Re: [Tagging] Tagging for an event space / function hall?
I encourage you to propose a mechanical edit to consolidate all that mess, once the tagging is clear. I encourage you to encourage mappers to supply a website tag with any new event hall, so one can go from map to name to the details of booking. --- Many if not most event halls are in fact something else ALSO, like a church or a community centre or a bed and breakfast. Thus the tag should NOT be in an existing namespace like amenity, shop or tourism or building. Instead it's an attribute of a place. amenity=events_centre would be a poor choice. Some clarity should be made on restaurants that rent out space for events: that's something of a different product. Mappable I supposed, but not really the same thing. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Time to vote .. on a fairly simple thing .. Why does reception disk already appear in: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity And the tag already appears as in: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dreception_desk Rather than: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/amenity%3Dreception_desk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk
Why not? On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:54 PM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Time to vote .. on a fairly simple thing .. Why does reception disk already appear in: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity And the tag already appears as in: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dreception_desk Rather than: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/amenity%3Dreception_desk ___ 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] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: would do it like this: http://i.imgur.com/GWF7StZ.png That's dramatically better. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
The reason I think my method would be better is because it can be gradually upgraded. First someone just maps one way with highway=steps. Then, someone just adds an area around it, and adds area:highway=steps. After that someone adds step_count to the way and adds a few other ways, each with it's own step_count. There is no big jump from simple method to complicated method. And after that, your question comes :) 2015-03-05 23:14 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: So far this method has on closed way for the area, two ways near the laterals for the number of steps .. and then two more ways ? At the top and bottom for the levels (inclines) there? That is 5 ways total. I made a picture again because I think this is impossible to explain in just words. http://i.imgur.com/KJRe9l2.png I made four red dots on the left way, and two red dots on the right way. That number is the step_count number. Now we just have to say that the second step from the left way goes to the first step on the right way. I'm not sure what would be the best method. I'm not even sure if we need anything more. We should draw the highway=steps way orthogonal to the steps, and that means an algorithm could find out what step on the right way goes with what step on the left way. If the algorithm gets it wrong, just make the way more precise (orthogonal) or add more ways. Why did the left way in my picture get a dot right on the start of the way? Because it starts with a rise of the step, and the right one starts with the tread of the step[1]. A simple steps:starts_with=rise/tread could help there. For example in this photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_variable_rise_stairway_in_front_of_The_Duomo_or_Cathedral,_next_to_The_Ducal_Palace_in_Urbino,_region_Marche_in_Italy.jpg The left part starts with a tread, and the right one starts with a rise. Janko Mihelić [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stairs#mediaviewer/File:Stairway_Measurements.svg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
On 5/03/2015 9:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Regarding the steepness of the steps and how to map them, I'd not only suggest to use incline with a percentage (like it is currently done in the area steps proposal) but also permit to enter the height and largeness Rise and tread .. rise for the near vertical bit .. tread for the horizontal bit you tread (step) on. (sorry for my English, this is intended as the projected distance of two consecutive risers) of a single step (projection of riser) because these tend to be the same along the whole steps (otherwise people risk falling), and they are easier to survey (no need to calculate). For who reads German, here is an interesting article in wikipedia about this aspect of steps: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treppensteigung Lots of interesting things about steps and stairway to do with teh mechanics of the human body and the metal process that we do. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk
On 6/03/2015 7:53 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Time to vote .. on a fairly simple thing .. Why does reception disk already appear in: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:amenity And the tag already appears as in: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dreception_desk Rather than: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/amenity%3Dreception_desk Probably because I got something wrong in the title .. not intentional. I know I cannot correct the title .. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
Maybe add position=top position=bottom the direction of the way is fragile. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed: landuse=civic_admin - looking for comments.
The replies are wordy, because I want to explain my thinking as much as possible, but I think it easy to understand once you see my mindset. tl;dr: the landuse civic_admin reflects what is on the ground for most building/complex *landuses* better than trying to follow the legal definitions of the mandates of the offices in the buildings - those can be defined by new amenity= or civic= or similar tags on the buildings or points themselves. On Mar 5, 2015, at 11:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-03-05 14:35 GMT+01:00 John Willis jo...@mac.com: On Mar 5, 2015, at 9:03 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I have some questions: according to the proposal, This is for complexes who's primary purpose is the citizens interaction with government agents What do you propose for government offices which are not or rarely accessible by citizens? If the offices are in support of those functions, such as the office buildings used by legislators away from the main hall ( the U.S. Congress has offices for support staff away from the Capitol building) then I think that is acceptable. What I don't want to see is this being used on maintenance facilities and train yards. what about the pentagon or the NSA headquarters? I would likely include them in civic_admin and surely in some sort of governmental landuse, but I don't think these are places where the primary purpose is the citizen's interaction with government agents. They are not for administrating/legislating the civilian population or its programs, nor the seat of civil/national power, nor a common place for the civilian population to interact with government agents. Pentagon and NSA are both military. The Pentagon is military_admin at best - it is full of soldiers and civilians working for the military, for the purposes of the military. The only reason a citizen would go is if they have business with the military or for a tour, just like a military base. I've fixed Macs on 3 different military bases - I was asked to come - the pentagon feels the same. The NSA is just military without uniforms. Total military. Black ops, top secret spy stuff on foreigners (and illegally on U.S. citizens). They are in service of the state in the same way the military is. The FBI might be considered civic_saftey, as they are a national police force, in a general sense. What about courthouses? I think it would be helpful, to define also the term government, because you explicitly include legislative bodies, what would be seen very strange e.g. in Germany (where the term government is restricted to the executive bodies). That's an interesting distinction - the exceutive and legislative branches create the law (somewhat jointly) and the judicial branch oversees its fairness, or as a place, acts as a judicial center for punishment sentencing or dispute settlement. City hall, the mayor and the council feel more connected than the superior court judge and city attorney do - usually they have offices separate from city hall, whereas the legislative and executive bodies are somewhat intertwined. I did not read the whole article, but from the beginning it seems that the separation of powers is established in the US, at least in the constitution (recent news made it sometimes uncertain if the US government was respecting the country's constitution in all situations, sometimes they might have felt too threatened by the most dangerous terrorists to be able to do so): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution Yea, at a national level there is a big legal and physical separation between legislative and executive bodies (White House / Capitol building) - they both have different roles, but together they make the sausage. - At a regional level and a local level - where most of the buildings will be - there is little physical separation either - often a city hall complex has the mayor, the council chambers and legislative groups and the city clerk in one big building or complex where local sausage is made. We task congress and the executive branch with jointly creating and approving laws - and the judicial to oversee it all - to rule is the sausage is actually a good sausage and punishment for not eating said sausage - but they have no say in making people eat the sausage (falls to civic safety). In other counties the executive and legislative are even more intertwined (like Japan), where the prime minister comes from and is elected by the legislative body. Nobody voted for Abe - but he and the legislature make all the sausage together. Trying to legally seperate the different sausage making jobs at the landuse level seems impossible except at the national level - at the supranational landuse level, there is only legislative (UN, NATO, EU, etc) as I understand it. the
Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
2015-03-05 8:00 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: On 5/03/2015 5:48 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: For areas area:highway should be used, not highway. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/area:highway Proposed ... 2011. And this is a problem because...? P.S. No, I dont support highways as areas. I just question your attitude. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] recent change to ranger_station proposal
Is there some kind of vending machine value for hiking / camping/ fishing permits? I would definitely be interested in where permits are sold at a campground or even at a wider view of a whole wilderness park - maybe that is implied in amenity=ranger_station ? That seems like a good implication for a ranger station. Amenity:ranger_station=permits Something like that. Javbw Sent from my iPhone On Mar 5, 2015, at 3:39 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: On Mar 4, 2015, at 10:25 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: tourism=information May include Tourist information centres and offices. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dinformation information=officeAn office where you can get information about a town or region. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:information Yes, I suppose those two tags work for visitor center. That's what I've been using up to now. That said, IMO the ranger_station is a different type of amenity from the information office described in the above tags. Just a couple of simple additions to the wiki page would clarify those differences. One of the things that you can get at Park Service or Forest Service visitor centers or ranger stations includes permits (camping, fire, etc.). My first impression of a place tagged with tourism=information is that it is strictly for local information, not that it also a place to get some specific types of legal paperwork issued. ___ 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] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
On 05.03.2015 00:54, Warin wrote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation/Proposed/Area-steps First, let me thank you for putting some effort into this long-dormant topic. I fully agree that area steps are a necessary addition. My impression from previous discussions of the topic was that the steps' shape within the area is hard to define. You propose the restriction that the upper and lower boundary need to have the same number of nodes. While that's a possible approach, it's also fragile and seems not as intuitive. Have you compared this with the alternative of working with percentages of the way length? You mention the possibility that the number of steps may vary from one side to the other. In my opinion, this should be tagged explicitly. Relying on the precise shape of the steps area is not possible as this would not allow to distinguish the case where the steps vary in /length/ from one side to the other. You also mention a minimum width for such areas. I don't think that's wise: We should allow for irregularly formed steps to be mapped as areas, no matter how wide or narrow. Finally, I suggest a statement that the highway=steps way should always be drawn perpendicular to the steps, rather than diagonally across the area, for example. I have a few more ideas, e.g. regarding landings, but I'll leave it at this for now. This mail is long enough already. Thanks for considering my suggestions, Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
2015-03-05 12:29 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: I'm pretty sure you don't need relations to define wide steps. All you need is an area (area:highway=steps) and one or more ways that connect the bottom and the top (we can decide if the direction of ways sets what is up, or incline=up). Just set the step_count=* tag, and you're good to go. -0.3, for simple cases (those currently defined by the relation) you're right that it could be done without a relation, but not with an area, you'd have to use 3 ways, one upper, one lower, one connecting. If you use an area, you won't know where the steps run and where they don't (save maybe the simplest case of an area out of just 4 nodes). In case of more complicated steps, you can add a new tag, step_count:left=* and step_count:right=*, and put those ways on the dividing line, where you have a different number of steps on the left and on the right. -1, this doesn't seem to work. I also can't imagine a situation where this would occur actually, looks like a problem in the modelling (lower / upper way not modelled correctly). Steps not being there is all a question where you see the lateral boundary. Or maybe I am getting this wrong, can you point to a real world example? That would be much simpler for everyone, from mappers to data consumers. -1, I doubt it would be _much_ simpler, actually you'd have to draw more ways and at least the same amount of tags. For data consumers it also seems to be more complicated. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
2015-03-05 10:20 GMT+01:00 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: My impression from previous discussions of the topic was that the steps' shape within the area is hard to define. usually you will be able to connect the first (and further any n-) node of the upper and lower ways and divide them by (step_count-1) (if given). These are the intermediate projections of the risers (i.e. what you typically draw as lines in a technical drawing). Now for the scales we use in OSM typically, this would very likely result in too narrow line distances for common zoomlevels, so you'd probably omit half or two-thirds (or even more) of the lines for rendering. This all depends of course how big the single steps are. For reference, typical steps are 27-30 cm large, outside 30 is quite normal, because they tend to be around 15-16 cm high (and this determines the ideal largeness). You propose the restriction that the upper and lower boundary need to have the same number of nodes. I had proposed this because it would make rendering easiest. It is not strictly necessary though, you could also compute more complicated algorithms that use e.g. intermediate nodes in the ways according to the distance to the starting node. It doesn't matter for straight steps, but will matter for curved ones or ones that have angles. If the amount of nodes is equal it will be most probably the best idea to use these existing nodes for the interpolation of the steps. My proposal (this one here is basically an excerpt) didn't require equal node amounts, it just encouraged the users to do it like this. Regarding the steepness of the steps and how to map them, I'd not only suggest to use incline with a percentage (like it is currently done in the area steps proposal) but also permit to enter the height and largeness (sorry for my English, this is intended as the projected distance of two consecutive risers) of a single step (projection of riser) because these tend to be the same along the whole steps (otherwise people risk falling), and they are easier to survey (no need to calculate). For who reads German, here is an interesting article in wikipedia about this aspect of steps: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treppensteigung Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (traffic signals group)
Okay. I’ve made some clarifications to the proposal (avoid confusion with coordination of traffic signals along a length of road …). The remaining problem is the tag value “type=traffic_signals_group”. I agree that “group” is not the best choise. We could maybe switch to “type=traffic_signals_set”. (I would avoid “intersection_set” because the relation isn’t restricted to intersections, but could theretically also be used for pedestrian crossings on straight road; probably there is not so much need, but I don’t wont to exclude this use case.) So our choise could be “type=traffic_signals_set”? 2015-02-26 6:28 GMT, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: Looks like this has already been discussed .. in 2008 to 2011. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Set_of_Traffic_Signals No outcome for that .. Past discussion looks to have pointed to a relation ... the relation contains each node of traffic_light and can have a name= tag. I use 'set' because that is how they are called here in Australasia .. and it looks to be used in the UK too ... http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/Pages/UTC-fault-reporting-form.aspx On 26/02/2015 4:55 PM, John Willis wrote: If group is not a good word, then set is a good alternative. Javbw On Feb 26, 2015, at 8:33 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, This could be confused with the coordination of traffic signals along a length of road or even a district wide coordination of traffic light signals. I think it needs some words that restrict it to a single intersection? And possibly some thought to where a length of road (many intersections) or a district wide coordination of traffic signals occurs? If the name 'traffic signals group' is taken what name would you give this? May be a different name for this 'group'? Such as ? traffic signals set? On 26/02/2015 8:59 AM, Lukas Sommer wrote: Hello. This is a request for comments for the proposal http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/traffic_signals_group The original author is Sanderd17. With the consent of him, I did some supplementing. Thanks to Sanerd17! Unlike the proposal “Proposed features/Traffic Signals” of Lukas Schaus, this is _not_ about traffic light circuits, but just about grouping together all nodes with highway=traffic_signals that belong to a traffic signal system at one place. This could be useful in Japan, where traffic signal systems have namen. (Thanks to nyampire and javbw for suggestions and comments.) This could be useful for routing/turn-to-turn navigation engines to calculate better the time penalty for the traffic signal system. Best regards sommerluk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Lukas Sommer ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
2015-03-05 11:42 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: Aah, so for the whole routable area, then? I would assume landuse=highway goes to the edge of the right of way's property line, whether or not that area is navigable (such as motorway outfields, soft shoulders, etc). +1, landuse is defined like you say, comprising drainage ditches, shoulders, embankments, guard rails, etc. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: 2015-03-05 8:00 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: On 5/03/2015 5:48 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: For areas area:highway should be used, not highway. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/area:highway Proposed ... 2011. And this is a problem because...? P.S. No, I dont support highways as areas. I just question your attitude. I'm guessing because nothing uses highway:area=* but highway=* area=yes is working in production? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
2015-03-05 8:00 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com: Has the same problem as area for this use...that is: How do you indicate which side is the upper and which side the lower? not only, with just an area-object you also cannot render this reliably in a way that makes sense, because you don't know along which way the steps run. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:37 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-03-05 10:56 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: I'm guessing because nothing uses highway:area=* but highway=* area=yes is working in production? these have different meaning. highway=* area=yes is used for omnidirectional traffic areas, i.e. there is no given direction and you can drive/walk however you like. When mapping a road as area (typically additionally because the center line is needed for routing etc.) you should use area:highway which can be used also for directional streets. Aah, so for the whole routable area, then? I would assume landuse=highway goes to the edge of the right of way's property line, whether or not that area is navigable (such as motorway outfields, soft shoulders, etc). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
2015-03-05 12:59 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: Where the steps (probably at the bottom) meet a street which is itself steeply sloping. The number of steps is not constant across the width and the difference between extreme left and extreme right may be several steps. How could we tag if the lowest/highest point of the steps area was actually one of the vertices, instead of an edge? My proposal without relations would do it like this: http://i.imgur.com/GWF7StZ.png ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
On 2015-03-05 12:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2015-03-05 12:29 GMT+01:00 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com: In case of more complicated steps, you can add a new tag, step_count:left=* and step_count:right=*, and put those ways on the dividing line, where you have a different number of steps on the left and on the right. -1, this doesn't seem to work. I also can't imagine a situation where this would occur actually, looks like a problem in the modelling (lower / upper way not modelled correctly). Steps not being there is all a question where you see the lateral boundary. Or maybe I am getting this wrong, can you point to a real world example? Where the steps (probably at the bottom) meet a street which is itself steeply sloping. The number of steps is not constant across the width and the difference between extreme left and extreme right may be several steps. How could we tag if the lowest/highest point of the steps area was actually one of the vertices, instead of an edge? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed: landuse=civic_admin - looking for comments.
I have some questions: according to the proposal, This is for complexes who's primary purpose is the citizens interaction with government agents What do you propose for government offices which are not or rarely accessible by citizens? What about courthouses? I think it would be helpful, to define also the term government, because you explicitly include legislative bodies, what would be seen very strange e.g. in Germany (where the term government is restricted to the executive bodies). I also dislike the idea to encourage people tagging stuff as building=industrial, I think we should encourage them to be more explicit, e.g. building=production_hall, or building=warehouse, etc. (the same goes for building=retail, commercial) On a side note, I am somehow astonished by my fellow countrymen that they haven't yet introduced second level of industrial, something like light_industrial, as the German law knows 2 main types landuse where in English zoning these seem both to be covered by industrial: Industriegebiet and Gewerbegebiet. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Draft Proposed Relationship Area Steps
2015-03-05 12:59 GMT+01:00 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: -1, this doesn't seem to work. I also can't imagine a situation where this would occur actually, looks like a problem in the modelling (lower / upper way not modelled correctly). Steps not being there is all a question where you see the lateral boundary. Or maybe I am getting this wrong, can you point to a real world example? Where the steps (probably at the bottom) meet a street which is itself steeply sloping. The number of steps is not constant across the width and the difference between extreme left and extreme right may be several steps. you'd draw the lower way on the lowest step, and the upper on the highest, the border (laterally) will not be orthogonal but diagonal, and the lower and upper will have different length. From a steps perspective you will simply enter from the street directly in the middle of the steps cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Proposed: landuse=civic_admin - looking for comments.
S On Mar 5, 2015, at 9:03 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I have some questions: according to the proposal, This is for complexes who's primary purpose is the citizens interaction with government agents What do you propose for government offices which are not or rarely accessible by citizens? If the offices are in support of those functions, such as the office buildings used by legislators away from the main hall ( the U.S. Congress has offices for support staff away from the Capitol building) then I think that is acceptable. What I don't want to see is this being used on maintenance facilities and train yards. Most of the uses are for city or regional buildings, and most of those are not visited by most people: water boards, city planning offices, records clerks, but are visited by citizens in that field. The city admin and regional support buildings are fairly easy to identify both here in Japan and the U.S - it's services where it gets dicey, so currently it is separated out. What about courthouses? I think it would be helpful, to define also the term government, because you explicitly include legislative bodies, what would be seen very strange e.g. in Germany (where the term government is restricted to the executive bodies). That's an interesting distinction - the exceutive and legislative branches create the law (somewhat jointly) and the judicial branch oversees its fairness, or as a place, acts as a judicial center for punishment sentencing or dispute settlement. City hall, the mayor and the council feel more connected than the superior court judge and city attorney do - usually they have offices separate from city hall, whereas the legislative and executive bodies are somewhat intertwined. You suggested (I think, in another thread) that you would like to see Judicial get special treatment, and I would like to propose landuse=judicial at a later time. Courthouses and city halls are quite different to me. I also dislike the idea to encourage people tagging stuff as building=industrial, I think we should encourage them to be more explicit, e.g. building=production_hall, or building=warehouse, etc. (the same goes for building=retail, commercial) Sounds great to me. But when arial mapping, I know 100% that this is a car manufacturing plant ( like Ota Subaru factory, or Niisato Mitsuba car parts factory) but I know 0% about the individual buildings. Detailed tags through more building definitions, a subtag, such as industrial=warehouse or building:industrial=warehouse are totally fine with me if people have the knowledge. I'm trying to explain the relationship I see between landuse= and building=, and better building definitions would only strengthen that connection (generic - specific). Some of the civic buildings are defined by amenity (like townhall) so building=office or more generically building=civic are for the lowest level of mapping. I want a civic subkey or some more amenity keys to further define these buildings or offices as well, or put on the landuse for the overall facility. On a side note, I am somehow astonished by my fellow countrymen that they haven't yet introduced second level of industrial, something like light_industrial, as the German law knows 2 main types landuse where in English zoning these seem both to be covered by industrial: Industriegebiet and Gewerbegebiet. We have the common phrase heavy industry in inglish, and the Japanse must too, as Mitsubishi Heavy industry is their name, but I have no idea what then is light industry - maybe the metal stamping plant in a small building the size of a house in a residential neighborhood is light industry - and japan is overrun with them ( there is one 100m from my house surrounded on all 4 sides by houses) - whereas that is super illegal in most US cities (you have to move to commercial or industrial park for that). But I have no clue what the dividing line is, as the general public is never told the difference. Thanks for the great questions feedback - I look forward to your replies. どもありがとうございました (Domo arigatou gozaimashita - thank you very much) Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
