Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

> Am 18.02.2015 um 07:18 schrieb Jan van Bekkum : > > I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station semantically this sounds as if dump_station was a kind of waste, not a place type to put waste cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On 18/02/2015 5:42 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Jan van Bekkum mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com>> wrote: I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station. My main reason is that it consistent with the existing system and that there will not be yet another

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station. My main reason is that > it consistent with the existing system and that there will not be yet > another node if more than one type of waste is collected. > Dump stations are often treated

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

I vote for the middle option: waste=dump_station. My main reason is that it consistent with the existing system and that there will not be yet another node if more than one type of waste is collected. On Wed Feb 18 2015 at 4:52:39 AM David Bannon wrote: > On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 08:52 +1100, Warin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 08:52 +1100, Warin wrote: > go with a new top level tag ... waste_collection=* > > - > To say there is no support for a new top level tag waste_collection=* > based on the talk here .. well there are lots of people not saying > anything .. possib

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

Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 18, 2015, at 9:50 AM, John Willis wrote: > > Right- per the wiki: "with few exceptions". > > The religious object is the ground. > > But that really applies to the other Correction : rarely > Millions of religious facilities with a building and a space around

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

Right- per the wiki: "with few exceptions". The religious object is the ground. But that really applies to the other Millions of religious facilities with a building and a space around the worshipping facility. Javbw > On Feb 18, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On 18/02/2015 11:33 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Bryce Nesbitt > wrote: You can recycle all sorts of existing tags, there is no need to invent new ones: Exactly. If we adopt a top level amenity tag for our waste disposal pro

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > You can recycle all sorts of existing tags, there is no need to invent new > ones: Exactly. If we adopt a top level amenity tag for our waste disposal problem the other tags normally associated with amenities can be used. fee=* access=* .

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

On 18/02/2015 11:07 AM, John Willis wrote: Religious landuse is not about saying that the ground is religious, any more than saying landuse=retail is land that is for sale - it is for the land dedicated to a facility where people worship - just as retail is where people sell, and residential i

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

Sent from my iPhone On Feb 18, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Andreas Goss wrote: >> If the facility is a stand-alone facility whose primary purpose is not as a >> place to worship - but merely operated by a religious entity - such as a >> school, hospital, etc, then it is tagged as it currently is. > >

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

The only thing I got from your talk was that you don't like manmade landuses, or every facility you have ever mapped is a single use, single purpose shop, always separated from the other - never in a shared space that is named something differently. If you have one named facility - a shopping c

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

If the facility is a stand-alone facility whose primary purpose is not as a place to worship - but merely operated by a religious entity - such as a school, hospital, etc, then it is tagged as it currently is. I fail to see how some grass or parking lot around the church is the primarty purpo

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:32 PM, David Bannon wrote: > On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:30 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > OK, then lets write up a formal proposal. As I said, I'm not opposed, > just sceptical that it will succeed. > > Do you propose something like - > amenity=dump_station > dump_station=f

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

fly wrote on 2015-02-17 23:12: I still do not understand, why we can not use religion=* without any landuse. on which area description? I have no problem to additionally add amenity=place_of_worship or appropriate tag to the area. I have. The same is true for supermarket with there own ar

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

Am 17.02.2015 um 22:40 schrieb Tom Pfeifer: > Andreas Goss wrote on 2015-02-17 22:02: >> If people really continute to use this tag I will use it for everything >> run by the chatholic church in Germany, after all they are the largest >> private land owner... Then they can have fun with their "chur

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On 18/02/2015 8:32 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:30 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: It's hard to go far wrong with a dedicated tag for a feature with: 1) A strong clear definition 2) That features prominently on printed recreation maps, with a standard icon. 3) Has a large commun

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

Please read the wiki page, especially the section on limitations. If the facility is a stand-alone facility whose primary purpose is not as a place to worship - but merely operated by a religious entity - such as a school, hospital, etc, then it is tagged as it currently is. If the facility's

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

Andreas Goss wrote on 2015-02-17 22:02: > If people really continute to use this tag I will use it for everything > run by the chatholic church in Germany, after all they are the largest > private land owner... Then they can have fun with their "church yards". the tag is about land_use_, not land

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 10:30 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > It's hard to go far wrong with a dedicated tag for a feature with: >1) A strong clear definition > 2) That features prominently on printed recreation maps, with a > standard icon. > 3) Has a large community of mappers behind it. > OK, then

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

Am 17.02.2015 um 22:02 schrieb Andreas Goss: >> Having a landuse for “religion” seems simple to understand > > Oh really? Is every Kindergarden run by the chruch in Bavaria now a > landuse=religious? What about office building run by the church? What if > they overlap with other landuses? > > If

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

Having a landuse for “religion” seems simple to understand Oh really? Is every Kindergarden run by the chruch in Bavaria now a landuse=religious? What about office building run by the church? What if they overlap with other landuses? If people really continute to use this tag I will use it f

Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 07:19:35PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > Richard Z. wrote on 2015-02-17 15:26: > >> > >>Otherwise you need to deprecate playground=zipwire. > > > >ok, I am in favor of deprecating playground=zipwire. Large share of aerialway > >ziplines are part of "adult playgrounds". Technic

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

On 16/02/2015, Kytömaa Lauri wrote: > The width of the vehicle that could use the way can be wider than the way > itself [...] Another example where width != maxwidth:physical is a twisty tunnel. The longer a vehicle is, the more margin it requires to be able to pass. So a tunnel with width=2.5 c

Re: [Tagging] maxwidth vs. maxwidth:physical vs. width

On 16/02/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2015-02-16 10:42 GMT+01:00 Martin Vonwald : >> * maxwidth: this is a legal limitation; nothing wider than the given >> value may use the feature > > +1, there is also the synonym "maxwidth:legal" (IMHO not advisable, as this > is the same than the more

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, David Bannon wrote: > On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 21:34 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > > The real question is what type of tag would attract rendering > > support. amenity=dump_station is easier to deal with, > > as it's a single level that maps to the commonly unders

Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line

Richard Z. wrote on 2015-02-17 15:26: Otherwise you need to deprecate playground=zipwire. ok, I am in favor of deprecating playground=zipwire. Large share of aerialway ziplines are part of "adult playgrounds". Technically there are no universally valid principal differences that could differen

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Feb 17, 2015, at 9:14 AM, John F. Eldredge wrote: > > It would also be good to have a tag for a site accepting household toxic > wastes such as used batteries, cleaning chemicals, leftover paint, and the > like. Here in Nashville, Tennessee, USA, such substances are not supposed to > inclu

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On February 17, 2015 6:23:00 AM CST, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > What other uses exist in practice in addition to > *waste=chemical_toilet? * > For camping we have run into two cases I would like to have covered: > > 1. Disposal of chemical toilet contents: a place where you carry a > tank >to e

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

On February 17, 2015 4:56:26 AM CST, David Bannon wrote: > On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 06:09 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: > ... > > > > Trying to invent as few new tags as possible the updated proposal > > would become: > > * power_supply=nema_5_15 > > * power_supply:schedule= [...] -

Re: [Tagging] high mobile masts on man_made=mast

2015-02-17 14:21 GMT+01:00 fly : > Is there any difference considering the foundation of the structure ? > Towers usually have one and mast not ? > everything that has to put load onto ground will need some sort of foundations, of course masts do have foundations. cheers, Martin ___

Re: [Tagging] Nominatim mysteries

Hi, According to ticket 5278 that I filed, the problem is that translation is WYSI*N*WYG. An unknown person has to "kick off" the update at unknown times of which we just know that they are rare. Plus, "the actual search is a bit more forgiving [than wh

Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 02:32:21PM +0100, fly wrote: > Am 17.02.2015 um 12:59 schrieb Richard Z.: > > Hi, > > > > RFC for aerialway=zip line is opened: > > This was a typo. True is aerialway=zip_line. > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/aerialway%3Dzip_line > > Would not

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

Excellent job. Thanks for all your hard work. On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:10 PM, John Willis wrote: > I added two sections to the wiki - Purpose and limitations to try to spell > out what we talked about. > > I also wrote that POW on an area as a landuse for most uses will be > superseded by landu

Re: [Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line

Am 17.02.2015 um 12:59 schrieb Richard Z.: > Hi, > > RFC for aerialway=zip line is opened: This was a typo. True is aerialway=zip_line. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/aerialway%3Dzip_line Would not include the zip_line on playgrounds as playground=zipwire [1][2] is alrea

Re: [Tagging] high mobile masts on man_made=mast

Am 17.02.2015 um 01:07 schrieb Warin: > On 16/02/2015 11:33 PM, fly wrote: >> Be careful some mast as support for wind generators might be entered. >> >> Thought antenna vs mast might be a problem but not mast vs tower. >> Should have added some picture. Please have a look at the pictures on [1] a

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

I added two sections to the wiki - Purpose and limitations to try to spell out what we talked about. I also wrote that POW on an area as a landuse for most uses will be superseded by landuse=religious, and the POW tag is very important as a tag for a building or physical object that resides in

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

What other uses exist in practice in addition to *waste=chemical_toilet? * For camping we have run into two cases I would like to have covered: 1. Disposal of chemical toilet contents: a place where you carry a tank to empty and clean it 2. A sink in the street: you drive your RV over it

[Tagging] RFC aerialway=zip line

Hi, RFC for aerialway=zip line is opened: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_feature/aerialway%3Dzip_line Regards, Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

I'm lurking but you know where I stand on this tag. +1 for amenity=dump_station Cheers, Dave On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 5:50 PM, David Bannon wrote: > On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 21:34 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > > > > The real question is what type of tag would attract rendering > > support. a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - power_supply=intermittent

On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 06:09 +, Jan van Bekkum wrote: ... > > Trying to invent as few new tags as possible the updated proposal > would become: > * power_supply=nema_5_15 > * power_supply:schedule= [...] - has syntax as defined for > opening_hours > Or > * power_su

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:rubbish=

On Mon, 2015-02-16 at 21:34 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: > The real question is what type of tag would attract rendering > support. amenity=dump_station is easier to deal with, > as it's a single level that maps to the commonly understood function > of a place to dump a sewage holding tank.

Re: [Tagging] high mobile masts on man_made=mast

2015-02-17 1:07 GMT+01:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > I like the easy distinction between mast and tower by the guy wires. If it > is technically correct .. actually it isn't working in all cases, there are hybrid towers (still called towers) __