Re: [Tagging] Synonymous values in the shop key
To summarize (for the second time): shop=fish, shop=fishmonger and shop=seafood are not synonyms as fish may also apply to pet fish and seafood is not covering freshwater fish shop=winery, shop=wine (shop=wine is a wine seller, where shop=winery is a winer maker selling his own production) shop=delicatessen, shop=deli I am not understanding difference but there is some shop=jewellery (139) - shop=jewelry (13299, documented) (there is a planned change in the opposite direction) There were no objections to following changes: shop=bags (201) - shop=bag (409, documented) shop=antique (110) - shop=antiques (1394, documented) shop=pets (162) - shop=pet (5393, documented) shop=pharmacy (1591) - amenity=pharmacy (115759, documented) shop=ice_cream (710, documented but difference between using amenity and shop keys is not documented) - amenity=ice_cream (4053) 2014-07-30 23:08 GMT+02:00 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: On 30.07.2014 20:42, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: There were no objections to following changes: shop=jewellery (139) - shop=jewelry (13299, documented) Actually, we discussed a suggestion to change this in the other direction while this thread was running. Although it was in a separate thread, I think that discussion counts as an objection. ___ 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] Synonymous values in the shop key
Hi, On 08/14/2014 08:09 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: shop=ice_cream (710, documented but difference between using amenity and shop keys is not documented) - amenity=ice_cream (4053) amenity=ice_cream sounds very strange to me. I can't imagine a lot of people actually coming up with that themselves - can it be a mass edit or an editor preset gone wrong? I mean, the amenity consists not in there being ice cream, but there being a place where you can get ice cream. That would like tagging amenity=bed for a hotel or amenity=food for a restaurant... Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is valuable information. Janko 2014-08-14 7:29 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: I added to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cave#Tagging_in_OSM how these may be mapped (tunnels that are available for humans but closed for typical tourists may be mapped as highway=path with tunnel=yes and access=private, and routes available for tourists as highway=footway (highway=steps) with tunnel=yes). I think that it is an obvious idea, but wiki claimed that At the moment there just a tag to map the entrance to a cave. despite fact that existing tags fit well. I am pretty sure that it is a good idea, but maybe there is some superior scheme or I missed something. Example of cave tagged this way is available at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.17416mlon=19.80670#map=18/50.17416/19.80670 I wonder about adding something that would denote that way is part of cave, maybe natural=cave_tunnel? ___ 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] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
On 2014-08-14 07:29, Mateusz Konieczny wrote : I added to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cave#Tagging_in_OSM how these may be mapped (tunnels that are available for humans but closed for typical tourists may be mapped as highway=path with tunnel=yes and access=private, and routes available for tourists as highway=footway (highway=steps) with tunnel=yes). I think that it is an obvious idea, but wiki claimed that At the moment there just a tag to map the entrance to a cave. despite fact that existing tags fit well. I am pretty sure that it is a good idea, but maybe there is some superior scheme or I missed something. Seems good to me. In the same vein (enjoy the pun), you might add tags for waterways that flow through a cave. Especially if a touristic visit includes a trip on barges. André. Example of cave tagged this way is available at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.17416mlon=19.80670#map=18/50.17416/19.80670 I wonder about adding something that would denote that way is part of cave, maybe natural=cave_tunnel? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is valuable information. Janko Obviously? Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted up for tourism, I wonder... A *tunnel* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel is an underground or underwater passageway, enclosed except for entrance and exit, commonly at each end. *tunnel* http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tunnel=* is used for roads, railway line, canals etc that run underground (in tunnel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Tunnel). A *cave* or *cavern* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave is a hollow place in the ground,^[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave#cite_note-1 ^[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave#cite_note-2 especially natural underground space large enough for a human to enter. André. 2014-08-14 7:29 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com mailto:matkoni...@gmail.com: I added to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cave#Tagging_in_OSM how these may be mapped (tunnels that are available for humans but closed for typical tourists may be mapped as highway=path with tunnel=yes and access=private, and routes available for tourists as highway=footway (highway=steps) with tunnel=yes). I think that it is an obvious idea, but wiki claimed that At the moment there just a tag to map the entrance to a cave. despite fact that existing tags fit well. I am pretty sure that it is a good idea, but maybe there is some superior scheme or I missed something. Example of cave tagged this way is available at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.17416mlon=19.80670#map=18/50.17416/19.80670 I wonder about adding something that would denote that way is part of cave, maybe natural=cave_tunnel? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto: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] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is valuable information. Obviously? Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted up for tourism, I wonder... Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not. Best regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
2014-08-14 12:31 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: 2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is valuable information. Obviously? Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted up for tourism, I wonder... Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not. Neither OSM wiki nor Wikipedia restricts it this way. There is even section about natural tunnels - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel#Natural_tunnels (though caves are not mentioned there). Note, I am not a native speaker - maybe it sound terrible, worse than for example using highway as tag also for private roads. But I see absolutely no benefit from a completely separate tagging (that nobody would support). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
Sorry, it was supposed to be using highway as key also for private roads. 2014-08-14 12:40 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: 2014-08-14 12:31 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: 2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is valuable information. Obviously? Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted up for tourism, I wonder... Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not. Neither OSM wiki nor Wikipedia restricts it this way. There is even section about natural tunnels - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel#Natural_tunnels (though caves are not mentioned there). Note, I am not a native speaker - maybe it sound terrible, worse than for example using highway as tag also for private roads. But I see absolutely no benefit from a completely separate tagging (that nobody would support). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
2014-08-14 11:40 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: 2014-08-14 12:31 GMT+02:00 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: 2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is valuable information. Obviously? Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted up for tourism, I wonder... Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not. Neither OSM wiki nor Wikipedia restricts it this way. There is even section about natural tunnels - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel#Natural_tunnels (though caves are not mentioned there). Note, I am not a native speaker - maybe it sound terrible, worse than for example using highway as tag also for private roads. As a native speaker I may as well chip in, and say I have no problem at all with tunnel referring to a natural tunnel as part of a cave system. But I see absolutely no benefit from a completely separate tagging (that nobody would support). Well, no-one ever supports new tagging, the question is if it's needed. But I agree, I can't see a benefit keeping it separate. Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Bitcoin: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale
Since payment:bitcoin=yes is a de facto and used tag and since payment:website:bitcoin=yes is not, I would suggest a combined usage of payment:bitcoin=yes and payment:website:bitcoin=yes until the new tag is chosen by more mappers for their use cases. I'm considering using the combination for the moment so that backwards compatibility is maintained. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
On 14.08.2014 07:29, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: I added to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cave#Tagging_in_OSM how these may be mapped Given that you want to discuss wiki changes, you should start the discussion before you actually do the changes. You should also refer to this mailing list thread in the comment of your wiki change, or in the talk page. I received an automated notification that you changed the wiki and did not know about the mailing list thread, so I corrected the wiki. Now I am surprised that there's a discussion in another medium. (tunnels that are available for humans but closed for typical tourists may be mapped as highway=path with tunnel=yes and access=private, and routes available for tourists as highway=footway (highway=steps) with tunnel=yes). I am not sure about English terminology. In German, we call natural cavities Höhlen (caves), and artificial cavities Stollen (adits?). A straight Stollen with an entrance on each end is a Tunnel (tunnel). I think that the meaning of the English word tunnel is just the same as in German. In that case, tunnels and caves are mutually exclusive. I also do not understand why you connect highway=path with private access. Paths may or may not be publicly accessible, as are footways. Footways are by definition even more restricted, namely to pedestrians. I think that it is an obvious idea, but wiki claimed that At the moment there just a tag to map the entrance to a cave. despite fact that existing tags fit well. No, they do not fit. Caves are complex three-dimenional structures. In most caves there are no paths. You go or climb or rope down whereever you feel like. I am pretty sure that it is a good idea, but maybe there is some superior scheme or I missed something. There is no scheme, and I doubt that cave maps belong in a geo database. Cave maps are very detailed, and there are special applications for cave rendering. For Austria, there's also a database called Spelix, accessable via web browser. It contains cave surveys and maps, photos and other data. Getting all of that data to OSM would mean continuous duplicated effort and yet the data in OSM will never be as complete as the original data. I have surveyed a lot of caves and for sure I will not draw all of my cave maps again only to get them into OSM. If you are interested in caves, get access to dedicated cave databases. I wonder about adding something that would denote that way is part of cave, maybe natural=cave_tunnel? See above. A tunnel is not a cave. If you want to express that a way is underground, use layer=-1. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
On 14.08.2014 12:40, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Note, I am not a native speaker - maybe it sound terrible You might find correct translations on http://www.uisic.uis-speleo.org/lexuni.html. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
2014-08-14 13:01 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: Given that you want to discuss wiki changes, you should start the discussion before you actually do the changes. You should also refer to this mailing list thread in the comment of your wiki change, or in the talk page. I received an automated notification that you changed the wiki and did not know about the mailing list thread, so I corrected the wiki. Now I am surprised that there's a discussion in another medium. Probably it would be better, but I thought about mailing list after making edit. I also do not understand why you connect highway=path with private access. Paths may or may not be publicly accessible, as are footways. Footways are by definition even more restricted, namely to pedestrians. It was not about accessibility but about fact that highway=footway is accessible for pedestrians (in this case typical tourist) and highway=path may be nearly anything, depending on additional tags (in this case it is accessible only for more experienced speleologists). But it is probably overly subtle and useless distinction (like natural=wood and landuse=forest) clear only for small amount of people and therefore it is good that it is gone. No, they do not fit. Caves are complex three-dimenional structures. In most caves there are no paths. You go or climb or rope down whereever you feel like. Probably my bias, caves that I know (Kraków-Częstochowa Upland) may be well represented using ways. But at the very least it is possible to represent footways designated for inexperienced tourists, especially in show caves. There is no scheme, and I doubt that cave maps belong in a geo database. Cave maps are very detailed, and there are special applications for cave rendering. For Austria, there's also a database called Spelix, accessable via web browser. It contains cave surveys and maps, photos and other data. Getting all of that data to OSM would mean continuous duplicated effort and yet the data in OSM will never be as complete as the original data. I have surveyed a lot of caves and for sure I will not draw all of my cave maps again only to get them into OSM. If you are interested in caves, get access to dedicated cave databases. This is a poor argument, OSM duplicates many existing databases (imports do this by definition). I wonder about adding something that would denote that way is part of cave, maybe natural=cave_tunnel? See above. A tunnel is not a cave. If you want to express that a way is underground, use layer=-1. Layer 0 does not indicate that something is underground. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
2014-08-14 12:01 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: On 14.08.2014 07:29, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: I added to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cave#Tagging_in_OSM how these may be mapped Given that you want to discuss wiki changes, you should start the discussion before you actually do the changes. You should also refer to this mailing list thread in the comment of your wiki change, or in the talk page. I received an automated notification that you changed the wiki and did not know about the mailing list thread, so I corrected the wiki. Now I am surprised that there's a discussion in another medium. (tunnels that are available for humans but closed for typical tourists may be mapped as highway=path with tunnel=yes and access=private, and routes available for tourists as highway=footway (highway=steps) with tunnel=yes). I am not sure about English terminology. In German, we call natural cavities Höhlen (caves), and artificial cavities Stollen (adits?). A straight Stollen with an entrance on each end is a Tunnel (tunnel). I think that the meaning of the English word tunnel is just the same as in German. In that case, tunnels and caves are mutually exclusive. Not in my native opinion, but let's see what other natives think too. I also do not understand why you connect highway=path with private access. Paths may or may not be publicly accessible, as are footways. Footways are by definition even more restricted, namely to pedestrians. I think that it is an obvious idea, but wiki claimed that At the moment there just a tag to map the entrance to a cave. despite fact that existing tags fit well. No, they do not fit. Caves are complex three-dimenional structures. In most caves there are no paths. You go or climb or rope down whereever you feel like. This is the same as with a pedestrian square - there's no specific route in the square and you go wherever you feel. However it's useful to make them part of the OSM database, both for showing their existence and to help with various routing applications. I am pretty sure that it is a good idea, but maybe there is some superior scheme or I missed something. There is no scheme, and I doubt that cave maps belong in a geo database. Cave maps are very detailed, and there are special applications for cave rendering. For Austria, there's also a database called Spelix, accessable via web browser. It contains cave surveys and maps, photos and other data. Getting all of that data to OSM would mean continuous duplicated effort and yet the data in OSM will never be as complete as the original data. I have surveyed a lot of caves and for sure I will not draw all of my cave maps again only to get them into OSM. If you are interested in caves, get access to dedicated cave databases. It's great that these specialist databases exist! But as I imply above, I'd say it is still of value to tag some cave features/routes in OSM. We can be happy to do this, without attempting the level of detail in the specialist databases. I wonder about adding something that would denote that way is part of cave, maybe natural=cave_tunnel? See above. A tunnel is not a cave. If you want to express that a way is underground, use layer=-1. I'm afraid layer=-1 does not express that a feature is underground. It expresses that a feature is lower than all features at layer=0+, but there's no guaranteed relationship with ground level. There are quite a few objects with the implicit layer=0 but which are not at ground level (e.g. tunnel=culvert items: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4zE). Best Dan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
On 2014-08-14 12:31, Martin Vonwald wrote : 2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is valuable information. Obviously? Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted up for tourism, I wonder... Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not. tunnel is an attribute of an object called highway, including the paths in question. cave:NNN=* are attributes of objects natural http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural=cave_entrance http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcave_entrance, obviously speleology and not path oriented. cave=* is not defined. I know I still have to learn that OSM is fuzzy, but using cave=yes for paths would first need a definition of it in the highway=* page. This said, we could wait for years for a rendering of cave=yes, let alone routing support. Rendering and routing don't care if it's man-made or not. They just work or don't. Why not use the well established tunnel=yes and layer=-n? And cope with the subjective, cultural, etc. strangeness with an adorning cave or whatever made up tag? André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
One question. How would people map a cave? As far as I know, GPSes don't really work underground, and obviously there is no sattelite imagery for them. I imagine that's why there is no scheme right now. 2014-08-14 8:22 GMT-03:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 12:31, Martin Vonwald wrote : 2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is valuable information. Obviously? Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted up for tourism, I wonder... Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not. tunnel is an attribute of an object called highway, including the paths in question. cave:NNN=* are attributes of objects natural http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural=cave_entrance http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcave_entrance, obviously speleology and not path oriented. cave=* is not defined. I know I still have to learn that OSM is fuzzy, but using cave=yes for paths would first need a definition of it in the highway=* page. This said, we could wait for years for a rendering of cave=yes, let alone routing support. Rendering and routing don't care if it's man-made or not. They just work or don't. Why not use the well established tunnel=yes and layer=-n? And cope with the subjective, cultural, etc. strangeness with an adorning cave or whatever made up tag? 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
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
On 14/08/2014 12:18, Dan S wrote: 2014-08-14 12:01 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: ... I am not sure about English terminology. In German, we call natural cavities Höhlen (caves), and artificial cavities Stollen (adits?). A straight Stollen with an entrance on each end is a Tunnel (tunnel). I think that the meaning of the English word tunnel is just the same as in German. In that case, tunnels and caves are mutually exclusive. Not in my native opinion, but let's see what other natives think too. Sometimes I think that it's a real shame that OSM didn't start in Germany - it'd much easier to be _precise_ about some things. The word adit is rarely if ever used in common parlance - locally to me (Derbyshire, England) it's usually used to describe mineworking drainage tunnels. Wikipedia (1) suggests a more general use for horizontal shafts (for e.g. into a drift mine) but I'm not familiar with that usage (and there are many mineworkings very local to me, including one major former drift mine). It certainly doesn't refer to all artificial cavities. It's also worth bearing in mind that whatever word you use there isn't a simple distinction between natural and artificial caverns - many early mineworkings were extensions of natural cave systems (and cavers also sometimes extend natural systems to connect them and allow further exploration). Cheers, Andy (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adit ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale
Anita, Frankly a large majority of the bitcoin edits are unauthorized (and probably copyright violating) imports. Discussions of website allowing bitcoin seem to fall in that same category. There have been few complaints but I think it's inevitable that if the imports continue, someone will complain and the DWG would be asked to step in. So I'd say unless you visit a store and know for sure they take bitcoin there, leave it out. - Serge On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Anita Andersson cc0c...@gmx.com wrote: Since payment:bitcoin=yes is a de facto and used tag and since payment:website:bitcoin=yes is not, I would suggest a combined usage of payment:bitcoin=yes and payment:website:bitcoin=yes until the new tag is chosen by more mappers for their use cases. I'm considering using the combination for the moment so that backwards compatibility is maintained. ___ 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] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
2014-08-14 13:35 GMT+02:00 John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com: One question. How would people map a cave? As far as I know, GPSes don't really work underground, and obviously there is no sattelite imagery for them. I imagine that's why there is no scheme right now. 2D Public Domain map, imported as layer to JOSM using PicLayer, oriented using multiple cave entrances. Cave entrances were located with GPS and/or visible on aerial images. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
On 2014-08-14 13:35, John Packer wrote : One question. How would people map a cave? It depends on your definition of how but this could be an answer http://www.mondesauvage.be/grottes/fr/. As far as I know, GPSes don't really work underground, and obviously there is no sattelite imagery for them. routing was obviously a free bonus, but please notice that you don't really need a GPS signal (or device) to follow a route drawn on a map. You don't even need to enter the cave if all you want is measure the length of one or several circuits. GPS lack is the problem of tracking the route. I imagine that's why there is no scheme right now. 2014-08-14 8:22 GMT-03:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 12:31, Martin Vonwald wrote : 2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is valuable information. Obviously? Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted up for tourism, I wonder... Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not. tunnel is an attribute of an object called highway, including the paths in question. cave:NNN=* are attributes of objects natural http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural=cave_entrance http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcave_entrance, obviously speleology and not path oriented. cave=* is not defined. I know I still have to learn that OSM is fuzzy, but using cave=yes for paths would first need a definition of it in the highway=* page. This said, we could wait for years for a rendering of cave=yes, let alone routing support. Rendering and routing don't care if it's man-made or not. They just work or don't. Why not use the well established tunnel=yes and layer=-n? And cope with the subjective, cultural, etc. strangeness with an adorning cave or whatever made up tag? André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
On 14/08/2014 12:22, André Pirard wrote: I know I still have to learn that OSM is fuzzy, but using cave=yes for paths would first need a definition of it in the highway=* page. No, it really wouldn't(1). Cheers, Andy (1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like - and yes, that page does discuss Documenting tags not in Map Features and What not to map too. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
On 14/08/2014 12:35, John Packer wrote: One question. How would people map a cave? (answering in case it wasn't a completely rhetorical question): One option is the same way that people mapped before GPSs arrived - accurately measure a baseline and triangulate from it. Obviously it's substantially harder to do in a confined space with low light than elsewhere. These days you might also be able to make some use of the accelerometer in some mobile phones. See also here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Indoor_mapping . Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale
payment:bitcoin=yes is a de facto tag for a store that accepts Bitcoin AT THE POINT OF SALE, like all other payment=* tags. What you do is redefine its meaning to it in some way accepts Bitcoin somewhere. payment:website:bitcoin=yes on its own is fine. payment:website:bitcoin=only would probably be even better for this purpose. I'm considering using the combination for the moment so that backwards compatibility is maintained. Except that that combination is not backward compatibile as explained above. And you don't even solve the problem, that a map displaying payment:bitcoin=yes might not actually accept it at the point of sale. Since payment:bitcoin=yes is a de facto and used tag and since payment:website:bitcoin=yes is not, I would suggest a combined usage of payment:bitcoin=yes and payment:website:bitcoin=yes until the new tag is chosen by more mappers for their use cases. I'm considering using the combination for the moment so that backwards compatibility is maintained. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale
No, that's a bad idea. I believe there's a clear consensus that payment:bitcoin=yes is not a proper tag for a shop that doesn't accept bitcoin at its physical location. /Markus On 14 August 2014 12:53, Anita Andersson cc0c...@gmx.com wrote: Since payment:bitcoin=yes is a de facto and used tag and since payment:website:bitcoin=yes is not, I would suggest a combined usage of payment:bitcoin=yes and payment:website:bitcoin=yes until the new tag is chosen by more mappers for their use cases. I'm considering using the combination for the moment so that backwards compatibility is maintained. ___ 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: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale
On 14/08/2014 13:19, Markus Lindholm wrote: No, that's a bad idea. I believe there's a clear consensus that payment:bitcoin=yes is not a proper tag for a shop that doesn't accept bitcoin at its physical location. I'd fully agree with that. Most of the bitcoin taggers seem just to be using OSM for a form of SEO and to appear on Coinmap - they don't seem interested in recording anything other than the magic word bitcoin or even recording those details accurately. I am aware of exactly one brick-and-mortar business that allegedly takes bitcoin(1), and I've never seen anyone actually paying with it there. Cheers, Andy (1) http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/25285250 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
2014-08-14 12:24 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pir...@ulg.ac.be: On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is valuable information. Janko Obviously? Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted up for tourism, I wonder... Ok, I exaggerated with the word obviously. But tunnels are used a lot in OSM and they have gotten a very clear semantic meaning: a man made opening in the ground. There's no reason to add caves to that definition. The reason renderers don't render it is invalid because of one of the oldest rules in OSM: don't tag for the renderer. And if a data consumer tries to find the length of all footpaths in tunnels in Poland, she will ask find all highway=footpath + tunnel=yes, and she will find all tunnels plus all caves. And that isn't right. I suggest starting the cave=yes tag, and we'll see, maybe the renderers will pick it up. They only have to treat it the same as tunnel=yes. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
Plus, our mapping scheme is limited in its ability to record three-dimensional spaces. I don't know how we would map this is one continuous passage, but with a deep pit in the center, so you will need special equipment to bridge the gap. On August 14, 2014 6:35:52 AM CDT, John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com wrote: One question. How would people map a cave? As far as I know, GPSes don't really work underground, and obviously there is no sattelite imagery for them. I imagine that's why there is no scheme right now. 2014-08-14 8:22 GMT-03:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 12:31, Martin Vonwald wrote : 2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is valuable information. Obviously? Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted up for tourism, I wonder... Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not. tunnel is an attribute of an object called highway, including the paths in question. cave:NNN=* are attributes of objects natural http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural=cave_entrance http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dcave_entrance, obviously speleology and not path oriented. cave=* is not defined. I know I still have to learn that OSM is fuzzy, but using cave=yes for paths would first need a definition of it in the highway=* page. This said, we could wait for years for a rendering of cave=yes, let alone routing support. Rendering and routing don't care if it's man-made or not. They just work or don't. Why not use the well established tunnel=yes and layer=-n? And cope with the subjective, cultural, etc. strangeness with an adorning cave or whatever made up tag? 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 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
On 14.08.2014 12:47, Dan S wrote: Well, no-one ever supports new tagging, the question is if it's needed. But I agree, I can't see a benefit keeping it separate. Are you suggesting that there are no relevant differences between a man-made tunnel and a cave? I can think of a lot – naturally formed, uneven walls and floors, varying height and so on. In general, it's also a lot easier for applications to treat two tags the same than to treat the same tag differently. So I think you really should distinguish between caves and tunnels. If you don't want a new key, then use tunnel=cave or something. But in my opinion, cave=yes would also work fine. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Bitcoin: Distinction of purchase through website and cash register/Point of sale
+1 for not using payment:bitcoin=yes if bitcoin is not accepted at the point of sale. It shouldn't be a problem for Coinmap to add payment:website:bitcoin=yes as a new kind of pin. And it would probably make it a much better map. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
2014-08-14 15:56 GMT+02:00 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: Plus, our mapping scheme is limited in its ability to record three-dimensional spaces. I don't know how we would map this is one continuous passage, but with a deep pit in the center, so you will need special equipment to bridge the gap. barrier=pit on node? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
2014-08-14 15:47 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: The reason renderers don't render it is invalid because of one of the oldest rules in OSM: don't tag for the renderer. This would be applicable after defining tunnels as man made (in case that somebody is using this tag anyway because of renderer X). But it is not a good reason to avoid making tagging scheme that would be easier to process by data consumers. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:31:28PM +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote: 2014-08-14 12:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-08-14 11:08, Janko Mihelić wrote : Well first, tunnel=yes is obviously wrong. We need to replace this with cave=yes. Other than that, I have no problems with this. If a cave has two cave entrances, then information that they are connected by footpaths is valuable information. Obviously? Regarding paths and waterways, especially ones fitted up for tourism, I wonder... Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not. whether or not man-made is not the biggest problem. The big problem with tunnel=yes or tunnel=cave is that they only would ever get rendered if they were also tagged as a highway or similar. This is a big disadvantage because most caves don't have even paths. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
I agree on the general strategy, but in this case I don't think cave=yes would work fine by itself as these are underground ways that require to be interpreted as being underground. With that it is required to interpret the new tag to handle these ways in a useful way. Using tunnel=cave would make that easier as a fallback to tunnel=yes creates useful results. This fallback does not differentiate between cages and other tunnels, but it differentiates cage tunnels from ways above ground. regards Peter Am 14.08.2014 um 16:03 schrieb Tobias Knerr: On 14.08.2014 12:47, Dan S wrote: Well, no-one ever supports new tagging, the question is if it's needed. But I agree, I can't see a benefit keeping it separate. Are you suggesting that there are no relevant differences between a man-made tunnel and a cave? I can think of a lot – naturally formed, uneven walls and floors, varying height and so on. In general, it's also a lot easier for applications to treat two tags the same than to treat the same tag differently. So I think you really should distinguish between caves and tunnels. If you don't want a new key, then use tunnel=cave or something. But in my opinion, cave=yes would also work fine. ___ 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] bridge=humpback ?
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:48:35PM -0400, David K wrote: I support a general tag for hill crests with sufficient vertical curvature to introduce a visibility, grounding, or takeoff hazard. It could be applied to railroad crossings, humpy bridges, or just roads traversing hilly terrain; all of these situations can be found in central Ohio. Using this tag on a node at the crest of the hill should be acceptable, as the hazard may occur (potentially in multiple places) along fairly long way. any good name for such a tag? It should be also good for dips if possible.. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] bridge=humpback ?
On Aug 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Richard Z. wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:48:35PM -0400, David K wrote: I support a general tag for hill crests with sufficient vertical curvature to introduce a visibility, grounding, or takeoff hazard. It could be applied to railroad crossings, humpy bridges, or just roads traversing hilly terrain; all of these situations can be found in central Ohio. Using this tag on a node at the crest of the hill should be acceptable, as the hazard may occur (potentially in multiple places) along fairly long way. any good name for such a tag? It should be also good for dips if possible.. If I recall correctly from the time, decades ago, when I worked a summer on a survey crew, vertical curve was the term used for an area where the grade (angle) of the roadway changed. That might be an American only term though. One of the design criteria on a road is the sight distance which could be used for the crest of a hill or a humpy bridge but would not be as good for a dip. Tod ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not. On the whole, yes, but there are some artificial underground cavities that are referred to as caves, I think, such as large chambers in salt mines. __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
On 14.08.2014 13:18, Dan S wrote: I think that it is an obvious idea, but wiki claimed that At the moment there just a tag to map the entrance to a cave. despite fact that existing tags fit well. No, they do not fit. Caves are complex three-dimenional structures. In most caves there are no paths. You go or climb or rope down whereever you feel like. This is the same as with a pedestrian square - there's no specific route in the square and you go wherever you feel. However it's useful to make them part of the OSM database, both for showing their existence and to help with various routing applications. Pedestrian squares are 2-dimensional. Caves are 3-dimensional. Many cave rooms overlap themselves a couple of times in the z-axis. Forget routing in caves. There's no GPS. And those who get lost without routing apps will get lost in a cave anyway. I'm afraid layer=-1 does not express that a feature is underground. It expresses that a feature is lower than all features at layer=0+, but there's no guaranteed relationship with ground level. In central Europe it is, but habits may vary around the word. Much chaos these days... In my opinion, there is some misconception by people who are used to image editing software such as Photoshop, Adobe illustrator, Gimp, Corel Draw, Inkscape, etc., as well as CAD software. In all of these applications, layers stand for rendering order. In OSM we need to think in physical layers. Caves are just an example. There are many more underground objects which are not tunnels. E.g. I used to go to school over a landfill for 8 years without knowing, because it was covered with soil and grass. The only way for renderers to know is by eveluating the layer tag. Of course you could set some additional tag like underground=yes, but having two concurrent tags for the same thing is just a mess. You'll soon get a lot of inconsistencies. There are quite a few objects with the implicit layer=0 but which are not at ground level (e.g. tunnel=culvert items: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4zE). Therefore we need to tag them all with layer0. There was a proposal for implicit default layer=1 for bridges and -1 for tunnels, but unfortunately it was voted down, so we are damned to set it manually every time. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
On 14.08.2014 16:54, Richard Z. wrote: Maybe not completely obvious, but I would agree with Janko. In my opinion, a tunnel is man-made, while a cave is not. whether or not man-made is not the biggest problem. The big problem with tunnel=yes or tunnel=cave is that they only would ever get rendered if they were also tagged as a highway or similar. This is a big disadvantage because most caves don't have even paths. Indeed, and common tunnel signatures make believe that there is one entrance on each end, which is not true for many caves. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
Forget routing in caves. There's no GPS. And those who get lost without routing apps will get lost in a cave anyway. +1 2014-08-14 12:32 GMT-03:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: On 14.08.2014 13:18, Dan S wrote: I think that it is an obvious idea, but wiki claimed that At the moment there just a tag to map the entrance to a cave. despite fact that existing tags fit well. No, they do not fit. Caves are complex three-dimenional structures. In most caves there are no paths. You go or climb or rope down whereever you feel like. This is the same as with a pedestrian square - there's no specific route in the square and you go wherever you feel. However it's useful to make them part of the OSM database, both for showing their existence and to help with various routing applications. Pedestrian squares are 2-dimensional. Caves are 3-dimensional. Many cave rooms overlap themselves a couple of times in the z-axis. Forget routing in caves. There's no GPS. And those who get lost without routing apps will get lost in a cave anyway. I'm afraid layer=-1 does not express that a feature is underground. It expresses that a feature is lower than all features at layer=0+, but there's no guaranteed relationship with ground level. In central Europe it is, but habits may vary around the word. Much chaos these days... In my opinion, there is some misconception by people who are used to image editing software such as Photoshop, Adobe illustrator, Gimp, Corel Draw, Inkscape, etc., as well as CAD software. In all of these applications, layers stand for rendering order. In OSM we need to think in physical layers. Caves are just an example. There are many more underground objects which are not tunnels. E.g. I used to go to school over a landfill for 8 years without knowing, because it was covered with soil and grass. The only way for renderers to know is by eveluating the layer tag. Of course you could set some additional tag like underground=yes, but having two concurrent tags for the same thing is just a mess. You'll soon get a lot of inconsistencies. There are quite a few objects with the implicit layer=0 but which are not at ground level (e.g. tunnel=culvert items: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4zE). Therefore we need to tag them all with layer0. There was a proposal for implicit default layer=1 for bridges and -1 for tunnels, but unfortunately it was voted down, so we are damned to set it manually every time. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ 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] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
Sent from my iPad On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:49 AM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 14/08/2014 12:18, Dan S wrote: 2014-08-14 12:01 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: ... I am not sure about English terminology. In German, we call natural cavities Höhlen (caves), and artificial cavities Stollen (adits?). A straight Stollen with an entrance on each end is a Tunnel (tunnel). I think that the meaning of the English word tunnel is just the same as in German. In that case, tunnels and caves are mutually exclusive. Not in my native opinion, but let's see what other natives think too. Sometimes I think that it's a real shame that OSM didn't start in Germany - it'd much easier to be _precise_ about some things. The word adit is rarely if ever used in common parlance - locally to me (Derbyshire, England) it's usually used to describe mineworking drainage tunnels. Wikipedia (1) suggests a more general use for horizontal shafts (for e.g. into a drift mine) but I'm not familiar with that usage (and there are many mineworkings very local to me, including one major former drift mine). It certainly doesn't refer to all artificial cavities. In my experience (en-US), adits are always associated with mining, almost always with drainage--I think drifts and stopes are the proper terms for other horizontal passages. (Well, stopes can be large and hollowed-out, but I digress.) While tunnel might be used colloquially for anything you can move through underground, I think the commonly used and more correct term for a natural underground corridor is passage or passageway. (e.g., unusual features can be seen in the passage between the Crystal Room and Room Five.) -- Chris ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Mapping cave tunnels passable by human
2014-08-14 17:49 GMT+02:00 John Packer john.pack...@gmail.com: Forget routing in caves. There's no GPS. And those who get lost without routing apps will get lost in a cave anyway. +1 +1 But as always there are edge cases - for example it may be useful for routing during preparing a trip. There are caves that connect two points. For example Jaskinia Mroźna - http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=49.2506mlon=19.8684#map=16/49.2506/19.8684 (somebody mapped it as rough approximation) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
