Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - via_ferrata
For me all path are equiped with some technical equipment are via ferrata, because with this tag you see in the map that in that point the path have some technical equipment. And because the first scale grade of via ferrata say No equipment requaired. All map write cross in the point with technical equipment. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-via-ferrata-tp5776186p5779437.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)
Am 28.09.2013 15:10, schrieb Christopher Hoess: Hey I'm officially agnostic on that question! I know both tunnel=culvert and culvert=yes are used much more frequently in OSM than bridge=culvert; I think one of them predominates, but I don't know which. tunnel=yes; culvert=yes ? I would go for tunnel=culvert. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)
2013/9/30 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com tunnel=yes; culvert=yes ? I would go for tunnel=culvert. how would you tag a culvert in a tunnel? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)
Am 30.09.2013 15:51, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2013/9/30 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com tunnel=yes; culvert=yes ? I would go for tunnel=culvert. man_made=pipeline; location=tunnel/underground and probably a tunnel relation. I am not sure about tunnel=* as it depends on the tunnel. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)
2013/9/30 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com man_made=pipeline; location=tunnel/underground and probably a tunnel relation. IMHO a culvert is different from a pipeline as a pipeline is an end to end connection. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)
Am 30.09.2013 16:12, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2013/9/30 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com man_made=pipeline; location=tunnel/underground and probably a tunnel relation. IMHO a culvert is different from a pipeline as a pipeline is an end to end connection. OK, I get your point but you have to admit that most of the times we have to deal with the standard situation and not with multi-use tunnels. So, there might be situations where tunnel=* and culvert=yes might be ok. I wonder which waterway tag you choose though. ? waterway=culvert ? cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - via_ferrata
Am 30.09.2013 10:37, schrieb bredy: For me all path are equiped with some technical equipment are via ferrata, because with this tag you see in the map that in that point the path have some technical equipment. And because the first scale grade of via ferrata say No equipment requaired. All map write cross in the point with technical equipment. I understand your point in diversifying climbling and other routes with required equipment but I would not use highway=* for this. I think it is much easier to either add no highway tag at all and/or highway=path plus sac_scale and add extra information as via_ferrata=* and subtags. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)
2013/9/30 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com OK, I get your point but you have to admit that most of the times we have to deal with the standard situation and not with multi-use tunnels. That's because multi-use tunnels are not so mapped in OSM. On the other hand, be sure we can encounter many cases of multi-use tunnels in the world. Security galleries, parallel of road or train tunnels are more and more used for power transit and telecommunication cables roll out for instance. Far more globally, hosting a feature inside another is the central question. Are we forced to use relations ? *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)
And canal tunnels, there is usually a towpath through the same tunnel, but we have to map them as separate tunnels, then there are double track railway tunnels. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 30/09/2013 15:42 François Lacombe wrote: 2013/9/30 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com OK, I get your point but you have to admit that most of the times we have to deal with the standard situation and not with multi-use tunnels. That's because multi-use tunnels are not so mapped in OSM. On the other hand, be sure we can encounter many cases of multi-use tunnels in the world. Security galleries, parallel of road or train tunnels are more and more used for power transit and telecommunication cables roll out for instance. Far more globally, hosting a feature inside another is the central question. Are we forced to use relations ? François Lacombe francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)
Am 30.09.2013 17:27, schrieb Philip Barnes: On 30/09/2013 15:42 François Lacombe wrote: 2013/9/30 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com OK, I get your point but you have to admit that most of the times we have to deal with the standard situation and not with multi-use tunnels. That's because multi-use tunnels are not so mapped in OSM. On the other hand, be sure we can encounter many cases of multi-use tunnels in the world. Security galleries, parallel of road or train tunnels are more and more used for power transit and telecommunication cables roll out for instance. Far more globally, hosting a feature inside another is the central question. Are we forced to use relations ? And canal tunnels, there is usually a towpath through the same tunnel, but we have to map them as separate tunnels, then there are double track railway tunnels. Wait a minute we are talking about culverts and not about general tunnels. These are not well mapped and lots of tunnel relations are missing but thats a different story. Not talking about tunnel systems either. The question asked was how to tag a culvert in a tunnel and better why can it make sense to use tunnel=yes plus culvert=yes. cu fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)
2013/9/30 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk And canal tunnels, there is usually a towpath through the same tunnel, but we have to map them as separate tunnels, then there are double track railway tunnels. IMHO this is the same as for bridges: we don't have a general standard how to map a bridge or a tunnel, all we (there are exceptions, speaking about the general consensus how normal mapping is done) currently do is attaching an attribute to a road (or sth. else) stating that it is on a bridge or in a tunnel, but we do not map the bridge or tunnel itself. The solution could be a bridge object or a tunnel object (could be either geometry or a relation) which would represent the actual structure, would get tags like name (name of the bridge / tunnel, not of the road, i.e. goodbye bridge_name), and so on. In the case of geometry this would be an area outlining the feature, in the case of relations I think there is already a proposal, but not very much used. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)
Am 29.09.2013 16:27, schrieb bredy: The automated_external_defibrillator proposal has now been stable for some time. It is therefore time to announce the voting on this proposal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/automated_external_defibrillator http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/automated_external_defibrillator Major problem I find is that using a abbreviation is not the way we tag in OSM and it is often misleading. Please change the tag into some human readable words and let software do the abbreviation. Thanks fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)
Ok fly, sorry for this sidetrack on the main thread ;) Nevertheless, +1 for separating structures (bridges, tunnel) from features (roads, rails, ...). But all this (tunnels, bridges, culverts) need a better support of layering and extra attributes like elevation beside lat lon. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/9/30 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com Am 30.09.2013 18:19, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2013/9/30 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk mailto: p...@trigpoint.me.uk And canal tunnels, there is usually a towpath through the same tunnel, but we have to map them as separate tunnels, then there are double track railway tunnels. IMHO this is the same as for bridges: we don't have a general standard how to map a bridge or a tunnel, all we (there are exceptions, speaking about the general consensus how normal mapping is done) currently do is attaching an attribute to a road (or sth. else) stating that it is on a bridge or in a tunnel, but we do not map the bridge or tunnel itself. The solution could be a bridge object or a tunnel object (could be either geometry or a relation) which would represent the actual structure, would get tags like name (name of the bridge / tunnel, not of the road, i.e. goodbye bridge_name), and so on. In the case of geometry this would be an area outlining the feature, in the case of relations I think there is already a proposal, but not very much used. Sure, man_made=bridge/tunnel for the outline and bridge/tunnel relation which are often both needed. fly ___ 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 - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 18:22 +0200, fly wrote: Am 29.09.2013 16:27, schrieb bredy: The automated_external_defibrillator proposal has now been stable for some time. It is therefore time to announce the voting on this proposal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/automated_external_defibrillator http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/automated_external_defibrillator Major problem I find is that using a abbreviation is not the way we tag in OSM and it is often misleading. Please change the tag into some human readable words and let software do the abbreviation. Thanks fly +1 I added the same observation to the wiki discussion. Abbreviations are always prone to misinterpretation. Phil ( trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - via_ferrata
the via ferrata have different scale of difficult respect the sac_scale, but I'm not the writer of this proposal. I only want to proceed with it. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-via-ferrata-tp5776186p5779482.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)
This proposal sounds unclear to me : It says the tag to use is currently under discussion, so what are we voting for ? Not to mention the abbreviation problem... *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/9/30 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl On 30 September 2013 18:22, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Major problem I find is that using a abbreviation is not the way we tag in OSM and it is often misleading. We do use abbreviations for keys/values: for example mtb, bmx, hgv, psv, url, rcn. In this particular case, I think more people have familiarity with the abbreviation than with the full term, so I see here nothing wrong with sticking to the abbreviation. Or are you proposing to start using uniform_resource_locator as well? -- Matthijs ___ 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 - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)
2013/9/30 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl In this particular case, I think more people have familiarity with the abbreviation than with the full term, so I see here nothing wrong with sticking to the abbreviation. -1 the fact that other tags haven't been chosen well or particularly understandable for non-english mappers (rcn,psv,hgv,...) in the past doesn't imply we have to continue... cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - via_ferrata
Am 30.09.2013 18:55, schrieb bredy: the via ferrata have different scale of difficult respect the sac_scale, but I'm not the writer of this proposal. I only want to proceed with it. You can use both if needed and I have no problem via_ferrata_scale=*. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)
On 09/30/2013 11:59 AM, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 30 September 2013 18:22, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Major problem I find is that using a abbreviation is not the way we tag in OSM and it is often misleading. We do use abbreviations for keys/values: for example mtb, bmx, hgv, psv, url, rcn. In this particular case, I think more people have familiarity with the abbreviation than with the full term, so I see here nothing wrong with sticking to the abbreviation. Or are you proposing to start using uniform_resource_locator as well? -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I think that it would be better to use the spelled-out term automated_external_defibrillator rather than the acronym AED, to avoid potential confusion. The OpenStreetMap database is intended for international use, and the spelled-out term is less ambiguous. It would be possible for the wiki to link the AED acronym to the page listing the spelled-out term, and the wiki could explain why the spelled-out term is preferable for tagging. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 18:59 +0200, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 30 September 2013 18:22, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Major problem I find is that using a abbreviation is not the way we tag in OSM and it is often misleading. We do use abbreviations for keys/values: for example mtb, bmx, hgv, psv, url, rcn. Those are mostly familiar terms, where the abbreviation is better known than the actual words. BMX and URL in particular. I do not know MTB or RCN are however. In this particular case, I think more people have familiarity with the abbreviation than with the full term, so I see here nothing wrong with sticking to the abbreviation. Or are you proposing to start using uniform_resource_locator as well? Outside of the medical profession I doubt anyone has heard the term AED. I certainly hadn't until I saw it in this thread. There may be some familiarity with them within factories, we have some at work. Then again I work for a large company with a strong health and safety culture, and a large number of employees to split the cost over. Outside of factories and the like, they are still very rare. I know of one, in Loppington, a small North Shropshire village, but thats because I am an observant mapper. It has a numerical keylock on it, so imagine that maybe you phone 999 and ask for the code? I have never seen one anywhere else, and yes I have looked and keep my eyes open. Most people will not be aware such things even exist. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)
Just FYI, they are becoming more common in public places (offices, malls, airports, schools, etc) in the US. On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 18:59 +0200, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 30 September 2013 18:22, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Major problem I find is that using a abbreviation is not the way we tag in OSM and it is often misleading. We do use abbreviations for keys/values: for example mtb, bmx, hgv, psv, url, rcn. Those are mostly familiar terms, where the abbreviation is better known than the actual words. BMX and URL in particular. I do not know MTB or RCN are however. In this particular case, I think more people have familiarity with the abbreviation than with the full term, so I see here nothing wrong with sticking to the abbreviation. Or are you proposing to start using uniform_resource_locator as well? Outside of the medical profession I doubt anyone has heard the term AED. I certainly hadn't until I saw it in this thread. There may be some familiarity with them within factories, we have some at work. Then again I work for a large company with a strong health and safety culture, and a large number of employees to split the cost over. Outside of factories and the like, they are still very rare. I know of one, in Loppington, a small North Shropshire village, but thats because I am an observant mapper. It has a numerical keylock on it, so imagine that maybe you phone 999 and ask for the code? I have never seen one anywhere else, and yes I have looked and keep my eyes open. Most people will not be aware such things even exist. Phil (trigpoint) ___ 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 - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)
One year of no discussion and now that start the vote many problem. AED is actual in use in OSM then I don't see problem. If user don't like this can vote no to proposal. -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-Voting-automated-external-defibrillator-tp5779375p5779504.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)
On Mon, 2013-09-30 at 11:57 -0700, bredy wrote: One year of no discussion and now that start the vote many problem. AED is actual in use in OSM then I don't see problem. If user don't like this can vote no to proposal. Its not about voting No, the proposal is a good one. Its about making it understandable and not using an abbreviation that is not in popular usage. Phil (trigpoint) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (automated_external_defibrillator)
2013/9/30 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk Its not about voting No, the proposal is a good one. Its about making it understandable and not using an abbreviation that is not in popular usage. there are common guidelines for tagging that discourage abbreviations, for good reason. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Bridge types)
I'm a total newbie to OSM proposals and discussions like this one so let me apologize in advance for this off topic post. I'm still following along but I'm wondering how a person will ever see this sort of detail in a map. I confess I mostly work on OSM so I can get detailed and correct maps for use in a Garmin GPS in the areas I live and work in, Alaska and Thailand primarily. I get all my maps from Lambertus at garmin.openstreetmap.nl and while his rendering isn't perfect it serves my purposes well enough. Can one of you suggest a site where I can see details like those you mention? On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:34 PM, François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu wrote: Ok fly, sorry for this sidetrack on the main thread ;) Nevertheless, +1 for separating structures (bridges, tunnel) from features (roads, rails, ...). But all this (tunnels, bridges, culverts) need a better support of layering and extra attributes like elevation beside lat lon. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/9/30 fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com Am 30.09.2013 18:19, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2013/9/30 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk mailto: p...@trigpoint.me.uk And canal tunnels, there is usually a towpath through the same tunnel, but we have to map them as separate tunnels, then there are double track railway tunnels. IMHO this is the same as for bridges: we don't have a general standard how to map a bridge or a tunnel, all we (there are exceptions, speaking about the general consensus how normal mapping is done) currently do is attaching an attribute to a road (or sth. else) stating that it is on a bridge or in a tunnel, but we do not map the bridge or tunnel itself. The solution could be a bridge object or a tunnel object (could be either geometry or a relation) which would represent the actual structure, would get tags like name (name of the bridge / tunnel, not of the road, i.e. goodbye bridge_name), and so on. In the case of geometry this would be an area outlining the feature, in the case of relations I think there is already a proposal, but not very much used. Sure, man_made=bridge/tunnel for the outline and bridge/tunnel relation which are often both needed. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
