Re: [Tagging] route=running
On 05.02.15 06:44, Andreas Labres wrote: Would it be O.K. to add route=running to the Wiki? I'd also need a value for nordic walking routes, could this be route=nordic_walking? Here is an example of the signpost for a running and a walking route: http://www.bad.tatzmannsdorf.at/typo3temp/yag/11/1130x505827a8921.jpg www.laufarena.at gives details of the routes in that area. running: L11 Panoramalauf L12 Höhenweg L13 Wechselblick L14 Wendepunktstrecke Golfplatz L15 Tschabachrunde L16 Neustiftrunde L17 Aufwärmrunde L18 Resortrunde L19 Drumlingrunde nordic walking: W11 Friedensweg W12 Panoramarunde W13 Hianzenweg W14 Quellenweg W15 Moorweg W16 Bernsteinweg /al ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Nominatim mysteries
On 2015-02-12 05:28, Marc Gemis wrote : The Nominatim FAQ [1] mentions 2 sources [2], [3] to report problems and it also has the text You can also contact the developers on IRC http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/IRC on channel #osm-nominatim. [1]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nominatim/FAQ [2] http://trac.openstreetmap.org/newticket?component=nominatim [3] https://github.com/twain47/Nominatim/iss On 2015-02-12 06:06, Warin wrote : Marc looks to have given an answer. Yes, thanks Marc. I was fearing to have to subscribe to another mailing list and I filed a bug instead. Not easy to paste a table in it, though, and probably even less on irc. Maybe if the specification page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nominatim/Special_Phrases had more on it it would be helpfull? Prefereably in French? Once you have more maybe you could put it there? Helps the next guy. That is exactly my kind, but improving documentation is not always rewarding as I'll probably post. André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] route=running
Is there a seasonal difference in the routes? -- Tagging winter only routes makes a sense: Then there may be prohibitions on uses, e.g. closed to walkers, closed to snowshoes, designated for skate skiing, etc. Then there could be summer only routes similarly restricted with access tags: foot=yes, running=designated, motor_vehicle=no, bicycle=no ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Change of rendering: place of worship and, terminal without building tag
2015-01-03 16:28 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: 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 +1, religious really isn't a _landuse_ in these cases, they seem perfect examples where a tag religion=* would do the trick and no new tag would be needed. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] courtyards
2015-02-09 8:42 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: We need to be able to map partially enclosed courtyards as well, e.g.: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/48.17839/16.34189 (The courtyards are named Hof 1 ... Hof 7.) +1 it really shouldn't matter, we can always draw an area. But I agree that a courtyard *typically* is fully enclosed by buildings, thus not an emergency feature. especially in Vienna and Berlin, and in these Hof 1- Hof 7 cases, these courtyards are typically connected by a private way leading to the public street. Also entering the courtyard itself will already be considered being safe in many cases. In other cases (even small courtyards, e.g. the first building law in Berlin regarding courtyards and dating to the 19th century, requested them to be at least 5 x 5m because this was the area a fire fighter device in that time needed to turn around). There's an approved tag entrance=emergency for emergency exits, and I'd suggest a tag like emergency=access for spots and alleys designed to be accessible for fire fighters. Yes, the emergency function shouldn't be tag name defining function for a courtyard, I agree. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - temperature
On 12/02/2015 5:38 PM, johnw wrote: tepid and mild are synonyms, so tepid should cover mild in that way. usually tepid is for liquids, and mild is for air / weather, when it comes to temperature, AFAIK. Is ambient is for the ambient air/weather, ambient ground temp, or ambient material temperature? the ambient temperature of the air at the beach is 30-40C.the water’s ambient temp from the shower nozzle is much lower, thanks to it being underground (15-20C?). Underground temperatures change depending on where you are .. permafrost areas are below 0, deserts may be above 26 C. I think having some human scale values is important - and weather that is a mechanically / chemically / or naturally occurring temperature should be left up to the subtag values. Yep. After all it is how we humans asses things. As a 'general guide' most 'westerners' sense 21 C as a desirable temperature.. Those living in the tropics would like a warmer temperature, I'm thinking of Darwin, Australia where the daily maximum is around 32 C .. any season. The residents do get use to that temperature, they put jumpers on at 25 C. Javbw I'll put in the 'dangerous' ones ... another subjective level either side of ambient but reasonably easy to explain .. but mild defies me for the moment. Should I remove tepid .. I don't think many would know it or use it considering the definition I've given for the 'cold water' tap. I've put up the dangerously_hot/cold values .. used the word dangerously as that is more a description. Not certain about 'mild' .. need more time to think about it? II have separated out the 'associated tags' into the complimentary and additional types of tags ... I think that is better than lumping them together as it may confuse where this tag can be added, and then what tags can be added to this tag. Perhaps these words need to be looked at .. and added to the proposal page? I do think the information is usefull. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
I'm sorry to say, I sort of dropped out of the discussion when the small changes to camp_site we started with evolved into the current one. My mapping chores here in Thailand are so much more basic than the degree of specification you're talking about. Here you're lucky to find a waste_basket to tag and there are no dump_stations, dump_points, waste=chemical_toilet, or whatever we end up tagging the place to deposit the contents of RV holding tanks, in the entire country. I winced when I read that the tag rubbish was being proposed as a new top level tag. Sounds to these American ears as though another top level tag with Anglo-centric overtones will be adopted. g I'll continue lurking and when the time comes for a vote, will participate. On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 7:43 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 11:16 +1100, Warin wrote: . I'd split the voting up into . waste, collection is the more frequent case. waste_collection Agreed, you said that in your previous note but it slipped my mind by time I responded. Sigh ... When you say, split the voting, are you suggesting that its sufficiently 'ripe' to be asking for a formal (ie in the wiki) vote yet ? Bearing in mind we have had only you, me and Dave S contribute to the discussion ? David --- so .. for me waste_collection ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
Warin, others, no further thoughts on a new high level tag indicating rubbish disposal facilities ? Background is that this came up while tagging campsite but its potential use is far greater. We have many high level tags and most relate to activity that generates rubbish, lets deal with it ! To summarise discussion, structures like - amenity=campsite campsite=waste_disposal waste=chemical_toilet is a bit clumsy given how many tags are needed and how often it _should_ be tagged. Further, many sites be they mining, camping, whatever are large and identifying the particular node where the disposal point is is of value. rubbish=chemical_toiletis, perhaps ambiguous. Do we like rubbish_disposal= waste_disposal= ??? Lets see some hands please ? David On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 08:47 +1100, Warin wrote: On 9/02/2015 1:59 PM, David Bannon wrote: On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 09:15 +1100, Warin wrote: A proposal for a new high level tag of .. Rubbish :-) Sigh ... . I find it amusing.. Thirdly, dare I say this, will someone argue rubbish= indicates that there is rubbish there, on that spot ? preferable to say rubbish_disposal or something similar. There you have a very good point. And waste_disposal fits well too Ok .. humm disposal ... could imply no recycling ... what about waste_collection ? That may not have been used in OSM before .. so no conflict... nice. What do you think? ... change rubbish to waste_collection? I do believe we need a high level key for rubbish, trash, waste whatever Hmm, rubbish_receptacle perhaps ? And definitely not rubbish_receptacle_desk !! :-) That is the spirit. (sorry) David https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features_key%3Drubbish At present there as a number of 'waste' values under the amenity key. Some people say the amenity key is being over used. There are people thinking of adding more waste values to the amenity key. So there is a case for a high level new key for waste facilities. The number of possible values of this is key I estimate at 27. Don't fixate on the values of this key - the ones shown are examples only .. and would need there own separate proposals. Unfortunately the key waste= is already in use, so to avoid conflicts and mistakes a new name should be used - thus 'rubbish'. Is there a better way? So far the choices look to be; A) More values under the key amenity such as amenity=waste_dump_station? B) More values under amenity=waste_disposal in the key waste=? OR C) New top level key rubbish= with new values under that? Any other options? And what one do you prefer? May be a why would be good. Personally .. I don't know. I think a new top level tag would be good in that it does separte it out from hte others and provides a clear path for new rubbish tags. But I also acknowledge the problems/work that this would introduce. On htewhole I'd go with the neew top level tag, I like a good structure, but any other good ideas or arguments can easily sway my present view. - I'd like to leave the comments open for 3 weeks .. unless there is a vast amount of comments made and changes/additions to the different choices that could be made. So possible closure on 2 march? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=
On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 11:16 +1100, Warin wrote: . I'd split the voting up into . waste, collection is the more frequent case. waste_collection Agreed, you said that in your previous note but it slipped my mind by time I responded. Sigh ... When you say, split the voting, are you suggesting that its sufficiently 'ripe' to be asking for a formal (ie in the wiki) vote yet ? Bearing in mind we have had only you, me and Dave S contribute to the discussion ? David --- so .. for me waste_collection ___ 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 - key:rubbish=
On 14/02/2015 11:43 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 11:16 +1100, Warin wrote: . I'd split the voting up into . waste, collection is the more frequent case. waste_collection Agreed, you said that in your previous note but it slipped my mind by time I responded. Sigh ... When you say, split the voting, are you suggesting that its sufficiently 'ripe' to be asking for a formal (ie in the wiki) vote yet ? Bearing in mind we have had only you, me and Dave S contribute to the discussion ? David You asked for 'lets have some hands up' .. that implies a vote of sorts.. .. but I'd not move to a formal vote yet? I'd like some more peoples thoughts on the issue and words.. more comments.Support .. and criticism .. just an interest. There is a required minimum time for comments - two weeks .. with a name change to waste_collection perhaps two weeks from the change of name? I'd suggest a new proposal page with the new name .. provided there is some support for the name .. apart from you me? And any better names put forward? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Waste_collection - a new Feature Proposal - RFC
OK folks, here it really is ! A small group have identified a need for
a new high level tag, waste_collection=
Likely values to be identified in a latter and separate process. Not
unlike those used for waste=, a subtag of amenity=waste_disposal;waste=*
The background is that while we started talking about improving tags
that apply to campsites, we quickly realised that waste (rubbish, trash,
garbage, human waste, animal waste) exists on its own, usually far too
much of it ! I consider the small amount of data in OSM referring to
waste a sure indication that this is an unaddressed need.
Please comment on the proposed name : key:waste_disposal and its high
levelness.
A discussion about possible values would be useful but we consider that
we should get the key up first and then talk about values. Please see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dwaste_disposal
and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waste
David
On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 12:00 +1100, Warin wrote:
On 14/02/2015 11:43 AM, David Bannon wrote:
On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 11:16 +1100, Warin wrote:
.
I'd split the voting up into
.
waste, collection is the more frequent case.
waste_collection
Agreed, you said that in your previous note but it slipped my mind by
time I responded. Sigh ...
When you say, split the voting, are you suggesting that its
sufficiently 'ripe' to be asking for a formal (ie in the wiki) vote
yet ? Bearing in mind we have had only you, me and Dave S contribute to
the discussion ?
David
You asked for 'lets have some hands up' .. that implies a vote of
sorts.. .. but I'd not move to a formal vote yet?
I'd like some more peoples thoughts on the issue and words.. more
comments. Support .. and criticism .. just an interest.
There is a required minimum time for comments - two weeks .. with a
name change to waste_collection perhaps two weeks from the change of
name? I'd suggest a new proposal page with the new name .. provided
there is some support for the name .. apart from you me? And any
better names put forward?
___
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 - key:rubbish=
On 14/02/2015 11:02 AM, David Bannon wrote: Warin, others, no further thoughts on a new high level tag indicating rubbish disposal facilities ? Background is that this came up while tagging campsite but its potential use is far greater. We have many high level tags and most relate to activity that generates rubbish, lets deal with it ! To summarise discussion, structures like - amenity=campsite campsite=waste_disposal waste=chemical_toilet is a bit clumsy given how many tags are needed and how often it _should_ be tagged. Further, many sites be they mining, camping, whatever are large and identifying the particular node where the disposal point is is of value. rubbish=chemical_toiletis, perhaps ambiguous. Do we like rubbish_disposal= waste_disposal= ??? Lets see some hands please ? I'd split the voting up into A) waste_ vsrubbish_ And I'd go for waste_ A better word that applies to more things? B) collection vs disposal For me 'collection' as disposal may be the final resting place of the waste, collection is the more frequent case. --- so .. for me waste_collection ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] courtyards
On 09.02.2015 16:01, Stephen Gower wrote: Here in Oxford (where we have many examples of named quadrangles/courtyards) I see examples where they are tagged as highway=footway areas (e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/301895528 ) but more often the central section of lawn has been named (e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/228244550 ) In reality, it is neither the paving or the lawn that is the named feature, it's the architectual feature containing these and itself bounded by the buildings (although in the case of cloistered courtyards, the covered arcades around the edge are arguably both part of the building and the courtyard). I support creation of a tag for more consistantly marking these named features, but I have no idea where in the tagging structure it is best placed (building/landuse/amenity/etc all have their problems). I had essentially the same thoughts. (That's why I started this discussion.) I'm now in favour of man_made=courtyard, because it is man made (as opposed to natural) without doubt, and it is similar to man_made=cutline. Both cutlines and courtyards are intentionally empty spaces, and both are only defined by their sourroundings. man_made=courtyard does not conflict with other tags. It can be combined with leisure=*, landuse=* etc., and I can't imagine any other man_made=* feature that is congruent with a courtyard. -- 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] Waste_collection - a new Feature Proposal - RFC
I think amenity=waste_disposal with sub tags for the type of waste being disposed of could be a workable solution. It's more complicated than using another top level tag like dump_station, etc., for sewage but allows for more specificity when desired. This seems to be a good, general purpose, top level tag. On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:33 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: OK folks, here it really is ! A small group have identified a need for a new high level tag, waste_collection= Likely values to be identified in a latter and separate process. Not unlike those used for waste=, a subtag of amenity=waste_disposal;waste=* The background is that while we started talking about improving tags that apply to campsites, we quickly realised that waste (rubbish, trash, garbage, human waste, animal waste) exists on its own, usually far too much of it ! I consider the small amount of data in OSM referring to waste a sure indication that this is an unaddressed need. Please comment on the proposed name : key:waste_disposal and its high levelness. A discussion about possible values would be useful but we consider that we should get the key up first and then talk about values. Please see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dwaste_disposal and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:waste David On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 12:00 +1100, Warin wrote: On 14/02/2015 11:43 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Sat, 2015-02-14 at 11:16 +1100, Warin wrote: . I'd split the voting up into . waste, collection is the more frequent case. waste_collection Agreed, you said that in your previous note but it slipped my mind by time I responded. Sigh ... When you say, split the voting, are you suggesting that its sufficiently 'ripe' to be asking for a formal (ie in the wiki) vote yet ? Bearing in mind we have had only you, me and Dave S contribute to the discussion ? David You asked for 'lets have some hands up' .. that implies a vote of sorts.. .. but I'd not move to a formal vote yet? I'd like some more peoples thoughts on the issue and words.. more comments. Support .. and criticism .. just an interest. There is a required minimum time for comments - two weeks .. with a name change to waste_collection perhaps two weeks from the change of name? I'd suggest a new proposal page with the new name .. provided there is some support for the name .. apart from you me? And any better names put forward? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] route=running
On 13.02.15 14:04, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: Is there a seasonal difference in the routes? Absolutely. This has nothing to do with each other. Of course, a cross-country skiing track is lead along what is a forestry track in summer or so. But that's what a route relation is good for. But the signposts for the winter track are built up in winter only (often). The route may not exist in summer. Or it might be part of a say nordic walking track in summer, but the complete route is different. Those always should be sperated. Keep in mind, I'm talking about the route. One track/path can of course be part of more than one route (summer or winter). But again, that's what different route relations are good for. Then there could be summer only routes similarly restricted with access tags: foot=yes, running=designated, motor_vehicle=no, bicycle=no Interesting idea, but as I already tried to point out, there are routes for running only, there are routes for nordic walking only (they sometimes share parts of the routes, though). A completely different thing is (mountain) hiking. And a cycling route is completely different from a mountain bike route. Different selection of the route (of course), different numbering, different numbering scheme. Those should always be kept seperate, IMHO. /al ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] building=yes on nodes?
Hello. The english wiki page key:building says that this key may not be used on nodes. However, most (but not all) of the english wiki pages for the individual values (like building=apartments) allow the usage on nodes. I’m not sure if it is useful to have a different policy for different values here. Wouldn’t it be more useful to have to have the same rules for _all_ values of the key “building=*”? -- Lukas Sommer PS: By the way: In the german wiki, most pages for the individual values do _not_ allow usage on nodes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
