Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops
sent from a phone > On 10. Aug 2020, at 14:11, Paul Allen wrote: > > Not exactly. Shop fits where consumption is not allowed on the premises. while it could be an indication, there isn’t such a strong rule that you could tell from seeing a shop=* tag that consumption is never allowed at all. At least in Germany for some kind of shop, e.g. shop=bakery or shop=butcher, there could be a few tables where you can stand (or sit, but if it’s for sitting it would be called a cafe) and eat things that you bought without it necessarily becoming a „cafe“ or fast food, nor an amenity=bakery Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 10:09, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: The truth is that both shop and > amenity fit and both well > Not exactly. Shop fits where consumption is not allowed on the premises. Amenity fits where consumption is allowed on the premises. Amenity with takeaway=yes fits where appropriate. Forcing all of them into only one of shop or amenity would be a mistake. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 09:09, Paul Allen wrote: > On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 13:50, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> > On 10. Aug 2020, at 14:11, Paul Allen wrote: >> > Not exactly. Shop fits where consumption is not allowed on the premises. >> >> while it could be an indication, there isn’t such a strong rule that you >> could tell from seeing a shop=* tag that consumption is never allowed at >> all. At least in Germany for some kind of shop, e.g. shop=bakery or >> shop=butcher, there could be a few tables where you can stand (or sit, but >> if it’s for sitting it would be called a cafe) and eat things that you >> bought without it necessarily becoming a „cafe“ or fast food, nor an >> amenity=bakery > > We're into cultural edge cases here. Not surprising since your "shop fits where consumption is not allowed on the premises" is a very your-culture-centric view on things. > There are places with lots of seats for consumption on the premises. And > places > with no seats at all for consumption off the premises. Calling both of those > amenities is not helpful. Calling both of those shops is not helpful. We > clearly > need both amenity and shop IF both of those types of establishment exist for > bubble tea. I disagree with the premise that consumption on premises is to be a divider. Making two tags for the same kind of shop/service depending if there's a bench or not seems bad to me. There's supermarkets around here with a lunch bar where you can order some hot food and sit and eat it - would you make them an amenity too? I think we should not use "consumption on premises" as a criterion for shop/amenity split. If you disagree, please explain how the existing tags shop=hairdresser and amenity=pharmacy fit into your proposed tagging scheme. --Jarek ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - more parking types
On 08/08/2020 19.12, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 at 03:39, Matthew Woehlke wrote: We already have capacity and capacity=disabled, what's the problem with adding more capacity:*? But what number do we show for "capacity"? IIUC, all of them. So... I started wondering about this after one of the carparks you mentioned in Quantico recently showed capacity 15, with 11 car spaces + 4 motorbike spaces. Should that be =15, or =11 + 4? ...15. Rationale: existing capacity:* spaces are not usable unless you meet the criteria, but are (AFAIUI) included in capacity. The description in JOSM is explicitly "capacity (overall)". On the wiki, it is "the number of vehicles a facility holds". Both imply total capacity, including spots that aren't usable to many vehicles. It seems clear that the intent is that "general" capacity is the overall capacity less any capacity:*. It's possible that some software will need to adapt (though I question how critical it is to know capacity, since no software can know how many spaces are already occupied), but it's also possible such software is already not honoring other, existing capacity:* tags. So, do we have a shopping centre parking lot with capacity=100, or should we have capacity:"vehicle"=60; capacity:motorbike=10; capacity:disabled=10; capacity:prams***=6; capacity:ev_charging=4; capacity:(temporary/short_term/click'n'collect)=5; capacity:loading=5 Hmm, "loading" would be good for curbside pick-up, though now we're into the discussion of whether a space for standing-only is actually a "parking" space :-). As for the main thrust of your question, see above. ***=prams - I'm not sure if they're yet a thing in OSM?, but that's carparks marked as reserved for parents with prams eg https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0997524,153.4253639,3a,64.7y,77.23h,72.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3e6IiMfvLC7DrZq1RA4TUA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 Yeah, that might make sense. I'm not sure if it's better to go ahead and add that, or if we should treat each type as a separate proposal. (I'd almost be tempted to yank "compact" again and resubmit it as a follow-up.) -- Matthew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 13:50, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > On 10. Aug 2020, at 14:11, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > Not exactly. Shop fits where consumption is not allowed on the premises. > > while it could be an indication, there isn’t such a strong rule that you > could tell from seeing a shop=* tag that consumption is never allowed at > all. At least in Germany for some kind of shop, e.g. shop=bakery or > shop=butcher, there could be a few tables where you can stand (or sit, but > if it’s for sitting it would be called a cafe) and eat things that you > bought without it necessarily becoming a „cafe“ or fast food, nor an > amenity=bakery > We're into cultural edge cases here. There are places with lots of seats for consumption on the premises. And places with no seats at all for consumption off the premises. Calling both of those amenities is not helpful. Calling both of those shops is not helpful. We clearly need both amenity and shop IF both of those types of establishment exist for bubble tea. Cultural edge cases are up to the individual mapper to choose between shop and amenity. Or would be, if we could establish that both shop and amenity are needed in the first place. If you disagree with that, then whichever of shop or amenity you think is the best fit to your cultural edge case and should therefore apply to all types of establishment in all countries, I want the other one. If you think they should all be shops, even though they have some seats, I think they should all be amenities even if they allow consumption on the premises. If you think they should all be amenities even if they don't allow consumption on the premises, I think they should all be shops even if they have seats. Why would I take such a contrarian attitude? Because I don't think bringing in a cultural edge case was particularly helpful here, but if that's how you want to play it... -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Qanat"
Is there further discussion on this, or do the advocates thing it’s ready for a vote? > On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:19, Walker Bradley wrote: > > > 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 continuity to go from waterway=canal, canal=qanat, >> > tunnel=yes to waterway=canal instead. >> >> Yes, that is the plan. You can also add usage=irrigation or another >> appropriate value of usage=*, and width=* >> >> – Joseph Eisenberg >> >>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:12 AM Walker Bradley >>> wrote: >>> 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 waterway=canal instead. Thoughts? >>> > On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:27, Paul Allen wrote: > > 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 we need different tagging for modern qanats anyway, then handle historic qanats by adding historic=yes. > > I guess we would need to discuss after the approval of Qanat for what > criterion/ia would determine historic=yes for qanat. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Historic and then discuss if it needs modifying/expanding to specifically deal with qanats or if the page for man_made=qanat needs text clarifying what Historic means for qanats. If a historian, even an amateur one, is eager to visit it then it's historic. If a historian takes a look and says "Meh" then it isn't historic. Which isn't a very objective metric, so some would say the historic tag shouldn't be used at all (another good reason to prefer man_made=qanat) over historic=qanat). -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> ___ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> ___ >> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops
On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 15:36, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 09:09, Paul Allen wrote: > > > We're into cultural edge cases here. > > Not surprising since your "shop fits where consumption is not allowed > on the premises" is a very your-culture-centric view on things. > You think so? I'd say that far more culture centric is "MY culture doesn't make a distinction between these things therefore YOUR culture is not allowed to." > There are places with lots of seats for consumption on the premises. And > places > > with no seats at all for consumption off the premises. Calling both of > those > > amenities is not helpful. Calling both of those shops is not helpful. > We clearly > > need both amenity and shop IF both of those types of establishment exist > for > > bubble tea. > > I disagree with the premise that consumption on premises is to be a > divider. Making two tags for the same kind of shop/service depending > if there's a bench or not seems bad to me. There's supermarkets around > here with a lunch bar where you can order some hot food and sit and > eat it - would you make them an amenity too? > Absolutely. A supermarket near me offers a wider range of things and calls it an in-store cafe. If you can go in and sit down to eat it's an amenity. There's a takeaway near me with seats and tables, which is an amenity. > > I think we should not use "consumption on premises" as a criterion for > shop/amenity split. If you disagree, please explain how the existing > tags shop=hairdresser and amenity=pharmacy fit into your proposed > tagging scheme. > I don't think we should let bad past mistakes force us into repeating them for new tags. BTW, we have done it correctly in other cases such as amenity=pub and shop=alcohol. But if your culture makes absolutely no distinction between shops selling something for consumption off the premises and businesses selling the exact same thing for consumption on the premises, then pick whichever tag you want at random. If you have edge cases, pick whichever tag you like at random. But allow other cultures which do make those distinctions to pick a tag in a more meaningful way. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Fwd: Re[2]: PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length
one of the points that i talked about, that no one has answered yet is what about someone not local who just puts 400 + unverified stops on platforms and there all wrong. >Monday, August 10, 2020 4:30 AM -05:00 from Warin < 61sundow...@gmail.com >: > >On 10/8/20 7:06 pm, Ture Pålsson via Tagging wrote: >> Here in Stockholm, trains seem to line up one end of the train with >> one end of the platform. Usually, that's the end where the entrance >> is, but sometimes there are entrances at both ends, so if you arrive >> just in time at an unfamiliar station and find that it's a short >> train, you may be in for a run... > > >A good reason to map that end in OSM. > >So 'local variations' maybe needed. > >> (BTDT, with a day hike rucksack...) > > >A day hike is not much of a load. > >An overnight hike is a little more, 7 days more still. 10 days is my >limit... too heavy after that. > >> >> 2020-08-10 09:20 skrev Warin: >>> [...] >>> Why is the front of the vehicle (bus, train, ferry.. and possibly >>> others) mapped? >>> >>> Would it not be better to map the thing most usefull to most people? >>> That would be where passengers get on/off, on multiple exit vehicles >>> like train then the average of these positions could be used. >>> >>> Trains here of varying lengths tend to place the middle of the train >>> at the middle of the platform - thus it is consistent for any train >>> length. The only exceptions are where the platform is shorter than the >>> train so the train stops such that the designated car/carriage is >>> centered on the platform - thus it is still a consistent location for >>> OSM. >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > >___ >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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops
sent from a phone > On 10. Aug 2020, at 15:11, Paul Allen wrote: > > If you disagree with that, then whichever of shop > or amenity you think is the best fit to your cultural edge case and should > therefore apply to all types of establishment in all countries, I want the > other > one. If you think they should all be shops, even though they have some > seats, I think they should all be amenities even if they allow consumption > on the premises. If you think they should all be amenities even if they don't > allow consumption on the premises, I think they should all be shops even if > they have seats. I think we could have just one tag for bubble tea establishments, either shop or amenity, and deal with seating in a separate tag (or, for example, something like takeaway=only). Have a look at ice cream. it is somehow similar (although there are I believe a wider variety of places, e.g. cafes which sell cups of ice cream with fruits, vs the ice cream wafer takeaway places), in particular, amenity=ice_cream does not guarantee that you can sit down in the place. Cheers Martin PS: for the avoidance of doubt, I agree that shops are more for takeaway places and amenity more for places that invite customers to consume at the premises. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Re[2]: PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length
On 11/8/20 9:25 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote: one of the points that i talked about, that no one has answered yet is what about someone not local who just puts 400 + unverified stops on platforms and there all wrong. If you find something wrong - correct it. If the things mapped are deceitful, malicious etc then report it to the DWG to prevent more of the same. If the things mapped are better than what was there before then I would call them improvements and thus beneficial, no point in being upset by it. Being local is not a requirement to map, get over it. Local knowledge is beneficial as it aids mapping things that have local characteristics - like where trains stop. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Re[2]: PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length
the train or trains do not stop where he says they do, and i am talking about 400 +, unverified platforms. which is 200 + stations, see; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metra https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-August/054669.html https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-August/054696.html https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-August/054697.html >Monday, August 10, 2020 9:33 PM -05:00 from Warin < 61sundow...@gmail.com >: > >On 11/8/20 9:25 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote: >>one of the points that i talked about, that no one has answered yet is what >>about someone not local >> >>who just puts 400 + unverified stops on platforms and there all wrong. >> >If you find something wrong - correct it. > >If the things mapped are deceitful, malicious etc then report it to the DWG to >prevent more of the same. >If the things mapped are better than what was there before then I would call >them improvements and thus beneficial, no point in being upset by it. >Being local is not a requirement to map, get over it. Local knowledge is >beneficial as it aids mapping things that have local characteristics - like >where trains stop. >___ >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] Fwd: Re[2]: PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length
On 11/8/20 1:11 pm, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote: the train or trains do not stop where he says they do, Do they stop at the platform? Yes. So stop positions maybe mapped. and i am talking about 400 +, unverified platforms. which is 200 + stations, Unverified? Verified by the existing signs? This maybe 'out of date' but still verifiable. How 'inaccurate' are the present stop positions? How precise is the mapped position required? Were there stop positions there before? Is it not better to have some indication rather than nothing? "They will stay there for ever" unless someone improves them. Monday, August 10, 2020 9:33 PM -05:00 from Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: On 11/8/20 9:25 am, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote: one of the points that i talked about, that no one has answered yet is what about someone not local who just puts 400 + unverified stops on platforms and there all wrong. If you find something wrong - correct it. If the things mapped are deceitful, malicious etc then report it to the DWG to prevent more of the same. If the things mapped are better than what was there before then I would call them improvements and thus beneficial, no point in being upset by it. Being local is not a requirement to map, get over it. Local knowledge is beneficial as it aids mapping things that have local characteristics - like where trains stop. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Fwd: Re[2]: PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length
On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 4:27 PM 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > one of the points that i talked about, that no one has answered yet is > what about someone not local > > who just puts 400 + unverified stops on platforms and there all wrong. > Again, is there a reason you're not referring to me by name? It's getting a little on my nerves. I'll answer your question, though. If you want to verify and reposition them, go ahead. If you want to add more stop_position nodes to reflect train lengths, please feel free. Otherwise, if they still bother you, perhaps you can leave them alone and let others improve them. -Clay ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length
Here in Stockholm, trains seem to line up one end of the train with one end of the platform. Usually, that's the end where the entrance is, but sometimes there are entrances at both ends, so if you arrive just in time at an unfamiliar station and find that it's a short train, you may be in for a run... (BTDT, with a day hike rucksack...) 2020-08-10 09:20 skrev Warin: [...] Why is the front of the vehicle (bus, train, ferry.. and possibly others) mapped? Would it not be better to map the thing most usefull to most people? That would be where passengers get on/off, on multiple exit vehicles like train then the average of these positions could be used. Trains here of varying lengths tend to place the middle of the train at the middle of the platform - thus it is consistent for any train length. The only exceptions are where the platform is shorter than the train so the train stops such that the designated car/carriage is centered on the platform - thus it is still a consistent location for OSM. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops
The truth is that both shop and amenity fit and both well have some people unhappy 7 Aug 2020, 20:59 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Hello > > Sorry for pause the bubble tea proposal for a month due to my personal reason. > > In the discussion in June and July some people think the tag for bubble tea > is too specific but there is a flaw in existing tags, so I made a new draft > for containing more type of takeaway beverages shops, and it's still unsure > whether use amenity=* or shop=*. > > Please comment and help me to complete the proposal, thanks. > > Tan > > ___ > 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Takeaway drinks shops
On 8/8/20 8:29 am, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I still believe shop=bubble_tea is suitable, as these are specific shops where you can get only bubble tea. Although bubble tea is something to drink, I would rather think of it as a specific kind of sweets, than as a shop where you can get a beverage. Amenity could also be suitable, if you prefer this, especially if the shop is welcoming customers to sit down and consume on the premises. Not all shop=* welcome customer consumption. e.g. shop=supermarket, greengrocer, chocolate, convenience. Shop is a much more specific key compared to the key amenity, I think being more specific is a good thing and would support shop over amenity where it is applicable. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length
On 10/8/20 7:06 pm, Ture Pålsson via Tagging wrote: Here in Stockholm, trains seem to line up one end of the train with one end of the platform. Usually, that's the end where the entrance is, but sometimes there are entrances at both ends, so if you arrive just in time at an unfamiliar station and find that it's a short train, you may be in for a run... A good reason to map that end in OSM. So 'local variations' maybe needed. (BTDT, with a day hike rucksack...) A day hike is not much of a load. An overnight hike is a little more, 7 days more still. 10 days is my limit... too heavy after that. 2020-08-10 09:20 skrev Warin: [...] Why is the front of the vehicle (bus, train, ferry.. and possibly others) mapped? Would it not be better to map the thing most usefull to most people? That would be where passengers get on/off, on multiple exit vehicles like train then the average of these positions could be used. Trains here of varying lengths tend to place the middle of the train at the middle of the platform - thus it is consistent for any train length. The only exceptions are where the platform is shorter than the train so the train stops such that the designated car/carriage is centered on the platform - thus it is still a consistent location for OSM. ___ 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] PTv2 public_transport=stop_position for stop positions that vary based on train length
On 8/8/20 10:54 am, Andy Townsend wrote: Hello, This is a question that actually arose out of a "how to tag" argument that's come to the attention of the DWG in the USA, but it's actually easy to describe in terms of data in the UK that I'm familiar with, so I'll do that. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/12004813 is a "public_transport=stop_position" for a local station and is part of https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6396491 among other relations. The problem is that train lengths vary, and there are a number of stop positions, each of which are actually signed on the platform for the benefit of the drivers. From memory I think that there's at least a 2-car stop, a 4 car stop and 6/8 and 10/12 car stops. The problem is that the current node doesn't correspond to any of them. Why is the front of the vehicle (bus, train, ferry.. and possibly others) mapped? Would it not be better to map the thing most usefull to most people? That would be where passengers get on/off, on multiple exit vehicles like train then the average of these positions could be used. Trains here of varying lengths tend to place the middle of the train at the middle of the platform - thus it is consistent for any train length. The only exceptions are where the platform is shorter than the train so the train stops such that the designated car/carriage is centered on the platform - thus it is still a consistent location for OSM. Maybe the "correct" answer is none of the above? With a "local mapper" hat on I've managed to avoid PTv2 since it basically isn't relevant anywhere I normally map things, largely because I don't tend to do that near any actual public transport infrastructure, but with a DWG hat on I haven't been able to avoid the question, hence me asking here. I have mapped a few bus routes and 'corrected' some PTV2 trains... but I'd not hold them up as 'best' examples... only ones that are 'better' than what was there before and probably the simplest way that I could see to do it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
