Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals
On 13 January 2011 16:10, Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org wrote: On 01/12/2011 11:33 PM, James Mast wrote: I've created a proposal for Emergency Traffic Signals, which are typically found in front of fire stations and highway tunnels at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Emergency_Traffic_Signals emergency= is already in use for emergency vehicle access. highway=traffic_lights are used for normal traffic lights, why not use emergency=traffic_lights ? Well John, I had originally thought of going that route for this proposal. But while thinking about it, I thought it would muck up the emergency tag system. Also in my proposal, I could take out the using of the emergency tag to mention what the traffic light is for. Maybe the note tag would be of better use? - James ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
2011/1/13 rob...@elsenaar.info: Why: fortification_type=hill_fort Better is: fortification:type=hill_fort where do you get this idea from? There are 289 fortification_type and 0 fortification:type in the db. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed Feature - 2nd RFC - Public Transport
2011/1/13 Dominik Mahrer (Teddy) te...@teddy.ch: On 01/12/2011 12:09 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I think that particularly designed is not an essential requirement. Whether a station is a station or not depends only on the function: if it works as a station it is a station. So you would write dedicated to passenger access? But dedicated to is not always correct too, or not? Well, technically passengers are not needed e.g. for train stations (goods would be fine as well), but I agree that in OSM we could restrict the usage to passenger transportation (and have another tag for goods). IMHO the definition could be: A station is a public transport facility where vehicles regularly stop to load or unload passengers, which is bigger than a pair of bus stops or tram stops. (even if an aerialway-station might be smaller). To be even more clear it could be: A station is a public transport facility where vehicles regularly stop to load or unload passengers, which in the case of buses or trams is bigger than a pair of bus stops or tram stops. All stop positions should have bus=yes (or train=yes or tram=yes), yes. Did I miss one? Yes, they are missing here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_Transport#Examples I also have noted another thing: The station itself is mapped as an Area. Is it necessary to restrict usage to ways, wouldn't it be better to encourage usage of a relation? Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed Feature - 2nd RFC - Public Transport
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:07:43 +0100 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO the definition could be: A station is a public transport facility where vehicles regularly stop to load or unload passengers, which is bigger than a pair of bus stops or tram stops. (even if an aerialway-station might be smaller). To be even more clear it could be: A station is a public transport facility where vehicles regularly stop to load or unload passengers, which in the case of buses or trams is bigger than a pair of bus stops or tram stops. I'm used to a station offering more than just load and unload eg ticket sales timetables available one or more human workers present (becoming less prevalent) associated kiosk are any of these things within what other cultures would expect at a station - to help distinguish it from a couple of bus stops?? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed Feature - 2nd RFC - Public Transport
2011/1/13 Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net: On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:07:43 +0100 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO the definition could be: A station is a public transport facility where vehicles regularly stop to load or unload passengers, which is bigger than a pair of bus stops or tram stops. (even if an aerialway-station might be smaller). To be even more clear it could be: A station is a public transport facility where vehicles regularly stop to load or unload passengers, which in the case of buses or trams is bigger than a pair of bus stops or tram stops. I'm used to a station offering more than just load and unload eg ticket sales timetables available one or more human workers present (becoming less prevalent) associated kiosk are any of these things within what other cultures would expect at a station - to help distinguish it from a couple of bus stops?? IMHO all of these are optional. You would often have them, but they are not an essential requirement. I would shorten definitions down to the absolute must, and eventually note the other features as optionals if you like. in detail: ticket sales could be at bus or tram stops (machines) as well timetables you will find on (almost?) every German bus/tram stop human workers seem to disappear from subway (and even smaller train) stations (the driver takes care, there is also remotely controlled stations (video)) kiosks can be there or not Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals
On 01/13/2011 12:59 AM, John Smith wrote: On 13 January 2011 16:10, Paul Johnson baloo-PVOPTusIyP/sroww+9z...@public.gmane.org wrote: On 01/12/2011 11:33 PM, James Mast wrote: I've created a proposal for Emergency Traffic Signals, which are typically found in front of fire stations and highway tunnels at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Emergency_Traffic_Signals emergency= is already in use for emergency vehicle access. highway=traffic_lights are used for normal traffic lights, why not use emergency=traffic_lights ? emergency= is an access tag? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
In holland we have a saying: Better to turn back halfway then get lost at the end. Means that if you look at the more and more popular way of tagging. It is wiser to you this on this occassion and correct the alt fashion tags. Last year the :right and :left subtag is a big use to a lot of main tags like highway, cycleway and so on. syntax: main tag : sub tag = * Everytime creating a new main tag when you in fact want to add a sub tag like fortification_type in stead of fortification:type is not very efficient. I plea for introducing the sub tag :type for using on fortification, but also on e.g. museum (wild guess). (And I think I already saw the sub tag came by: tree:type ?) -Robert- Citeren M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2011/1/13 rob...@elsenaar.info: Why: fortification_type=hill_fort Better is: fortification:type=hill_fort where do you get this idea from? There are 289 fortification_type and 0 fortification:type in the db. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:33 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote: I've created a proposal for Emergency Traffic Signals, which are typically found in front of fire stations and highway tunnels at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Emergency_Traffic_Signals I've already been using highway=traffic_signals traffic_signals=emergency (as well as traffic_signals=blinker for a single-ball blinker and traffic_signals=blink_mode for a standard signal that's in permanent blink mode), so I agree with that part. No comment on emergency=*, and I oppose treating bridge/tunnel signals the same as those in front of fire stations. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
robert@... writes: In holland we have a saying: Better to turn back halfway then get lost at the end. Means that if you look at the more and more popular way of tagging. It is wiser to you this on this occassion and correct the alt fashion tags. Last year the :right and :left subtag is a big use to a lot of main tags like highway, cycleway and so on. syntax: main tag : sub tag = * Everytime creating a new main tag when you in fact want to add a sub tag like fortification_type in stead of fortification:type is not very efficient. I plea for introducing the sub tag :type for using on fortification, but also on e.g. museum (wild guess). (And I think I already saw the sub tag came by: tree:type ?) -Robert- Citeren M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@...: 2011/1/13 robert@...: Why: fortification_type=hill_fort Better is: fortification:type=hill_fort where do you get this idea from? There are 289 fortification_type and 0 fortification:type in the db. cheers, Martin Probably a good idea Robert. The main idea of my post was to show Ulf that using the proposed civilization and civilization:period-tags shouldn't be any harder than normally. The example chosen by Ulf was something that probably is dealt with in: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dcastle and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site and that is where I got the tags, I did not do any own thinking ragarding the off-topic-tags. Both of the wiki-pages above have plenty of.._type. Maybe a suggestion from you on the discussion-page would come in handy. If you look closely on my post, you can see that I had an alternative tagging with tripple subtags: historic:civilization:period:bronze age and even another alternative with quadruple tagging historic:civilization:Celtic:period:bronze age I haven´t got the idea yet, but guess it isn´t supposed to be like that. /Johan J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
Certainly not like that. I will start a new thread to discuss this idea more in detail. I think there's nothing wrong when we try to standardize tags and have a moment of retagging when we have a 1:1 substitution. -Robert- -Oorspronkelijk bericht- From: JohanJönsson Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:37 PM To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging]RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization robert@... writes: In holland we have a saying: Better to turn back halfway then get lost at the end. Means that if you look at the more and more popular way of tagging. It is wiser to you this on this occassion and correct the alt fashion tags. Last year the :right and :left subtag is a big use to a lot of main tags like highway, cycleway and so on. syntax: main tag : sub tag = * Everytime creating a new main tag when you in fact want to add a sub tag like fortification_type in stead of fortification:type is not very efficient. I plea for introducing the sub tag :type for using on fortification, but also on e.g. museum (wild guess). (And I think I already saw the sub tag came by: tree:type ?) -Robert- Citeren M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@...: 2011/1/13 robert@...: Why: fortification_type=hill_fort Better is: fortification:type=hill_fort where do you get this idea from? There are 289 fortification_type and 0 fortification:type in the db. cheers, Martin Probably a good idea Robert. The main idea of my post was to show Ulf that using the proposed civilization and civilization:period-tags shouldn't be any harder than normally. The example chosen by Ulf was something that probably is dealt with in: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dcastle and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site and that is where I got the tags, I did not do any own thinking ragarding the off-topic-tags. Both of the wiki-pages above have plenty of.._type. Maybe a suggestion from you on the discussion-page would come in handy. If you look closely on my post, you can see that I had an alternative tagging with tripple subtags: historic:civilization:period:bronze age and even another alternative with quadruple tagging historic:civilization:Celtic:period:bronze age I haven´t got the idea yet, but guess it isn´t supposed to be like that. /Johan J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging --- Tekst ingevoegd door Panda GP 2011: Als het hier gaat om een ongevraagde e-mail (SPAM), klik dan op de volgende link om de e-mail te herclasseren: http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1876SPAM=truepath=C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Panda%20Security\Panda%20Global%20Protection%202011\AntiSpam --- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Main tags, values and sub tags
Since I updated the Dutch Feature Page I analyzed the tagging system and found out a typically evolution in the way OSM is tagging map objects. 1) Key=Value: Simple tagging system. Every new Tag has to be created. Every Tag and every value has to be documented. You vcan not be creative in making new combinations. 2) Key=Value, Key : Sub key = Value: Advanced tagging system. Besides the old fashion Key=value tags different Sub Keys are approved. Those subkeys are Telling something about the value of the main tag. In our feature list a lot of sub keys already defined, mostly unknowing it was in fact a subkey. Examples: - Main Key’s: Highway, waterway, Historic, Traffic_calming, shop - Sub key: maxspeed, right, left, surface, width In advanced tagging there is a specific difference between main and sub tags and therefor can solve problems like: - Telling something about the right and left lane of the road. - Telling something about night and day time access rules. These are just two examples. By introducing Advanced Tagging more different element of the object is possible. Please who likes to reflect on this rough idea? -Robert-___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Main tags, values and sub tags
This is a suggestion from 2008 that I have been reading: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Namespacing regarding main tags and sub tags. It sure looks good, but I do not really know how it tastes like. /Johan J ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals
On 14 January 2011 02:06, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: comment on emergency=*, and I oppose treating bridge/tunnel signals the same as those in front of fire stations. +1 they aren't emergency signals, they just aren't used all the time, and you can also get regular traffic signals that are only used during peak hours, but these aren't for emergencies either. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
