Re: [Tagging] Optical telecomunication cable tagging
Hi Dave, I agree for location=* tag and it should be used in every domain of knowledge in OSM since it is really a common tag. Regarding buried telecommunication cables, location=underground suits my needs. But my point was to know if communication=* is the best primary tag to map such cables. Telecommunications aren't well developed in OSM, only submarines cables were added to map years ago and I've never seen any terrestrial cables or markers plotted since. Maybe it's the time to think about it, isn't it ? A telecommunication cable is a bit foggy : there are not only cables, but markers, underground rooms, junctions, etc. Like pipelines or power for instance. The only communication tags I know are : - tower:type=communication, mainly for cellular mobile communication towers - communication=line, for submarines cables. What else ? *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2014-03-04 1:14 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com: I came across this tag while working on adjusting the route of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The location tag tells whether a feature is above or below ground: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:location I think location is a poor term for this but it is in use and is in the Wiki. Together, Taginfo says the two tags location=overground (13,888) and location=underground (19,338) make up almost 35K uses. Regards, Dave On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:13 AM, François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu wrote: Hi, I've found a dozen of markers in the country around my home, like this : http://www.infos-reseaux.com/photos/image/217-identification-telecom-trn It identifies terrestrial optical fibre cables going underground between cities in France. How should it be mapped in OSM ? I know communication=line but it's still a proposal and there are maybe other known combinations. Since there are many of those markers, we should find some sustainable way to map them, like pipelines or power lines. Let me know how you feel about it. Cheers. *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 -- 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Optical telecomunication cable tagging
Am 04/mar/2014 um 09:44 schrieb François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu: - communication=line, for submarines cables. I'd dispute that communication=line is only for submarine cables, looks like a much more generic tag, while as specific tag for submarine cables it is a very bad choice cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Optical telecomunication cable tagging
I definitely agree with you Martin. I said communication=line is for submarine cables since there are only submarine cables identified with it. But we should start mapping terrestrial cables when we see markers like me last weekend. But what should that generic tag be ? That's the question. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2014-03-04 10:09 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: Am 04/mar/2014 um 09:44 schrieb François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu: - communication=line, for submarines cables. I'd dispute that communication=line is only for submarine cables, looks like a much more generic tag, while as specific tag for submarine cables it is a very bad choice cheers, Martin ___ 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] wiki definition for man_made=works
2014-02-26 9:43 GMT+01:00 Georg Feddern o...@bavarianmallet.de: yes, that is the point of the thread opener: man_made=works does not make sense for one building only. I always tag man_made=works for the whole area of a work/factory complex of one operator (as one object). as there don't seem to be any objections I'll change this now. thank you all for your comments, cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Optical telecomunication cable tagging
On 03/03/2014 22:13, François Lacombe wrote: I've found a dozen of markers in the country around my home, like this : http://www.infos-reseaux.com/photos/image/217-identification-telecom-trn It identifies terrestrial optical fibre cables going underground between cities in France. How should it be mapped in OSM ? Those cables are not visible and therefore should not be mapped. Being in charge of GIS projects for the fiber network of a major telecommunication operator, my opinion is that Openstreetmap will never achieve any useful view of optical networks: those cables are everywhere but their path is usually not visible from public right of ways. I contribute to the mapping of high-voltage lines, which are major landmarks. I support the mapping of cabinets, which are minor urban landmarks. I understand that some may be willing to map telecommunications chambers, whose metal opening is visible on the surface. But spare yourself the pain of mapping underground cables - I guarantee it is a hopeless and useless endeavour. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Optical telecomunication cable tagging
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:16 AM, François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu wrote: Are you going to map the markers only or the whole underground optical cables ? If you start to map underground features, you will quickly get complains about the mess of editing the map, especially in densified urban areas. It's tolerated when nothing else is in the map like sea cables or when the feature is exceptional like a metro or a pipeline. This would be different if you start mapping all copper or fiber underground networks (or sewer) in a city. Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hot springs
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 07:35:02AM +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote: Speaking as a chemist, the term sulfuric would imply strong acidity as in sulfuric acid. What you're looking for I believe is a term to indicate if the water smells bad or not. Many hot springs have a rotten egg smell lent to the water by dissolved hydrogen sulfide (H2S), some of which escapes into the atmosphere to assault one's nose. This water would also be acidic but not to the same degree as sulfuric suggests. Perhaps sulfide=yes/no or sulfurous=yes/no would work better. thanks for the input. I am not aware of many sulfurous hot springs in Europe, one of them is on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methana peninsula. Do you think characterising that as sulfurous would be fine? I think we need something a main characteristic for layman usage and something for the detailed properties. I am not yet sure if these should be combined in one (multivalued) tag or done in separate tags. Also, I like the term water_characteristic or something similar. A more general, because not limited to water, but less common term might be effluent_characteristic. This would cover hot springs that involve mud, steam, or other stuff coming out of the ground. If water only, then effluent_characteristic=water or effluent_characteristic=water+steam It might even be extended to include hydrogen sulfide: effluent_characteristic=water+sulfide effluent_characteristic might be a very good idea to map all kinds of fluid material. I was even thinking reusing it to characterise lava streams but then we would need a separate tag for solid lava fields, probably not so good. So maybe water_characteristic which could be used for everything from mudpots to saltwater in the ocean. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hot springs
(and in case anyone's not aware) sulfur would be sulphur in British English. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hot springs
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 03:50:30PM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote: Hi, +1 to Tobias. I feel it needs clarification for this tag scope. I think it was leisure=hot_spring once, and switched to natural=hot_spring. exactly. So the main purpose of this scheme is now natural. Like to represent a geyser or some natural features, it seems. So it is better to make another tag scheme to represent Onsen ♨ bathing facility. as you mentioned we already have various methods to map bathing facilities, thanks for pointing out leisure=public_bath. So the idea is to have natural=hot_spring - the hole in earth where hot water is comming out + natural=water - if there is a pool of water around it + water_characteristic - attached to both spring and water + all other related facilities mapped with their own well known tags such as tourism=attraction, amenity=public_bath, leisure=beach_resort, natural=beach, sport=swimming .. please add those which I have forgotten. Some of those tags, like swimming need improvement which is independent from this proposal. water_characteristic is intended to be reusable for natural=spring and all waterways and other water bodies. Many Japanese rural tourism=hotel has Onsen amenity. # Some Japanese mappers use amenity=public_bath to represent Sento. # Sento is like a spa, but more daily used amenity. # http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sent%C5%8D In my opinion, to represent a Onsen Hotel, e.g. tourism=hotel amenity=public_bath leisure=onsen or some combination. (yes, this is very draft!) natural=hot_spring is for springs of natural origin. A leisure=onsen is orthogonal to this so those could be easily combined if the onsen is from a natural source. Otherwise you would have just leisure=onsen. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Optical telecomunication cable tagging
Just consider we are talking about pipelines here, optical pipelines which are going out of any urban area most of the time. Indeed there's no point of mapping MAN networks in OSM since editing tools aren't able to distinguish such micro-data from the rest of the dataset yet. Like gas oil pipelines, we can map markers and cables too, regarding long distance links. We won't be able to map optical circuits or L2 links and that's not the goal. Let's try to give a map of bare infrastructure before everyone forget about it (and before everyone dig in it 'cause no one can inform them of what is under their feet). FT/TRN markers are disappearing in France, get stolen or buried in fields borders and Jean-Marc's underwater ducts get sometimes forgotten by French navigable ways managers (even if they can be sustainably mapped in its GIS). Keep in mind that you have no marker in urban places : no mapping too. http://infos-reseaux.com/photos/album/71-dispositifs-reperage If you have suggestions for tags, just share with us. *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2014-03-04 12:28 GMT+01:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:16 AM, François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu wrote: Are you going to map the markers only or the whole underground optical cables ? If you start to map underground features, you will quickly get complains about the mess of editing the map, especially in densified urban areas. It's tolerated when nothing else is in the map like sea cables or when the feature is exceptional like a metro or a pipeline. This would be different if you start mapping all copper or fiber underground networks (or sewer) in a city. Pieren ___ 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] Optical telecomunication cable tagging
On 04/03/2014 14:05, François Lacombe wrote: Just consider we are talking about pipelines here, optical pipelines which are going out of any urban area most of the time. Along railways, motorways, high-voltage lines, riverbeds, roads, sewers, tunnels... Pretty much every type of right-of-way is used and the telecom link is part of it. Rarely does the telecommunications link exist on its own, except as directly buried cables that exist in rural locations. Like gas oil pipelines, we can map markers and cables too, regarding long distance links. That would satisfy the visibility requirement. We won't be able to map optical circuits or L2 links and that's not the goal. Let's try to give a map of bare infrastructure before everyone forget about it (and before everyone dig in it 'cause no one can inform them of what is under their feet). In France, if you are going to dig a hole, there is a legal process to follow (called DICT) to submit the dig's location to a single point of contact where operators answer with blueprints of their network in the viccinity (got a meeting about that in 30 minutes...). If you hit something mentioned in the blueprints, you are responsible for the damage - otherwise it is the operator's fault for not telling you. There is a lot of money involved - a legally binding answer is required and Openstreetmap can't provide that. underwater ducts get sometimes forgotten by French navigable ways managers (even if they can be sustainably mapped in its GIS). The position of many pieces of infrastructure is indeed not as precisely known as one may expect - for various reasons, many of them having to do with the costs of doing it right vs. letting someone else handle it later (at a greater cost - which may actually make financial and strategic sense). Finding them when a repair is needed is a fun sport - dragging hooks from a riverboat to grab cables (and trash) or beating around the bush to find an enclosure (that is finally found to be in the middle of a Gipsy camp)... Anyway, even if you don a scuba suit and survey a VNF-managed river, users won't be interested because you won't provide sufficient metadata such as which specific cable from which operator you found. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Optical telecomunication cable tagging
2014-03-04 16:35 GMT+01:00 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org: On 04/03/2014 14:05, François Lacombe wrote: Just consider we are talking about pipelines here, optical pipelines which are going out of any urban area most of the time. Along railways, motorways, high-voltage lines, riverbeds, roads, sewers, tunnels... Pretty much every type of right-of-way is used and the telecom link is part of it. Rarely does the telecommunications link exist on its own, except as directly buried cables that exist in rural locations. I don't agree. Except in rural location may concern some important distance. For years, FT goes through fields and without any support infrastructure to deploy GDL and that's exactly what I'm looking for on sundays. Current example : http://maps.level3.com/default/#.UxX0iBCyPh8 Fibres sometimes follow roads or canals, sometimes not. And never from start to end, cables are always switching from railroads to roads or paths. We can't just establish relations on those supports. That would satisfy the visibility requirement. +1 In France, if you are going to dig a hole, there is a legal process to follow (called DICT) to submit the dig's location to a single point of contact where operators answer with blueprints of their network in the viccinity (got a meeting about that in 30 minutes...). If you hit something mentioned in the blueprints, you are responsible for the damage - otherwise it is the operator's fault for not telling you. There is a lot of money involved - a legally binding answer is required and Openstreetmap can't provide that. Come on Jean-Marc, @AlertePelleteuz on Twitter wouldn't report so many optical fibre outage with an efficient and reliable French DICT system. Farmers with 1930's engines are digging out some pipes with fibres in, one and each week (sometimes even grandmas manage to do so in eastern Europe...). As for pipelines, OSM is here to give common information, not legally binded answer... like L3 map which doesn't show a great number of zoom levels. Anyway, even if you don a scuba suit and survey a VNF-managed river, users won't be interested because you won't provide sufficient metadata such as which specific cable from which operator you found. As a data producer I can't know what user would be finally interested in. I see things in my environment and looking for the best way to legally, responsibly and technically add it to the map. I don't attend to reproduce an operator's GIS like yours, it's your job and you're doing it well ;) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Optical telecomunication cable tagging
On 04/03/2014 17:15, François Lacombe wrote: 2014-03-04 16:35 GMT+01:00 Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org mailto:j...@liotier.org: Along railways, motorways, high-voltage lines, riverbeds, roads, sewers, tunnels... Pretty much every type of right-of-way is used and the telecom link is part of it. Rarely does the telecommunications link exist on its own, except as directly buried cables that exist in rural locations. I don't agree. Except in rural location may concern some important distance. Yes, those rural cables buried directly are long ones and therefore represent a significant share of the network's total length. Opposite case: sewer-borne cables - short, numerous and urban. Come on Jean-Marc, @AlertePelleteuz on Twitter wouldn't report so many optical fibre outage with an efficient and reliable French DICT system. Indeed there is room for improvement - we are working on it. As a data producer I can't know what user would be finally interested in. I see things in my environment and looking for the best way to legally, responsibly and technically add it to the map. If you take a major drinking water pipeline such as Aqueduc de l'Avre or the TRAPIL fuel pipeline network, even though they are buried they are associated with a surface trail so clearly visible that one may almost consider setting landuse=pipeline on top of them. They are an important part of how one may describe their location, even though their main feature is underground. In the case of telecommunications infrastructure, I believe that the issue is visibility. I am convinced that mapping features that are not visible directly or indirectly is not going to produce data that Openstreetmap contributors can maintain - and that it should therefore not be present. That leaves many telecommunications features that are excellent Openstreetmap fodder: hosting centers, central offices, street cabinets - we had those discussions before. But visible cables or cable-bearing infrastructure are going to be a very rare exception to the norm of invisibility - better take that into account early to set limited goals and expectations... Unlike your effort on the electrical network which is turning out very nicely ! Well... Back on topic... Let's take inspiration from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dpipeline and propose: man_made=pipeline type=telecom location=underground operator=* The German man_made=pipeline page already proposes type=telecom https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:man_made%3Dpipeline And on the basis of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:pipeline%3Dmarker you would have: pipeline=marker type=telecom operator=* ref=* The key here is to set the hypothesis that you are going to map not cables but cable paths, which may contain more than one cable - in my view, that justifies using the pipeline tagging scheme. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Optical telecomunication cable tagging
Am 05.03.2014 um 00:16 schrieb Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org: type=telecom type is reserved for relations, use something similar like pipeline:type instead Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hot springs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 03.03.2014 23:45, schrieb Richard Z.: All together, I am not really sure if it is smart to split springs by temperature. not by temperature, which is very subjective as explained in the rationale. Where a spring is localy known as hot spring or thermal spring it should be mapped as such. I don't like this subjective tagging, because it's more then localy known as xy. Mainly it depends on temperature of water vs temperature of air. In a cold region a spring with 20°C could be known as hot spring just because all other springs are much colder. But you would agree, that no one wants to jump in there and relax ;) So for this case you have to take care also about temp=*. But I understand your wish to classify a spring a bit more detailed. I think it would be better to use additional tags for natural=spring. Eg. termal=yes or something similar. Henning -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTFmVoAAoJEPFgsWC7jOeTgDkIAKyS1EXq9IVWixQcP0IuzvVB aBrsNtSNxq+qORnCUWog36+fyk1RAjuN1GqLtPoECmdvkSBl4XCVdCeZydwJmD4n 3rmm/e+j6pr/SyBV/sy4lWhFymnvB5N+Lfl+op1gsDQSlMNM7OCUoP4yQvB/e+Hu jWP4D5Nbq4ohs+y2xHUqy10KorSBIzaUUe9QUELCMMFa6qWw3To+dtpKCrbXWTbs 687uLHIKYJ98xaK2l9KZXUzq4ySDho4wlV50USKqsvTGT8J8Z7j2DNVynAXlzcRC tbeEkmD5dlAmAD6YsuptNx7nnHS+DmJA/T7WRzax/TTQ8fFYp6OCpRb91NyDlKQ= =FWI9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hot springs
So the idea is to have natural=hot_spring - the hole in earth where hot water is comming out I see :) So I prefer to switch the icon from Onsen icon ♨ to another ones. it ♨ maybe to use for leisure/amenity scheme. 2014-03-04 21:10 GMT+09:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 03:50:30PM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote: Hi, +1 to Tobias. I feel it needs clarification for this tag scope. I think it was leisure=hot_spring once, and switched to natural=hot_spring. exactly. So the main purpose of this scheme is now natural. Like to represent a geyser or some natural features, it seems. So it is better to make another tag scheme to represent Onsen ♨ bathing facility. as you mentioned we already have various methods to map bathing facilities, thanks for pointing out leisure=public_bath. So the idea is to have natural=hot_spring - the hole in earth where hot water is comming out + natural=water - if there is a pool of water around it + water_characteristic - attached to both spring and water + all other related facilities mapped with their own well known tags such as tourism=attraction, amenity=public_bath, leisure=beach_resort, natural=beach, sport=swimming .. please add those which I have forgotten. Some of those tags, like swimming need improvement which is independent from this proposal. water_characteristic is intended to be reusable for natural=spring and all waterways and other water bodies. Many Japanese rural tourism=hotel has Onsen amenity. # Some Japanese mappers use amenity=public_bath to represent Sento. # Sento is like a spa, but more daily used amenity. # http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sent%C5%8D In my opinion, to represent a Onsen Hotel, e.g. tourism=hotel amenity=public_bath leisure=onsen or some combination. (yes, this is very draft!) natural=hot_spring is for springs of natural origin. A leisure=onsen is orthogonal to this so those could be easily combined if the onsen is from a natural source. Otherwise you would have just leisure=onsen. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Satoshi IIDA mail: nyamp...@gmail.com twitter: @nyampire ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Hot springs
The onsen icon (♨) is commonly used all over Japan (of course), and is a great icon (a hot bath with steam rising out) to represent a place to get a hot natural bath vs a natural park's hot-spring. Onsen always means naturally sourced hot water as well, vs a bathhouse (amenity=spa? showers?), which merely heats up the water with a boiler for you to use. amenity=hot_spring_bath might be a good differentiation, because ♨ = bath Javbw On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Satoshi IIDA nyamp...@gmail.com wrote: So the idea is to have natural=hot_spring - the hole in earth where hot water is comming out I see :) So I prefer to switch the icon from Onsen icon ♨ to another ones. it ♨ maybe to use for leisure/amenity scheme. 2014-03-04 21:10 GMT+09:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 03:50:30PM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote: Hi, +1 to Tobias. I feel it needs clarification for this tag scope. I think it was leisure=hot_spring once, and switched to natural=hot_spring. exactly. So the main purpose of this scheme is now natural. Like to represent a geyser or some natural features, it seems. So it is better to make another tag scheme to represent Onsen ♨ bathing facility. as you mentioned we already have various methods to map bathing facilities, thanks for pointing out leisure=public_bath. So the idea is to have natural=hot_spring - the hole in earth where hot water is comming out + natural=water - if there is a pool of water around it + water_characteristic - attached to both spring and water + all other related facilities mapped with their own well known tags such as tourism=attraction, amenity=public_bath, leisure=beach_resort, natural=beach, sport=swimming .. please add those which I have forgotten. Some of those tags, like swimming need improvement which is independent from this proposal. water_characteristic is intended to be reusable for natural=spring and all waterways and other water bodies. Many Japanese rural tourism=hotel has Onsen amenity. # Some Japanese mappers use amenity=public_bath to represent Sento. # Sento is like a spa, but more daily used amenity. # http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sent%C5%8D In my opinion, to represent a Onsen Hotel, e.g. tourism=hotel amenity=public_bath leisure=onsen or some combination. (yes, this is very draft!) natural=hot_spring is for springs of natural origin. A leisure=onsen is orthogonal to this so those could be easily combined if the onsen is from a natural source. Otherwise you would have just leisure=onsen. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Satoshi IIDA mail: nyamp...@gmail.com twitter: @nyampire ___ 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] Hot springs
PS: the onsen icon (♨) is always for an amenity - a hotel or resort that offers a hot spring bath, or a purpose-built, stand alone structure (crude or ornate) just to provide a bathing experience - but it is not just a hole in the ground with a rope around it. It is always an amenity offered by a business, similar to a lap swimming pool vs a pond, or a fire hydrant vs a spring. Javbw On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:13 AM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: The onsen icon (♨) is commonly used all over Japan (of course), and is a great icon (a hot bath with steam rising out) to represent a place to get a hot natural bath vs a natural park's hot-spring. Onsen always means naturally sourced hot water as well, vs a bathhouse (amenity=spa? showers?), which merely heats up the water with a boiler for you to use. amenity=hot_spring_bath might be a good differentiation, because ♨ = bath Javbw On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Satoshi IIDA nyamp...@gmail.com wrote: So the idea is to have natural=hot_spring - the hole in earth where hot water is comming out I see :) So I prefer to switch the icon from Onsen icon ♨ to another ones. it ♨ maybe to use for leisure/amenity scheme. 2014-03-04 21:10 GMT+09:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 03:50:30PM +0900, Satoshi IIDA wrote: Hi, +1 to Tobias. I feel it needs clarification for this tag scope. I think it was leisure=hot_spring once, and switched to natural=hot_spring. exactly. So the main purpose of this scheme is now natural. Like to represent a geyser or some natural features, it seems. So it is better to make another tag scheme to represent Onsen ♨ bathing facility. as you mentioned we already have various methods to map bathing facilities, thanks for pointing out leisure=public_bath. So the idea is to have natural=hot_spring - the hole in earth where hot water is comming out + natural=water - if there is a pool of water around it + water_characteristic - attached to both spring and water + all other related facilities mapped with their own well known tags such as tourism=attraction, amenity=public_bath, leisure=beach_resort, natural=beach, sport=swimming .. please add those which I have forgotten. Some of those tags, like swimming need improvement which is independent from this proposal. water_characteristic is intended to be reusable for natural=spring and all waterways and other water bodies. Many Japanese rural tourism=hotel has Onsen amenity. # Some Japanese mappers use amenity=public_bath to represent Sento. # Sento is like a spa, but more daily used amenity. # http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sent%C5%8D In my opinion, to represent a Onsen Hotel, e.g. tourism=hotel amenity=public_bath leisure=onsen or some combination. (yes, this is very draft!) natural=hot_spring is for springs of natural origin. A leisure=onsen is orthogonal to this so those could be easily combined if the onsen is from a natural source. Otherwise you would have just leisure=onsen. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Satoshi IIDA mail: nyamp...@gmail.com twitter: @nyampire ___ 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
