Re: [Tagging] Dispute with user over changing wiki page

[Pee Wee]

Good point Martin

For this issue it is irrelevant what the real life identity is of this
user. I'll not mention any of this in the e-mail to the DWG. (Not that I
know that much about this mapper)

Cheers
Peter

2014-11-13 17:56 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> 2014-11-08 18:55 GMT+01:00 Michael Reichert :
>
>> My guess after reading the first sentence of your mail was right. There
>> is no need to hide the name of this user. Its name is ulamm (name) from
>> B. ...
>>
>
>
> I'd kindly ask you to not point to actual or presumed real life identities
> of OSM contributors and to not disclose their (presumed/actual) place of
> residence on public lists, unless they are publicly known or the mapper has
> authorized you to do so.
>
> thank you,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] governmental / public_administrative landuse are not commercial

[johnw]

A couple more landuse cases were added. I’m going to ask now if it is a good 
idea to specifically exclude Police/fire/safety and give them their own 
landuse(s). 

Safety could cover the lifeguard/ski patrol/ranger buildings that are public or 
privately operated for the purposes of interacting with the public, like a 
lifeguard station or ranger station.

I know people have been trying to clean up emergency for a long time, so this 
helpful? 

> 
> Please check out the discussion page’s section on this at:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landuse%3Dcivic#If_we_need_two_tags.2C_what_should_be_covered_in_each.3F
>  
> 
> 

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

Re: [Tagging] Dispute with user over changing wiki page

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-13 18:32 GMT+01:00 Michael Reichert :

> I agree you. The location of ulamm is already public. Have a look at his
> changesets and all the wiki pages he edited and where he argues with
> other users. You will find out that he has local knowledge in B.
>


yes, it can be guessed with high probability, but it requires inside
knowledge, time and dedication, quite different from stating it in a
searchengine compatible form ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Dispute with user over changing wiki page

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Martin,

Am 2014-11-13 um 17:56 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> I'd kindly ask you to not point to actual or presumed real life identities
> of OSM contributors and to not disclose their (presumed/actual) place of
> residence on public lists, unless they are publicly known or the mapper has
> authorized you to do so.

I agree you. The location of ulamm is already public. Have a look at his
changesets and all the wiki pages he edited and where he argues with
other users. You will find out that he has local knowledge in B.

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt.



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

Re: [Tagging] Dispute with user over changing wiki page

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-08 18:55 GMT+01:00 Michael Reichert :

> My guess after reading the first sentence of your mail was right. There
> is no need to hide the name of this user. Its name is ulamm (name) from B.
> ...
>


I'd kindly ask you to not point to actual or presumed real life identities
of OSM contributors and to not disclose their (presumed/actual) place of
residence on public lists, unless they are publicly known or the mapper has
authorized you to do so.

thank you,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dispute with user over changing wiki page

[Pee Wee]

Thanks all. We'll contact the DWG and see what they can do.

Cheers
PeeWee32

2014-11-11 23:37 GMT+01:00 Wolfgang Zenker :

> Hi,
>
> * Pee Wee  [14 19:20]:
> > I thought I just wait some days for other to reply but unfortunately no
> > more then yours.  The question we still have is : What can we do? I
> suppose
> > the DWG will only block when harm is done to the OSM database and not on
> > any wiki pages. Anyone else for a recommendation as to what we can do?
>
> the wiki admins can block changes to a specific wiki page with a strong
> hint to please discuss changes on the mailing list or the talk page
> before requesting an unblock of this page. Unfortunately your description
> of the problem does not sound as if this would really help, though.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap
.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap

[John F. Eldredge]

If OSM has the water source tagged as potable, but the actual water source has 
a sign saying the water isn't potable, I wouldn't drink it. If OSM has the 
water source tagged as non-potable, but the actual water source has a sign 
saying the water is potable, I would drink it only in an emergency.


On November 13, 2014 9:46:17 AM CST, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:
> 2014-11-13 1:51 GMT+01:00 Tod Fitch :
> 
> > A reason for the non-potable would be nice too. I can filter and
> disinfect
> > water with a field kit but I can't remove toxic minerals and this is
> > important to know when traveling in the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while this is true, I'm not sure if I would rely in this case on
> information from OSM ;-)
> My suggestion is to not formalize this but use a generic tag like
> "description" (which is intended for end users, while "note" is less
> suitable as it is intended for fellow mappers).
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap

[John F. Eldredge]

If OSM has the water source tagged as potable, but the actual water source has 
a sign saying the water isn't potable, I wouldn't drink it. If OSM has the 
water source tagged as non-potable, but the actual water source has a sign 
saying the water is potable, I would drink it only in an emergency.


On November 13, 2014 9:46:17 AM CST, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:
> 2014-11-13 1:51 GMT+01:00 Tod Fitch :
> 
> > A reason for the non-potable would be nice too. I can filter and
> disinfect
> > water with a field kit but I can't remove toxic minerals and this is
> > important to know when traveling in the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while this is true, I'm not sure if I would rely in this case on
> information from OSM ;-)
> My suggestion is to not formalize this but use a generic tag like
> "description" (which is intended for end users, while "note" is less
> suitable as it is intended for fellow mappers).
> 
> cheers,
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, 
Jr.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-11 15:26 GMT+01:00 Holger Jeromin :

> > no, you won't have any overlapping ways any more, just one way, and all
> > overlapping geometries can become multipolygon relations with
> > appropriate layer tags (etc.)
>
> Ah.
> One untagged way and two MP-relations with the building and parking Tags.
>


you could also add the building tags to the way and use only one relation.
Hocuspocus multipolygon inheritance will go away sooner or later and
current software won't mess this up if you use different tags (AFAIK) ;-)



> The selection of multiple relations of one object is often easier as
> multiple ways in current editors. You are right.



yes, even more if there are many objects on the same spot, and if you have
to split the way for some linear attribute on part of it, you'll have no
probs with the relations.

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

Re: [Tagging] Rooftop parking -> new parking=rooftop value?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-11 15:26 GMT+01:00 Holger Jeromin :

> > Therefore, would prefer a generic tag that can be added to any
> feature,
> > e.g. location=rooftop.
> > what about the "surface" value, isn't rooftop (only) parking covered by
> > parking=surface? I am not completely sure languagewise, and the wiki
> > doesn't give any definition for the values...
>
> Think of an stone building, with grass on top on which you can park your
> car. surface= has to be grass, not rooftop.



I don't think taggingwise there would be any problem. You can tag
amenity=parking
parking=surface (i.e. not multistorey, not underground, you will park on
the surface)
surface=

you can also add location=rooftop, why not.

My question was whether a rooftop only parking wouldn't be included in
surface parkings.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-13 6:50 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt :

> Let's start with the cases:
>
> * Designated potable, as in from a city tap.
> * Designated non-potable, as in from a farm ditch, or purple pipe (USA).
> This would include designated irrigation water of most sorts.
> * Potable but with a known defect such as high mineral content.
> * Unspecified.  This may cover most backcountry springs where no testing
> is done, but no promises are made.
> * Compromised.  For example a muddy spring or clearly impacted water
> source usable only in dire emergencies.
>



there are more types of water that might be interesting to people:

- mineral water  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral_water
- sparkling attribute (if it is naturally effervescent)
- in Germany there is a subclass of mineral water (~"healing water" in
German "Heilwasser") which has positive physiologic effects.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-13 10:02 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> I like this proposal, mainly because it drops unfortunate potability
> implications of amenity=drinking_water.



FWIW, here in Italy we have a lot of public drinking water fountains (in
Rome alone there are at least several hundred if not thousands), all
obviously with drinking water quality, and "potability implication" in this
context is not "unfortunate" but very welcome and intended. Why should we
change something that works well in describing with one tag what "people"
want to know to something more generic requiring 2 or more tags? If we were
to introduce this alternative, our most common map (mapnik carto) would not
even be able to show drinking water any more (because we lack the drinkable
key).

If you cannot be convinced to not introduce a new tag, please make it at
least compatible by not putting it into the "amenity" namespace. This way
it could be dealt with like in the public transport case with bus stops ;-)

My suggestion is to stick with this and use another tag for water that is
not drinkable or maybe not drinkable. Information about these latter
sources is almost completely pointless in an urban setting.

Whoever wants to make an analysis / product with all kind of water sources
will have to combine different queries to obtain this data anyway, as has
been noted, there are fountains, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, water taps,
water wells, rain water collectors, drinking fountains, springs, ... so we
will never have one key/tag for all of them.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-13 1:51 GMT+01:00 Tod Fitch :

> A reason for the non-potable would be nice too. I can filter and disinfect
> water with a field kit but I can't remove toxic minerals and this is
> important to know when traveling in the area.




while this is true, I'm not sure if I would rely in this case on
information from OSM ;-)
My suggestion is to not formalize this but use a generic tag like
"description" (which is intended for end users, while "note" is less
suitable as it is intended for fellow mappers).

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I like this proposal, mainly because it drops unfortunate potability
implications of amenity=drinking_water.

2014-11-13 9:39 GMT+01:00 Kotya Karapetyan :

> Mateusz, I agree. A mapper should never introduce, even by implication,
> information he doesn't possess. "This water is non-potable" is very
> different from "I am not sure you can drink it". This is why I tend to go
> for a generic "water source" tag with an additional potability
> specification.
>
> Taking into account everything said, I would propose:
> 1) To introduce a key "water_source".
> 2) The values will be: potable, nonpotable, yes (or is
> "potability_unknown" better?)
> 3) Deprecate "amenity=drinking_water" in favour of "water_source=potable"
> 4) All other related tags remain as is:
> natural=spring
> natural=water
> amenity=water_point
> man_made=water_well
> waterway=water_point
> and define the type of water source with more detail.
> 5) Man_made=water_tap can still be introduced, to accompany
> man_made=water_well. However, the main purpose of this proposal is served
> by the most general water_source tag.
>
> I do understand that this goes somewhat out of the existing scheme.
> However:
> - Can you propose a better solution, not just criticise the proposal
> (criticism is very welcome, but please try to bring the discussion closer
> to the agreement)?
> - I think that the existing situation with the top-level
> "amenity=drinking_water" is a rather poor solution, even if widely used.
> Once again, please take into account that OSM was originally introduced in
> developed countries, thus the established tagging system comes from their
> realities. OSM is now gaining popularity in developing countries, and the
> tagging system is bound to be dynamic if we don't want to end up with a
> very low quality map (with either non-tagged features or with dozens of
> custom or wrong tags). Also keep in mind that mappers from developing
> countries are not extremely likely to participate in this English-language
> discussion.
>
> Finally, I would advocate the start of discussion to standardize the
> tagging system, make it more uniform and thus mapper- and
> consumer-friendly. Just keep it in mind please when considering this
> specific proposal.
>
> Cheers,
> Kotya
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
>
>> "If you can only chose between potable and non-potable" - in this case
>> tagging scheme is bad and should be changed to default to unknown value.
>>
>> 2014-11-12 23:44 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>  On 12/11/2014 8:34 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
>>>
>>> Message: 5
>>> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:06:15 +0100
>>> From: Pieren  
>>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>>>  
>>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 62, Issue 31
>>> Message-ID:
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Mateusz Konieczny  
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  > No, unknown should be tagged as unknown. Even better - not tagged.
>>>
>>>  +1 We don't tag what is unknown. Pierre
>>>
>>>
>>> 'We' know there is water there. That water can be used.
>>>
>>> If you can only chose between potable and non-potable, then you should
>>> chose non-potable. Filtering and treating non-potable water makes it
>>> potable .. I do this when in remote areas for my safety, particularly if
>>> I'm uncertain of the quality of the water. In some cases acess to water can
>>> be a life saver - thus it should be mapped no matter what the quality.
>>>
>>> =
>>> Note change in Subject title - my appoliges for my error there.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Water tap

[Kotya Karapetyan]

Mateusz, I agree. A mapper should never introduce, even by implication,
information he doesn't possess. "This water is non-potable" is very
different from "I am not sure you can drink it". This is why I tend to go
for a generic "water source" tag with an additional potability
specification.

Taking into account everything said, I would propose:
1) To introduce a key "water_source".
2) The values will be: potable, nonpotable, yes (or is "potability_unknown"
better?)
3) Deprecate "amenity=drinking_water" in favour of "water_source=potable"
4) All other related tags remain as is:
natural=spring
natural=water
amenity=water_point
man_made=water_well
waterway=water_point
and define the type of water source with more detail.
5) Man_made=water_tap can still be introduced, to accompany
man_made=water_well. However, the main purpose of this proposal is served
by the most general water_source tag.

I do understand that this goes somewhat out of the existing scheme. However:
- Can you propose a better solution, not just criticise the proposal
(criticism is very welcome, but please try to bring the discussion closer
to the agreement)?
- I think that the existing situation with the top-level
"amenity=drinking_water" is a rather poor solution, even if widely used.
Once again, please take into account that OSM was originally introduced in
developed countries, thus the established tagging system comes from their
realities. OSM is now gaining popularity in developing countries, and the
tagging system is bound to be dynamic if we don't want to end up with a
very low quality map (with either non-tagged features or with dozens of
custom or wrong tags). Also keep in mind that mappers from developing
countries are not extremely likely to participate in this English-language
discussion.

Finally, I would advocate the start of discussion to standardize the
tagging system, make it more uniform and thus mapper- and
consumer-friendly. Just keep it in mind please when considering this
specific proposal.

Cheers,
Kotya

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> "If you can only chose between potable and non-potable" - in this case
> tagging scheme is bad and should be changed to default to unknown value.
>
> 2014-11-12 23:44 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
>>  On 12/11/2014 8:34 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 09:06:15 +0100
>> From: Pieren  
>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>>   
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 62, Issue 31
>> Message-ID:
>>   
>> 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Mateusz Konieczny  
>>  wrote:
>>
>>  > No, unknown should be tagged as unknown. Even better - not tagged.
>>
>>  +1 We don't tag what is unknown. Pierre
>>
>>
>> 'We' know there is water there. That water can be used.
>>
>> If you can only chose between potable and non-potable, then you should
>> chose non-potable. Filtering and treating non-potable water makes it
>> potable .. I do this when in remote areas for my safety, particularly if
>> I'm uncertain of the quality of the water. In some cases acess to water can
>> be a life saver - thus it should be mapped no matter what the quality.
>>
>> =
>> Note change in Subject title - my appoliges for my error there.
>>
>> ___
>> 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