Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Takeaway drink shops

[Andrew Harvey]

Hi Tan,

Just wanted to say thank you for all your work on the takeaway drinks
proposal. I know it takes a lot of effort putting together a detailed
proposal and addressing feedback. Personally I think it was a great
proposal which would have improved the OSM ecosystem, so quite
disappointed it didn't pass even with a majority of support, but regardless
you did a stellar job.

On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 at 17:46, 德泉 談 via Tagging 
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> The voting of the takeaway drink shops is on, please vote the proposal
> here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Takeaway_drink_shops
>
> 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] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

21 Oct 2020, 22:00 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

> On 16/10/2020 09:31, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
>> Oct 15, 2020, 22:18 by >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> :
>>
 This recent wiki change by  Emvee 
   is in my view not 
 helpful,  or even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread  
 tagging practice (if we like this or not is a different  
 question, but it's established tagging, and the wiki is  supposed 
 to describe the establsihed methods of tagging)

>>>
>>> The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a  node, 
>>> see >>> https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265
>>>
>>>
>> No, you changed documented meaning of tagging scheme in
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcrossing=revision=2043653=2025128
>>
>> OSM Wiki is not describing only tagging that is supported.
>>
>> Note that it is fine to describe tagging as problematic,unsupported 
>> and having a better alternative.
>>
>
> Rereading what was added the text describes exactly what is  problematic 
> namely bicycle=no in the context of routing. I did not  add that context 
> but that is something I can do. 
>
>
> Adding that mapping the crossing from curb to curb as separate  osm way 
> with the correct access tags is a better alternative is a  good idea.
>
>
>>>
>>> Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore  bicycle=no 
>>> in combination with highway=crossing means that it  is more or less 
>>> useless as routers are they main data  consumers while at the same 
>>> time crossing data is far from  being complete.
>>>
>>>
>> Any tagging scheme is for some period unsupported, this doesnot make 
>> it useless.
>>
> If data is not used and will not be used in the foreseeable future Icall 
> it useless.
>> And any widely used tagging scheme can be described. Asobvious from 
>> this discussion meaning
>> of this bicycle=no is clear so I will revert your edits onthis page
>>
>
> I do not see how you came to this conclusion, but as I noted on  the Talk 
> page I have no problem with reverting for now but think  it should be 
> reverted further to point before bicycle=no/yes was  added.
>
>
Why?
>
> Instead of reverting you could have chosen for the changes I did  point 
> out above.
>
>
>>>
>>> My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and  it 
>>> does not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian  issue 
>>> can be deduced from the connecting ways.
>>>
>>>
>> Not in cases where 
>> (1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists areobligated to 
>> dismount
>> (2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossingroad 
>> where cyclists
>> are obligated to dismount
>>
> Can be covered by mapping the crossing, curb to curb as separate osmway. 
> A bit more effort but more precise.
>
Yes. But the entire thread was started due
to wiki edit redefining already tagged data.

I am open to describing way splitting as
preferable, but not to redefining existing tagging.
>  
>
>>
>> (3)pedestrian only crossing is tagged on road having cyclewayon both 
>> sides 
>> (tagged as cycleway:lef/cycleway:right/cycleway:both) 
>> (or where such road has cycleway at one side, is joined byseparately 
>> mapped 
>> cycleway from other side and there is crossing there, but
>> cyclists must dismount)
>>
>
> There is no need to tag this type of "solitary" crossing for  routing 
> purposes, a router will never want to make a turn half way  the road. 
>
>
But given road may be obstacle to be crossed
with user desiring to get to other side
>
> So these "solitary" crossings are useless in routing  context while 
> routers do have problems with bicycle=no/dismount on  a node.
>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Couple of other versions of restricted parking

Customer's only or else:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0752577,153.4231834,3a,41.8y,100.24h,86.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swWpsJAcwaHpNkJm8KuoXFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

& customers only with a time limit per day!
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-28.0901058,153.4504965,3a,15y,-3.36h,83.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJmzOQR0jhd-OEpbuRVxkog!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
& this one, you get your wheel clamped & it costs $75 to have it released
(No, it didn't happen to me, but I know someone that it did :-()

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Emvee via Tagging]

On 16/10/2020 09:31, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Oct 15, 2020, 22:18 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:


This recent wiki change by Emvee
 is in my view
not helpful, or even misleading, as it does discourage a
wide-spread tagging practice (if we like this or not is a
different question, but it's established tagging, and the wiki is
supposed to describe the establsihed methods of tagging)


The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a node,
see https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265


No, you changed documented meaning of tagging scheme in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcrossing=revision=2043653=2025128


OSM Wiki is not describing only tagging that is supported.

Note that it is fine to describe tagging as problematic, unsupported
and having a better alternative.


Rereading what was added the text describes exactly what is problematic
namely bicycle=no in the context of routing. I did not add that context
but that is something I can do.

Adding that mapping the crossing from curb to curb as separate osm way
with the correct access tags is a better alternative is a good idea.


Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no
in combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less
useless as routers are they main data consumers while at the same
time crossing data is far from being complete.

Any tagging scheme is for some period unsupported, this does not make
it useless.

If data is not used and will not be used in the foreseeable future I
call it useless.

And any widely used tagging scheme can be described. As obvious from
this discussion meaning
of this bicycle=no is clear so I will revert your edits on this page


I do not see how you came to this conclusion, but as I noted on the Talk
page I have no problem with reverting for now but think it should be
reverted further to point before bicycle=no/yes was added.

Instead of reverting you could have chosen for the changes I did point
out above.


My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it
does not add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue
can be deduced from the connecting ways.

Not in cases where
(1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to
dismount
(2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossing road where
cyclists
are obligated to dismount

Can be covered by mapping the crossing, curb to curb as separate osm
way. A bit more effort but more precise.

(3)pedestrian only crossing is tagged on road having cycleway on both
sides
(tagged as cycleway:lef/cycleway:right/cycleway:both)
(or where such road has cycleway at one side, is joined by separately
mapped
cycleway from other side and there is crossing there, but
cyclists must dismount)


There is no need to tag this type of "solitary" crossing for routing
purposes, a router will never want to make a turn half way the road. So
these "solitary" crossings are useless in routing context while routers
do have problems with bicycle=no/dismount on a node.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 21. Oct 2020, at 10:59, stevea  wrote:
> What I mean by towing_penalty=yes is that it is POSSIBLE that you might get 
> towed if you exceed the maxstay (or a semantic otherwise 
> interpretable-from-the-tags).  What I mean by towing_penalty=no is that the 
> particular "enforcement method" of getting towed to make you think twice 
> about exceeding the maxstay isn't a chosen tool on this parking lot, and/or 
> there is no sign so indicating.


around here you could always get towed when parking where you shouldn’t, of 
course the likelyness correlates with the amount of nuisance you create. I 
would find it hard to guarantee for some place that you won’t get towed despite 
of wrong parking.

I see some point in indicating that they are menacing you with towing.
Indeed there are also official traffic signs which do it to underline certain 
parking or stopping limitations. E.g. 
https://live.staticflickr.com/7647/26807112525_c70e2863f2_o.jpg

Cheers Martin 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Richard Fairhurst]

Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> On 21/10/2020 00.57, Robert Delmenico wrote:
> > The word 'Man' in the Old English sense 'mann' had the primary meaning of 
>"adult male human"
> Citation needed

My degree is in Old English (and the other early medieval languages of the 
British Isles) and I can assure you that the sentence quoted is, frankly, 
beallucas. "Man"/"mann" in OE is usually gender-neutral. Go look at a parallel 
text of Beowulf if you don't believe me.

Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Oliver Simmons]

I was referring to the fact people may start wanting to change other tags, I was not talking about language changing.Changing any tags at all in an unnecessary (from a mapping point of view) way I disagree on, but we should at least make it easy to do if it’s going to happen again. From: Phake NickSent: 21 October 2020 15:28To: Tag discussion, strategy and related toolsSubject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial  在 2020年10月21日週三 17:37，Oliver Simmons  寫道：Agreed, if we are doing this once, we better have a way to do it again as doing it once guarantees that it will happen for another tag in the future. Changing in inside OSM and the OSM Wiki is the easier part though, it’s informing and getting all of the software to recognise the new tag (preferably both as the old tag will still remain on old stuff).Older software is the issue as getting that to be updated is near impossible.There are *tons* of styles and software e.t.c. that are going to break From: Colin SmaleSent: 21 October 2020 10:25To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial On 2020-10-21 10:59, Robert Delmenico wrote:I'll do some more research before the vote goes ahead. I've read quite a bit of research around gendered language since first mentioning this idea.   I'll be sure to list them in the proposal but feel free to send through any sources that are both for and against the arguments I have raised. I'm thinking that I'll mention the arguments both for and against on the proposal page as this is a big proposal which if it succeeds will have a big impact. If anyone has any arguments for or against that they wish to have included in the proposal, please feel free to leave them on the talk page for the proposal. If this goes through, it will be traumatic, however you look at it. Do you have any suggestions how to abstract this specific example into a more generic process to a) review all tags currently in the database; b) all wiki content suggesting tagging; and c) all future proposals, to assess their appropriateness in the current and likely future environment?  I don't mean to be flippant - this is a serious suggestion. If we are going to have this kind of discussion around any graphology incorporating "possibly offensive" groups of letters we had better have a proper policy in place and a well-oiled process to deal with it. ___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Given the history of language evolution, people keep adopting different terms for discriminatory use and thus what uacceptable vs what is not will always be changing. And since it is almost possible to predict what term in the future will be used by duscriminators, it is basically impossible to guarantee it will happen again. The best we can do is to minimize such chance and hope next time it happens will be more than a millennium from now. 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 15:00, Matthew Woehlke 
wrote:

> On 21/10/2020 00.57, Robert Delmenico wrote:
>
> Also:
>
> > The word 'Man' in the Old English sense 'mann' had the primary meaning
> of "adult male human"
>
> Citation needed, particularly as the other thread contains a statement
> which directly contradicts this.
>
> It was I who made that statement.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/man#Etymology_1

See also the usage notes on that page for a little more of the
etymology (it clarifies aspects that are ambiguous in the etymology
ifself).  It also gives a link to the Old English "mann" (from which
"man" derives) that makes clear that the primary meaning of
"mann" in OE was person/human and that it was rarely used
to mean adult male.  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mann#Old_English

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Phake Nick]

在 2020年10月21日週三 17:37，Oliver Simmons  寫道：

> Agreed, if we are doing this once, we better have a way to do it again as
> doing it once guarantees that it will happen for another tag in the future.
>
>
>
> Changing in inside OSM and the OSM Wiki is the easier part though, it’s
> informing and getting all of the software to recognise the new tag
> (preferably both as the old tag will still remain on old stuff).
>
> Older software is the issue as getting that to be updated is near
> impossible.
>
> There are *tons* of styles and software e.t.c. that are going to break
>
>
>
> *From: *Colin Smale 
> *Sent: *21 October 2020 10:25
> *To: *tagging@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject: *Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial
>
>
>
> On 2020-10-21 10:59, Robert Delmenico wrote:
>
> I'll do some more research before the vote goes ahead. I've read quite a
> bit of research around gendered language since first mentioning this idea.
>
>
>
> I'll be sure to list them in the proposal but feel free to send through
> any sources that are both for and against the arguments I have raised. I'm
> thinking that I'll mention the arguments both for and against on the
> proposal page as this is a big proposal which if it succeeds will have a
> big impact.
>
>
>
> If anyone has any arguments for or against that they wish to have included
> in the proposal, please feel free to leave them on the talk page for the
> proposal.
>
>
>
> If this goes through, it will be traumatic, however you look at it. Do you
> have any suggestions how to abstract this specific example into a more
> generic process to a) review all tags currently in the database; b) all
> wiki content suggesting tagging; and c) all future proposals, to assess
> their appropriateness in the current and likely future environment?
>
>
>
> I don't mean to be flippant - this is a serious suggestion. If we are
> going to have this kind of discussion around any graphology incorporating
> "possibly offensive" groups of letters we had better have a proper policy
> in place and a well-oiled process to deal with it.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Given the history of language evolution, people keep adopting different
terms for discriminatory use and thus what uacceptable vs what is not will
always be changing. And since it is almost possible to predict what term in
the future will be used by duscriminators, it is basically impossible to
guarantee it will happen again. The best we can do is to minimize such
chance and hope next time it happens will be more than a millennium from
now.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 21/10/2020 00.57, Robert Delmenico wrote:

'her generic man' has been fixed - it was a typo.

now reads:
"confirmed that when people read or hear the generic version of 'man',
people form mental pictures of males"


Citation needed, especially as you imply one but don't (AFAICT?) supply 
a link to it. I'd be especially curious to know whether there is an 
observable difference in people's mental image of "men", when used in a 
sense to refer to humans generically, and e.g. "people".


Also:


The word 'Man' in the Old English sense 'mann' had the primary meaning of "adult 
male human"


Citation needed, particularly as the other thread contains a statement 
which directly contradicts this.


--
Matthew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] OSM changes the world | Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 21/10/2020 09.34, Tobias Zwick wrote:

You seem to defend that OSM should be used as a tool to change
language, for politically motivated reasons in this case.


Indeed; we should not forget that the ultimate motivation here is *very 
much* political. (Note: as I stated elsewhere, that may not be the OP's 
motivation, but that of the forces manipulating the OP.)


OTOH, there is unfortunately a political aspect to *not* making the 
change... because the group that wants a change can't tolerate the 
status quo.


In my book, furthering political or social ideologies does not even fall 
remotely under the mission of OSM. I dearly hope it stays this way.


Likewise.

--
Matthew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposal to change key:man_made to key:human_made

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 20/10/2020 15.22, Justin Tracey wrote:

On 2020-10-20 12:13 p.m., Matthew Woehlke wrote:

On 19/10/2020 16.01, Justin Tracey wrote:

It's the same reason we want
discourse on lists like this one to be friendly and amicable: it should
be obvious to anyone outside looking in that contributing and
participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and they should feel welcome
joining in.


...and the irony is that most of what the SJW agenda accomplishes is to
polarize and inflame the issues, having the exact *opposite* effect as
encouraging harmony and inclusiveness (not to mention the hypocrisy of
being inimically opposed to "conservatives").


I have no idea what "the SJW agenda" is, but it doesn't seem
relevant to the discussion anyway.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

If you don't see the relevance, I'm afraid I can't help you. The topic 
under discussion is a prime facet of said agenda.



If core aspects of the tagging schema give hints at a bias
towards a particular segment of the population (in this case,
English-speaking men)


So, clearly, we need to change the language of OSM tags to loglan. Oh,
wait, that would *still* be biased.


Correct. All the more reason to discuss how these biases manifest! :)


I don't mind discussing whether or not bias is present. I *do* mind 
someone else assigning a bias to a group when no such bias exists.



I'm not sure what you're talking about, but you seem to have an axe to
grind [...]


True.


[...] with a strawman that hasn't come up in this discussion. Nobody
said anything about "intolerance", there is no vilifying here, and
nobody is "forcing" any opinions on anyone.


Less true. This started as someone / some group deciding that our use of 
a term that has been historically and widely recognized as 
gender-neutral is biased.


Please note I'm not singling out the OP. In fact, I rather get the 
impression he's just innocently exploring an idea that has been forced 
on him. My objection isn't to this discussion as such, but to the groups 
that ultimately caused us to be having it.


Ultimately, given the technical arguments against change, it's hard for 
me to take a stance on the proposal *without* at least considering the 
underlying reasons why such things come up in the first place. If I just 
ignore those aspects, the obvious answer is that the proposal is 
expensive and pointless... but ignoring SJWs is dangerous. (Again, 
ironically; those people employ the exact same sorts of tactics they 
vilify their opponents for using.)


Anyway, most of why I brought it up was in reply to "contributing and 
participating in OSM is *enjoyable*, and [anyone wishing to do so] 
should feel welcome joining in." I wanted to express my agreement with 
the goal, but *dis*agreement with the means of accomplishing that goal.


--
Matthew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] OSM changes the world | Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Tobias Zwick]

The purpose of OSM is to **map** the world.

If this brings about positive change such as the things you mentioned 
(any many more), that's good and that is the reason why many people 
contribute to such a free wiki world map.
This is a huge difference to your statement! You seem to defend that OSM 
should be used as a tool to change language, for politically motivated 
reasons in this case.


OSM is as much about change as science, FOSS or wikipedia is about 
change. Who would trust wikipedia as a reliable source if their mission 
was to "bring about (political) change"?


In my book, furthering political or social ideologies does not even fall 
remotely under the mission of OSM. I dearly hope it stays this way.


Tobias

On 21/10/2020 09:49, Rory McCann wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

(4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
to change language, especially if done at
cost of making more complicated for
mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
meaning remains standard and is well
understood


The purpose of OSM is to change the world. We're trying to create a map of the 
world, build by enthusiastic local people and to give it away to everyone for 
free. We're trying to produce a geo commons for every person. It's too late to 
say that OSM shouldn't change anything in the world. 

___
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 - Artificial

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 21. Oct 2020, at 06:59, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> 
> "confirmed that when people read or hear the generic version of 'man', people 
> form mental pictures of males"


yes, but it does not mean that people think of men when they read “mankind” or 
“man_made” or “mannequin” or “manslaughter” (the latter a suggestion from my ai 
partner). IMHO you have to separate the meaning of these terms from the meaning 
of “man”. 

I am not opposing the idea that people actively try to change the language for 
a purpose, but as long as they haven’t succeeded we should not try to overtake 
them.

 See the tags as codes and try to convince preset publishers to use terms that 
you perceive more neutral in their “translations”. Thinking about it, the term 
“man made” is maybe not even presented to mappers unless they look at tags.


Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] OSM changes the world | Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 21, 2020, 09:49 by r...@technomancy.org:

> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>> (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
>> to change language, especially if done at 
>> cost of making more complicated for
>> mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
>> meaning remains standard and is well 
>> understood
>>
>
> The purpose of OSM is to change the world. We're trying to create a map of 
> the world, build by enthusiastic local people and to give it away to everyone 
> for free. We're trying to produce a geo commons for every person. It's too 
> late to say that OSM shouldn't change anything in the world. 
>
I wrote "I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool to change language".

I see this proposal as similar to "we should use Esperanto as language for name 
tag"
that appeared some time ago.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

[Philip Barnes]

On Wednesday, 21 October 2020, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 20:20, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 20:04 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
> >
> > Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is free.
> >
> > There is some more information available here:
> >
> >
> > https://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/city/parking/smarter-parking-ballarat#:~:text=Your%20first%20hour%20of%20parking,the%20Central%20Square%20car%20park%20
> > .
> >
> >
> > The wiki is not the clearest on this
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane#Parking_conditions_.28terms.29
> >
> > You can do `parking:condition:left=ticket` +
> > `parking:condition:left:conditional=free @ (maxstay > 1 hour)` though not
> > sure if that's the best, but the best I can tell from the wiki.
> >
> > disc is not defined, I'd never heard of the term before and
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_parking isn't that clear. It would be
> > good if people using this would put a bit more detail on the OSM wiki of
> > where it should be used. Is it only where the physical "disc" is used? Does
> > it imply a fee or not, does it imply a maxstay?
> >
> >
> > Parking discs used to be quit common in France, the Disque Blue areas were 
> > very common in towns where you needed to set the time of arrival on your
> >
> > disc and display it in the car.
> >
> >
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 20:58, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> 
> > disc appears at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane
> >
> > with proposed tag a parking:condition:*:maxstay=2 h
> >
> > with * replace by left/right/both depending on side
> >
> 
> 
> So it's just plain old maxstay, but you need to mark your arrival time on a
> device, could be paid or free. The only thing the tag adds over
> `parking:condition:side:maxstay=2 h` is that it describes that you need to
> use the disc device to record your time of arrival?
> 
> This part was unclear to me if it should be used for any maxstay regardless
> of if it uses the disk device or not.
>
Mapping  the disc requirement is important as without the disc you cannot park. 
Not so much of a problem if it is common and everyone has a disc but a problem 
if you drive into Stranraer and  end up driving out again because you don't 
have a disc.

Phil (trigpoint)  
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Oliver Simmons]

This is correct, the biggest example is the highway=* values. There are few exception to this rule where using British English could cause confusing.e.g. sidewalk, this is a more American term, but is used because “pavement” (what we call them in Britain) can have multiple meanings.  From: Phake NickSent: 21 October 2020 10:38To: Tag discussion, strategy and related toolsSubject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial  在 2020年10月21日週三 15:46，Rory McCann  寫道：(I broke my collarbone, so I'm typing one handed and can mistype)On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 9:39 AM, Rory McCann wrote:> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:> > (1) I never understood "man made" as> > "made by males".> > (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool> > to change language, especially if done at > > cost of making more complicated for> > mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's> > meaning remains standard and is well > > understood> > > > Disclaimer: not a native speaker.> > (1) and (4) may be wrong.> It's interesting how non-native speakers of English often speak a quaint old fashioned version of English. Languages are often chamging and ir can take a little while for books, courses and teachers to catch up.So you'll hear non-natives use words like "whom" or using "he" to refer to generic people of any gender. It always sounds old-fashioned. OSM prioritizes local knowledge, by the same logic non-native speakers of English should defer to native English speakers for the meaning of words.___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging My understanding is that OSM explicitly follow UK English, although I don't know if it follow any specific dialect, accent or speech  

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 20:20, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 20:04 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Robert Delmenico  wrote:
>
> Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is free.
>
> There is some more information available here:
>
>
> https://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/city/parking/smarter-parking-ballarat#:~:text=Your%20first%20hour%20of%20parking,the%20Central%20Square%20car%20park%20
> .
>
>
> The wiki is not the clearest on this
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane#Parking_conditions_.28terms.29
>
> You can do `parking:condition:left=ticket` +
> `parking:condition:left:conditional=free @ (maxstay > 1 hour)` though not
> sure if that's the best, but the best I can tell from the wiki.
>
> disc is not defined, I'd never heard of the term before and
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_parking isn't that clear. It would be
> good if people using this would put a bit more detail on the OSM wiki of
> where it should be used. Is it only where the physical "disc" is used? Does
> it imply a fee or not, does it imply a maxstay?
>
>
> Parking discs used to be quit common in France, the Disque Blue areas were 
> very common in towns where you needed to set the time of arrival on your
>
> disc and display it in the car.
>
>
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 20:58, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> disc appears at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane
>
> with proposed tag a parking:condition:*:maxstay=2 h
>
> with * replace by left/right/both depending on side
>


So it's just plain old maxstay, but you need to mark your arrival time on a
device, could be paid or free. The only thing the tag adds over
`parking:condition:side:maxstay=2 h` is that it describes that you need to
use the disc device to record your time of arrival?

This part was unclear to me if it should be used for any maxstay regardless
of if it uses the disk device or not.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

disc appears at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane

with proposed tag a parking:condition:*:maxstay=2 h

with * replace by left/right/both depending on side

Oct 21, 2020, 11:04 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

>
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Robert Delmenico <> rob...@rtbk.com.au> > wrote:
>
>> Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is free.
>>
>> There is some more information available here:
>>
>> https://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/city/parking/smarter-parking-ballarat#:~:text=Your%20first%20hour%20of%20parking,the%20Central%20Square%20car%20park%20>>
>>  .
>>
>
> The wiki is not the clearest on this > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane#Parking_conditions_.28terms.29
>
> You can do `parking:condition:left=ticket` + 
> `parking:condition:left:conditional=free @ (maxstay > 1 hour)` though not 
> sure if that's the best, but the best I can tell from the wiki.
>
> disc is not defined, I'd never heard of the term before and > 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_parking>  isn't that clear. It would be 
> good if people using this would put a bit more detail on the OSM wiki of 
> where it should be used. Is it only where the physical "disc" is used? Does 
> it imply a fee or not, does it imply a maxstay?
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 20:10 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:32, stevea 
> wrote:
> > In California, a common (not quite frequent, certainly not always)
> > arrangement at malls, supermarkets and other places with parking
> > lots (large and small) is a sign that reads "you can park here for
> > three hours, but after that we have the right to tow your car
> > away."  (Sometimes punctuated with 'video surveillance active' to
> > make the point fairly direct and that "they mean business").  In my
> > experience of driving-and-parking for many decades, I personally
> > have never gotten towed (the few times I've gone over a time
> > limit), I've never heard of anybody (that I personally know)
> > getting towed, but I have seen the extremely infrequent tow truck
> > towing a car that has likely been there a while — perhaps it was
> > abandoned, used for illegal purposes or was otherwise a public
> > nuisance.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > So, while that "moderately serious consequence" of getting towed is
> > possible, it's rare.  And, while this is not a "fee," it certainly
> > turns into a fairly large one once the bottom-line-costs, tow truck
> > driver and storage charges (per day, usually) are added together
> > and paid to get one's car back from the impound lot.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > If you are writing a proposal, this is a reality in certain parts
> > of the world the proposal should consider, if it wants to convey
> > the full situation (on Earth, in cars, with humans, on parking
> > lots).  In short, what appears to be "simply" a fee can be fairly
> > full-throated when it comes to describing the entire semantic
> > richness of the situation.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > A tag like maxstay is a good beginning.  An additional tag of
> > something like towing_penalty=yes|no is a start down this road.
> 
> I'd just use the regular maxstay tag, I think most places if you
> overstay they can tow you.
> 
> `fee:conditional = no @ maxstay < 3h` says you're allowed by the
> rules of the car park to park longer if you like, but you need to pay
> a fee to do so. This is different to the rules saying you're limited
> to 3hr and then issuing a fine or penalty for overstaying

This rule is quite common at Motorway Service Areas, you can park for
free for a couple of hours but if you wish to stay longer you need to
pay or have your vehicle authorised (hotel guests for example).
Phil (trigpoint)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Phake Nick]

在 2020年10月21日週三 15:46，Rory McCann  寫道：

> (I broke my collarbone, so I'm typing one handed and can mistype)
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 9:39 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> > > (1) I never understood "man made" as
> > > "made by males".
> > > (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
> > > to change language, especially if done at
> > > cost of making more complicated for
> > > mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
> > > meaning remains standard and is well
> > > understood
> > >
> > > Disclaimer: not a native speaker.
> > > (1) and (4) may be wrong.
> >
> It's interesting how non-native speakers of English often speak a
> quaint old fashioned version of English. Languages are often chamging
> and ir can take a little while for books, courses and teachers to catch up.
>
> So you'll hear non-natives use words like "whom" or using "he" to refer to
> generic people of any gender. It always sounds old-fashioned. 
>
> OSM prioritizes local knowledge, by the same logic non-native speakers of
> English should defer to native English speakers for the meaning of words.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


My understanding is that OSM explicitly follow UK English, although I don't
know if it follow any specific dialect, accent or speech

>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Oliver Simmons]

Agreed, if we are doing this once, we better have a way to do it again as doing it once guarantees that it will happen for another tag in the future. Changing in inside OSM and the OSM Wiki is the easier part though, it’s informing and getting all of the software to recognise the new tag (preferably both as the old tag will still remain on old stuff).Older software is the issue as getting that to be updated is near impossible.There are *tons* of styles and software e.t.c. that are going to break From: Colin SmaleSent: 21 October 2020 10:25To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgSubject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial On 2020-10-21 10:59, Robert Delmenico wrote:I'll do some more research before the vote goes ahead. I've read quite a bit of research around gendered language since first mentioning this idea.   I'll be sure to list them in the proposal but feel free to send through any sources that are both for and against the arguments I have raised. I'm thinking that I'll mention the arguments both for and against on the proposal page as this is a big proposal which if it succeeds will have a big impact. If anyone has any arguments for or against that they wish to have included in the proposal, please feel free to leave them on the talk page for the proposal. If this goes through, it will be traumatic, however you look at it. Do you have any suggestions how to abstract this specific example into a more generic process to a) review all tags currently in the database; b) all wiki content suggesting tagging; and c) all future proposals, to assess their appropriateness in the current and likely future environment?  I don't mean to be flippant - this is a serious suggestion. If we are going to have this kind of discussion around any graphology incorporating "possibly offensive" groups of letters we had better have a proper policy in place and a well-oiled process to deal with it. 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-10-21 10:59, Robert Delmenico wrote:

> I'll do some more research before the vote goes ahead. I've read quite a bit 
> of research around gendered language since first mentioning this idea.  
> 
> I'll be sure to list them in the proposal but feel free to send through any 
> sources that are both for and against the arguments I have raised. I'm 
> thinking that I'll mention the arguments both for and against on the proposal 
> page as this is a big proposal which if it succeeds will have a big impact. 
> 
> If anyone has any arguments for or against that they wish to have included in 
> the proposal, please feel free to leave them on the talk page for the 
> proposal.

If this goes through, it will be traumatic, however you look at it. Do
you have any suggestions how to abstract this specific example into a
more generic process to a) review all tags currently in the database; b)
all wiki content suggesting tagging; and c) all future proposals, to
assess their appropriateness in the current and likely future
environment?  

I don't mean to be flippant - this is a serious suggestion. If we are
going to have this kind of discussion around any graphology
incorporating "possibly offensive" groups of letters we had better have
a proper policy in place and a well-oiled process to deal with it.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2020-10-21 at 20:04 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Robert Delmenico 
> wrote:
> > Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is
> > free.
> > There is some more information available here:
> > 
> > https://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/city/parking/smarter-parking-ballarat#:~:text=Your%20first%20hour%20of%20parking,the%20Central%20Square%20car%20park%20.
> 
> The wiki is not the clearest on this 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane#Parking_conditions_.28terms.29
> 
> You can do `parking:condition:left=ticket` +
> `parking:condition:left:conditional=free @ (maxstay > 1 hour)` though
> not sure if that's the best, but the best I can tell from the wiki.
> 
> disc is not defined, I'd never heard of the term before and 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_parking isn't that clear. It would
> be good if people using this would put a bit more detail on the OSM
> wiki of where it should be used. Is it only where the physical "disc"
> is used? Does it imply a fee or not, does it imply a maxstay?

Parking discs used to be quit common in France, the Disque Blue areas
were very common in towns where you needed to set the time of arrival
on yourdisc and display it in the car.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disque_de_stationnement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_parking
Phil (trigpoint)



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:32, stevea  wrote:

> In California, a common (not quite frequent, certainly not always)
> arrangement at malls, supermarkets and other places with parking lots
> (large and small) is a sign that reads "you can park here for three hours,
> but after that we have the right to tow your car away."  (Sometimes
> punctuated with 'video surveillance active' to make the point fairly direct
> and that "they mean business").  In my experience of driving-and-parking
> for many decades, I personally have never gotten towed (the few times I've
> gone over a time limit), I've never heard of anybody (that I personally
> know) getting towed, but I have seen the extremely infrequent tow truck
> towing a car that has likely been there a while — perhaps it was abandoned,
> used for illegal purposes or was otherwise a public nuisance.
>
> So, while that "moderately serious consequence" of getting towed is
> possible, it's rare.  And, while this is not a "fee," it certainly turns
> into a fairly large one once the bottom-line-costs, tow truck driver and
> storage charges (per day, usually) are added together and paid to get one's
> car back from the impound lot.
>
> If you are writing a proposal, this is a reality in certain parts of the
> world the proposal should consider, if it wants to convey the full
> situation (on Earth, in cars, with humans, on parking lots).  In short,
> what appears to be "simply" a fee can be fairly full-throated when it comes
> to describing the entire semantic richness of the situation.
>
> A tag like maxstay is a good beginning.  An additional tag of something
> like towing_penalty=yes|no is a start down this road.
>

I'd just use the regular maxstay tag, I think most places if you overstay
they can tow you.

`fee:conditional = no @ maxstay < 3h` says you're allowed by the rules of
the car park to park longer if you like, but you need to pay a fee to do
so. This is different to the rules saying you're limited to 3hr and then
issuing a fine or penalty for overstaying
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

[Andrew Harvey]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 19:45, Robert Delmenico  wrote:

> Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is free.
>
> There is some more information available here:
>
>
> https://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/city/parking/smarter-parking-ballarat#:~:text=Your%20first%20hour%20of%20parking,the%20Central%20Square%20car%20park%20
> .
>

The wiki is not the clearest on this
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:parking:lane#Parking_conditions_.28terms.29

You can do `parking:condition:left=ticket` +
`parking:condition:left:conditional=free @ (maxstay > 1 hour)` though not
sure if that's the best, but the best I can tell from the wiki.

disc is not defined, I'd never heard of the term before and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_parking isn't that clear. It would be
good if people using this would put a bit more detail on the OSM wiki of
where it should be used. Is it only where the physical "disc" is used? Does
it imply a fee or not, does it imply a maxstay?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Robert Delmenico]

I'll do some more research before the vote goes ahead. I've read quite a
bit of research around gendered language since first mentioning this idea.

I'll be sure to list them in the proposal but feel free to send through any
sources that are both for and against the arguments I have raised. I'm
thinking that I'll mention the arguments both for and against on the
proposal page as this is a big proposal which if it succeeds will have a
big impact.

If anyone has any arguments for or against that they wish to have included
in the proposal, please feel free to leave them on the talk page for the
proposal.



Regards,

Rob

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, 7:49 pm Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging, <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> 21 Oct 2020, 09:43 by r...@technomancy.org:
>
> (I broke my collarbone, so I'm typing one handed and can mistype)
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 9:39 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> > (1) I never understood "man made" as
> > "made by males".
> > (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
> > to change language, especially if done at
> > cost of making more complicated for
> > mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
> > meaning remains standard and is well
> > understood
> >
> > Disclaimer: not a native speaker.
> > (1) and (4) may be wrong.
>
> It's interesting how non-native speakers of English often speak a
> quaint old fashioned version of English. Languages are often chamging
> and ir can take a little while for books, courses and teachers to catch up.
>
> Oh, I know. That is why I added my disclaimer
> and that is why I tried to read this referenced
> scientific study, I am well aware that
> I am not an expert here.
>
> Though I know that it is something that
> is kind of tricky topic due to politic issues,
> do I wanted to check situation.
>
> So you'll hear non-natives use words like "whom" or using "he" to refer to
> generic people of any gender. It always sounds old-fashioned. 
>
> OSM prioritizes local knowledge, by the same logic non-native speakers of
> English should defer to native English speakers for the meaning of words.
>
> I am an expert when it comes to some topics,
> but English language is NOT one of them
> and I am well aware about this.
> ___
> 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] Parking fee only after some time period

[stevea]

On Oct 21, 2020, at 1:43 AM, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> towing_penalty=no means your car is towed away for free? In Nederland, towing 
> always comes with a penalty, even if you don't want your car back.
> 
> Maybe a tag for consequences should be introduced. I suggest or_else=cargone.

What I mean by towing_penalty=yes is that it is POSSIBLE that you might get 
towed if you exceed the maxstay (or a semantic otherwise 
interpretable-from-the-tags).  What I mean by towing_penalty=no is that the 
particular "enforcement method" of getting towed to make you think twice about 
exceeding the maxstay isn't a chosen tool on this parking lot, and/or there is 
no sign so indicating.  (And as usual, if the tag is omitted, it isn't known to 
OSM, whether it is yes or no).

or_else=cargone did make me laugh out loud; thank you for that.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

21 Oct 2020, 09:43 by r...@technomancy.org:

> (I broke my collarbone, so I'm typing one handed and can mistype)
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 9:39 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>> > (1) I never understood "man made" as
>> > "made by males".
>> > (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
>> > to change language, especially if done at 
>> > cost of making more complicated for
>> > mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
>> > meaning remains standard and is well 
>> > understood
>> > 
>> > Disclaimer: not a native speaker.
>> > (1) and (4) may be wrong.
>>
> It's interesting how non-native speakers of English often speak a 
> quaint old fashioned version of English. Languages are often chamging 
> and ir can take a little while for books, courses and teachers to catch up.
>
Oh, I know. That is why I added my disclaimer
and that is why I tried to read this referenced
scientific study, I am well aware that 
I am not an expert here.

Though I know that it is something that
is kind of tricky topic due to politic issues,
do I wanted to check situation.
> So you'll hear non-natives use words like "whom" or using "he" to refer to 
> generic people of any gender. It always sounds old-fashioned. 
>
> OSM prioritizes local knowledge, by the same logic non-native speakers of 
> English should defer to native English speakers for the meaning of words.
>
I am an expert when it comes to some topics,
but English language is NOT one of them 
and I am well aware about this.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

[Peter Elderson]

towing_penalty=no means your car is towed away for free? In Nederland, towing 
always comes with a penalty, even if you don't want your car back.

Maybe a tag for consequences should be introduced. I suggest or_else=cargone.

Best, Peter Elderson

> Op 21 okt. 2020 om 10:32 heeft stevea  het 
> volgende geschreven:
> 
> In California, a common (not quite frequent, certainly not always) 
> arrangement at malls, supermarkets and other places with parking lots (large 
> and small) is a sign that reads "you can park here for three hours, but after 
> that we have the right to tow your car away."  (Sometimes punctuated with 
> 'video surveillance active' to make the point fairly direct and that "they 
> mean business").  In my experience of driving-and-parking for many decades, I 
> personally have never gotten towed (the few times I've gone over a time 
> limit), I've never heard of anybody (that I personally know) getting towed, 
> but I have seen the extremely infrequent tow truck towing a car that has 
> likely been there a while — perhaps it was abandoned, used for illegal 
> purposes or was otherwise a public nuisance.
> 
> So, while that "moderately serious consequence" of getting towed is possible, 
> it's rare.  And, while this is not a "fee," it certainly turns into a fairly 
> large one once the bottom-line-costs, tow truck driver and storage charges 
> (per day, usually) are added together and paid to get one's car back from the 
> impound lot.
> 
> If you are writing a proposal, this is a reality in certain parts of the 
> world the proposal should consider, if it wants to convey the full situation 
> (on Earth, in cars, with humans, on parking lots).  In short, what appears to 
> be "simply" a fee can be fairly full-throated when it comes to describing the 
> entire semantic richness of the situation.
> 
> A tag like maxstay is a good beginning.  An additional tag of something like 
> towing_penalty=yes|no is a start down this road.
> 
> SteveA
> ___
> 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] Parking fee only after some time period

[Robert Delmenico]

Ballarat in Victoria has kerb side parking where the first hour is free.

There is some more information available here:

https://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/city/parking/smarter-parking-ballarat#:~:text=Your%20first%20hour%20of%20parking,the%20Central%20Square%20car%20park%20
.



Regards, Rob


On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, 7:32 pm stevea,  wrote:

> In California, a common (not quite frequent, certainly not always)
> arrangement at malls, supermarkets and other places with parking lots
> (large and small) is a sign that reads "you can park here for three hours,
> but after that we have the right to tow your car away."  (Sometimes
> punctuated with 'video surveillance active' to make the point fairly direct
> and that "they mean business").  In my experience of driving-and-parking
> for many decades, I personally have never gotten towed (the few times I've
> gone over a time limit), I've never heard of anybody (that I personally
> know) getting towed, but I have seen the extremely infrequent tow truck
> towing a car that has likely been there a while — perhaps it was abandoned,
> used for illegal purposes or was otherwise a public nuisance.
>
> So, while that "moderately serious consequence" of getting towed is
> possible, it's rare.  And, while this is not a "fee," it certainly turns
> into a fairly large one once the bottom-line-costs, tow truck driver and
> storage charges (per day, usually) are added together and paid to get one's
> car back from the impound lot.
>
> If you are writing a proposal, this is a reality in certain parts of the
> world the proposal should consider, if it wants to convey the full
> situation (on Earth, in cars, with humans, on parking lots).  In short,
> what appears to be "simply" a fee can be fairly full-throated when it comes
> to describing the entire semantic richness of the situation.
>
> A tag like maxstay is a good beginning.  An additional tag of something
> like towing_penalty=yes|no is a start down this road.
>
> SteveA
> ___
> 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] Parking fee only after some time period

[stevea]

In California, a common (not quite frequent, certainly not always) arrangement 
at malls, supermarkets and other places with parking lots (large and small) is 
a sign that reads "you can park here for three hours, but after that we have 
the right to tow your car away."  (Sometimes punctuated with 'video 
surveillance active' to make the point fairly direct and that "they mean 
business").  In my experience of driving-and-parking for many decades, I 
personally have never gotten towed (the few times I've gone over a time limit), 
I've never heard of anybody (that I personally know) getting towed, but I have 
seen the extremely infrequent tow truck towing a car that has likely been there 
a while — perhaps it was abandoned, used for illegal purposes or was otherwise 
a public nuisance.

So, while that "moderately serious consequence" of getting towed is possible, 
it's rare.  And, while this is not a "fee," it certainly turns into a fairly 
large one once the bottom-line-costs, tow truck driver and storage charges (per 
day, usually) are added together and paid to get one's car back from the 
impound lot.

If you are writing a proposal, this is a reality in certain parts of the world 
the proposal should consider, if it wants to convey the full situation (on 
Earth, in cars, with humans, on parking lots).  In short, what appears to be 
"simply" a fee can be fairly full-throated when it comes to describing the 
entire semantic richness of the situation.

A tag like maxstay is a good beginning.  An additional tag of something like 
towing_penalty=yes|no is a start down this road.

SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] OSM changes the world | Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Rory McCann]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
> to change language, especially if done at 
> cost of making more complicated for
> mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
> meaning remains standard and is well 
> understood

The purpose of OSM is to change the world. We're trying to create a map of the 
world, build by enthusiastic local people and to give it away to everyone for 
free. We're trying to produce a geo commons for every person. It's too late to 
say that OSM shouldn't change anything in the world. 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Rory McCann]

(I broke my collarbone, so I'm typing one handed and can mistype)

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 9:39 AM, Rory McCann wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> > (1) I never understood "man made" as
> > "made by males".
> > (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
> > to change language, especially if done at 
> > cost of making more complicated for
> > mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
> > meaning remains standard and is well 
> > understood
> > 
> > Disclaimer: not a native speaker.
> > (1) and (4) may be wrong.
> 
It's interesting how non-native speakers of English often speak a 
quaint old fashioned version of English. Languages are often chamging 
and ir can take a little while for books, courses and teachers to catch up.

So you'll hear non-natives use words like "whom" or using "he" to refer to 
generic people of any gender. It always sounds old-fashioned. 

OSM prioritizes local knowledge, by the same logic non-native speakers of 
English should defer to native English speakers for the meaning of words.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Artificial

[Rory McCann]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, at 6:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> (1) I never understood "man made" as
> "made by males".
> (4) I would prefer to not use OSM as a tool
> to change language, especially if done at 
> cost of making more complicated for
> mappers. AFAIK term "man made" and it's
> meaning remains standard and is well 
> understood
> 
> Disclaimer: not a native speaker.
> (1) and (4) may be wrong.

It's interesting how non-native speakers of English often speak a quaint old 
fashioned version of English. Languages are often chamging and ir 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Parking fee only after some time period

[Jez Nicholson]

I have the opposite conclusion about fee=yes/no.

These are free-to-use short-term car parks that have a clause to prevent
people from 'misusing' them for office parking, etc. I would expect a free
car park to be fee=no + a warning of charge after long stay.

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, 00:01 Andrew Harvey,  wrote:

>
> I agree these are very common arrangements.
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 07:46, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>
>> I am not usually mapping this detail of parking fees, but from my
>> understanding the above suggested tags would work and could be seen as
>> covered by current state of tagging, no need for a proposal, just use it.
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fee%3Aconditional#values
>>
>
> I agree, I wouldn't think it needs a proposal since I thought it's already
> covered by the current :conditional and maxstay schemes.
>
>
>> as a note, I believe we should "err on the safe side", i.e. better
>> A)
>> fee=yes
>> fee:conditional = no @ maxstay < 3h
>>
>> than B)
>> fee = no
>> fee:conditional = yes @ maxstay > 3h
>>
>> I think I would ignore the maxstay==3h condition, ;-)
>>
>
> I agree, generally I think of these as paid parking, but with the
> exception that if you stay for a short time it's free, as opposed to being
> free parking but if you overstay the parking they charge you a fee (the
> latter would be more like a fine for going over the limit, but rather this
> is usually just a grace period for not needing to pay).
>
> I've came to the same conclusion in the past where I tagged
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/23024004#map=19/-33.79813/151.18415
>
> Taginfo says 9 things tagged like this already
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/fee%3Aconditional=no%20(maxstay%3C2%20hours)
>  +
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/fee%3Aconditional=no%20(maxstay%3C3%20hours)
>
> This is also the syntax I suggested for the streetcomplete quest at
> https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/102#issuecomment-687761605
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxstay recommends to always add
> a unit (unlike maxspeed, maxheight, maxweight which all have default units)
> and all the examples use expanded terms in English eg "hours" instead of
> "h" or "hr". Any good data consumer would want to parse out all the
> variants, so I wouldn't complain if you used "h" instead of "hours" but
> would be nicer if there was only one way to tag it, so I'd prefer to stick
> with the full term like on the wiki "hours".
>
> Unless there is disagreement we can just add this example to the wiki.
> ___
> 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 - Artificial

[Yves via Tagging]

"Phase 4: All man_made tags to be removed 2031-01-01 00:00 UTC+0"
I think that is as reasonable as it could be.
Yves 

Le 21 octobre 2020 04:46:34 GMT+02:00, Robert Delmenico  a 
écrit :
>*Link to proposal page:*
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/artificial
>*Definition*:  A tag for identifying human-made (artificial) structures
>added to the landscape.
>
>Please discuss this proposal on the discussion page for the proposal.
>
>Kind Regards,
>
>Robert Delmenico
>rtbk
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging