[Tagging] RFC Tagging for complex junctions
Hello. The combined proposal for complex junctions and complex traffic signal systems had less support than I hoped (5 of 9 votes). Initially, I was thinking it was a good idea to treat these two features together. However, this was obviously not a good idea. It made the discussion harder. These two subjects seem to be to different to be treated together. So it seems to be better to split this into two different proposals: one for complex junctions and one for complex traffic signals. Today I start RFC for the complex junction tagging. A new proposal page has been created at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tagging_for_complex_junctions which takes into account the comments which have been made during the previous voting. Best regards Lukas Sommer ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] sport= non-physical tags and the exceptions people come up with...
Can you please stop trying to come up with exceptions for the sport= tag? Just saw this on scuba diving: Should be used to mark a place for scuba diving, preferably as an attribute of natural=beach, natural=stone natural=cliff or a fitting segment of a coastline or lake. For dive bases or dive shops see: amenity=dive_centre or shop=scuba_diving How do you tag a store shop=sports now? How do you tag a club=sport now? See also: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:sport%3Dscuba_diving#Divespot_:_sport.3D.2A_non-physical_tag There is a reason we combine all other tags with pitch or different leisure tags. If a sport= tag on it's own is supposed to be a sports site then you can't use it for anything else to indicated a relation to that sport. __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Review of water_tap proposal
Dear all, This is a kind reminder that the water_tap proposal ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap) is in the RFC stage at the moment. Please comment here or at the discussion page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/water_tap. Cheers, Kotya ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap
Sorry, I have missed the discussion due to my poor management of email accounts. I have already corrected the proposal from man_made to amenity following the suggestion at https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/27869/how-to-tag-water-taps-not-intended-for-drinking-water. So this is fixed. As for the clash with amenity=drinking_water: I see it, but I think there is an advantage of having yet another tag: - amenity=drinking_water can be used as an attribute where the presence thereof is non-obvious. E.g., for amenity=toilets. A water_tap is a separate object, and a combination amenity=water_tap + drinkable=yes would provide for a more specific mapping, where appropriate. - The combination drinking_water + drinkable=no is indeed quite confusing and has already caused a few discussions ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/water_tap#Rationale). water_tap would help clarify. - amenity=drinking_water is not always a tap, it can be a fountain, a well, a tap in a WC again; it can be used quite generally, without additional thinking. In some cases, there may exist uncertainty as to how to tag a feature, but it's certain that potable water is available there. This tag fits well in such situations. water_tap provides similar clarity when the object is clearly there but the mapper doesn't know the type of water. It may be difficult to imagine the abundance of such situations for the West Europeans and Americans; but I come from Russia, where this situation is very typical. I've met it in other developing countries as well. Especially in the warm countries it is important not to confuse a source of water with potable water. Quite a few people I know from developed countries have suffered badly because they didn't realise there was a difference. - Map software often simply shows an icon without giving access to additional attributes. In that case a user may have no chance of seeing drinkable=no for drinking_water. The symbol for drinking_water — http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Ddrinking_water#Rendering — is very clear, and the contradiction may lead to quite unfortunate situations. - What can a mapper do if he doesn't know the quality of water? At graveyards (the main reason for my proposal), the water can clearly be used for plant watering. The graveyards may be vast, and this mapping actually makes sense. Cheers, Kotya On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-10 19:13 GMT+02:00 sabas88 saba...@gmail.com: I use amenity=drinking_water + drinkable=no I agree with your own judgement that this is nonesense ;-) IMHO we shouldn't tag like this. This is not really comparable to entrance=exit (as any exit physically might be used as an entrance as well, while drinking water is about water that is drinkable (implying more than once)). Also agree with Tobias, a water_tap would better fit into amenity. Frankly, I believe water_tap is too generic given that we already have established amenity=drinking_water for water taps that do emit drinking water. At this point if you don't want to create conflicts with existing tagging scheme, a water tap emitting water that is not drinkable (i.e. the stuff that remains for tagging when all taps with drinking water are tagged differently) could get a tag like amenity=raw_water or industrial_water. I would believe it is also highly unprobable that there will be a water tap for sewage water (there might be closures / valves of course, but this will likely not be something that we'll map, or if we did, it will be a subtag in some wastewater treatment / sewage tagging system and not in amenity=*). 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (brickkiln)
Thank you for the suggestion. These are the details that are already available to us and I think they can be huge help if made open which is the reason for me to suggest this tag. I have gone through your suggestions and will make the required edits. Use of existing tag can be a help. I will add the additional information you said will be relevant to the proposal page. There is no such community that keeps these data updated but we are the representatives of OSM in Nepal and we are trying to get data updated regularly in OSM and this is also a part of our project. I find these data relevant especially in the environment aspect and people should have access to these data as I found that brick kilns are not much mapped in OSM. About the operating season and the market they are quite stable in case of Nepal for other countries I do not have much idea. I think landownership can be added as a tag as brick kiln are mapped as an area. I hope my explanation works and I will make edits to the page. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-10-15 6:31 GMT+02:00 Megha Shrestha meghashrest...@gmail.com: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/brickkiln I have seen on your proposal page that you are aware of the introduced man_made=kiln http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dkiln My suggestion is to use this established tagging scheme. If the only problem you see is that there are no size connotations on a node, then please use that tag on an area. There is also a suggestion to add product=bricks on the kiln page, so rather then proposing a new tag brickkiln you could use man_made=kiln and product=bricks You are also proposing a long list of additional tags, some of which are very detailed and I am not sure if these details are available to anyone besides the operator of the kiln (but that's not a problem, time will show which tags get adopted by the mappers and which aren't). If you are interesting in evaluating these tags I'd propose you add a list of possible values to these tags. In particular: firing http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:firingaction=editredlink=1 =* Type of firing used. eg: continuous what are the other firing types? chimney http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:chimneyaction=editredlink=1 =yes/no To denote the existence of the chimney chimney http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:chimneyaction=editredlink=1 :number http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:numberaction=editredlink=1 =* Number of the chimney in the brick kiln area maybe chimney:amount would be easier to understand? or chimney_count (similar to step_count for steps)? chimney http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:chimneyaction=editredlink=1 :height http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:height=height in meters Height of the top of the chimney from ground-level in meters. (like Tag:man made=tower http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dtower) chimney http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:chimneyaction=editredlink=1 :category http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:categoryaction=editredlink=1 =* Type of chimney existing in the brick kiln area My suggestion would be to map the chimneys individually with their own objects. You could then omit the related chimney tags on the kiln area and use simple and well established general tags like height on the individual chimney. Also the chimney number would be mapped implicitly by mapping the single chimneys. fuel http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:fuel=* Fuel used to heat the kiln quantity_fuel http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:quantity_fuelaction=editredlink=1 =* Quantity of the fuel required required for what? In what time? In what unit should it be entered (if at all)? Maybe this is a detail that is hard to get. moulding_process http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:moulding_processaction=editredlink=1 =* The moulding process used to produce bricks what are the possibilities/suggested values? drying_system http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:drying_systemaction=editredlink=1 =* Drying system used to dry the bricks what are the possibilities/suggested values? material http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:material=* Type of material used to produce bricks if this refers to the bricks and not to the kiln, the tag should be different, e.g. brick:material or brick:type what are the possibilities/suggested values? production http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:productionaction=editredlink=1 =* Actual production of the brick kiln what does this mean? Whether the kiln is active? The type of bricks it produces? production_capacity http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:production_capacityaction=editredlink=1 =* The