Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread Warin
On 3/01/2015 4:56 PM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 04:45:24 +0100 From: Andreas Gossandi...@t-online.de To:tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread Andreas Goss
Since when do we use ways for landuse=* ? Also I have not found a single one that is tagged like you say. They are all areas. Why multipolygons? Typical area with various church thingies (church, vicarage etc) is not requiring multypolygon - it is usually may be represented by a simple

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread Andreas Goss
this is just a polygon around a church yard, with the rest of the buildings and amenities inside. EXCEPT it does NOT say church yard but religious landuse. So this is how I would use this tag: http://i.imgur.com/KZvkB3i.png __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread Dave Swarthout
I'm mapping in Thailand where the majority of temples sit inside a compound, typically enclosed by walls, inside of which are the main temple and any number of buildings. Monks' residences, guest facilities, food shops, all are enclosed by the walls. The enclosures are fairly obvious in the Bing

Re: [Tagging] Problem with airport classification

2015-01-03 Thread Mateusz Konieczny
Querying runway lengrh from the database - sorry I missed this proposal. I see three problems: What about small airport next to big one - how it should be guessed who operates which runways? As both are mapped as nodes it is necessary to guess. Writing query to calculate it is not trivial (for

Re: [Tagging] Problem with airport classification

2015-01-03 Thread Mateusz Konieczny
I mentioned - some really small airports have this codes. See - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/218821049 1048 m of grassy runway, has its own IATA code 2015-01-03 15:30 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: I'm not an expert, but don't only big airports have the IATA code? Only 9

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - historic=tree_shrine

2015-01-03 Thread Mateusz Konieczny
I would dispute Just because the node is tagged as *wayside_shrine* in combination with *natural=tree* does not mean that there has to be a tree shrine (could also be a regular wayside_shrine and a tree which are too close together to tag them effectively as two different nodes). It is always

Re: [Tagging] Problem with airport classification

2015-01-03 Thread Janko Mihelić
I'm not an expert, but don't only big airports have the IATA code? Only 9 airports have the IATA code in Croatia, and about 30 have the ICAO code. Maybe you have to meet certain standards to get the IATA code. Janko Mihelić 2015-01-03 14:54 GMT+01:00 Christoph Hormann chris_horm...@gmx.de: On

[Tagging] Tagging: Tesla Superchargers

2015-01-03 Thread Andreas Goss
I wanted to tag these for some time and realized some people already did a lot of work, especially in Europe. Now I just wanted to discuss some tags and unify everything. I also started documenting everything here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station/Tesla_Motors

[Tagging] Problem with airport classification

2015-01-03 Thread Mateusz Konieczny
With current tagging scheme for airports there is no reliable method to decide whatever something is a major airport (serving a big city) or a small unimportant barely used one (grassy field with a shed). It would be highly useful to start using tagging method that would allow it. Considered

Re: [Tagging] Problem with airport classification

2015-01-03 Thread Christoph Hormann
On Saturday 03 January 2015, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: - introducing new key that would allow to decide whatever airport is important or not Independent from this particular problem manually tagging importance ratings is a really bad idea. Importance of a feature is nearly always a

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread johnw
On Jan 3, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: this is just a polygon around a church yard, with the rest of the buildings and amenities inside. EXCEPT it does NOT say church yard but religious landuse. So this is how I would use this tag:

Re: [Tagging] correct access tagging for tourist attraction

2015-01-03 Thread John F. Eldredge
That is how I had interpreted access=destination also. Just because it has a specific legal meaning in the UK doesn't mean the tag can't be used elsewhere in the world. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread Janko Mihelić
Landuse=religious AFAIK started being used for land that is owned by a religious entity, and in it there would be schools, playgrounds, priest living grounds, and so on. Then this was disputed, and if this was actually landuse=residential. Some said it should be used for the land around a church,

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread John F. Eldredge
The situation in India could mean that a congregation was meeting on that site, and planned to construct a building there, but had not yet done so. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can

Re: [Tagging] Problem with airport classification

2015-01-03 Thread Mateusz Konieczny
To make such a rating verifiable would require to have a recipe to calculate it from other observable facts - and then it is better to tag these facts rather than the combined rating calculated from them. Yes, I thought about something like that. But as my knowledge about aviation is limited and

Re: [Tagging] Problem with airport classification

2015-01-03 Thread Christoph Hormann
On Saturday 03 January 2015, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: What about small airport next to big one - how it should be guessed who operates which runways? As both are mapped as nodes it is necessary to guess. Yes, this is somewhat complex but if performance is not an issue this is doable i think.

Re: [Tagging] correct access tagging for tourist attraction

2015-01-03 Thread Richard Fairhurst
John F. Eldredge wrote: That is how I had interpreted access=destination also. Just because it has a specific legal meaning in the UK doesn't mean the tag can't be used elsewhere in the world. Absolutely - this is true of pretty much every highway= value and they, too, have been adapted for

Re: [Tagging] Problem with airport classification

2015-01-03 Thread Mateusz Konieczny
So, would it be OK to assume that large airports are important and small ones (including mapped as nodes) are unimportant? 2015-01-03 15:55 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: Am 03.01.2015 um 15:33 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: As both are mapped as

Re: [Tagging] Problem with airport classification

2015-01-03 Thread Janko Mihelić
There's a different problem. An airport with a grassy runway in Europe should be rendered at z13. Not very important. But a grassy runway in Africa, 500km from the nearest airport is important enough for z7. We should start making algorithms that take into account the context of an entity. Maybe

Re: [Tagging] Problem with airport classification

2015-01-03 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am 03.01.2015 um 15:33 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: As both are mapped as nodes it is necessary to guess. mapping something as big (and typically well delimited, eg with fences) as an airport with a node is really preliminary and I'd expect this to change over time

Re: [Tagging] correct access tagging for tourist attraction

2015-01-03 Thread John F. Eldredge
So a reasonable solution would be to tag roadways as access=private if they can only be used by specific people such as residents or maintenance vehicles, and access=destination if the general public can use them to enter a particular area, but can't use them as a through route. -- John F.

Re: [Tagging] correct access tagging for tourist attraction

2015-01-03 Thread Tom Pfeifer
Mateusz Konieczny wrote on 2015-01-03 18:02: Typical situation in Poland is that only residents may drive on some roads in housing estates - not everybody who wants to reach this place. So I am using vehicle=private - despite the fact that it is quite different from private as in only one

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread Paul Johnson
I'm OK with this. Pretty rare to see indoor (or even specifically denominational!) PoWs at Boy Scout camps in the US from what I've seen. On Jan 2, 2015 9:45 AM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: I don't agree that place_of_worship requires a building. Yes. But buildings that are

Re: [Tagging] correct access tagging for tourist attraction

2015-01-03 Thread Mateusz Konieczny
Typical situation in Poland is that only residents may drive on some roads in housing estates - not everybody who wants to reach this place. So I am using vehicle=private - despite the fact that it is quite different from private as in only one person may use this road. vehicle=destination is not

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread johnw
On Jan 4, 2015, at 1:38 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: The situation in India could mean that a congregation was meeting on that site, and planned to construct a building there, but had not yet done so. Eventually landuse=religious, unless you are a member of the

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread Mateusz Konieczny
And since r7923 JOSM will complain about missing building tag for aeroway=terminal http://josm.openstreetmap.de/changeset/7923/josm - thanks to Don-vip 2015-01-02 16:43 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com: Query to find aeroway=terminal without building tag:

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread Paul Johnson
On Jan 3, 2015 4:14 AM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote: On Jan 3, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote: Why multipolygons? Typical area with various church thingies (church, vicarage etc) is not requiring multypolygon - it is usually may be represented by a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=electronic_parts

2015-01-03 Thread Michał Brzozowski
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Rainer Fügenstein r...@oudeis.org wrote: there is a shop nearby that exactly matches this definition. but in addition, it also offers repairs of TV sets, radio sets and other consumer electronics. In this case, presumably service=repair should be used in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shop=electronic_parts

2015-01-03 Thread Rainer Fügenstein
michal, MB I don't know whether re-using service=* key is a great idea, as it's MB normally used as a refinement to highway=service I took the idea from the shop=car wiki page. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcar MB (Compare that with MB all these type=* issues where it collides

Re: [Tagging] Problem with airport classification

2015-01-03 Thread johnw
The only civilian airport within my prefecture - the only one for 2 hours of driving - is a public heliport. It would be nice if it would get named below z13. the name disappears after that. but maybe that has to do with label priority of the tagged stuff on the heliport grounds. I don’t know.

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread John Willis
On Jan 3, 2015, at 5:26 PM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: Since when do we use ways for landuse=* ? Also I have not found a single one that is tagged like you say. They are all areas. I think he means closed way = area, as landuse implies area=yes . Javbw Why

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread Brad Neuhauser
On Saturday, January 3, 2015, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Not sure why a church / temple/ shrine/ mosque landuse would be drawn any differently than an office park or a retail shop. This could get interesting. St Matthew Lutheran in Beaverton, OR has a Les Schwab Tire Center

Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag

2015-01-03 Thread Mateusz Konieczny
put up a tent to sell widgets qualifies as landuse=retail and uses a lot to store metal bars qualifies as landuse=industrial. There is no need to wait. 2015-01-04 0:27 GMT+01:00 johnw jo...@mac.com: On Jan 4, 2015, at 1:38 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: The situation in