for what is not documented [way: Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?]

Hello, Le 20.02.20 à 07:41, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > I've created a page for Key:dual_carriageway based on existing usage > in the database: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:dual_carriageway how did you proceed? is the tag added by only one contributor to whom you asked the question

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

Do we have any idea how many amenity=taxi already in OSM are in fact toctocs or similar? I suspect that this number is huge, and introducing a new tag for them will only create confusion, as we have no way of migrating the toktoks tagged as taxies to the new key. Volker On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 08

Re: [Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 01:41, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I updated the Key:expressway page to have a global focus, > > I looked at this. The expressway key is only very rarely used outside of the US, and there is no need for it outside the US. It appears sporadically in the UK (some five roads in

Re: [Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

I am not happy with this new page. This tag is a tag with very strong local restriction: 2823 of a world total of 3166 are in the Polish city of Krakow. The vast majority of dual-carriageway roads elsewhere are not tagged in this way. This fact should be clearly stated prominently on the wiki page

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi

W dniu 20.02.2020 o 08:48, Joseph Eisenberg pisze: > I would like to formally request comments on the proposal for > amenity=motorcycle_taxi: > > "A place where motorcycle taxis wait for passengers" > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:amenity%3Dmotorcycle_taxi I propose

Re: [Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

sent from a phone > On 20. Feb 2020, at 07:42, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I've created a page for Key:dual_carriageway based on existing usage > in the database: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:dual_carriageway you wrote this was also a key for divided carriageways in general (

Re: [Tagging] Expressway=yes/no versus new tags "dual_carriageway=yes/no", "limited_access=", "grade_separated"=?

sent from a phone > On 20. Feb 2020, at 01:41, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > While all expressways are major roads designed for high-speed motor > vehicle traffic, they are not often "motorroad=yes", because most > States allow motorcycles and pedestrians on all roads that are not > motorways