Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 03:27 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > May 11, 2020, 02:36 by cjmal...@mail.com: > > On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 23:07 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > and gradually deprecating the generic tags. > > > > > > And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*. > > > > I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not > > arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag. > > But "gradually deprecating" means that this tags will be eliminated, > what seems to me to have the same meaning as "wanting to get rid of". > > Whatever it will done in 24 hours or 24 years is not changing that > goal > of tag deprecation is to utterly eliminate it. I don't hate the phone tag because if it's name and want to fight everyone so they have to type contact:phone because I want to utterly eliminate phone. That's silly. The goal is quantifiable and usable data. If the end of this discussion is explicit tags for edge cases, and phone only used for the contact phone number that's fine by me. Sure it might look better with a contact: namespace and be easier to describe, but that doesn't matter. It's the definitions that do. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
On Mon, 2020-05-11 at 02:10 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > And yet you, and others, keep saying it. "Deprecate" means "express > disapproval of." In the context of OSM, it means "phase out." That > is, > eradicate with the passage of time. It may not be what you mean, but > it's what you keep saying. Any yet what I described was a phase out with 3 steps. > Replacing tags isn't easy. There is inertia from various parties > involved. > Carto has a rule of "no aliases." Which means that however > compelling > you feel that replacing a=b with x=y is a good idea, they'll almost > certainly > reject it because "no aliases." The editor people have their own > foibles, too, > but they're more likely to decide they don't like a=b or x=y and go > with > p=q. I thought this mailing list was the official avenue for disusing, changing and adding tags in OSM. I didn't realise you had to get the editor permission. > Oh, and there's all the legacy usage you have to clean up, except > we don't like automated edits. But without cleaning it up, you make > database queries more complex. I don't have any arguments against automated edits, bulk edits, machine assisted edits. In any dataset they are needed, especially one this massive. But it's not a fight I have the effort to fight right now. > I am far from convinced that a contact phone number is not a phone > number. > If I see a phone=* on a phone box I know it is not a contact number. > If > I see a phone=* on a business I know it's a contact phone number for > the business. What extra utility does having contact:phone provide? > And is it worth the hassle of manually editing all the existing tags > to > fix? That's just one edge case with the phone tag. Another one being phone on parking. Is that the number you call to pay, or is it the number you call to contact the operator because there is something wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ who knows. I believe there are more edge cases we still aren't thinking of, and if we aren't the user agents defiantly aren't. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
May 11, 2020, 02:36 by cjmal...@mail.com: > On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 23:07 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > >> > and gradually deprecating the generic tags. >> >> And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*. >> > > I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not > arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag. > But "gradually deprecating" means that this tags will be eliminated, what seems to me to have the same meaning as "wanting to get rid of". Whatever it will done in 24 hours or 24 years is not changing that goal of tag deprecation is to utterly eliminate it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 21:04, Phake Nick wrote: > I am more thinking about analysis of geographical data of cities or districts > where taxi and motorcycle taxi would be two very different things to be > managed. If you are managing taxis and motorcycle taxis then surely you know you have to check which is which. Which tag is used to check for them is immaterial. Similarly if you were doing an analysis of surface area devoted to public parking then you also need to know to check for access!=private. If you're doing an analysis of mobility options then you need to know to check for wheelchair tag, etc. The only advantage of a separate top-level amenity=motorcycle_taxi tag is that it won't show up for people who don't know the difference. But if they don't know the difference, they're likely in an area where motorcycle taxis don't exist. This is going around in circles. I hope whoever wanted more discussion before voting is satisfied ;) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
On Mon, 11 May 2020 at 01:38, Cj Malone wrote: > On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 23:07 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > > > and gradually deprecating the generic tags. > > > > And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*. > > I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not > arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag. > And yet you, and others, keep saying it. "Deprecate" means "express disapproval of." In the context of OSM, it means "phase out." That is, eradicate with the passage of time. It may not be what you mean, but it's what you keep saying. Currently phone has at least 2 uses. A contact number and an incoming > number for a phone box. We should split these out. If we are left with > totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes and phone, where > totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes is defined as incoming phone number and > phone is defined as the contact number. I'm OK with that too, it's the > definitions that really matter. > Replacing tags isn't easy. There is inertia from various parties involved. Carto has a rule of "no aliases." Which means that however compelling you feel that replacing a=b with x=y is a good idea, they'll almost certainly reject it because "no aliases." The editor people have their own foibles, too, but they're more likely to decide they don't like a=b or x=y and go with p=q. Oh, and there's all the legacy usage you have to clean up, except we don't like automated edits. But without cleaning it up, you make database queries more complex. As this conversation has gone on, I now believe that contact:phone and > phone are separate things. As such I believe phone is massively misused > as a contact number and so should actually be contact:phone. Lets > gradually move people away from this. > I am far from convinced that a contact phone number is not a phone number. If I see a phone=* on a phone box I know it is not a contact number. If I see a phone=* on a business I know it's a contact phone number for the business. What extra utility does having contact:phone provide? And is it worth the hassle of manually editing all the existing tags to fix? > > - We can start with documenting the differences between the tags on the > Wiki. > I don't see any useful difference. It's a phone number. I dial it and the phone on the other end rings. Why would I expect a business to have a phone number they never answer? - Lets get the editors to push mappers use the accurate tag, is this a > contact number, or another form of number. > What difference does it make? I can understand wanting to distinguish fax numbers from numbers that people answer. That doesn't require contact:phone=* for the voice number, just fax=* for the fax number. - And then lets start informing OSM maintainers about the ambiguous use > of phone and give warnings to use a more quantified tag. > First you have to convince them that this is a good idea in the first place. And you'll have to convince some people on the list that having a "more quantified" tag is a good thing. > > The above 2 paragraphs might be easier to think of context of website > and contact:website. I have previously misused them, I have been adding > contact:website that are web pages for the specific store, but just > have a contact number and address. That's not a contact method and so > doesn't belong in contact:website. > I'm far from convinced that contact:website is useful. It's certainly semantically wrong. It's a contact;webpage not a contact:website (there are maybe a handful of exceptions to that). Why do you think the user is more likely to require the webpage giving contact details rather than the home page of the web site? I'd expect users are more likely to want more information on what a POI is than to want to find out how to contact it. I find the whole contact: namespace to be ill-conceived. But fine, if you want it then use it. Just please stop suggesting that we deprecate website=* and phone=*. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
* Also, as have already been mentioned in other replies, there are various other differences between the two services other than number of wheels and whether they're enclosed. 在 2020年5月11日週一 09:04，Phake Nick 寫道： > I am more thinking about analysis of geographical data of cities or > districts where taxi and motorcycle taxi would be two very different things > to be managed. > Even if you view it from the viewpoint of people trying to get a ride, I > would not expect cross-display of the two types of mobility items in the > same format as that would lose the meaning of having the two types of > mobility options. > > 在 2020年5月11日週一 08:58，Jarek Piórkowski 寫道： > >> On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 18:35, Phake Nick wrote: >> > At the end of the day we are not taking motorcycle taxi and taxi >> themselves. What's being tagged are waiting area for taxi or motorcycle >> taxis. What matters is that, if one is created as an optional subtag of >> another, would not using such subtag result in incorrect analysis of data >> when someone use those data, and the answer seems to me as yes. >> >> Depends what question you're asking in the analysis, surely. >> >> If your question is "where can get a ride" then the results won't be >> wrong. >> >> If your question is "where can get a ride in an enclosed two-track >> vehicle" then the results would be wrong in Indonesia. But if you're >> asking that in Indonesia, you're probably also aware of the variety of >> local modes of transportation and realize that you should ask a more >> specific question. >> >> You could make a similar argument for other amenities. >> For example, if you're looking for a parking spot, and if your region >> some parking lots are private, you need to take that into account when >> doing the analysis. >> If you are looking for a rapid transit station and you're in a >> wheelchair, and in your area not all stations are accessible, you need >> to take that into account when doing the search. This might not occur >> to someone from an area where all stations are accessible, so should >> we have a railway=inaccessible_station rather than wheelchair=no to >> prevent incorrect analysis? >> >> To me, this argument goes back to the same question of whether an >> amenity=taxi is where you hire a ride, or where you hire a ride in an >> enclosed vehicle that can fit 2+ passengers and probably a bit of >> luggage. >> >> --Jarek >> >> ___ >> 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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
I am more thinking about analysis of geographical data of cities or districts where taxi and motorcycle taxi would be two very different things to be managed. Even if you view it from the viewpoint of people trying to get a ride, I would not expect cross-display of the two types of mobility items in the same format as that would lose the meaning of having the two types of mobility options. 在 2020年5月11日週一 08:58，Jarek Piórkowski 寫道： > On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 18:35, Phake Nick wrote: > > At the end of the day we are not taking motorcycle taxi and taxi > themselves. What's being tagged are waiting area for taxi or motorcycle > taxis. What matters is that, if one is created as an optional subtag of > another, would not using such subtag result in incorrect analysis of data > when someone use those data, and the answer seems to me as yes. > > Depends what question you're asking in the analysis, surely. > > If your question is "where can get a ride" then the results won't be wrong. > > If your question is "where can get a ride in an enclosed two-track > vehicle" then the results would be wrong in Indonesia. But if you're > asking that in Indonesia, you're probably also aware of the variety of > local modes of transportation and realize that you should ask a more > specific question. > > You could make a similar argument for other amenities. > For example, if you're looking for a parking spot, and if your region > some parking lots are private, you need to take that into account when > doing the analysis. > If you are looking for a rapid transit station and you're in a > wheelchair, and in your area not all stations are accessible, you need > to take that into account when doing the search. This might not occur > to someone from an area where all stations are accessible, so should > we have a railway=inaccessible_station rather than wheelchair=no to > prevent incorrect analysis? > > To me, this argument goes back to the same question of whether an > amenity=taxi is where you hire a ride, or where you hire a ride in an > enclosed vehicle that can fit 2+ passengers and probably a bit of > luggage. > > --Jarek > > ___ > 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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 18:35, Phake Nick wrote: > At the end of the day we are not taking motorcycle taxi and taxi themselves. > What's being tagged are waiting area for taxi or motorcycle taxis. What > matters is that, if one is created as an optional subtag of another, would > not using such subtag result in incorrect analysis of data when someone use > those data, and the answer seems to me as yes. Depends what question you're asking in the analysis, surely. If your question is "where can get a ride" then the results won't be wrong. If your question is "where can get a ride in an enclosed two-track vehicle" then the results would be wrong in Indonesia. But if you're asking that in Indonesia, you're probably also aware of the variety of local modes of transportation and realize that you should ask a more specific question. You could make a similar argument for other amenities. For example, if you're looking for a parking spot, and if your region some parking lots are private, you need to take that into account when doing the analysis. If you are looking for a rapid transit station and you're in a wheelchair, and in your area not all stations are accessible, you need to take that into account when doing the search. This might not occur to someone from an area where all stations are accessible, so should we have a railway=inaccessible_station rather than wheelchair=no to prevent incorrect analysis? To me, this argument goes back to the same question of whether an amenity=taxi is where you hire a ride, or where you hire a ride in an enclosed vehicle that can fit 2+ passengers and probably a bit of luggage. --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 23:07 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > But that's what they often imply. I don't know if this is worth saying or not, but this isn't a war, there aren't sides. We all just want OSM to be the best it can be. I am fairly new to OSM, especially the mailing lists but I guess you are coming from a point of view like "They are coming for the phone tag again". I'm not, I wasn't part of any previous discussions on the phone tag or contact namespace. I just want to help improve OSM, any way that I can. If you are a little annoyed because you've had this discussion multiple times that just means it's a hot topic for people and discussions will help everyone understand all the other opinions. > > and gradually deprecating the generic tags. > > And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*. I think I stand by that quote, but I'm happy to discus it. I'm not arguing that over night we should stop people using the phone tag. Currently phone has at least 2 uses. A contact number and an incoming number for a phone box. We should split these out. If we are left with totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes and phone, where totally_new_tag_for_phoneboxes is defined as incoming phone number and phone is defined as the contact number. I'm OK with that too, it's the definitions that really matter. As this conversation has gone on, I now believe that contact:phone and phone are separate things. As such I believe phone is massively misused as a contact number and so should actually be contact:phone. Lets gradually move people away from this. - We can start with documenting the differences between the tags on the Wiki. - Lets get the editors to push mappers use the accurate tag, is this a contact number, or another form of number. - And then lets start informing OSM maintainers about the ambiguous use of phone and give warnings to use a more quantified tag. The above 2 paragraphs might be easier to think of context of website and contact:website. I have previously misused them, I have been adding contact:website that are web pages for the specific store, but just have a contact number and address. That's not a contact method and so doesn't belong in contact:website. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
At the end of the day we are not taking motorcycle taxi and taxi themselves. What's being tagged are waiting area for taxi or motorcycle taxis. What matters is that, if one is created as an optional subtag of another, would not using such subtag result in incorrect analysis of data when someone use those data, and the answer seems to me as yes. 在 2020年5月11日週一 05:55，Florimond Berthoux 寫道： > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 01:25, Martin Koppenhoefer > a écrit : > >> On 9. May 2020, at 22:50, Florimond Berthoux < >> florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Yeah, that's the point... >> >> Keep it simple. >> You know taxi key ? You know motorcycle key ? Yeah, you can contribute >> without checking yet another wiki tag page. >> >> By the way, this how a taxi moto looks like in Paris >> >> https://www.city-bird.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DSC3972_R1_optimise_bas.jpg >> >> >> >> imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the >> airport and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would that >> be equally ok, wouldn’t it matter, taxi is taxi? >> > > I don't care, English is not my mother tongue and tags is not the English > language : > «Tags is an intermediate language between human and machine, at the end > its just characters with definitions, but some are easier to use for > mapping and computing.» > > -- > Florimond Berthoux > ___ > 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] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 22:55, Cj Malone wrote: > > I agree, not all phone tags convert to contact:phone, same with the > others. I don't think anybody is talking about a mass edit of the > database. > But that's what they often imply. Perhaps with carelessly-worded statements, like the one you're about to make... > > I think we should actively encourage more precise tags like > contact:phone when it's a contact number. We can do that through the > wiki, and defaults in the editors, I'm OK with that. and gradually deprecating the generic tags. > And there you go, wanting to get rid of phone=* and website=*. I hope that was merely careless working. > During the transition to more quantified data we will see edge cases > like public phone boxes, and others we don't yet know about, and we > should discus new tags for them. > New tags? Why? We have existing tags that work fine for them. It's starting to sound like you're encouraging mass editing. More careless wording? Those working on editors and cartos may feel that contact:phone=* is an alias of phone=* and insist we can have one or the other but not both. If that happens then we have to stick with phone=* because that applies to all phones whereas contact:phone=* does not. The same with website=* and contact:website=*. I'm not saying that either of those groups will insist it's one or the other, merely that it seems possible to me. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
sent from a phone > On 10. May 2020, at 23:55, Cj Malone wrote: > > I think we should actively encourage more precise tags like > contact:phone when it's a contact number. why is this “more precise”? What about even “more precise” tags, like contact:phone:business_hours= contact:phone:reservations= even better? IMHO dataconsumers find the tags easiest if they use the same key, if they have to search for the keys it will make everyone’s life harder not better. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
On Sun, 2020-05-10 at 22:28 +0100, Paul Allen wrote: > We can't replace phone with contact:phone in all cases, as some wish > to do, because of phone boxes. We can't replace website with > contact:website in all cases, as some wish to do, because there are a > lot of POIs with websites or URLs that are not contacts. As long as > this is understood, I don't have a problem with contact:phone and > contact:website. If, however, people insist on replacing phone and > website completely, then I will not be happy. I agree, not all phone tags convert to contact:phone, same with the others. I don't think anybody is talking about a mass edit of the database. I think we should actively encourage more precise tags like contact:phone when it's a contact number. We can do that through the wiki, and defaults in the editors, and gradually deprecating the generic tags. During the transition to more quantified data we will see edge cases like public phone boxes, and others we don't yet know about, and we should discus new tags for them. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 01:25, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > On 9. May 2020, at 22:50, Florimond Berthoux > wrote: > > Yeah, that's the point... > > Keep it simple. > You know taxi key ? You know motorcycle key ? Yeah, you can contribute > without checking yet another wiki tag page. > > By the way, this how a taxi moto looks like in Paris > > https://www.city-bird.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DSC3972_R1_optimise_bas.jpg > > > > imagine you are ordering a taxi for yourself and 2 colleagues to the > airport and instead of a taxi (cab) they send you 3 taxi moto. Would that > be equally ok, wouldn’t it matter, taxi is taxi? > I don't care, English is not my mother tongue and tags is not the English language : «Tags is an intermediate language between human and machine, at the end its just characters with definitions, but some are easier to use for mapping and computing.» -- Florimond Berthoux ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
sent from a phone > On 10. May 2020, at 17:24, Yves wrote: > > Also, it's not like taxis are a must have for renderers, there will be no > drama if a map shows a taxi station inaccurately for a few months all maps actually ;-) Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 22:00, Cj Malone wrote: > > But not all of them are necessarily contacts. I've added URLs for > > historic buildings that give more information about the > > building. There is nobody to talk to about it. I've added websites > > for companies; there is a contact page on that website but the URL > > I've given is for the company website as a whole. > > Surely that's an argument for new tags as well as contact:website, for > example description:website where a user agent could give users a "Read > more" link. A website tag is generic, which has the obvious benefit of > used widely and easily, but more precise tags like contact:website give > user agents much more flexibility. > > It was an argument against replacing website=* with contact:website=* as some seemed to be proposing. If you wish to propose more *:website=* tags that is fine b me (I can use any I find useful and ignore the rest). We can't replace phone with contact:phone in all cases, as some wish to do, because of phone boxes. We can't replace website with contact:website in all cases, as some wish to do, because there are a lot of POIs with websites or URLs that are not contacts. As long as this is understood, I don't have a problem with contact:phone and contact:website. If, however, people insist on replacing phone and website completely, then I will not be happy. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Remove non-prefixed versions of 'contact:' scheme
> But not all of them are necessarily contacts. I've added URLs for > historic buildings that give more information about the > building. There is nobody to talk to about it. I've added websites > for companies; there is a contact page on that website but the URL > I've given is for the company website as a whole. Surely that's an argument for new tags as well as contact:website, for example description:website where a user agent could give users a "Read more" link. A website tag is generic, which has the obvious benefit of used widely and easily, but more precise tags like contact:website give user agents much more flexibility. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
And a tag refinement with a sub tag would work if the decision to tag as such is advertised : renderers will follow, editor softwares too. A successful vote may help, opening issues at major editors and renderers once settled will certainly. Also, it's not like taxis are a must have for renderers, there will be no drama if a map shows a taxi station inaccurately for a few months. Yves Le 10 mai 2020 16:08:27 GMT+02:00, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > > >sent from a phone > >> On 10. May 2020, at 14:43, Paul Allen wrote: >> >> Either way, it's going to give the wrong results if renderers don't >support >> it, the question is which wrong way is preferable: ojeks aren't >rendered or ojeks >> are rendered as taxis. > > >ojeks getting rendered as cab taxis would work if it would not matter >whether it’s an ojek or an automobile, if someone looking at the map >and going to an ojek when expecting a taxi would be equally fine with >finding an ojek at her arrival. > >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] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
sent from a phone > On 10. May 2020, at 14:43, Paul Allen wrote: > > Either way, it's going to give the wrong results if renderers don't support > it, the question is which wrong way is preferable: ojeks aren't rendered or > ojeks > are rendered as taxis. ojeks getting rendered as cab taxis would work if it would not matter whether it’s an ojek or an automobile, if someone looking at the map and going to an ojek when expecting a taxi would be equally fine with finding an ojek at her arrival. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 13:34, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 10. May 2020, at 14:24, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > Technically, either approach to > > tagging would work > > > I would question this. It would work if all data consumers would evaluate > the subtag, i.e. add support for it and it would mean we would require two > tags for taxis: amenity=taxi and a tag that says it is automobiles. > > It's as broad as it is long. Either way requires editors to know about it. Either way requires renderers to know about it. With the sub-tag approach the default would be car. Either way, it's going to give the wrong results if renderers don't support it, the question is which wrong way is preferable: ojeks aren't rendered or ojeks are rendered as taxis. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
sent from a phone > On 10. May 2020, at 14:24, Paul Allen wrote: > > Technically, either approach to > tagging would work I would question this. It would work if all data consumers would evaluate the subtag, i.e. add support for it and it would mean we would require two tags for taxis: amenity=taxi and a tag that says it is automobiles. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
在 2020年5月10日週日 16:24，Martin Koppenhoefer 寫道： > > > sent from a phone > > > On 10. May 2020, at 01:31, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > If you use amenity=taxi + vehicle=* you > > guarantee that any carto which renders amenity=taxi will render ojek > ranks > > incorrectly at first, and perhaps incorrectly for all time (if they > decide they're > > going to ignore the vehicle tag) > > > it would only be “incorrectly” if you judged motorcycle taxis as not being > taxis. In this case, you should not tag them amenity=taxi taxi=motorcycle > anyway (because if taxi=motorcycle does not describe a subclass of taxi > this is the wrong approach anyway). > > In this discussion it appeared that some mappers see motorcycle taxis as a > kind of taxi, like boat taxis and helicopter taxis, and others that see > them as their own kind of service. > I saw one mapper who shared their view on why motorcycle taxi should be a type of taxi, unfortunately I cannot see the rationale within the explanation given by the editor. I think it would be helpful of the proposal can be modofied and RFC be restarted so that hopefully other editors who held similar views can provide a more easy to understand explanation on why they think so. > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 09:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 10. May 2020, at 01:31, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > If you use amenity=taxi + vehicle=* you > > guarantee that any carto which renders amenity=taxi will render ojek > ranks > > incorrectly at first, and perhaps incorrectly for all time (if they > decide they're > > going to ignore the vehicle tag) > > it would only be “incorrectly” if you judged motorcycle taxis as not being > taxis. In this case, you should not tag them amenity=taxi taxi=motorcycle > anyway (because if taxi=motorcycle does not describe a subclass of taxi > this is the wrong approach anyway). > I could be wrong, but I got the impression that even those who were arguing that ojeks were a variety of taxi expected them to be rendered differently. If not, why bother sub-tagging them? > > In this discussion it appeared that some mappers see motorcycle taxis as a > kind of taxi, like boat taxis and helicopter taxis, and others that see > them as their own kind of service. > It doesn't just seem that way, that's how it is. Technically, either approach to tagging would work. One question is which way results in the fewest number of mappers (and end users using the query tool) being surprised at the way the object is tagged/ The other question is which one gives the least undesirable results on renderers that support "ordinary" taxis but not the motorcycle ones. I think the best we can hope for from all this is that the OP mulls over all the arguments, does whatever seems best to him and also documents it in the wiki. As a side-issue, I'm not too worried if these discussions don't end up with a formal proposal but merely inform somebody's decision about "any tag you like." What does worry me is that these things then go undocumented and get used inconsistently. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] social_facility:for=family
Hello, I would not get in too detailed definitions, other values here like senior or mental_health do not go into much details on the wiki. Family are the groups of people these social facilities are aiming their services at. Usually this are groups the consists of defferent age groups, juvenile / children and Grown-ups related either by recognized birth or by marriage or other relationship. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] social_facility:for=family
sent from a phone > On 10. May 2020, at 11:09, klischka wrote: > > In my opinion there is the value > "family" missing on the Wiki ( > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility:for) I agree in principle. Can you give a definition of “family”? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] social_facility:for=family
Hello there, the social_facility:for=* tag is used to describe the group of people that is primarily served by the social facility. In my opinion there is the value "family" missing on the Wiki ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility:for) Let me explain why: There are many types of social facilitys that work with children, juveniles and parents or other personal living contituting the family. In Germany there is educational domestic advice (erziehungsberatung) and flexible educational support (ambulante Hilfen zur Erziehung) for example. To make it short I propose this addition to the wiki: social_facility:for=family Social facilities that work with the whole familie, not only children / juveniles or grown-ups in the family - for example educational domestic advice (Erziehungsberatung) or flexible educational support (ambulante Hilfen zur Erziehung). https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:amenity=motorcycle_taxi not approved
sent from a phone > On 10. May 2020, at 01:31, Paul Allen wrote: > > If you use amenity=taxi + vehicle=* you > guarantee that any carto which renders amenity=taxi will render ojek ranks > incorrectly at first, and perhaps incorrectly for all time (if they decide > they're > going to ignore the vehicle tag) it would only be “incorrectly” if you judged motorcycle taxis as not being taxis. In this case, you should not tag them amenity=taxi taxi=motorcycle anyway (because if taxi=motorcycle does not describe a subclass of taxi this is the wrong approach anyway). In this discussion it appeared that some mappers see motorcycle taxis as a kind of taxi, like boat taxis and helicopter taxis, and others that see them as their own kind of service. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
