Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[johnw]

usually, the purpose of visiting a playground is to, um, visit the playground. 

The purpose of a play area is (AFIK) a place to deposit the kids while (one of) 
the adults do something else, or as a amenity to a more serious or boring place 
place where the kids can have their attention taken away. 

I know there is a place like this in large facilities that have groups of 
parents who need to park or placate a kid for a while (while adults rest or 
eat), so knowing where the amenity is sounds good. Some of them are supervised 
by the employees, so the parents can shop (like ikea does), though I don’t know 
if that’s considered daycare or babysitting or whatever. 

And whoever suggested the kindergarten tag, I hope they were being sarcastic. 


If there was a new amenity tag, and the data customers ignored it, we wouldn’t 
be losing any kindergartens or playgrounds, so that’s a good thing, right? I 
don’t want playgrounds or kindergartens popping up in what turns out to be a 
corner of the mall filled with bright vinyl cubes and a loop of Pokemon playing 
on a TV. 

Javbw

> On Dec 18, 2014, at 6:41 AM, Andreas Goss  wrote:
> 
>> I don't see a need for a new key here.
>> The properties can be easily modelled with sub-tagging of playground:
>> 
>> leisure=playground
>> playground:supervised=yes/no
>> playground:outdoor=yes/no
>> playground:indoor=yes/no
> 
> I agree in general, but the main issue with tagging like this is that I bet 
> most data consumers will just look for leisure=playground and that's it.
> __
> openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
> wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - amenity=public_bookcase

[Guillaume Pratte]

Hello,

I would like to propose a feature for public bookcases, also known as Little 
Free Libraries in the US, and widely popular in Germany:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/public_bookcase 


Here is the talk page for discussion and comments:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/public_bookcase 


Thanks,

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

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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11/08/2014 04:47 PM, Pee Wee wrote:
> We are writing to you for advice on what steps we should or could take
> next. The situation is best summarized as:

[...]

After some consideration I have today asked user ulamm to refrain from
making any edits to wiki pages unless he has first proposed the edit on
the matching talk page and found broad support.

Any edit activity not conforming to this rule will lead to an account ban.

Data Working Group does not usually get involved in wiki edit wars but
in this case the wiki edit war has a direct connection to disputed edits
going on in our database, and this has been going on for quite some time
and several time-consuming attempts at talking reason into people,
including personal telephone calls, have failed.

This rule will remain in force until 31st January 2015, after which
normal editing may resume, but as soon as there's any complaint I will
extend this rule until 2016.

I will also (try to) revert all of ulamm's disputed edits on the Wiki.

A more detailed message, in German, is here:

https://lists.openstreetmap.de/pipermail/bremen/2014-December/000493.html

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] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Colin Smale]

 

In the UK "designation=" is in wide usage for this. I don't know if it
is typically a UK thing (it wouldn't surprise me) but local governments
sometimes have the right to change their "style" - for example a "civil
parish" can choose autonomously to call itself a "community council". It
can also choose to call itself a "town council" although I suspect this
needs cooperation from its parent authority. And a council can become a
"city council" basically only through a central decision. Some
"districts" (admin_level=8) have the status of "borough." All this
doesn't change the legal powers and responsibilities of the council,
it's all about what they are "called". There's a lot of snobism involved
as well... 

I have tried to summarise a tagging scheme for UK local authorities
here: 

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Csmale/ukboundaries 

It is not "official" in any way, they are only my own notes at present -
based on current usage and my thoughts to keep my work on these
boundaries consistent. 

I expect the system in Germany is a bit less variable, although the
different Länder seem to have very different local government
structures. 

Colin 

On 2014-12-17 16:25, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: 

> This is about a new attribute for administrative devisions.
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/admin_title [1]
 

Links:
--
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/admin_title
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Andreas Goss]

I don't see a need for a new key here.
The properties can be easily modelled with sub-tagging of playground:

leisure=playground
playground:supervised=yes/no
playground:outdoor=yes/no
playground:indoor=yes/no


I agree in general, but the main issue with tagging like this is that I 
bet most data consumers will just look for leisure=playground and that's 
it.

__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Dmitry Kiselev]

 Why should we map something, with different kind of activity and different name
(at least in russian, serbian and many other cyrillic languages) as a 
playground?

For example 
hr (sr the same but with cyryllic alphabet):
playground
https://translate.google.com/#hr/en/igrali%C5%A1te
play room
https://translate.google.com/#hr/en/igraonica

ru, same story:
https://translate.google.com/#ru/en/%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0
https://translate.google.com/#ru/en/%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B0

play room is word by word google translation, it's netter then playground 
indor=yes but still isn't good enough because in many cases subj. isn't a room.

Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:43:40 + от Philip Barnes :
>On Wed Dec 17 2014 09:32:05 GMT+ (GMT), Никита wrote:
>> Probably we should define kids_area as:
>> leisure=playground
>> playground:indoor=yes
>> playground:supervised=yes - "supervised by parents, not by somebody else"
>> 
>And access tags, such as access=customers.
>
>Phil  (trigpoint )
>
>
>-- 
>Sent from my Jolla
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] Wiki - contact: & Map Features

[Andreas Goss]

actually the "idea" to prefix phone etc. with "contact:" was never more
popular than the simple form. The "contact:"-form was proposed later and
never set actually foot compared to the simple version. I have also
tried in the past to convince mappers by sending them messages, to not
use the prefix in order to avoid sprawl, but they have demonstrated
themselves patient and insistent ;-)


I know, that what makes it so frustrating. It's a few dozen people 
bascially fighting a already lost war. And I could spend my time on the 
wiki so much better than having edit wars over and over again.


Not to mention that their arguments don't really convince me at all...
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Andreas Goss]

So what do you do with Berlin? State? City? "Stadtstaat" (Citystate)?
__
openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88
wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88‎


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 17.12.2014 16:56, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> isn't this already covered by name and its variants?
> e.g.
> name="Bezirk Zwettl"
> short_name="Zwettl"
> 
> or
> name="Zwettl"
> official_name="Bezirk Zwettl" ?

No, because the official name is just "Zwettl". But in most cases when you
talk about Bezirk Zwettl (district of Zwettl), you say "Bezirk Zwettl", in
order to make it clear that you are not talking about the city of Zwettl.

> And another question, is this also aiming at city titles, e.g.
> "Universitätsstadt", "Freie und Hansestadt"?

No. There are plenty of these bogus titles for each city.

-- 
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 17.12.2014 16:47, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
> Sorry, the German examples don't mean much to me. Do the examples below show
> what you're proposing?
> 
> name=Chicago, admin_title=city, admin_level...
> name=California, admin_title=state, admin_level

Exactly.

-- 
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Ilya Zverev]

Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> This is about a new attribute for administrative devisions.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/admin_title

Maybe use official_status for that? We in Russia use it extensively
for official place titles (if I understood your proposal correctly):

http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/official_status#values

We use ru: prefix for Russian titles.


IZ


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-17 16:25 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann :
>
> This is about a new attribute for administrative devisions.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/admin_title
>


isn't this already covered by name and its variants?
e.g.
name="Bezirk Zwettl"
short_name="Zwettl"

or
name="Zwettl"
official_name="Bezirk Zwettl" ?

And another question, is this also aiming at city titles, e.g.
"Universitätsstadt", "Freie und Hansestadt"?

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Никита]

> but some people at least are starting to use amenity=childcare.
Please don't link to tags without proposals they are meaningless without
actual data/definition. No reason to discuss them here.

kids_area=* is clearly defined as more advanced leisure=playground in the
proposal.

I will use this tag for malls and shops, fast_foods and restaurants, it
perfectly makes sense and not because it's "indoor". But
because equipment is different from what you will see at regular
"leisure=playground" _without_ kids_area=*. This
schema perfectly makes sense in some territories, you just need live there
to understand it.


2014-12-17 19:38 GMT+04:00 Brad Neuhauser :
>
> About supervision vs. childcare, we have lots of free supervised
>> playgrounds here which do not offer child care, and and I have no
>> experience with staffed child care facilties at malls etc. But for me
>> amenity=kindergarten seems to be an good match to child_care you would
>> have in a mall.
>>
>>
> I know this tag has been at times contentious in the past, due to cultural
> and linguistic issues, but some people at least are starting to use
> amenity=childcare. According to
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dchildcare, it's for a
> place where amenity=kindergarten doesn't seem appropriate, for example
> because there's no educational component. I think staffed child care at
> malls (or at Ikea) would be a case where this would apply.
>
> Brad
>
> ___
> 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 - admin_title=*

[Brad Neuhauser]

Sorry, the German examples don't mean much to me. Do the examples below
show what you're proposing?

name=Chicago, admin_title=city, admin_level...
name=California, admin_title=state, admin_level

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
>
> This is about a new attribute for administrative devisions.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/admin_title
>
> --
> 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 of kids areas

[Никита]

> Yes we can, see playground=* as approved, e.g. playground=swing
Most likely because you have no idea what objects will be mapped with new
tag kids_area=*. Well please show, show me these tags then:

playground=pcroom
playground=tv
playground=activitytable
playground=activitytable
playground=globe
playground=blackboard
playground=mat


Go on. Map them. You can map playground=pencil (not pencils)  I dare you.
But leave kids_area=* tag alone. kids_area=* is not about access, it is
clearly separable from leisure=playground by it's equipement.

If you cannot separate more advanced playgrounds for kids with "tvs",
"globes", "pencils", "pc" from
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Playground_Equipment,
that not kids_area problem...


2014-12-17 18:39 GMT+04:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :
>
>
> 2014-12-17 15:26 GMT+01:00 fly :
>>
>> +1
>>
>> > leisure=playground
>> > playground:indoor=yes or playground:outdoor=yes
>> > playground:supervised=yes or no (referring to staff supervision)
>> > access=customers
>> >
>>
>> indoor=yes and supervised=yes/no work.
>>
>> No need for the subtag construction.
>>
>> We can still think about playground:type=* if we want to distinguish
>> between different subtypes.
>>
>
>
>
> I also know a place that might fall into this category:
> indoor streetview:
> https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8462111,12.4869449,3a,75y,151.95h,69.96t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sq3Z8vG9t0TkAAAQfCNjLlg!2e0!3e2
> some pics: http://lnx.gommolandiaroma.it/portal/galleriafoto
>
> On the other hand, it might maybe also qualify as theme park? What is the
> distinction?
>
> 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] Mapping of kids areas

[Brad Neuhauser]

>
> About supervision vs. childcare, we have lots of free supervised
> playgrounds here which do not offer child care, and and I have no
> experience with staffed child care facilties at malls etc. But for me
> amenity=kindergarten seems to be an good match to child_care you would
> have in a mall.
>
>
I know this tag has been at times contentious in the past, due to cultural
and linguistic issues, but some people at least are starting to use
amenity=childcare. According to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dchildcare, it's for a
place where amenity=kindergarten doesn't seem appropriate, for example
because there's no educational component. I think staffed child care at
malls (or at Ikea) would be a case where this would apply.

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - admin_title=*

[Friedrich Volkmann]

This is about a new attribute for administrative devisions.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/admin_title

-- 
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 of kids areas

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-17 15:26 GMT+01:00 fly :
>
> +1
>
> > leisure=playground
> > playground:indoor=yes or playground:outdoor=yes
> > playground:supervised=yes or no (referring to staff supervision)
> > access=customers
> >
>
> indoor=yes and supervised=yes/no work.
>
> No need for the subtag construction.
>
> We can still think about playground:type=* if we want to distinguish
> between different subtypes.
>



I also know a place that might fall into this category:
indoor streetview:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8462111,12.4869449,3a,75y,151.95h,69.96t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sq3Z8vG9t0TkAAAQfCNjLlg!2e0!3e2
some pics: http://lnx.gommolandiaroma.it/portal/galleriafoto

On the other hand, it might maybe also qualify as theme park? What is the
distinction?

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[fly]

Am 17.12.2014 um 15:11 schrieb Tom Pfeifer:
> Erik, this gets really messy here. Not mapping a playground as a playground
> just because of the access? We don't map amenity=parking differently
> just because of access=customers.
> 
> We have all the tools already without the need for a new tag, and
> definitely these shopping centre playgrounds should not be tagged
> as kindergarten, the latter is a more institutional amenity.

+1

> leisure=playground
> playground:indoor=yes or playground:outdoor=yes
> playground:supervised=yes or no (referring to staff supervision)
> access=customers
> 

indoor=yes and supervised=yes/no work.

No need for the subtag construction.

We can still think about playground:type=* if we want to distinguish
between different subtypes.

cu fly

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

Re: [Tagging] man_made=adit_entrance

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-17 1:29 GMT+01:00 Dave Swarthout :
>
> I tag an adit as a node, the opening through which you enter the
> underground part of a cave or mine.




+1, I take that back, was confusing it with "access" which could be either
a spot or a linear feature, while "entrance" is supposedly a spot (said the
dictionaries I have consulted in the mean time).

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Tom Pfeifer]

Erik, this gets really messy here. Not mapping a playground as a playground
just because of the access? We don't map amenity=parking differently
just because of access=customers.

We have all the tools already without the need for a new tag, and
definitely these shopping centre playgrounds should not be tagged
as kindergarten, the latter is a more institutional amenity.

leisure=playground
playground:indoor=yes or playground:outdoor=yes
playground:supervised=yes or no (referring to staff supervision)
access=customers

Никита wrote on 2014-12-17 10:40:
> We cannot map equipment, this is insane to maintain

Yes we can, see playground=* as approved, e.g. playground=swing

tom

Erik Johansson wrote on 2014-12-17 14:57:

Then I like kids_area when you are mapping a private playground that
is closed off without direct public access, mainly because I wouldn't
map them as a leisure=playground.

About supervision vs. childcare, we have lots of free supervised
playgrounds here which do not offer child care, and and I have no
experience with staffed child care facilties at malls etc. But for me
amenity=kindergarten seems to be an good match to child_care you would
have in a mall.



On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

On Wed Dec 17 2014 09:32:05 GMT+ (GMT), Никита wrote:

Probably we should define kids_area as:
leisure=playground
playground:indoor=yes
playground:supervised=yes - "supervised by parents, not by somebody else"


And access tags, such as access=customers.

Phil  (trigpoint )


--
Sent from my Jolla
___
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 of kids areas

[Erik Johansson]

Then I like kids_area when you are mapping a private playground that
is closed off without direct public access, mainly because I wouldn't
map them as a leisure=playground.

About supervision vs. childcare, we have lots of free supervised
playgrounds here which do not offer child care, and and I have no
experience with staffed child care facilties at malls etc. But for me
amenity=kindergarten seems to be an good match to child_care you would
have in a mall.



On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> On Wed Dec 17 2014 09:32:05 GMT+ (GMT), Никита wrote:
>> Probably we should define kids_area as:
>> leisure=playground
>> playground:indoor=yes
>> playground:supervised=yes - "supervised by parents, not by somebody else"
>>
> And access tags, such as access=customers.
>
> Phil  (trigpoint )
>
>
> --
> Sent from my Jolla
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
/emj

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

Re: [Tagging] city walls

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-17 11:52 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt :
>
> So far I have never come across "razed". What's the difference between
> "razed" and "dismantled", if any?




there are lots of discussions on this topic and lots of different proposals
and wiki pages. You can find some documentation here, but AFAIK there is no
consensus which tags to use (there are parallel schemes in use):
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway

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

Re: [Tagging] city walls

[Volker Schmidt]

So far I have never come across "razed". What's the difference between
"razed" and "dismantled", if any?

On 17 December 2014 at 07:04, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:
>
> Razed would be much better for this kind of object (though I am not a big
> fan fan of razed, sooner or later completely mundane things without any
> kind of recognition are tagged this way).
>
> But at least it is not misrepresenting things.
>
> 2014-12-16 22:20 GMT+01:00 Zecke :
>
>>
>>  "interesting to map dismantled city gates as historic=city_gate"
>>
>>>
>>>  It is OK to map ruins/remmants, archeological site - but note that
>>> completely destroyed objects should NOT be mapped.
>>
>>
>>  typically city gates have had such a huge impact on the structure of
>> cities that they normally persist even if there is nothing left in physical
>> terms. The roads that once passed the gates are still the "arterial" roads,
>> the squares are still named after the gates (typically) and the whole area
>> often still has that name (e.g. referring here to my birth town Tübingen,
>> where everybody would still know "Neckartor" (dismantled 1804), "Lustnauer
>> Tor" or "Haagtor" (and 2 others, all of which non-existent physically but
>> very existent in daily life/communication, e.g. to set up a place to meet)).
>>
>>
>> Actually we recommend to map such objects with the razed: prefix for
>> objects that once existed but now there are only barely remnants or even
>> indirect indications thereof.
>> As long as there is a historical interest in them and there is a slight
>> indication of its position we are willing to map them in the historic map.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Zecke
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>

-- 
Volker SCHMIDT
Via del Cristo 28
35127 Padova
Italy

mailto:vosc...@gmail.com
personal mobile+39 340 1427 105
skype: volker.schmidt
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] city walls (was: Watermill attributes)

[Philip Barnes]

You should visit, it is a lovely city and  has a complete city wall that is 
lovely to walk around.

Also nice pubs, a massive cathedral and the national railway museum. 

Phil  (trigpoint )


On Wed Dec 17 2014 09:47:16 GMT+ (GMT), Martin Vonwald wrote:
> 2014-12-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Philip Barnes :
> >
> > http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip-Ma-Whop-Ma-Gate
> >
> 
> Never been to York to date, but I already love it! Thanks for that ;-)
>

-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] city walls (was: Watermill attributes)

[Martin Vonwald]

2014-12-17 10:24 GMT+01:00 Philip Barnes :
>
> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip-Ma-Whop-Ma-Gate
>

Never been to York to date, but I already love it! Thanks for that ;-)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed Dec 17 2014 09:32:05 GMT+ (GMT), Никита wrote:
> Probably we should define kids_area as:
> leisure=playground
> playground:indoor=yes
> playground:supervised=yes - "supervised by parents, not by somebody else"
> 
And access tags, such as access=customers.

Phil  (trigpoint )


-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Никита]

I meant playground:supervised=no in last message

> So why haven't we mapped them as leisure=playground?
Playground equipement is very different for "outside" playgrounds and
"indoor" facilities. Your kids will never watch tv at regular
leisure=playground, while amenity=kids_area may have not only tvs not other
expensive equipment. We cannot map equipment, this is insane to maintain,
but we can classify between leisure=playground and kids_area=*.


2014-12-17 13:32 GMT+04:00 Никита :
>
> Probably we should define kids_area as:
> leisure=playground
> playground:indoor=yes
> playground:supervised=yes - "supervised by parents, not by somebody else"
>
> 2014-12-17 12:49 GMT+04:00 Erik Johansson :
>>
>> Hi Dmitry
>>
>> I did a quick sruvey of some fast food restuarants the local Ikea,  I
>> know they all have "leisure=playground" outside and inside, non of these
>> were mapped.
>>
>> So why haven't we mapped them as leisure=playground?
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Dmitry Kiselev  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> We have
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amenity_features#kids_area.3Dno.2Findoor.2Foutdoor.2Fboth
>>> for kids areas mappings.
>>>
>>> But sometimes kids area is an independant amenity. I think it would be
>>> nice to have amenity to map such features.
>>>
>>> So here is mine proposal for that
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kids_area
>>>
>>> Looking forward for any comments and suggestions.
>>>
>>> --
>>> dkiselev
>>> Dmitry Kiselev
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> /emj
>>
>> ___
>> 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 of kids areas

[Никита]

Probably we should define kids_area as:
leisure=playground
playground:indoor=yes
playground:supervised=yes - "supervised by parents, not by somebody else"

2014-12-17 12:49 GMT+04:00 Erik Johansson :
>
> Hi Dmitry
>
> I did a quick sruvey of some fast food restuarants the local Ikea,  I know
> they all have "leisure=playground" outside and inside, non of these were
> mapped.
>
> So why haven't we mapped them as leisure=playground?
>
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Dmitry Kiselev  wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> We have
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amenity_features#kids_area.3Dno.2Findoor.2Foutdoor.2Fboth
>> for kids areas mappings.
>>
>> But sometimes kids area is an independant amenity. I think it would be
>> nice to have amenity to map such features.
>>
>> So here is mine proposal for that
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kids_area
>>
>> Looking forward for any comments and suggestions.
>>
>> --
>> dkiselev
>> Dmitry Kiselev
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
> --
> /emj
>
> ___
> 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] city walls (was: Watermill attributes)

[Philip Barnes]

On Tue Dec 16 2014 17:42:47 GMT+ (GMT), Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2014-12-16 18:16 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
> >
> > "interesting to map dismantled city gates as historic=city_gate"
> >
> > It is OK to map ruins/remmants, archeological site - but note that
> > completely destroyed objects should NOT be mapped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> typically city gates have had such a huge impact on the structure of cities
> that they normally persist even if there is nothing left in physical terms.
> The roads that once passed the gates are still the "arterial" roads, the
> squares are still named after the gates (typically) and the whole area
> often still has that name (e.g. referring here to my birth town Tübingen,
> where everybody would still know "Neckartor" (dismantled 1804), "Lustnauer
> Tor" or "Haagtor" (and 2 others, all of which non-existent physically but
> very existent in daily life/communication, e.g. to set up a place to meet)).
> 
Care needs to be taken with this statement, and an understanding of local usage.

Gate is a common part of street names in parts of England which fell under the 
Danelaw.

Gate in these towns and cities is often derived from the Norse word Gatta, 
meaning street. The best known examples of streets called gate exist in York, 
although examples also exist in my home city, Leicester. 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip-Ma-Whop-Ma-Gate

Phil (trigpoint )
-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping of kids areas

[Erik Johansson]

Hi Dmitry

I did a quick sruvey of some fast food restuarants the local Ikea,  I know
they all have "leisure=playground" outside and inside, non of these were
mapped.

So why haven't we mapped them as leisure=playground?

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Dmitry Kiselev  wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> We have
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Amenity_features#kids_area.3Dno.2Findoor.2Foutdoor.2Fboth
> for kids areas mappings.
>
> But sometimes kids area is an independant amenity. I think it would be
> nice to have amenity to map such features.
>
> So here is mine proposal for that
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kids_area
>
> Looking forward for any comments and suggestions.
>
> --
> dkiselev
> Dmitry Kiselev
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>

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

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

[Lukas Sommer]

2014-12-16 23:42 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe :

>> I think there is a big difference between "operator" and "usage": the latter
>> is most probably intended to be a formal tag with a limited, well defined
>> set of values, while the former is a free text field with any value possible.
>> Mixing up "usage" in different contexts makes life harder for documentation,
>> taginfo users, etc.
>> Adding context by applying a namespace would help.
>
> All keys in OSM are supposed to have free-text values. Let's start to consider
> this question widely and tags as a whole. Not only for power, railway, usage
> or operators.
>
> The wiki gives information about which are most commonly encountered together.
> If tools aren't able to deal with this, they should be improved.


No. Tools do NOT have to be improved. Keys like “usage” need
definitively a closed list of accepted values – with a well-defined
meaning. If they do not have it, they are almost useless for data
consumers.

Imagine if we would consider the highway=* tag for streets as a
free-text value. You could find values like “motorway”, but maybe also
“freeway” with the same meaning, and in France maybe “autoroute”.
Other people may use “metered freeway” or something else. It would be
impossible for any software to order and interpret all this data. A
processing software is just a “stupid” computer program; it can’t
interpret things the same way like an intelligent human is able to do.

You want to have the usage key to make a difference between different
usages. For example, if all cables for street lightning have
usage=lightning and all cables for distribution have
usage=distribution, you can make special maps for street lightning.
Moreover, you can make special maps for the distribution network.
However, if some people use “street_lightning”, others “lightning” and
other “light” and others “lamps”, the key will be useless for
software. You cannot do a different rendering based on the key.

We need definitively a closed list of correct values for this – with a
well-documented meaning for each value. (By the way, the railway
people do the same for “usage”). That does not mean that we cannot
make longer the list in the future. However, usage=* cannot be
free-text.

Cheers

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