Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 42, Issue 26 Historic huts
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:14 AM, St Niklaas st.nikl...@live.nl wrote: Since the hut is situated in Australia, why name it Alpine hut ? I always thought the Alps to be a European mountain range. In rural uninhabited areas there will be shelters like it all over the world. Yeah, that's a bit messy. In Australia Alps means the Australian Alps, and alpine generally means anything above a certain elevation (maybe 1300m or so). It has a much stronger association with geography and ecology than in Europe, where the association is cultural more than anything. So I think in Europe, alpine hut means a hut managed in the Alpine style (just like Alpine style mountaineering). Whereas in Australia, alpine hut means a hut found in the elevated Alpine region. You might be amused to know that in Victoria (the southeastern state I live in), we also have Pyrenees, but we don't use this term as much. I would rather name it neutral, fi (mountain) hut, cabin or lodge. Despite of the former use, for cattle, hunting or just for emergency like Alpine shelters in remote areas. In general I don't have a problem with using existing tags, even if the semantics in different regions vary. If it’s not maintained I would use abandoned instead of ruins. And yes without maintenance it would graduatedly become a ruin but that’s mainly the climate. Depends what you mean by maintained. I think they're generally maintained to their current, basic standard - if a wall fell down it would probably be put back up (but I don't know by whom). When huts burn down, they're even sometimes re-built. I should mention for completeness that we do also have genuine, modern huts that are intended for sleeping and eating in, which are weatherproof and have fireplaces, both in the Alpine region and in Tasmania. I'm not talking about those here, though. But I guess tagging the historic ones as amenity=shelter and the modern ones as amenity=wilderness_hut, shelter_type=basic_hut would cover the distinction. (We don't, afaik, have any staffed huts that provide hot meals - our hiking culture is about self-reliance etc.) Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On 28.03.13 06:45, Steve Bennett wrote: tourism=attraction (to increase the chance that the historic=* actually renders as something...) Don't tag for the renderer! amenity=shelter by itself renders. Only tag it as a tourism=attraction if it /is/ a tourism attraction. /al ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andreas Labres l...@lab.at wrote: On 28.03.13 06:45, Steve Bennett wrote: tourism=attraction (to increase the chance that the historic=* actually renders as something...) Don't tag for the renderer! amenity=shelter by itself renders. Only tag it as a tourism=attraction if it /is/ a tourism attraction. This sounds more like an tourism attraction than a hut though, i.e. tagging it as a hut will probably confuse things. But there is a clear interest in knowing that it's there. I would say use : camp_site, backcountry=yes, building=hut/shack and name=Smith Hut (ruins), perhaps some special tag documenting it on the wiki with pictures/urls. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site /Erik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
2013/3/28 Andreas Labres l...@lab.at Don't tag for the renderer! amenity=shelter by itself renders. Only tag it as a tourism=attraction if it /is/ a tourism attraction. Tourism=attraction is quite an ambiguous tag. What is attractive to tourists? Who decides that? I think that's more of a job for http://en.wikivoyage.org Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Wiki article about key hov
Hi! I just stumbled upon the article of the key hov [1]. It says yes (also 'designated') High occupancy, but no minimum requirement specified. In my opinion this is misleading. The tag hov=yes should - like other access restrictions - mean that HOVs are allowed there. The tag hov=designated should mean that the road/lane is a designated HOV road/lane. So yes and designated have two different meanings. I'm also missing the information that a simple hov=2 does not mean that vehicles with less than two occupants are forbidden; we would need a vehicle=no + hov=2 for this. Do we agree on this? best regards, Martin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hov ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wiki article about key hov
2013/3/28 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: Hi! I just stumbled upon the article of the key hov [1]. It says yes (also 'designated') High occupancy, but no minimum requirement specified. In my opinion this is misleading. The tag hov=yes should - like other access restrictions - mean that HOVs are allowed there. The tag hov=designated should mean that the road/lane is a designated HOV road/lane. So yes and designated have two different meanings. I'm also missing the information that a simple hov=2 does not mean that vehicles with less than two occupants are forbidden; we would need a vehicle=no + hov=2 for this. Do we agree on this? +1 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Historic huts
On 28.03.13 11:18, Erik Johansson wrote: This sounds more like an tourism attraction than a hut though If it is a tourism attraction tag it as tourism=attraction (that's what I said). But don't tag it for this reason: to increase the chance that the historic=* actually renders as something /al ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 42, Issue 27
From: tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Tagging Digest, Vol 42, Issue 27, historic huts. 6. Re: Historic huts (Martin Koppenhoefer) looking at the tags maybe historic=wilderness_hut would be better (according to a proposal and the current wiki state, tourism=alpine_hut is for places where you can get food and accomodation, while tourism=wilderness_hut is for places that offer less comfort and are not usually managed, i.e. you bring what you need). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/wilderness_mountain_buildings http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dwilderness_hut you could also add building=hut if you are adding the object as an area and you could have a look at the shelter_type tags if the hut can provide shelter: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shelter_type%3Dbasic_hut cheers, Martin Hi Martin,Thanks, I would have asked for a chozo and the Swedisch shelter. Listed in Wikipedia yes !. Are those terms usable in OSM still ?Greetz HendrikPs there in Scandinavian practical three kinds of huts, served (managed), supplied (seasonal supervised) and no supplies lodge only. The last 2 categories are opened by a member key and you should put a check in a box with a little trust. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Crossroad names
I think it's time to switch to the tagging list !
The tagging scheme that seems preferred in this discussion is the following :
- simple named junctions : use junction=yes and name=*
- complex named junctions with several lanes crossing a different points :
two propositions :
- use a relation { type=junction, name=*, junction role,...}
referencing all the crossing points between the lanes
- use a place { tag=junction or crossroads, name=* } on a area
englobing the crossing points
All right ? What are your opinions on this ?
Vlad.
On 27 mars 2013, at 00:22, Satoshi IIDA nyamp...@gmail.com wrote:
highway=traffic_signals + name=* are now also visible:
Great!
traffic_lights on complex crossroads
Area or Relation
I prefer to use relation.
I'm afraid of effects to routing topology when signals or roundabouts
are written as an area.
As theory, the names of Japanese traffic signals are given to each
signals, not to a junction.
(and basically, the signals on a same junction has same names)
2013/3/27 Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr:
highway=traffic_signals + name=* are now also visible:
http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?lon=139.71686lat=35.61534zoom=18
You'll see that adding names to traffic_lights on complex crossroads
causes the same name to be rendered multiple times in some places:
http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?lon=139.71825lat=35.61857zoom=18
A better tagging scheme seems necessary as one thing should be in
the database just once.
If we could avoid relations and use either the junction=yes or a
place=junction/crossroad (place name are usually meant to be rendered
that's why I'm thinking about it).
Think also about Nominatim... place=* makes more sense for that purpose.
2013/3/25 Vladimir Vyskocil vladimir.vysko...@gmail.com:
And there are more than 7000 nodes with highway=traffic_signals and name=*
in Tokyo and its suburbs !
Another country, another solution for the same tagging problem.
Vlad.
--
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
Synthèse du Week-end SOTM-FR à Lyon :
http://openstreetmap.fr/synthese-sotmfr
___
talk mailing list
t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
--
Satoshi IIDA
mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
twitter: @nyampire
___
talk mailing list
t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Crossroad names
Vladimir Vyskocil vladimir.vysko...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's time to switch to the tagging list !
The tagging scheme that seems preferred in this discussion is the
following :
- simple named junctions : use junction=yes and name=*
- complex named junctions with several lanes crossing a different
points :
two propositions :
- use a relation { type=junction, name=*, junction role,...}
referencing all the crossing points between the lanes
- use a place { tag=junction or crossroads, name=* } on a area
englobing the crossing points
All right ? What are your opinions on this ?
Vlad.
On 27 mars 2013, at 00:22, Satoshi IIDA nyamp...@gmail.com wrote:
highway=traffic_signals + name=* are now also visible:
Great!
traffic_lights on complex crossroads
Area or Relation
I prefer to use relation.
I'm afraid of effects to routing topology when signals or
roundabouts
are written as an area.
As theory, the names of Japanese traffic signals are given to each
signals, not to a junction.
(and basically, the signals on a same junction has same names)
2013/3/27 Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr:
highway=traffic_signals + name=* are now also visible:
http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?lon=139.71686lat=35.61534zoom=18
You'll see that adding names to traffic_lights on complex
crossroads
causes the same name to be rendered multiple times in some places:
http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?lon=139.71825lat=35.61857zoom=18
A better tagging scheme seems necessary as one thing should be in
the database just once.
If we could avoid relations and use either the junction=yes or a
place=junction/crossroad (place name are usually meant to be
rendered
that's why I'm thinking about it).
Think also about Nominatim... place=* makes more sense for that
purpose.
2013/3/25 Vladimir Vyskocil vladimir.vysko...@gmail.com:
And there are more than 7000 nodes with highway=traffic_signals
and name=*
in Tokyo and its suburbs !
Another country, another solution for the same tagging problem.
Vlad.
--
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
Synthèse du Week-end SOTM-FR à Lyon :
http://openstreetmap.fr/synthese-sotmfr
___
talk mailing list
t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
--
Satoshi IIDA
mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
twitter: @nyampire
___
talk mailing list
t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Moving this discussion to the tagging list sounds reasonable.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Reserve your right to think, for it is better to think wrongly than not to
think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Crossroad names
Hi!
There is a proposal to group together parts of a junction:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway%3Djunction
A relation is total overkill for such a simple task.
regards,
Martin
2013/3/28 Vladimir Vyskocil vladimir.vysko...@gmail.com:
I think it's time to switch to the tagging list !
The tagging scheme that seems preferred in this discussion is the following :
- simple named junctions : use junction=yes and name=*
- complex named junctions with several lanes crossing a different points :
two propositions :
- use a relation { type=junction, name=*, junction role,...}
referencing all the crossing points between the lanes
- use a place { tag=junction or crossroads, name=* } on a
area englobing the crossing points
All right ? What are your opinions on this ?
Vlad.
On 27 mars 2013, at 00:22, Satoshi IIDA nyamp...@gmail.com wrote:
highway=traffic_signals + name=* are now also visible:
Great!
traffic_lights on complex crossroads
Area or Relation
I prefer to use relation.
I'm afraid of effects to routing topology when signals or roundabouts
are written as an area.
As theory, the names of Japanese traffic signals are given to each
signals, not to a junction.
(and basically, the signals on a same junction has same names)
2013/3/27 Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr:
highway=traffic_signals + name=* are now also visible:
http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?lon=139.71686lat=35.61534zoom=18
You'll see that adding names to traffic_lights on complex crossroads
causes the same name to be rendered multiple times in some places:
http://tile.openstreetmap.fr/?lon=139.71825lat=35.61857zoom=18
A better tagging scheme seems necessary as one thing should be in
the database just once.
If we could avoid relations and use either the junction=yes or a
place=junction/crossroad (place name are usually meant to be rendered
that's why I'm thinking about it).
Think also about Nominatim... place=* makes more sense for that purpose.
2013/3/25 Vladimir Vyskocil vladimir.vysko...@gmail.com:
And there are more than 7000 nodes with highway=traffic_signals and name=*
in Tokyo and its suburbs !
Another country, another solution for the same tagging problem.
Vlad.
--
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France
Synthèse du Week-end SOTM-FR à Lyon :
http://openstreetmap.fr/synthese-sotmfr
___
talk mailing list
t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
--
Satoshi IIDA
mail: nyamp...@gmail.com
twitter: @nyampire
___
talk mailing list
t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
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] [OSM-talk] Crossroad names
2013/3/28 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com Hi! There is a proposal to group together parts of a junction: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway%3Djunction A relation is total overkill for such a simple task. I saw this proposal before and I liked it. Now I like it even more because it solves the junction name problem. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Crossroad names
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: I saw this proposal before and I liked it. Now I like it even more because it solves the junction name problem. As area, only used 3 times by 2 different users in one year (date of the proposal): 2 by the proposal writer imagic: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/210448306 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/202280167 1 by Soldier Boy: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/190569949 Another one is a mistake (roundabout): http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/43114115 Not something I would call a success. But 1132 relations of type junction: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=junction http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/relations/junction#overview http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Junctions Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -
An information for the new proposal tree shrine. Please give me your thoughts on that! Link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tree_shrin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -
Why not use the existing historical=shrine? Seems like the only distinction is that one is on a tree and may only last a few years. In the photo example you provide, a picture nailed to a tree, seems rather temporary. Could you provide more of a reason why we need another tag for shrine? Explain how tree shrines differ from other shrines and why they should be separated out. Cheers, Clifford On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:49 AM, wiki_openstreetmap_org.5.k...@spamgourmet.com wrote: An information for the new proposal tree shrine. Please give me your thoughts on that! Link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Proposed_features/tree_**shrinhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/tree_shrin __**_ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Clifford OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] informal helipads for emergency use
i'm talking to a volunteer firefighter about various emergency issues. one he brought up that i'd not thought about before is what they call landing zones. in rural areas, these are predetermined locations for helicopters to set down to airlift out urgent medical cases. they are not generally official helipads, just level grassy areas where they have arrangements with the landowner. generally they also have agreed upon names. i'm thinking both areas and nodes, with tagging that looks something like this: aeroway=helipad name=Fred's LZ access=no emergency=yes surface=grass does this seem reasonable? thanks, richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Wiki article about key hov
I tend to go with access=no, hov=*, and possibly motorcycle=yes or psv=designated, since I've yet to find an HOV road that allows you to walk, ski, ride an animal or a bicycle, etc. on it; it literally only allows the modes specified. On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:28 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.comwrote: Hi! I just stumbled upon the article of the key hov [1]. It says yes (also 'designated') High occupancy, but no minimum requirement specified. In my opinion this is misleading. The tag hov=yes should - like other access restrictions - mean that HOVs are allowed there. The tag hov=designated should mean that the road/lane is a designated HOV road/lane. So yes and designated have two different meanings. I'm also missing the information that a simple hov=2 does not mean that vehicles with less than two occupants are forbidden; we would need a vehicle=no + hov=2 for this. Do we agree on this? best regards, Martin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:hov ___ 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] informal helipads for emergency use
Hi Richard, On 28.03.2013 21:21, Richard Welty wrote: in rural areas, these are predetermined locations for helicopters to set down to airlift out urgent medical cases. they are not generally official helipads, just level grassy areas where they have arrangements with the landowner. generally they also have agreed upon names. aeroway=helipad name=Fred's LZ access=no emergency=yes surface=grass does this seem reasonable? This rendering would cause all maps which do not evaluate your special tagging to show up a helipad at these locations. I have no problem with some special case tagging. But I prefer it in a way in which only software evaluating these special cases also renders it. Make the default case easy. All applications following your idea and creating special purpose maps can evaluate more tags. But you can't request every data consumer world-wide to know that your new tag is not a helipad in the established way but something else, just because it has some additional tags which had not been used in this context before. Could it be stored inside the emergency key? so leave away the aeroway and store as emergency=helipad? Stephan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
