Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

Hi all, 1. I apologize for closing the proposal during this discussion. It was not due to ignorance. For some reason, Gmail doesn't show all emails from this mailing list. (I Googled for it a couple of times, but couldn't find anything. Does anyone have a clue?) The last email I saw was Warin's an

Re: [Tagging] waterway=wadi problem

Since the current term wadi can mean something more than the actual watercourse, why not drop it and use "ephemeral=yes" or "intermittent=ephemeral" on waterway=* to indicate that it carries water much less often than a waterway tagged with "intermittent=yes"? ___

Re: [Tagging] Ethnic shops

Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 16, 2015, at 10:54 PM, Dan S wrote: > > That's not a flaw - you've already given the solution in your own email: > >> Basically you want to label restaurants/shops only if they offer something >> different from what's the typical local fare. Exactly - here in ja

Re: [Tagging] Tag destination vs. relation destination_sign

I’ll wait until monday with the change … Lukas Sommer 2015-01-16 12:35 GMT+00:00 fly : > Am 16.01.2015 um 09:31 schrieb Martin Vonwald: >> >> 2015-01-15 22:12 GMT+01:00 fly > >: >> >> Please, do not forget to mention direction:lanes*. >> >> >> destination:la

Re: [Tagging] Tagging road illumination quality

Hi - Yes, it's useful to go beyond lit=yes and lit=no. Some of those suggestions such as "poor" and "sufficient" are too subjective, as I think you already acknowledge. Not only are they value judgments but they depend on the user's perspective and needs, so please do try to avoid them. Some of t

[Tagging] POIs with mixed assortment/services

W dniu 16.01.2015 14:23, Volker Schmidt napisał(a): Basically you want to label restaurants/shops only if they offer something different from what's the typical local fare. I have no proposal, I am just observing. Of course we don't want to tag every feature if it's obvious, but as the datab

Re: [Tagging] Tagging road illumination quality

The light sources' positions often have little to do with the real illumination effect. In many cases, in my city, cycle paths (in reality they all are mixed-use pedestrian and bicycle with priority by law to pedestrians) have been produced by converting former sidewalks. The lamp posts are those i

Re: [Tagging] Tagging road illumination quality

Hi, On 01/16/2015 06:18 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > This is unfortunately a thorny issue, as there is no easy way to measure > in an objective way the quality of the illumination. Indeed. I would suggest mapping the individual light sources instead. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail fre

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*

I support using the addrN:* tagging proposed here in the specific situation where a single residence or business has multiple addresses. Note I am not referring to a building with multiple occupiers, but a single addressee with more than one address. In England I have never encountered this sit

Re: [Tagging] waterway=wadi problem

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 08:23:33AM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote: > Since we are supposed to use British English, I decided to look up wadi in my > old paper edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (can we trust that more > than Wikipedia?): > > "Wadi or Wady [Arabic: وادي‎ wādī] In certain Arabic spe

[Tagging] Tagging road illumination quality

I would like to enter illumination quality for bicycle infrastructure (cycleways) in OSM. This is unfortunately a thorny issue, as there is no easy way to measure in an objective way the quality of the illumination. Has anyone already looked into this? I could invent something along the lines of th

Re: [Tagging] Basic philosophy of OSM tagging

"Kotya Karapetyan" > 2) Suggested tags functionality should be implemented. I have seen that in the Android editor Vespucci. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

It seems that Pieren and I agree on most points. @François Maybe drinkable water is a very special case... but here service/use is much more important than object/feature. The ability to find this water on a map or from any data consumer is useful. It can even be essential to many people from hike

Re: [Tagging] waterway=wadi problem

Since we are supposed to use British English, I decided to look up wadi in my old paper edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (can we trust that more than Wikipedia?): "Wadi or Wady [Arabic: وادي‎ wādī] In certain Arabic speaking countries, a ravine or valley which in the rainy season become

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: >> In that scenario, I'd much prefer to see two nodes, each with their >> address, and each tagged as an entrance. > > What you prefer certainly depends on your needs. Adresses on entrances are > fine for routing, maybe for visual represe

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:03 PM, François Lacombe wrote: > A fountain will striclty have the same external and internal design either > the water is drinkable or not. Here you join the other thread about "philosophy of tagging". Some people describe an object, others describe a service. You see

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

I don't think the drinkable quality of water should be the prime criteria to tag water sources (or a reason to use amenity=*) A fountain will striclty have the same external and internal design either the water is drinkable or not. This data should be introduced with a tag drinkable=yes/no or any

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

I didn't follow every bits of the discussion, so sorry for interrupting. Sorry also if my proposals are out of scope or already reviewed. Maybe a fresh view can help. @Marc amenity=drinking_water // amenity=non_drinking_water It feels like a good start and compromise. Either can be associated with

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: > amenity=non_drinking_water ? Or "amenity=non_drinkable_water" + a subtag describing the object > It seems that amenity=drinking_water is cut into stone and we will never be > able to change this tag, although it obviously blocks more general

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

As for newcomers, I think editors like iD should hide the intricacies of the tagging system anyway. If you click "drinking water" it puts "amenity=drinking_water". But then it offers you all types of drinking water, like "a tap, a spring, bottled water in a vending machine, a hose, a well" and if y

Re: [Tagging] Overhead signs (Überkopfwegweiser)

do you know the :lanes suffix ? See e.g. the last example on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination and combine this with turn:lanes for the arrows regards m On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Andreas Labres wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to suggest an idea to map overhead signposts >

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

I don't get how amenity=drinking_water is a problem. It is just a tag with a wider meaning. "man_made=water_tap+drinking_water=yes" is a special type of "amenity=drinking_water", as is "natural=spring+drinking_water=yes" or some other combination. ___ Tag

Re: [Tagging] Ethnic shops

That's not a flaw - you've already given the solution in your own email: > Basically you want to label restaurants/shops only if they offer something > different from what's the typical local fare. 2015-01-16 13:23 GMT+00:00 Volker Schmidt : > This, and already the existing tagging for restaur

Re: [Tagging] waterway=wadi problem

I now notice that I read the German Wikipedia entry for Wadi, which is plainly different form the English one. My fault. The English Wikipedia defines Wadi mainly as a valley, wheras the German on as a normally dry water course. On 16 January 2015 at 13:02, Richard Z. wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2

Re: [Tagging] Ethnic shops

This, and already the existing tagging for restaurant cuisine have a basic flaw. They only work in a few countries of the West. If you think about it, most likely al restaurants in China would have to have cuisine=chinese, or all grocery stores in Marocco would have to be labelled convenience=north

Re: [Tagging] Power networks European codification scheme

I've already introduced the ref:ERDF:gdo key for French power codification scheme. As suggested, ref:entsoe:eic would stand for European power codification scheme. The power transmission proposal had been updated http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement#Co

Re: [Tagging] Basic philosophy of OSM tagging

Note also massive influence of JOSM validator and other rule-checker tools. 2015-01-16 13:14 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > On 16/01/2015, Pieren wrote: > Historical contributors and leaders will tell you that there is no > > "official committee" in OSM. But, to be a litle provocative, I would

Re: [Tagging] Ethnic shops

2015-01-16 13:29 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo : > I've recently tagged a shop=convenience, convenience=polish. You'll > find a handfull of other examples of convenience=* clothes=* > hairdresser=* on taginfo. > I suggest to use a more specific key that already tells in its name what it is about,

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Cluster

On 16.01.2015 10:10, Lukas Sommer wrote: > What you propose is an algorithm that does a sort of “guess”. For > doing some sort of guess, we don’t need to introduce a new relation. > That could be done also without a relation. Look at the examples. You cannot represent the data without a relation.

Re: [Tagging] Tag destination vs. relation destination_sign

Am 16.01.2015 um 09:31 schrieb Martin Vonwald: > > 2015-01-15 22:12 GMT+01:00 fly >: > > Please, do not forget to mention direction:lanes*. > > > destination:lanes ;-) Thanks, yes. Was tagging directions and writing about destination:lanes. cu __

Re: [Tagging] Ethnic shops

On 15/01/2015, Eric Sibert wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm wandering on how to tag shops that are offering services with > specific ethnic orientation. For instance: > - convenience specialized for Italian, Portuguese, Chinese products... > - clothes typical from one country/area > - hairdresser for Afri

Re: [Tagging] Basic philosophy of OSM tagging

On 16/01/2015, Pieren wrote: Historical contributors and leaders will tell you that there is no > "official committee" in OSM. But, to be a litle provocative, I would > say we already have two committees for tagging scheme: > - the JOSM presets maintainers > - the DWG AFAIK the DWG's influence o

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

So what is the solution ? amenity=non_drinking_water ? It seems that amenity=drinking_water is cut into stone and we will never be able to change this tag, although it obviously blocks more general tagging scheme for water sources. regards m. On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Pieren wrote:

Re: [Tagging] waterway=wadi problem

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:41:26AM +0900, johnw wrote: > I strongly disagree. A wadi is usually only an active river through very rare > flash flood events, and almost never any other time. Entire biomes are > defined by the presence of (and situated in) a wadi. > how about reading wikipedia?

Re: [Tagging] Basic philosophy of OSM tagging

On 14/01/2015, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Are 'we' tagging for > > What things are? eg highways > OR > What things are used for? eg amenity Why does it have to be one exclusive_or the other ? Both what things are and what they are used for is important. There's normally always a way to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*

On 16 January 2015 at 01:04, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > We can discuss its pros and cons, but I > think the main message is that multiple addresses are mapped differently all > over the world. Every country has its local OSM community which concoct > their own tagging rules. The result is databas

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Voting - Water tap

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: > As of today, a total of 16 votes have been submitted, 11 of them are > approvals. Since 2 weeks have passed and the required number of votes > (15) has been reached, I have closed the voting and will proceed with > clean up. Sorry but yo

Re: [Tagging] Tagging a corner address with addr:street:corner=*

On 16.01.2015 05:28, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > In my country (Philippines), many corner addresses are specified with the > intersecting street instead of (or in addition to) the house or building > number. This actually makes sense because the house numbers are not > immediately obvious when loo

Re: [Tagging] Basic philosophy of OSM tagging

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: > There will be a tagging > committee: It will maintain the official OSM tagging scheme. Historical contributors and leaders will tell you that there is no "official committee" in OSM. But, to be a litle provocative, I would say we already

[Tagging] Overhead signs (Überkopfwegweiser)

Hello, I'd like to suggest an idea to map overhead signposts ("Überkopfwegweiser" in German): Here is a photo of the sign to be mapped: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A23_Knoten_Kaiserm%C3%BChlen_1.JPG To map: Put a node on the way of the street exactly where the sign is located and

Re: [Tagging] waterway=wadi problem

Looking around in Wikipedia: Wash = Arroyo = Barranca = Wadi = Rambla = normally dry river bed, often subject to flash floods in case of upstream rain. If we have the the established term wadi for this, why create additional nearly synonymous tags? > __

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - addrN:*

2015-01-15 23:48 GMT+00:00 Friedrich Volkmann : > On 15.01.2015 13:10, Dan S wrote: >> The addrN scheme is really quite awkward > > Can you explain why you find it awkward? > > It seems to me that the displeasure felt with the addrN scheme is caused by > a phenomenon called transference. Multiple a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Cluster

What you propose is an algorithm that does a sort of “guess”. For doing some sort of guess, we don’t need to introduce a new relation. That could be done also without a relation. Introducing a new relation should lead to better data and more well-structured information. There should be a certain g

Re: [Tagging] Power networks European codification scheme

2015-01-15 21:27 GMT+01:00 Ole Nielsen : > I'm not sure how these codes could benefit OSM. It's been a long time we need unique codes to identify infrastructure features (or group of features) instead of their own OSM ID (when you delete something and redraw it, the ID has changed, not the EIC c

Re: [Tagging] Tag destination vs. relation destination_sign

2015-01-15 19:48 GMT+01:00 Lukas Sommer : > To clarify the wiki a little bit more, I would also add to the > key:destination page a sentence like “Where to use? Use destination=* > on the highway (OSM way) after the position of the > signpost/groundwriting.” And I would remove (as explained above)

Re: [Tagging] Tag destination vs. relation destination_sign

2015-01-15 22:12 GMT+01:00 fly : > Please, do not forget to mention direction:lanes*. > destination:lanes ;-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging