[Tagging] power line with different wired cables
Hi I have found a power line with 3 quad-wired cables on one side and 3 doubled-wired cables on the other. Should I use left/right for this ? Thanks fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed Feature - Public Transport - Voting
I guess I can answer some of the questions. 1. In the provided links I can see all the street names in German. Do you have any examples of uses outside of the German cultural raum? We in Russia have created several routes using this schema. For example, http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/407276 There was a large discussion on public transport in our forum, and by now every participant of that discussion has stated their approval for this proposal. 3. How do you intend to scale the level of difficulty? What is aimed at beginners, and what is for intermediate and advanced mappers? Have you included any of the suggestions from the earlier conversation on the newsgroup? Not all elements of the proposal are marked as required. Old PT schema is still supported with this proposal. A beginner can map just routes and public transport stops, like before, and it still would work. Only the tagging have been changed: various bus_stop, platform were replaced by a single public_transport=platform. Now discussions like Where to place highway=bus_stop nodes have become irrelevant: the new schema is very clear on this. So I think that intermediate mappers (?) will learn the proposed PT schema faster and will make less errors, than with the old one. IZ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse: illegal and illegal:yes/no
On 03/04/2011 09:55, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/4/2 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com mailto:dave...@madasafish.com Tracktype is verifiable against a visual scale: http://wiki.openstreetmcan't givap.org/wiki/Tracktype http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tracktype but as it depends much on the climate and surface material / vegatation / ground it still has to be adopted to the local situation. The photos work well in the UK / Germany, but can't be blindly used all over the globe, descriptions are not worse for this. As I said, guessing is not useful for OSM, so smoothness, as it's implemented at the moment is, to use one of it's adjective tags - horrible. It needs a photo related grading scale similar to tracktype. there is one: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness Yeah..., but as I said the values are rubbish. I mean, horrible to whom? A person with a pram might describe it so, but a mountain biker would probably love it. A numerical grade would be much a much better solution. Please take advice from the vast majority of repliers drop this proposal. I'm taking slowly, but still got positive feedbacks. And most majority was worried about the legal sidetrack, didn't you notice? Hardly surprising when your proposed tag is 'illegal'! what part of illegal is subjective? IMHO it is quite objective: anything against the law is illegal. There are many disagreements where land area or borders are contested with each side claiming it illegal. They can't both be right. My fear is that this adjective tag will be used without it being proved in law. Illegal is a subjective adjective has no place in the physical world of OSM. Again, please drop this proposal. OSM is not only about the physical world. THere is so many counter examples I don't even have to name one... There may be examples in use, but that doesn't make it right. It's not a valid reason to add another to them. Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*
On 01/04/2011 16:04, Ilya Zverev wrote: It seems like I've messed up wording or just stated the purpose not clearly enough, since you are not the first to ask this question. Of course I'm aware of river mapping scheme. I do not propose to alter waterway=river/stream/anything. The main point of this proposal is to mark what natural=water on an area means. Is this area a lake, a pond? We have no means to determine that now. But also in this proposal I point out that waterway=riverbank does not differ much from natural=water, and suggest to map it with natural=water + water=river. This means you have multiple keys for river (water waterway). It also means your using river to describe two different items (river riverbank) This leads to pointless confusion. Also, for landuse=reservoir I propose using natural=water + water=reservoir, because it makes reseirvoirs mapping consistent with other water bodies. +1 Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] power line with different wired cables
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 10:57 +0200, fly wrote: Hi I have found a power line with 3 quad-wired cables on one side and 3 doubled-wired cables on the other. Should I use left/right for this ? Since this is actually 2 lines simply following the same path, I suggest using cables=6 wires=double;quad then at the point where the two split, create two new ways with different wires=* values. You could even try to find the ref number (or name) of the individual lines being carried and tag those too, using the same method. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New proposal: water=*
Dave. F wrote: But also in this proposal I point out that waterway=riverbank does not differ much from natural=water, and suggest to map it with natural=water + water=river. This means you have multiple keys for river (water waterway). It also means your using river to describe two different items (river riverbank) Yes, but the difference is less when you actually map and not dig into words. 1) Doesn't anyone think that areas tagged with waterway=riverbank are neither waterways nor riverbanks? 2) And that water bodies of rivers have more similarities with natural=water (lakes, for example), than with waterway=river or any other object tagged with waterway=*? They are even drawn on the majority of maps (including osm.org mapnik) exactly like natural=water. 3) So, it would be more logical to tag river body as natural=water. 4) And according to this proposal, to specify the water body type with water=*. 5) And the most suitable tag value for that would be water=river (not riverbank, that's for sure). I'm open to other suggestions. This leads to pointless confusion. I agree, but it seems there is always confusion when tagging is changed (see public transport proposal, for example). IZ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse: illegal and illegal:yes/no
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 13:50, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: what part of illegal is subjective? IMHO it is quite objective: anything against the law is illegal. There are many disagreements where land area or borders are contested with each side claiming it illegal. They can't both be right. My fear is that this adjective tag will be used without it being proved in law. What if I'd replace the word illegal with unauthorised or unofficial? (Still, the point is to provide useful data. I took some time to check around the OSM policies and FAQ and stuff and it says that OSM is a database about geographical facts [I do not avoid this word and I consider my/our judgement a good base for factuality] for many known and any possible yet unknown purposes in which it would turned to be useful.) There may be examples in use, but that doesn't make it right. It's not a valid reason to add another to them. Your argument was that OSM does not possess such tags at all, so I should drop the subject. Now you say that it does indeed contain such tags but I don't have the right to do the same anyway so I should drop the subject. :-) No, I do not have any rights to any discussion, whatsoever, as neither have anyone, and obviously I have the right to use whatever tag I please. Discussions are usually to help people to make informed decisions. Unfortunately your input not really added much new information to the subject, apart from repeating others and commanding me. No offense. I tend to agree though that rendering-wise this tag doesn't work, and I'm not sure where to proceed; creating separate amenity=illegal_waste_dump and such doesn't feels nice. -- byte-byte, grin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse: illegal and illegal:yes/no
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: What if I'd replace the word illegal with unauthorised or unofficial? unofficial is ambiguous (something can be unofficial/informal but legal). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] landuse: illegal and illegal:yes/no
On 04/04/2011 15:10, Peter Gervai wrote: What if I'd replace the word illegal with unauthorised or unofficial? (Still, the point is to provide useful data. I took some time to check around the OSM policies and FAQ and stuff and it says that OSM is a database about geographical facts [I do not avoid this word and I consider my/our judgement a good base for factuality] But it's not /geographical/! for many known and any possible yet unknown purposes in which it would turned to be useful.) There may be examples in use, but that doesn't make it right. It's not a valid reason to add another to them. Your argument was that OSM does not possess such tags at all, Really?! Where did I say that? so I should drop the subject. Now you say that it does indeed contain such tags but I don't have the right to do the same anyway so I should drop the subject. :-) Two wrongs don't make a right! Saying it's OK to add bad data because there's already bad data is a really bad idea. No, I do not have any rights to any discussion, whatsoever, as neither have anyone, and obviously I have the right to use whatever tag I please. Discussions are usually to help people to make informed decisions. Unfortunately your input not really added much new information to the subject, apart from repeating others and commanding me. No offense. Hmm... It seems you're the one that been repeating oneself, even after many people believe it's a bad idea. This hasn't been much of a discussion because it appears to don't listen/read very well. I tend to agree though that rendering-wise this tag doesn't work, and I'm not sure where to proceed; creating separate amenity=illegal_waste_dump and such doesn't feels nice. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Retaking the discussion on ATMs
On 04/02/2011 02:42 PM, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 20:12 +1100, David Murn wrote: On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 10:33 +0100, Noel David Torres Taño wrote: We've agreed in the spanish list to add the network tag to the ATM, so if there is no discussion against here, I will add that to the wiki. The amenity=fuel tag schema uses: payment:credit_cards=mastercard;visa;diners_club;american_express Following up to my own post, there is also the payment:* tag which almost fits in with what you want. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:payment No, because it is not payment what you usually do at an ATM. Some times you even do not move money at all. And, it is not the same which network an ATM belongs to (it is well advertised in every ATM, at least in Spain) than which cards you can use (which are almost all, as in Australia or wherever) paying an extra fee. My experience with ATMs is if they're not on the same network you belong to, they won't even recognize your card. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Retaking the discussion on ATMs
My experience in the USA is that ATMs are usually part of multiple different networks; if the ATM is part of at least one of your bank's networks, but not operated by your bank, you can use it, but pay a surcharge. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] Retaking the discussion on ATMs From :mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org Date :Mon Apr 04 13:35:15 America/Chicago 2011 -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Retaking the discussion on ATMs
CCing spanish list My experience in the USA is that ATMs are usually part of multiple different networks; if the ATM is part of at least one of your bank's networks, but not operated by your bank, you can use it, but pay a surcharge. In Spain is similar, but there is a distinguished network to which each ATM belongs primarily (there are three of these in Spain, namely '4B', 'Servired' and 'Red6000', but every card works in every ATM to, at least, take money). In the primary network of your card fees are very reduced or even waived. Shuld we have two tags? One specific to Spain identificating the primary network and another one, worldwide, to tell which networks are useable in an ATM? Noel signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
