Re: [Tagging] Mobile phone accessories

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 at 04:37, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I would expect a "shop=mobile_phone" to sell mobile phones, so your first > option of "shop=mobile_phone_accessories" is best, though > "shop=phone_accessories" is also a good option. > Shop=phone_accessories could also mean accessories

Re: [Tagging] Name for new wiki pages about roles of members in route relations?

The page describes a common role set and comes with a tagging instruction, for all types of recreational routes, except where a more specific role set has been approved. It is *not* for other types of routes, such as PT routes, road routes, and what have you, even though some role values may be

Re: [Tagging] Mobile phone accessories

sent from a phone > On 26. Jun 2020, at 20:37, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I would expect a "shop=mobile_phone" to sell mobile phones, so your first > option of "shop=mobile_phone_accessories" is best, though > "shop=phone_accessories" is also a good option. I agree with Joseph, the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

I believe many mappers are confused a lot for choosing the right tag just like me. So if we have a normal coffee house providing coffee and have seat we use * amenity=cafe + cuisine=coffee_shop (but the cuisine tag is not included in iD preset so many users do not add them) and if it is only a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

Jun 26, 2020, 18:41 by pla16...@gmail.com: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:28, Jarek Piórkowski <> ja...@piorkowski.ca> > > wrote: > >> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:50, Paul Allen <>> pla16...@gmail.com>> > wrote: >> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:31, 德泉 談 via Tagging <>> >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>>

Re: [Tagging] Mobile phone accessories

Hello Joseph, it's exactly what I was thinking... Even if I'm not completely against a "sub-tag". Cheers Francesco Il giorno ven 26 giu 2020 alle ore 20:37 Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > I would expect a "shop=mobile_phone" to sell mobile phones, so your first >

Re: [Tagging] Mobile phone accessories

I would expect a "shop=mobile_phone" to sell mobile phones, so your first option of "shop=mobile_phone_accessories" is best, though "shop=phone_accessories" is also a good option. – Joseph Eisenberg On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:30 AM Francesco Ansanelli wrote: > > Dear List, > > I'd like to

[Tagging] Mobile phone accessories

Dear List, I'd like to discuss the shop category in subject... In my town, there are already 3 shops that sell covers and accessories for mobile phones and not phones itself. I think the most clear tag is the first in taginfo: 7 *shop*

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 17:41:31 +0100 Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:28, Jarek Piórkowski > wrote: > > > > > I would suggest using an amenity tag rather than a shop tag since > > it's much more like a cafe or a fast food place than a store. > > > > I can see that it's more like

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

There is a tag shop=tea According to the wiki (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Ashop%3Dtea) this is supposed to be used for shops which sell tea leaves and bags of tea leaves for consumption at home or elsewhere. However, in practice many shop=tea features are "tea houses" which sell

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

On 25.06.20 19:57, pangoSE wrote: > I recently started discussing the problems related to urls and > File:filename.* that links to wikimedia_commons using the tag. See > Talk:Key:image#Discourage_linking_to_commons_files_and_migrate_all_File:filename..2A_values_and_direct_urls_to_wikimedia_commons

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

Am Fr., 26. Juni 2020 um 19:47 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen : > In British English we have tea shops - they also sell coffee and food. We > have > coffee shops - they also sell tea and food. Functionally, they are cafes, > as > OSM tags define that term. > I believe it is an omission of the early

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

FWIW, I also believe these are very different from shop=beverages, as they are selling drinks ready to consume, while shop=beverages is a kind of shop that sells beverages to take home (while nothing prevents you from buying a single drink and consume it as soon as you leave the shop, this is not

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:56, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I also think amenity=bubble_tea is more appropriate, but shop=bubble_tea > is fine. > I still thing they sell beverages and bubble_tea happens to be one of those beverages. That's why we have drink:*=yes. > > Using amenity=cafe seems

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:50, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: Still not sure why we can't just use cafe. Is "cafe" exclusively for > sit-down, dine-in places in British English? > British English usage is always slippery (because of marketers) but I'd say that a cafe offers some sort of food somewhere

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

I fully support it as outlined by Joseph. > On Jun 26, 2020, at 12:59, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >  > > Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out that > > qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and distribution. > > > Thus, it would be

[Tagging] RFC Start - extend telephone covers

Hi all,   I want to show you my proposal about extending the values of the key covered=* for detailed mapping how a telephone is covered, again. The proposal's page is here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/extend_telephone_covers   I'm looking forward to your comments.  

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:49, Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:28, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:50, Paul Allen wrote: >> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:31, 德泉 談 via Tagging < >> tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> I've drafted a new proposal about

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

> Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out that qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and distribution. > Thus, it would be continuity to go from waterway=canal, canal=qanat, tunnel=yes to waterway=canal instead. Yes, that is the plan. You can also

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 20:24, Frederik Ramm wrote: > There are currently 28k objects with wikimedia_commons in the database. > Your edit would treble that. I'm not convinced that automatic edits that > massively boost a niche tag are a good idea. "niche"? > I am not comfortable with inventing

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

I also think amenity=bubble_tea is more appropriate, but shop=bubble_tea is fine. Using amenity=cafe seems wrong. An amenity=cafe has "sit-down facilities" according to the wiki. Also the word "cafe" is from "coffee" - at least in the USA and Indonesia these places always sell coffee, unlike a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 12:42, Paul Allen wrote: >> It's basically a cafe. It prepares drinks to order. Best tagging I've >> seen around me is amenity=cafe + cuisine=bubble_tea > > As described in the proposal, most lack seating. Which makes those > without seating shops rather than cafes. This

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 17:28, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:50, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:31, 德泉 談 via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> > >> I've drafted a new proposal about the bubble tea shops which are very > common in Taiwan

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:50, Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:31, 德泉 談 via Tagging > wrote: >> >> I've drafted a new proposal about the bubble tea shops which are very common >> in Taiwan which are usually mismapped as shop=beverages >> >>

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

I concur that historic or heritage should be secondary tags. Regarding man_made=qanat versus canal=qanat, it is worth pointing out that qanats surface and become surface canals for irrigation and distribution. Thus, it would be continuity to go from waterway=canal, canal=qanat, tunnel=yes to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:31, 德泉 談 via Tagging wrote: > I've drafted a new proposal about the bubble tea shops which are very > common in Taiwan which are usually mismapped as shop=beverages > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dbubble_tea Looking at your proposal, I

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=bubble_tea

I've drafted a new proposal about the bubble tea shops which are very common in Taiwan which are usually mismapped as shop=beverages https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dbubble_tea Please visit and comment for this proposal, thanks.

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 15:57, Walker Bradley wrote: > So it would seem that historic=* or heritage=* would be appropriate > sub-tags for qanats when applicable on top of waterway=canal, canal=qanat, > tunnel=yes. > That's how I see it. Using historic=qanat for modern qanats seems wrong. So if

Re: [Tagging] Name for new wiki pages about roles of members in route relations?

On 25.06.20 19:46, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Should individual pages for these roles be located at something like > Role:main and Role:alternative? So far, I believe roles are typically documented on the wiki page for the relation type, rather than their own pages. I don't think there's an

Re: [Tagging] Name for new wiki pages about roles of members in route relations?

What would be a proper example page for this? The after-proposal-cleanup-procedure suggests the key:highway page, but that does not seem appropriate for a role set. Best, Peter Elderson Op vr 26 jun. 2020 om 13:25 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Both

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

So it would seem that historic=* or heritage=* would be appropriate sub-tags for qanats when applicable on top of waterway=canal, canal=qanat, tunnel=yes. I guess we would need to discuss after the approval of Qanat for what criterion/ia would determine historic=yes for qanat. > On Jun 26,

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

On 6/26/20 8:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > it’s up to your judgement, in my area if blocked with a mound this > would not be a track anymore. You can decide whether keeping it for > hikers (if legally and physically possible, i.e. highway=path) or A week or so ago I fixed a bunch of

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 14:47, Walker Bradley wrote: > Some Qanats are over three thousand years old, and are certainly listed in > guidebooks. > Those may merit a historic=yes. Depends on the guidebook, to some extent. There is a Qanat system in Persia that is UNESCO listed ( >

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

Are they natural deadfall or human-cut? I've seen photos of places where the USFS has felled a substantial number of trees across a road that's being decommissioned (or just razed, as it was never properly part of the forest road system to begin with). I believe the intent is to both eliminate

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 14:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 26. Jun 2020, at 12:52, Paul Allen wrote: > > A lot of the UK's sewer network is old. Like a qanat, it channels water > and > has vertical shafts. Little of that network, except some of the very first > sewers in the UK, is of

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:15 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > sent from a phone > > On 26. Jun 2020, at 15:59, Mike Thompson wrote: > > > > Trees have been there sometime by the looks of them, and are unlikely to > be cleared. To the FS this track no longer exists (they have blocked its >

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

sent from a phone > On 26. Jun 2020, at 15:59, Mike Thompson wrote: > > Trees have been there sometime by the looks of them, and are unlikely to be > cleared. To the FS this track no longer exists (they have blocked its only > junction with the larger network with a mount of earth), so they

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

Thanks for all of the great suggestions. I have used many of them. This is the way in question: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/819638979 Trees have been there sometime by the looks of them, and are unlikely to be cleared. To the FS this track no longer exists (they have blocked its only

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

Some Qanats are over three thousand years old, and are certainly listed in guidebooks. There is a Qanat system in Persia that is UNESCO listed (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1506/) “Modern” Qanats/Karez are still often hand dug, not with modern tunneling equipment. The World Bank funded the

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

sent from a phone > On 26. Jun 2020, at 12:52, Paul Allen wrote: > > A lot of the UK's sewer network is old. Like a qanat, it channels water and > has vertical shafts. Little of that network, except some of the very first > sewers in the UK, is of historical significance. according to WP

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

On Thu, 2020-06-25 at 22:14 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Btw, there are also a few images tagged with a “flickr” key (~1200) > > While it could eventually make sense to make an exception for > wikimedia commons, I do not believe we should create a new key for > every image hosting service.

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

sent from a phone > On 26. Jun 2020, at 02:58, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier=log says it should only be > used on a node, but if you don't know exactly where then I'd say using it on > the way would be fine when you add a barrier=log to something

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

As you've described it, I generally agree with Andrew's suggestions. I do also think that expected local conditions matter; I've mapped some old woods roads that are primarily used by Jeep and ATV traffic at this point. Generally speaking, folks traveling those types of roads expect to find

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

Jun 26, 2020, 08:51 by pang...@riseup.net: > Is there anything preventing us from running bots (with simple > algorithms) on the database? > Nothing? See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct See for example

Re: [Tagging] Name for new wiki pages about roles of members in route relations?

Both versions seems fine to me. Jun 25, 2020, 19:46 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > Since the proposal > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Recreational_route_relation_roles> > was approved, there needs to be a new documentation page for the roles > "main",

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: This would imply "historic" is for things of exceptional historical value, > That's how I read it. > it is not how I read the tag. Almost every man made structure that is > "old", has endured the times and is still here, does have some

Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"

Am Mo., 22. Juni 2020 um 09:32 Uhr schrieb Joseph Guillaume < josephguilla...@gmail.com>: > I suppose the reason I haven't provided an example is that historically > significant qanats are the exception in my opinion - in most cases I can't > think of a reason why it should be listed as historic

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

Am Fr., 26. Juni 2020 um 12:02 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > Jun 26, 2020, 09:29 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > to me this sounds like an unmaintained track road. > > Yes, but how we should tag it? > sorry, couldn't resist ;-) I would tag a few

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

Jun 26, 2020, 09:29 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 26. Jun 2020, at 01:45, Mike Thompson wrote: >> >> How would you recommend tagging a path or track that has many fallen trees >> across it? There are too many to map each one with a node tagged barrier=log. >> > >

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

sent from a phone > On 26. Jun 2020, at 08:53, pangoSE wrote: > > For me there are 2 categories: sites hosting free images like > Flickr, Mapillary and Commons and all the rest. Flickr is only at 1200 tag occurrences in total and we should stop this fragmentation IMHO. They are not free

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

sent from a phone > On 26. Jun 2020, at 08:53, pangoSE wrote: > > Is there anything preventing us from running bots (with simple > algorithms) on the database? Wikimedia projects do that all the time. I > rarely see this in OSM (besides the http/https bot) We should be really reluctant, I

Re: [Tagging] Path or track with many fallen trees

sent from a phone > On 26. Jun 2020, at 01:45, Mike Thompson wrote: > > How would you recommend tagging a path or track that has many fallen trees > across it? There are too many to map each one with a node tagged barrier=log. to me this sounds like an unmaintained track road. Cheers

Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion

thanks for the constructive suggestions :) Den Thu, 25 Jun 2020 22:14:21 +0200 skrev Re: [Tagging] Automated edit of image tags suggestion: > sent from a phone > > > On 25. Jun 2020, at 19:59, pangoSE wrote: > > > > image=File:* -> commons_file=File:* image=Category:* -> > >