Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

[Egil Hjelmeland]

On 28. nov. 2013 20:07, Dan S wrote:

2013/11/28 Egil Hjelmeland :

I have to my surprise not been able to find any established practice for
tagging webcams on internet. I am thinking of cameras that display a place,
so you can click in to see the weather, snow conditions and such. As a
service to the public, not to Big Brother. So I feel man_made=surveillance
is wrong. Also I suspect most surveillance cameras are not public on
internet.

I would like to (politely :) disagree with your split.
man_made=surveillance seems to be perfect IMHO. The word
"surveillance" may feel big-brotherish, but it is literally what a
webcam does. It seems to me you could come up with some nice tags to
add to the surveillance scheme, such as webcam=public

Best
Dan

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

Considering that mountain paths are tagged as "highway", I feel the 
pieces fall into place now ;-)


I still do not think man_made=surveillance is perfect. But I do not have 
huge problems with it as long as it is documented.


But if I kindly refer you to 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dsurveillance , you 
will see that it talk about Big Brother, not about webcams. It does not 
even define how to link to a image on internet. 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_tags_for_Key:Surveillance 
also focuses on surveillance. I just looked at 
http://osmcamera.tk/tags.php . Out of 21996 man_made=surveillance in the 
world, there are just 362 url= and 370 website=. Many of the website= 
and a few of the url= are just links to the operators of Big Brother 
non-webcams. After some random sampling, it seem to me that the majority 
of actual webcams are what I would call surveillance cameras.


So when only a few hundred webcams displaying landscape are mapped in 
the world, I would say there is a real problem that people do not know 
how to map them.


Regaring the multiple cameras on the same spot problem, I just got an 
idea; Make each camera as a relation, the only member is the location node.


-- Egil


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

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

[nounours]

Hi Egil,


> 
>  So I feel man_made=surveillance is wrong. Also I suspect most surveillance 
> cameras are not public on internet.
> 
> I think amenity=webcam is a good tag. Applies to node.

amenity is definitvely a bad choice. First, we should be careful to tag 
everything with "amenity". Second, an amenity is something you can use/consume 
when you're on the road, e.g. a bar to drink something or a wastebasket to get 
rid of something.

Even if I agree that it's not man_made=surveillance, it's shares some common 
features with it. (Besides, man_made is maybe not an ideal tag for surveillance 
as well, if you look at the other values, it's more some clearly visible 
features that are put into nature.

Maybe directly

camera=surveillance
camera=webcam
camera=traffic_cam

would be clearer???


nounours


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

Re: [Tagging] opening-hours off closed

[Eckhart Wörner]

Hi André,

Am Donnerstag, 28. November 2013, 16:15:39 schrieb André Pirard:
> So, I thought that this fuzzy matter had to be be solved by writing a
> simple syntax diagram. Should anything be wrong in it, someone would put
> it right and it would be a good job jobbed and a big step forward.

If you add wrong information in the most prominent spot in a very popular 
article, one can expect two outcomes:
(1) someone might correct the mistake
(2) people start tagging the wrong way
In the last two months, only (2) happened.

> And now, probably in thanks for my contribution, my diagram was adorned
> with this:
> 
> Warning 
>   The syntax diagram below had no proper discussion and vote, and
> conflicts with established tagging. *Don't use it!*

Yes, that was me, in reaction to (2).

> It is obviously something very difficult to understand that a diagram
> translating an article needs no discussion nor vote but needs to be
> corrected to align with the obscure explanations by their gurus.  Else,
> it's the article itself that suffers from lack of discussion and vote.
> That remark still doesn't say what's wrong in the diagram.

Okay, here is a (probably incomplete) list:
- "open" and "closed" appear to be some new invention
- the meaning of "off" is wrong
- daily, weekly, monthly don't exist in that form. It is perfectly valid to 
combine them, e.g.
  Apr-Oct Mo-Fr 07:00-20:00

> I know that the diagram is wrong […]

…and you don't mind that mappers follow the wrong diagram?

Eckhart

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

Re: [Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

[Dan S]

2013/11/28 Egil Hjelmeland :
> I have to my surprise not been able to find any established practice for
> tagging webcams on internet. I am thinking of cameras that display a place,
> so you can click in to see the weather, snow conditions and such. As a
> service to the public, not to Big Brother. So I feel man_made=surveillance
> is wrong. Also I suspect most surveillance cameras are not public on
> internet.

I would like to (politely :) disagree with your split.
man_made=surveillance seems to be perfect IMHO. The word
"surveillance" may feel big-brotherish, but it is literally what a
webcam does. It seems to me you could come up with some nice tags to
add to the surveillance scheme, such as webcam=public

Best
Dan

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

[Tagging] preproposal : internet webcam

[Egil Hjelmeland]

I have to my surprise not been able to find any established practice for 
tagging webcams on internet. I am thinking of cameras that display a 
place, so you can click in to see the weather, snow conditions and such. 
As a service to the public, not to Big Brother. So I feel 
man_made=surveillance is wrong. Also I suspect most surveillance cameras 
are not public on internet.


I think amenity=webcam is a good tag. Applies to node.

Tags to use in combination: At least one of

url=... for the actual image.
website=... for the html page where the cameras are found

Other relevant keys taken from man_made=surveillance

name= ... name of place
operator=
camera:direction=
camera:angle=

description=... description of what you can see in the image. Possibly 
with language tags


fixme=guessed location


There are border cases between amenity=webcam and man_made=surveillance. 
In that case I suggest using both tags. Example: road cameras that show 
driving conditions on the road.


One issue I see is when there are multiple cameras on the same spot, 
facing different directions. For instance in a mast. Create one node for 
each camera with the same coordinates? Tie them with an relation? The 
other alternative, making lists with OSM tags seem very cumbersome?


Comments?
-- Egil H



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

Re: [Tagging] opening-hours off closed

[Richard Welty]

On 11/28/13 11:05 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote:
>
> Removed the inappropriate warning and added a hopefully neutral
> statement. If something is wrong with the diagram everyone is invited
> to a) either fix it or b) add a short note that some special/complex
> case isn't covered by the simplified diagram and one should read the
> complete syntax.
>
> Thanks to André for his contribution.
>
we really do need a defined, unambiguous syntax for
date/time specification. the current situation is a nightmare
for data consumers and severely limits the utility of the data.

i also thank André for this work. now please, can we fix the situation?

richard



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] opening-hours off closed

[Martin Vonwald]

2013/11/28 André Pirard 

>  And now, probably in thanks for my contribution, my diagram was adorned
> with this:
>[image: Warning] 
>  The syntax diagram below had no proper discussion and vote, and
> conflicts with established tagging. *Don't use it!*
>
> It is obviously something very difficult to understand that a diagram
> translating an article needs no discussion nor vote but needs to be
> corrected to align with the obscure explanations by their gurus.  Else,
> it's the article itself that suffers from lack of discussion and vote. That
> remark still doesn't say what's wrong in the diagram.
>
Removed the inappropriate warning and added a hopefully neutral statement.
If something is wrong with the diagram everyone is invited to a) either fix
it or b) add a short note that some special/complex case isn't covered by
the simplified diagram and one should read the complete syntax.

Thanks to André for his contribution.
<<40px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png>>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] opening-hours off closed

[Jonathan]

+1

http://bigfatfrog67.me

On 28/11/2013 15:32, nounours wrote:

Dear André,

Also being new to OSM and new to the tagging mailing list, I 
completely understand your frustration. And I also believe that a lot 
of people left OSM because even if they try hard, the don't get it right.


On the other hand, I also understand the people being involved for a 
long time in OSM, to explain over and over again the same things ...


But I think, in all documentations on the wiki, there is a lot of 
"clean-up" needed, to make clear to newcomers what's valid and what's 
not. And also I think contributors would benefit from a badge 
indicating the state, like "I'm new and willing to learn. If I do 
something wrong, it's not on purpose", in opposition to a badge "I'm 
an old OSM guy and grounchy, and if I do something, I do it on purpuse 
to make life harder for others".


In a conlcusion, I only can ask you to stay and help to transform OSM 
in the way your suggesting.


Concerning opening_hours: I'm very much happy that finally someone 
(André) tries to simply this tag. I personally think the original 
definition is a nightmare, and even Andrés "simplified" syntax looks 
very, very complicated to a normal mapper.


Well, I really hope the person that added the "don't use it"-flag will 
remove it and help to improve André diagramm!


Thanks, nounours

(badge: greenhorn, but willing to learn)


Am 28.11.2013 um 16:15 schrieb André Pirard:


Hi,

I had to tag the simplest thing there is: a parking lot closed a few 
hours on Fridays (during market time).
On wiki.osm.org/wiki/Opening_hours 
, I found explanations by, 
rather than a simple diagram, a lot of examples and explanations 
sometimes nearing slang like "off" rather than the internationally 
understood "closed".
After spending much time reading them several times, I didn't find 
how to code that ubiquitous case.
I queried this list and I received something like six different and 
alternating answers.

Someone even said that "off", crowding the page, is not to be used.
So, I thought that this fuzzy matter had to be be solved by writing a 
simple syntax diagram. Should anything be wrong in it, someone would 
put it right and it would be a good job jobbed and a big step forward.
Instead of that, someone added to footnote 1 the very clear sentence 
"no program works like that", looking like a discussion message.  I 
posted here that it would be better to state (and fix) how the 
diagram must be rather than how it must not (I also receive repeated 
updates notices from the discussion page in which someone put a vote).


And now, probably in thanks for my contribution, my diagram was 
adorned with this:



<40px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png> 

	The syntax diagram below had no proper discussion and vote, and 
conflicts with established tagging. *Don't use it!*


It is obviously something very difficult to understand that a diagram 
translating an article needs no discussion nor vote but needs to be 
corrected to align with the obscure explanations by their gurus.  
Else, it's the article itself that suffers from lack of discussion 
and vote. That remark still doesn't say what's wrong in the diagram.


In practical conclusion, two months after stating the problem I still 
don't see how to do.  I know that the diagram is wrong but not what 
in it and there is still no example in the page explaining how to tag 
that ubiquitous case.


So, I followed my best option: remove my tagging, unsubscribe and 
forget it all about opening-hours.
That's probably what a many mappers have done silently, unless it's 
true that they tag in every which way.


Help OSM, they say.
All the best for the rest

André.



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




___
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] opening-hours off closed

[nounours]

Dear André,

Also being new to OSM and new to the tagging mailing list, I completely 
understand your frustration. And I also believe that a lot of people left OSM 
because even if they try hard, the don't get it right.

On the other hand, I also understand the people being involved for a long time 
in OSM, to explain over and over again the same things ...

But I think, in all documentations on the wiki, there is a lot of "clean-up" 
needed, to make clear to newcomers what's valid and what's not. And also I 
think contributors would benefit from a badge indicating the state, like "I'm 
new and willing to learn. If I do something wrong, it's not on purpose", in 
opposition to a badge "I'm an old OSM guy and grounchy, and if I do something, 
I do it on purpuse to make life harder for others".

In a conlcusion, I only can ask you to stay and help to transform OSM in the 
way your suggesting. 

Concerning opening_hours: I'm very much happy that finally someone (André) 
tries to simply this tag. I personally think the original definition is a 
nightmare, and even Andrés "simplified" syntax looks very, very complicated to 
a normal mapper.

Well, I really hope the person that added the "don't use it"-flag will remove 
it and help to improve André diagramm!

Thanks, nounours

(badge: greenhorn, but willing to learn)


Am 28.11.2013 um 16:15 schrieb André Pirard:

> Hi,
> 
> I had to tag the simplest thing there is: a parking lot closed a few hours on 
> Fridays (during market time).
> On wiki.osm.org/wiki/Opening_hours, I found explanations by, rather than a 
> simple diagram, a lot of examples and explanations sometimes nearing slang 
> like "off" rather than the internationally understood "closed".
> After spending much time reading them several times, I didn't find how to 
> code that ubiquitous case.
> I queried this list and I received something like six different and 
> alternating answers.
> Someone even said that "off", crowding the page, is not to be used.
> So, I thought that this fuzzy matter had to be be solved by writing a simple 
> syntax diagram. Should anything be wrong in it, someone would put it right 
> and it would be a good job jobbed and a big step forward.
> Instead of that, someone added to footnote 1 the very clear sentence "no 
> program works like that", looking like a discussion message.  I posted here 
> that it would be better to state (and fix) how the diagram must be rather 
> than how it must not (I also receive repeated updates notices from the 
> discussion page in which someone put a vote).
> 
> And now, probably in thanks for my contribution, my diagram was adorned with 
> this:
> 
> <40px-Ambox_warning_pn.svg.png>
> The syntax diagram below had no proper discussion and vote, and conflicts 
> with established tagging. Don't use it!
> It is obviously something very difficult to understand that a diagram 
> translating an article needs no discussion nor vote but needs to be corrected 
> to align with the obscure explanations by their gurus.  Else, it's the 
> article itself that suffers from lack of discussion and vote. That remark 
> still doesn't say what's wrong in the diagram.
> In practical conclusion, two months after stating the problem I still don't 
> see how to do.  I know that the diagram is wrong but not what in it and there 
> is still no example in the page explaining how to tag that ubiquitous case.
> 
> So, I followed my best option: remove my tagging, unsubscribe and forget it 
> all about opening-hours.
> That's probably what a many mappers have done silently, unless it's true that 
> they tag in every which way.
> 
> Help OSM, they say.
> All the best for the rest
> 
> André.
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tagging] opening-hours off closed

[André Pirard]

  
  
Hi,

I had to tag the simplest thing there is: a parking lot closed a few
hours on Fridays (during market time).
On wiki.osm.org/wiki/Opening_hours,
I found explanations by, rather than a simple diagram, a lot of
examples and explanations sometimes nearing slang like "off" rather
than the internationally understood "closed".
After spending much time reading them several times, I didn't find
how to code that ubiquitous case.
I queried this list and I received something like six different and
alternating answers.
Someone even said that "off", crowding the page, is not to be used.
So, I thought that this fuzzy matter had to be be solved by writing
a simple syntax diagram. Should anything be wrong in it, someone
would put it right and it would be a good job jobbed and a big step
forward.
Instead of that, someone added to footnote 1 the very clear sentence
"no program works like that", looking like a discussion message.  I
posted here that it would be better to state (and fix) how the
diagram must be rather than how it must not (I also receive repeated
updates notices from the discussion page in which someone put a
vote).

And now, probably in thanks for my contribution, my diagram was
adorned with this:


  

  

  
  The syntax diagram below had no
proper discussion and vote, and conflicts with established
tagging. Don't use it!

  

It is obviously something very difficult to understand that a
  diagram translating an article needs no discussion nor vote but
  needs to be corrected to align with the obscure explanations by
  their gurus.  Else, it's the article itself that suffers from lack
  of discussion and vote. That remark still doesn't say what's wrong
  in the diagram.

In practical conclusion, two months after stating the problem I
still don't see how to do.  I know that the diagram is wrong but not
what in it and there is still no example in the page explaining how
to tag that ubiquitous case.

So, I followed my best option: remove my tagging, unsubscribe and
forget it all about opening-hours.
That's probably what a many mappers have done silently, unless it's
true that they tag in every which way.

Help OSM, they say.
All the best for the rest


  

  André.

  



  

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

Re: [Tagging] opening_hours extension: combined time range with open end as 18:00-22:00+

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi Robin,

Thank you for your efforts.

Could you give some more information on this proposal? In particular,
what kind of POI would use this? How would you expect software for
example (OsmAND) to use it? Have you discussed this with entities that
currently support opening_hours? Is the scheme backwards compatible,
for example, how would old OsmAND versions behave with the new scheme?

I agree with the others that following the proposal process would have
been clearer.

-- Matthijs

On 25 November 2013 20:22, Robin `ypid` Schneider  wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> I would like to have some level of clarity about tagging a time range directly
> followed by an open end time.
>
> So I started a voting here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:opening_hours#Voting_addon_18:00-22:00.2B
>
> I probably did not correctly follow the process for Proposals. I am sorry for
> that. If a longer time range for voting is usual or something please adopted 
> it.
>
> The reason for this voting is my ongoing development around the tag 
> opening_hours.
>
> Tool for evaluation:
> http://robin.de.marissa.hostorama.ch/osm/opening_hours.js/demo.html
> Map:
> http://robin.de.marissa.hostorama.ch/osm/opening_hours_map/opening_hours_map.html
>
> --
> Live long and prosper
> Robin Schneider
>
> ___
> 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] Bitcoin and Online shops

[Anthony]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier  wrote:

> On 11/27/2013 09:33 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> > I think we need solutions to high density office mapping, though - and
> > OSM as it is today is not a great fit.
>
> Does OSM want to be a directory ?
>

No.


> A shop is a discrete entity - quite the consensual POI. A single tenant
> building ? Same. But what about a 50 levels high-rise building with 67
> tenants ? Should they all appear on OSM ?


As long as they include height along with latitude and longitude, and
include sufficient detail to those measures, I don't see why not.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] opening_hours extension: combined time range with open end as 18:00-22:00+

[Eckhart Wörner]

Hi Robin,

Am Montag, 25. November 2013, 21:22:42 schrieb Robin `ypid` Schneider:
> I would like to have some level of clarity about tagging a time range directly
> followed by an open end time.
> 
> So I started a voting here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:opening_hours#Voting_addon_18:00-22:00.2B
> 
> I probably did not correctly follow the process for Proposals. I am sorry for
> that. If a longer time range for voting is usual or something please adopted 
> it.

The proposal process is described here: 
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features

Unless I missed some previous mail on this mailing list, you managed to get 
quite a lot of things wrong, and I'd therefore suggest you start all over again.

Eckhart

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