Re: [Tagging] Adding values to usage=* key for power transmission

[Lukas Sommer]

Hm. I think the railway guys have a clearly defined list of possible values
(there are 6 possible values in the wiki). This way software can process
the data, because it is known which values are valid and which not.
Checking this would be much more difficult (for data comsumers, but also
for editors like JOSM or iD) if the list is less clear.

We have 330 361 elements with the “usage” key in the database. Almost all
of them (329 036) are combined with the “railway” key, so this is the
current state in the database. I agree with you if you say that “usage”
sounds like a very general key and not a railway specific key. So the
railway guys have just been a little faster than the power guys and
“occupied” this key. I would accept this and search another key to avoid
unnecessary conflicts. I don’t insist in “power:usage”. It can also be
something else, but I would introduce a new key for this.

cu

Lukas Sommer

2014-12-01 23:38 GMT+00:00 François Lacombe :

> Hi Lukas,
>
> I don't like this : railway guys introduced usage without any namespace.
> Why should power introduce one ?
>
> usage=* is a common tag. The proposal isn't introducing power:location
> instead of location=* even if there is some specific values.
>
> Do you agree ?
>
> *François Lacombe*
>
> fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
> www.infos-reseaux.com
> @InfosReseaux 
>
> 2014-12-01 9:31 GMT+01:00 Lukas Sommer :
>
>> Maybe we could use a key with a namespace: “power:usage=*” or something
>> else. Keeping is separate from the railway usage could give us more
>> clairity.
>>
>> Lukas Sommer
>>
>> 2014-11-24 15:24 GMT+00:00 François Lacombe :
>>
>>> Hi Rainer and thank you.
>>>
>>> I didn't spend time yet on the update done on the Pipeline proposal but
>>> be sure I will.
>>>
>>> What were the concern against network=* tag ?
>>> If they can be avoided with usage=* (or any common key) I'm ok to join
>>> you to use the same between power transmission and pipelines.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> *François Lacombe*
>>>
>>> fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
>>> www.infos-reseaux.com
>>> @InfosReseaux 
>>>
>>> 2014-11-24 15:57 GMT+01:00 Rainer Fügenstein :
>>>
 hi,

 FL> I knew usage=* and it can be the ideal key to indicate
 usage=transmission,
 FL> usage=distribution,... on power lines or power cables.

 If I'm not mistaken, this key is intended to serve  the same purpose
 as the network=* key is in the pipeline proposal:

 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/PipelineExtension#Pipelines

 FL> But it is currently and exclusively used for railway tagging.
 FL> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:usage

 concerns against using the network=* key have been raised. it would
 make sense to join forces here and use a common key, be it usage=* or
 something else.

 cu


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

Re: [Tagging] How one should tag different sections of library?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

"I would ask if any section of that library is usable as a library on it's
own."

Without registration it is impossible to use any, there is a single place
for registration. Books/media must be returned to the same section where it
was borrowed. In this case everything is in a single building (building
hosts only library and some small related business like newsagent's shop).

On other hand each library as collection of books is usable on its own and
borrowing limits (3 books or something like that) are separate.


2014-12-02 0:19 GMT+01:00 Peter Wendorff :

> I would ask if any section of that library is usable as a library on
> it's own.
>
> Let's take the local city library here, which has several sections at
> different locations.
> There is the main location, a children- and computer library as a
> thematic "branch" and several localized branches in some suburbs and
> villages around.
>
> You get one common user account for all of them and you can return media
> on any location and order any media to the location you want to get it
> (if you pre-order it).
> You can open an account on any location and so on.
>
> Therefore I would consider each "section" as it's own library, even if
> they share the user account system and their catalogue.
>
> Of course it is slightly different than the university library, which
> has only one section (here in Paderborn) but allows to get media from a
> whole network of university libraries around (if you pay some extra fee
> and wait for the book to arrive and so on), but for a map users point of
> view I don't think it's worth adding another tag for this.
>
> Nevertheless for thematic sections it may be useful to name/mark/tag
> them as such, to tell people this is a general library, that one a
> topical library for medical sciences and so on.
>
> regards
> Peter
>
> Am 01.12.2014 um 23:55 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
> >> "is there one name or different names?"
> >
> > Each part has its name, but it is name for this part of the library -
> > for example "Main lending library" (Wypożyczalnia Główna),
> > "Children's Section" (Wypożyczalnia dla dzieci).
> >
> >> "I believe multiple libraries aren't any problem"
> >
> >
> > For example - it will be displayed horribly on any map, as styles will
> > be unable to guess that these are sections of library, not separate
> > entities.
> >
> >
> > 2014-12-01 17:12 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer  > >:
> >
> >
> > 2014-11-29 15:15 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny  > >:
> >
> > There is a large library with multiple sections (for children,
> > for adults, foreign language
> > books, reading room, movie/music borrowing, newspaper section
> > etc etc).
> >
> > There are separate accounts for separate sections, different
> > opening hours. But it is
> > managed by one institution, everything is in the same building,
> > end it is generally considered as one entity.
> >
> >
> >
> > is there one name or different names? IMHO separate accounts and
> > different opening_hours already indicate some kind of separation
> > (same operator doesn't mean it is the same "object"). On the other
> > hand you state that you consider it to be "one entity", so more than
> > one "amenity=library" would be wrong under that assumption.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > How one should tag it?
> >
> > (1) amenity=library for both general entity and section
> > (impossible for data consumers to
> > understand that some are subsections)
> > (2) use (1) and use some sort of relation to indicate hierarchy
> > (de facto impossible to use
> > for data consumers)
> > (3) maybe introduce a new tag, something like
> > amenity=library_section or something
> > similar? Maybe library=section, without amenity=library and use
> > amenity=libvrary to
> > mark entire entity?
> >
> >
> >
> > I think I'd prefer (3) as both, (1) and (2), are representing 2
> > libraries (for what there are some indices in your description, but
> > what you deny explicitly but saying it is "one entity").
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Note: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dlibrary
> has
> > "A building can host multiple libraries. Please document the
> > best way to handle this (with
> > example) if you know a good solution. "
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe multiple libraries aren't any problem, you simply won't be
> > able to use bad short cuts aka use the same object for a building
> > and a library function (which is a flawed approach anyway when it
> > comes to details).
> >
> > cheers,
> > Martin
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listin

Re: [Tagging] Adding values to usage=* key for power transmission

[François Lacombe]

Hi Lukas,

I don't like this : railway guys introduced usage without any namespace.
Why should power introduce one ?

usage=* is a common tag. The proposal isn't introducing power:location
instead of location=* even if there is some specific values.

Do you agree ?

*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 

2014-12-01 9:31 GMT+01:00 Lukas Sommer :

> Maybe we could use a key with a namespace: “power:usage=*” or something
> else. Keeping is separate from the railway usage could give us more
> clairity.
>
> Lukas Sommer
>
> 2014-11-24 15:24 GMT+00:00 François Lacombe :
>
>> Hi Rainer and thank you.
>>
>> I didn't spend time yet on the update done on the Pipeline proposal but
>> be sure I will.
>>
>> What were the concern against network=* tag ?
>> If they can be avoided with usage=* (or any common key) I'm ok to join
>> you to use the same between power transmission and pipelines.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> *François Lacombe*
>>
>> fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
>> www.infos-reseaux.com
>> @InfosReseaux 
>>
>> 2014-11-24 15:57 GMT+01:00 Rainer Fügenstein :
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> FL> I knew usage=* and it can be the ideal key to indicate
>>> usage=transmission,
>>> FL> usage=distribution,... on power lines or power cables.
>>>
>>> If I'm not mistaken, this key is intended to serve  the same purpose
>>> as the network=* key is in the pipeline proposal:
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/PipelineExtension#Pipelines
>>>
>>> FL> But it is currently and exclusively used for railway tagging.
>>> FL> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:usage
>>>
>>> concerns against using the network=* key have been raised. it would
>>> make sense to join forces here and use a common key, be it usage=* or
>>> something else.
>>>
>>> cu
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] How one should tag different sections of library?

[Peter Wendorff]

I would ask if any section of that library is usable as a library on
it's own.

Let's take the local city library here, which has several sections at
different locations.
There is the main location, a children- and computer library as a
thematic "branch" and several localized branches in some suburbs and
villages around.

You get one common user account for all of them and you can return media
on any location and order any media to the location you want to get it
(if you pre-order it).
You can open an account on any location and so on.

Therefore I would consider each "section" as it's own library, even if
they share the user account system and their catalogue.

Of course it is slightly different than the university library, which
has only one section (here in Paderborn) but allows to get media from a
whole network of university libraries around (if you pay some extra fee
and wait for the book to arrive and so on), but for a map users point of
view I don't think it's worth adding another tag for this.

Nevertheless for thematic sections it may be useful to name/mark/tag
them as such, to tell people this is a general library, that one a
topical library for medical sciences and so on.

regards
Peter

Am 01.12.2014 um 23:55 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
>> "is there one name or different names?"
> 
> Each part has its name, but it is name for this part of the library -
> for example "Main lending library" (Wypożyczalnia Główna),
> "Children's Section" (Wypożyczalnia dla dzieci).
> 
>> "I believe multiple libraries aren't any problem"
> 
> 
> For example - it will be displayed horribly on any map, as styles will
> be unable to guess that these are sections of library, not separate
> entities.
> 
> 
> 2014-12-01 17:12 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer  >:
> 
> 
> 2014-11-29 15:15 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny  >:
> 
> There is a large library with multiple sections (for children,
> for adults, foreign language
> books, reading room, movie/music borrowing, newspaper section
> etc etc).
> 
> There are separate accounts for separate sections, different
> opening hours. But it is
> managed by one institution, everything is in the same building,
> end it is generally considered as one entity.
> 
> 
> 
> is there one name or different names? IMHO separate accounts and
> different opening_hours already indicate some kind of separation
> (same operator doesn't mean it is the same "object"). On the other
> hand you state that you consider it to be "one entity", so more than
> one "amenity=library" would be wrong under that assumption.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> How one should tag it?
> 
> (1) amenity=library for both general entity and section
> (impossible for data consumers to
> understand that some are subsections)
> (2) use (1) and use some sort of relation to indicate hierarchy
> (de facto impossible to use
> for data consumers)
> (3) maybe introduce a new tag, something like
> amenity=library_section or something
> similar? Maybe library=section, without amenity=library and use
> amenity=libvrary to
> mark entire entity?
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'd prefer (3) as both, (1) and (2), are representing 2
> libraries (for what there are some indices in your description, but
> what you deny explicitly but saying it is "one entity").
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dlibrary has
> "A building can host multiple libraries. Please document the
> best way to handle this (with
> example) if you know a good solution. "
> 
> 
> 
> I believe multiple libraries aren't any problem, you simply won't be
> able to use bad short cuts aka use the same object for a building
> and a library function (which is a flawed approach anyway when it
> comes to details).
> 
> 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
> 


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

Re: [Tagging] How one should tag different sections of library?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

> "is there one name or different names?"

Each part has its name, but it is name for this part of the library - for
example "Main lending library" (Wypożyczalnia Główna),
"Children's Section" (Wypożyczalnia dla dzieci).

> "I believe multiple libraries aren't any problem"


For example - it will be displayed horribly on any map, as styles will be
unable to guess that these are sections of library, not separate entities.


2014-12-01 17:12 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

>
> 2014-11-29 15:15 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>> There is a large library with multiple sections (for children, for
>> adults, foreign language
>> books, reading room, movie/music borrowing, newspaper section etc etc).
>>
>> There are separate accounts for separate sections, different opening
>> hours. But it is
>> managed by one institution, everything is in the same building, end it is
>> generally considered as one entity.
>>
>
>
> is there one name or different names? IMHO separate accounts and different
> opening_hours already indicate some kind of separation (same operator
> doesn't mean it is the same "object"). On the other hand you state that you
> consider it to be "one entity", so more than one "amenity=library" would be
> wrong under that assumption.
>
>
>
>>
>> How one should tag it?
>>
>> (1) amenity=library for both general entity and section (impossible for
>> data consumers to
>> understand that some are subsections)
>> (2) use (1) and use some sort of relation to indicate hierarchy (de facto
>> impossible to use
>> for data consumers)
>> (3) maybe introduce a new tag, something like amenity=library_section or
>> something
>> similar? Maybe library=section, without amenity=library and use
>> amenity=libvrary to
>> mark entire entity?
>>
>
>
> I think I'd prefer (3) as both, (1) and (2), are representing 2 libraries
> (for what there are some indices in your description, but what you deny
> explicitly but saying it is "one entity").
>
>
>>
>>
>> Note: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dlibrary has
>> "A building can host multiple libraries. Please document the best way to
>> handle this (with
>> example) if you know a good solution. "
>>
>
>
> I believe multiple libraries aren't any problem, you simply won't be able
> to use bad short cuts aka use the same object for a building and a library
> function (which is a flawed approach anyway when it comes to details).
>
> 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] semantic issue with "genus" in the wiki, wetland, plant nursery, ...

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-01 16:59 GMT+01:00 althio forum :

> If produce:genus can replace and unite produce/crop/trees for producing
> landuse like plant_nursery/farmland/orchard without any loss in meaning I
> think it is a worthwhile proposal.




no, it can't, because "genus" is expected to be in Latin, and we shouldn't
expect our users to use scientifical taxons in Latin language by default
--- although they may enter them if they know them.

For farmland I think "crop" is fine, for orchards "trees" makes linguistic
sense and "produce" as well (both together, have a look at the wiki,
orchard, to understand the idea behind).

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

Re: [Tagging] How one should tag different sections of library?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-29 15:15 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> There is a large library with multiple sections (for children, for adults,
> foreign language
> books, reading room, movie/music borrowing, newspaper section etc etc).
>
> There are separate accounts for separate sections, different opening
> hours. But it is
> managed by one institution, everything is in the same building, end it is
> generally considered as one entity.
>


is there one name or different names? IMHO separate accounts and different
opening_hours already indicate some kind of separation (same operator
doesn't mean it is the same "object"). On the other hand you state that you
consider it to be "one entity", so more than one "amenity=library" would be
wrong under that assumption.



>
> How one should tag it?
>
> (1) amenity=library for both general entity and section (impossible for
> data consumers to
> understand that some are subsections)
> (2) use (1) and use some sort of relation to indicate hierarchy (de facto
> impossible to use
> for data consumers)
> (3) maybe introduce a new tag, something like amenity=library_section or
> something
> similar? Maybe library=section, without amenity=library and use
> amenity=libvrary to
> mark entire entity?
>


I think I'd prefer (3) as both, (1) and (2), are representing 2 libraries
(for what there are some indices in your description, but what you deny
explicitly but saying it is "one entity").


>
>
> Note: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dlibrary has
> "A building can host multiple libraries. Please document the best way to
> handle this (with
> example) if you know a good solution. "
>


I believe multiple libraries aren't any problem, you simply won't be able
to use bad short cuts aka use the same object for a building and a library
function (which is a flawed approach anyway when it comes to details).

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

Re: [Tagging] semantic issue with "genus" in the wiki, wetland, plant nursery, ...

[althio forum]

> 2014-12-01 14:25 GMT+01:00 Holger Jeromin :
>> genus and species is defined as a name for an organism, not only plants.
>>
>> I added the species to animals in a zoo:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286321033
>>
>> So for producing landuse like plant_nursery a prefix named "product:"
>> seems nicer.

On Dec 1, 2014 4:09 PM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
wrote:
>
> Isn't "product" refering to an object? Might be suitable for plants, but
for animals I'm not sure it is a nice tag.

"product" was not used on animal. It was instead proposed " for producing
landuse like plant_nursery".

In a zoo/park/botanical garden there is different possible prefix/suffix:
- "animal:" or "plant:" ...
- a very general "organism:"
- but not product/produce

> so "produce:genus" might be a better option than the aforementioned
"plant:genus".
> plant: 896
> produce: 8 493
> product: 677
> crop: 73 337 (but not all are about produce, there are also 9K "yes", 6K
"field_cropland" etc.)
> trees: 33 608 (often not applicable for plant nurseries)

If produce:genus can replace and unite produce/crop/trees for producing
landuse like plant_nursery/farmland/orchard without any loss in meaning I
think it is a worthwhile proposal.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How one should tag different sections of library?

[althio forum]

I like (3) the best (only 1 amenity, the biggest one) and I think the new
tag could be similar to building:part

> A way with the tag
> building:part 
=yes or
> building:part 
=*:part
> describes a part of a building, where some building attributes are
different from the general attributes of the whole building. In addition to
the different ways tagged* building:part*=*, there should be one area
(closed way or relation) marking the whole building and tagged with building
=*.

How about a direct adaptation to amenities?

One area (closed way or relation) marking the whole amenity and tagged with
amenity =*[library].
Different ways tagged
amenity 
:part
=yes or
amenity 
:part
=*[library]:part
to describe a part of the amenity, where some attributes are different from
the general attributes of the whole amenity.

You could then add the attributes if different from the general: name,
description, opening hours...

On Nov 29, 2014 3:17 PM, "Mateusz Konieczny"  wrote:
>
> There is a large library with multiple sections (...).
>
> There are separate accounts for separate sections, different opening
hours. But it is
> managed by one institution, everything is in the same building, end it is
generally considered as one entity.
>
> How one should tag it?
>
> (1) amenity=library for both general entity and section (impossible for
data consumers to
> understand that some are subsections)
> (2) use (1) and use some sort of relation to indicate hierarchy (de facto
impossible to use
> for data consumers)
> (3) maybe introduce a new tag, something like amenity=library_section or
something
> similar? Maybe library=section, without amenity=library and use
amenity=libvrary to
> mark entire entity?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] semantic issue with "genus" in the wiki, wetland, plant nursery, ...

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-01 14:25 GMT+01:00 Holger Jeromin :

> > plant=* The generic type of plant that is grown, e.g. tree, herb, bush,
> ...
> > I think this is an inconsistency in tagging and would be interested to
> > hear if you believe the recommendation should be changed. E.g. we could
> > have a "plant:genus" to explicitly state that the genus refers to the
> > plants rather than the nursery.
>
> genus and species is defined as a name for an organism, not only plants.
>
> I added the species to animals in a zoo:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286321033
>
> So for producing landuse like plant_nursery a prefix named "product:"
> seems nicer.
>


Isn't "product" refering to an object? Might be suitable for plants, but
for animals I'm not sure it is a nice tag.

My suggestion for "plant" was based on the wiki description on the plant
nursery page which states that this tag is to map the type of plant that is
grown, so this would enhance consistency in this page, but I recall that
for similar use cases there are also other tags in use, like
- "produce" (for agricultural stuff) http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:produce
- "product" (for industrial goods and similar):
http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:product
- "crop" (for the type of crop on cultivated land)
http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:crop
- "trees" for the types of trees on an orchard
http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Key:trees


so "produce:genus" might be a better option than the aforementioned
"plant:genus".


Usage (taginfo):
plant: 896
produce: 8 493
product: 677
crop: 73 337 (but not all are about produce, there are also 9K "yes", 6K
"field_cropland" etc.)
trees: 33 608 (often not applicable for plant nurseries)

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

Re: [Tagging] semantic issue with "genus" in the wiki, wetland, plant nursery, ...

[Holger Jeromin]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 01.12.2014 11:22:
> I believe there are some semantic issues with how the wiki currently
> suggests to tag details of plants, e.g. with the tags "genus" or "species".
> 
> Now to plant nurseries, according to the wiki the suggested tagging is
> (they do not have their own tag but rely on the landuse attribute, but
> that is another topic I will not deal with here):
> 
> landuse=plant_nursery
> plant=* The generic type of plant that is grown, e.g. tree, herb, bush,
> grass, vine, fern, moss, green-algae
> genus=*
> species=*
> ...
> 
> wait, this is strange, the same tag "genus" now does not refer to the
> object it is attached to (an implicit plant_nursery) but refers to the
> plants that are grown.
> 
> 
> Similarly, on the genus key page, there are references to
> natural=wetland etc.
> 
> I think this is an inconsistency in tagging and would be interested to
> hear if you believe the recommendation should be changed. E.g. we could
> have a "plant:genus" to explicitly state that the genus refers to the
> plants rather than the nursery.

genus and species is defined as a name for an organism, not only plants.

I added the species to animals in a zoo:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286321033

So for producing landuse like plant_nursery a prefix named "product:"
seems nicer.
A landuse=vineyard could default to "product:vitis".

Oh, on this wikipage i found the "crop" key for producing landuses...

Really a mess.

-- 
greetings
Holger


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

Re: [Tagging] semantic issue with "genus" in the wiki, wetland, plant nursery, ...

[Kotya Karapetyan]

>
> I think this is an inconsistency in tagging and would be interested to
>> hear if you believe the recommendation should be changed. E.g. we could
>> have a "plant:genus" to explicitly state that the genus refers to the
>> plants rather than the nursery.
>>
>>
I agree about the inconsistency. In general I prefer the
hierarchical approach (so with plant:genus), rather than numerous top-level
tags.

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

[Tagging] access -> emergency vehicle class ----- (pulling from "path vs. footway")

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I copied this last paragraph from the path vs. footway discussion to get
comments of more people interested in it (I guess not so many longtime
contributors are interested in reading yet another time the path vs.
footway discussion).


According to the access page, "emergency" is not an access value (like e.g.
"forestry"), but it is a vehicle category, currently in the wiki specified
as "by use":
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

Look at the definition, I'd read this as "it is not necessary that there is
an emergency, but it is necessary that the vehicle is of an emergency
vehicle class (like police cars, ambulances, etc.)." so actually there
might be a problem: e.g. "hov" and "hazmat" and "disabled" are actually
classes that are defined by use: access will not be forbidden to any truck
that can transport hazardous material, but only to those that actually do
right now. "emergency" by it's current definition doesn't fit into this
scheme as it seems to be independent from the "use", maybe this should go
under motor_vehicle -> double_tracked -> emergency.

On the other hand, "use" can have different meanings: it can be the current
use in this very instant or it can be the general type of use (e.g. if I
bought myself an ambulance but won't offer services or register and insure
the vehicle as an ambulance I won't be able to enter roads that are
reserved for emergency vehicles). Also "emergency" is somehow misleading,
as probably any kind of transport of an ill person will allow an ambulance
to enter a restricted road, regardless of the urgency.

What do you think? Do we need refinements or should we move the "emergency"
vehicle class from "by use" to the more general motor_vehicle ->
double_tracked -> emergency category? Also note that "agricultural" is
already there.

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

Re: [Tagging] path vs footway

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-11-30 2:32 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :

> to me path implies wheelchair=no.
>>
>
> I don't know about that, path's generally the multimodal middle between
> footway (like a city sidewalk) and cycleway (which often implies foot=no;
> less commonly foot=yes, rarely foot=designated; I explicitly tag if it's
> unclear on footway, path, cycleway and motorway beyond the absolutely most
> broad assumptions;
>


+1, it is worth to note that "wheelchair" is not part of the access tags.
The other tags we are discussing in this thread are related to legal
access, while "wheelchair" is about suitability. This said I agree that
path does not have the implication of wheelchair no (as a dataconsumer who
makes use of OSM data for routing of people in wheelchairs you might still
assume that paths are not suitable for your users, but there is no such
implication on the data level, e.g. the presence of a tag "highway=path"
should not prevent you from adding wheelchair specific information).



>
>
>> if they are wide, well maintained, somewhat smooth and hard, and easily
>> passible, then they are footpaths.
>>
>> if it is a track for emergency access vehicles that is usually open for
>> hiking, horses, and bikes, then label it is a track instead, cars=emergency
>> or whatever that exact tag is
>>
>
> cars=* isn't a tag.  motor_vehicle would be...
>


"emergency" is not a value though, it is a category by use:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

If you look at the definition, I'd actually read this as "it is not
necessary that there is an emergency, but it is necessary that the vehicle
is of an emergency vehicle class (like police cars, ambulances, etc.)." so
actually there might be a problem: e.g. "hov" and "hazmat" and "disabled"
are actually classes that are defined by use: access will not be forbidden
to any truck that can transport hazardous material, but only to those that
actually do right now. "emergency" by it's current definition doesn't fit
into this scheme, it should rather go under motor_vehicle -> double_tracked
-> emergency. What do you think?

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

Re: [Tagging] semantic issue with "genus" in the wiki, wetland, plant nursery, ...

[Marc Gemis]

I'm interested in this topic in order to be able to map flowerbeds in a
rose garden. Besides the problem with the genus/species/taxon tagging, I
also need to be able to properly tag the flowerbeds themselves. There seems
to be quite some variants for that as well.
So I hope the outcome of this discussion is also applicable to flowerbeds.

regards

m




On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> I believe there are some semantic issues with how the wiki currently
> suggests to tag details of plants, e.g. with the tags "genus" or "species".
>
> This originates from tree tagging (AFAIK), where the suggested tagging is:
>
> natural=tree
> genus=...
> species=...
> taxon=...
> etc.
>
> NO ISSUES in this, works as expected, we add the genus (will use this as
> example for reference in this mail, but species, taxon, etc. behave the
> same) of the plant (tree in this example) as a tag.
>
>
> Now to plant nurseries, according to the wiki the suggested tagging is
> (they do not have their own tag but rely on the landuse attribute, but that
> is another topic I will not deal with here):
>
> landuse=plant_nursery
> plant=* The generic type of plant that is grown, e.g. tree, herb, bush,
> grass, vine, fern, moss, green-algae
> genus=*
> species=*
> ...
>
> wait, this is strange, the same tag "genus" now does not refer to the
> object it is attached to (an implicit plant_nursery) but refers to the
> plants that are grown.
>
>
> Similarly, on the genus key page, there are references to natural=wetland
> etc.
>
> I think this is an inconsistency in tagging and would be interested to
> hear if you believe the recommendation should be changed. E.g. we could
> have a "plant:genus" to explicitly state that the genus refers to the
> plants rather than the nursery.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dplant_nursery
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:genus
>
> ___
> 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] semantic issue with "genus" in the wiki, wetland, plant nursery, ...

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I believe there are some semantic issues with how the wiki currently
suggests to tag details of plants, e.g. with the tags "genus" or "species".

This originates from tree tagging (AFAIK), where the suggested tagging is:

natural=tree
genus=...
species=...
taxon=...
etc.

NO ISSUES in this, works as expected, we add the genus (will use this as
example for reference in this mail, but species, taxon, etc. behave the
same) of the plant (tree in this example) as a tag.


Now to plant nurseries, according to the wiki the suggested tagging is
(they do not have their own tag but rely on the landuse attribute, but that
is another topic I will not deal with here):

landuse=plant_nursery
plant=* The generic type of plant that is grown, e.g. tree, herb, bush,
grass, vine, fern, moss, green-algae
genus=*
species=*
...

wait, this is strange, the same tag "genus" now does not refer to the
object it is attached to (an implicit plant_nursery) but refers to the
plants that are grown.


Similarly, on the genus key page, there are references to natural=wetland
etc.

I think this is an inconsistency in tagging and would be interested to hear
if you believe the recommendation should be changed. E.g. we could have a
"plant:genus" to explicitly state that the genus refers to the plants
rather than the nursery.

Cheers,
Martin

___
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dplant_nursery
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:genus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Adding values to usage=* key for power transmission

[Lukas Sommer]

Maybe we could use a key with a namespace: “power:usage=*” or something
else. Keeping is separate from the railway usage could give us more
clairity.

Lukas Sommer

2014-11-24 15:24 GMT+00:00 François Lacombe :

> Hi Rainer and thank you.
>
> I didn't spend time yet on the update done on the Pipeline proposal but be
> sure I will.
>
> What were the concern against network=* tag ?
> If they can be avoided with usage=* (or any common key) I'm ok to join you
> to use the same between power transmission and pipelines.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> *François Lacombe*
>
> fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
> www.infos-reseaux.com
> @InfosReseaux 
>
> 2014-11-24 15:57 GMT+01:00 Rainer Fügenstein :
>
>> hi,
>>
>> FL> I knew usage=* and it can be the ideal key to indicate
>> usage=transmission,
>> FL> usage=distribution,... on power lines or power cables.
>>
>> If I'm not mistaken, this key is intended to serve  the same purpose
>> as the network=* key is in the pipeline proposal:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/PipelineExtension#Pipelines
>>
>> FL> But it is currently and exclusively used for railway tagging.
>> FL> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:usage
>>
>> concerns against using the network=* key have been raised. it would
>> make sense to join forces here and use a common key, be it usage=* or
>> something else.
>>
>> cu
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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