Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage
Am 14.03.2015 um 12:53 schrieb jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me: I disagree, it's perfectly possible to make a decision on a vote by reading other people’s comments/concerns and if not properly address then vote against Our voting rules require stating the reason for voting no. If you agree with other people's comments you should refer to them. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
Proposal: let's change it to 8 unanimous approval votes or 10 or more votes with at least 74 % approval ones? I agree that the current situation looks funny pretty often. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: As you are already indicating, 15 is too low a quorum in that case. We cannot considering 8:7 votes an approval when we cosider 8:1 votes an approval. That would mean that more negative votes would turn a rejection to an approval, which is absurd. Exactly that happened. There was a proposal with 7 votes, some positive some negative. 3 more people voted no, flipping it to approval. If the purpose of the wiki procedure is to find consensus, a bare 50% majority indicates a near complete failure. ___ 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] Resubmitted proposal: mechanically removing all denotation=cluster and fixme=set_better_denotation tags worldwide
Final call for comments on this, please. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: Do it. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: Resubmitting by request of maper Sly: The edit described at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Bryce_C_Nesbitt was modified based on mailing list input, and sits at complete removal of the cluster value for denotation, along with a certain fixme value. The cluster value was introduced to mean non-special tree. The tag was spread by a hotly disputed and partially reverted bot, and the tag moved from there, finding its way onto a rather random assortment of trees, water towers and sea buoys. Removing just the bot added tags is not enough to fix the damage caused. No other values of denotation are at risk. No human entered fixme values will be harmed. The edit is proposed worldwide, though the impact is highly clustered. Simple typos such as *dentoation=clustar* may be handled at the same time. Named trees with denotation=cluster are likely mis-tagged now. Landmark trees marked cluster will be handled manually when noted. For example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3321396264/history ___ 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 mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
The reality is that a tag becomes approved once it is adopted by developers and is used extensively. Voting has its purpose, mainly to weed out proposals that need more work. As others have said 8 approvals and 7 declines indicate that more work needs to be done. Even if a proposal receives 8 approvals and no declines, it really hasn't been accepted. I would suggest adopting Conditional Approval approach. If the proposal receives sufficient votes, it becomes Conditionally Approved. Only after it becomes widespread and adopted by JOSM and iD it becomes an Approved tag. Conditional Approval would last for a period of time which may be extended. For example, a 1 year period with 1 or 2 6 months extensions. If it doesn't reach the widespread use threshold, the tag will be declared as Not Approved. It will be up to the originators to track it's use and request updates to JOSM and iD. Some subjectivity to the term, widespread needs to be applied. For instance, a niche shop might be approved with only a small number of tags. However, a fitness_centre tag would required several hundred before approval. -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk
I've only included those that I thought to be common, not rare. How are multiple receptions inside a large building used by serveral companies rare? __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Taginfo challenge
I would say discouraged, but I could see how they make sense sometimes. Althoug in this case I don't get it, this is what googles gives me. nameOsaka Station = (Umeda Station) name: JR West = Osaka Station name: Yotsubashi Line = Nishi-Umeda Station name: Midōsuji Line =Umeda Station name: Tanimachi Line = Higashi-Umeda Station name: Hankyu=Umeda Station name: Hanshin =Umeda Station So what about keys like this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4223325/history With non-English components after the colon. Should these be encouraged? Discouraged? __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Toll enforcement devices
Am 14.03.2015 um 12:11 schrieb Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org: Agreed, thus the 'barrier' key should only be used if it is a barrier that stops you. If it is a 'free-flow' method only, a different description should be found. for barrier there are already the established values entrance, bollard and others that don't physically stop you. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.
Can we learn something from this: http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/4WD_Trail_Rating? On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:49 AM Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: The biggest step ahead is that is now is part of the highway=* preset in JOSM with a description of the levels. I can certainly live with that. Using the tag is the most important, more than refining it. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:38 AM Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote: So - I am against any of proposed changes. +1 ___ 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 - Voting - Reception Desk
On 15/03/2015 4:50 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de mailto:andi...@t-online.de wrote: Either use a site relation Then why isn't this in the proposal? I never envisaged a reception desk that would be off the site. Or place in such a way that it could not be seen to be part of a site. What is the ratio of having to use a 'site relation' occuring to the simple case ? Less than 10%.. ? I'll add a link to site relation ... there are other links that could be added too.. like urls, phone numbers, opening hours, checked etc etc .. the possibilities of things that could be used are large. I've only included those that I thought to be common, not rare. I think the negative votes followed from a poorly formatted and confusing proposal. Thanks for the negativity. Very helpfull. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
On 15/03/2015 4:44 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com mailto:jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: This sounds a bit strange to me: a proposal with 8 approval votes and 1 decline would be rejected, while one with 8 approval votes and 7 declines would be accepted. Anything with that level of opposition (7 declines) is probably a flawed proposal. Depends on the reasons for rejection; If the majority point to some failure .. then yes there may be a need for revision. On the other hand if they all point in different directions and at least most of those reasons can be refuted then I'd say not. --- Rules .. meant for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule
There is little point in having a draft, then a comments period if people are not participating then, choosing to only come forward with a possibly good idea only in the voting period. For teh English timid .. there are not many that care about bad English expression here .. you may get corrected .. but most will intend that for clarification rather than abuse. So don't be affraid of the bad English! So .. please express yourself during the RFC comments period! It is helpfull .. you may get others pointing out errors in your view.. argue back by all means .. particularly if you disagree.. it is a discussion after all. Keep to the point .. and don't attack the person. The RFC period is where things can easily be changed .. not so in the voting period. So do, by all means, criticise, suggest and discuss during the comments period.. if you don't argue back people will consider you have agreed. So .. consider .. discuss .. and discuss again. But do that before the voting. On 14/03/2015 9:51 PM, Jan van Bekkum wrote: Nowhere, but I repeat my question: What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Regards, Jan On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:16 AM Jörg Frings-Fürst o...@jff-webhosting.net mailto:o...@jff-webhosting.net wrote: Hi, Am Samstag, den 14.03.2015, 09:34 +0100 schrieb Jan van Bekkum: I saw that one user declined both my proposals (shop=storage and power_supply=intermittent) in the voting stage without any argumentation and without earlier participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Where in the rules is the only persons who have participated previously allowed to vote? [...] CU Jörg ___ 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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Mar 14, 2015, at 4:14 PM, John Willis wrote: . . . Also - is there some way to tag if the campsites have a (raised) platform of some kind for the tents? There are several camps I can think of - US Boy Scout camps and rent-a-tent sites in Japan that have somewhat permanent tent platforms on the sites. A tent (purpose-built canvas tents or a clients tent) can then go on the raised (usually wooden) platform. Is there a way to tag these structures, as they don't really move (they would be a permanent fixture of the campsite) but building=* implies something more... Javbw If one were to use and extend the site (pitch) specific tagging suggested at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches then maybe campsite:platform=yes/no smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk
On 15/03/2015 9:29 AM, Andreas Goss wrote: I've only included those that I thought to be common, not rare. How are multiple receptions inside a large building used by serveral companies rare? In that case, would not then the individual companies have individual reception desks? And those desks could be named with the companies name - operator tag and/or name tag? And they may well be collocated with the companies area within the building? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On 15/03/2015 3:37 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com mailto:daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business would be. The national park would have one area, the campground would be an area in the national park, camp sites would be nodes (possibly areas) inside the campground. OSM use a slightly different definition of those .. I'll reword the above to suit the OSM definitions? The national park would have one area, the camp site would be an area in the national park, camp pitches would be nodes (possibly areas) inside the camp site. Reference http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Taginfo challenge
So what about keys like this: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4223325/history With non-English components after the colon. Should these be encouraged? Discouraged? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Kotya Karapetyan kotya.li...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: let's change it to 8 unanimous approval votes or 10 or more votes with at least 74 % approval ones? +1 on that. Anything without a super-majority clearly needs more discussion and/or experience. The proponents are free to starting using the tags of course. Often using tags helps refine them: bad ideas become apparent. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: Can we learn something from this: http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/4WD_Trail_Rating? Maybe learn about vehicles. Not so applicable to hikers. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Mar 15, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 14/03/2015 10:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 14.03.2015 um 05:41 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com: and mapping them for other Trekkers would be useful only if they are not confused at all with all of the other, more substatial or easily accessed spots in a camp or along a road. +1, I believe the tag for informal camping spots should not just be a sub key added to the same tag as for a commercial or otherwise official camp site, it should be a different main tag That may help. But it goes against a top down system/structure. As long as there is a way to differentiate the trekking sites from informal sites (and assuming car-camping and caravan sites are already differentiated enough) I don't care if they are in the same tag, as they can easily be given a different icon through tag differentiation. Also - is there some way to tag if the campsites have a (raised) platform of some kind for the tents? There are several camps I can think of - US Boy Scout camps and rent-a-tent sites in Japan that have somewhat permanent tent platforms on the sites. A tent (purpose-built canvas tents or a clients tent) can then go on the raised (usually wooden) platform. Is there a way to tag these structures, as they don't really move (they would be a permanent fixture of the campsite) but building=* implies something more... Javbw ___ 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] Rendering of individual power lines in residential areas on default osm-carto
Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com writes: Have a peek here to see what residential power lines might look like, if added to the database: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/37.64529/-118.97450 A few thoughts: There's a big difference between transmission and distribution. Those may be US terms, but I think the concept is pretty universal: there are fairly high-voltage pretty serious lines connecting generation and substations in towns/etc. and then a network from teh substations to customers. Around me the tranmisstion to the substation is 115K and the distribution is 13.8K max. So obviously power lines should be tagged as to whether they are transmission vs distribution. As one zooms in, more detail beceomes reasonable. I would say rendering distribution at z18 is reasonable, maybe z17. The problem is that these show up at z14. Probably distrbution should be only a pixel, not what seems like more. Sorry, no patch. Setting up mapnik/carto is still on my todo list. pgpW5DEGVyJlY.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Toll enforcement devices
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2015-03-14 21:09: Am 14.03.2015 um 12:11 schrieb Tom Pfeifer : Agreed, thus the 'barrier' key should only be used if it is a barrier that stops you. If it is a 'free-flow' method only, a different description should be found. for barrier there are already the established values entrance, bollard and others that don't physically stop you. Right, it's fine for me to keep barrier=toll_booth for both stopping and non-stopping, manual and electronic methods, as currently defined. Somebody might invent a sub-tag then for the different types. My main concern was to remove the barrier=toll_booth from those German Toll Collect devices that neither collect the toll nor trigger the collection, but only monitor compliance, as any speed or red light camera. And remove them from parking fee collection. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Mar 14, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Warin wrote: On 15/03/2015 3:37 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business would be. The national park would have one area, the campground would be an area in the national park, camp sites would be nodes (possibly areas) inside the campground. OSM use a slightly different definition of those .. I'll reword the above to suit the OSM definitions? The national park would have one area, the camp site would be an area in the national park, camp pitches would be nodes (possibly areas) inside the camp site. Reference http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches And here is a U.S. Forest Service campsite tagged per those wiki references: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/34.81433/-119.10228 (renderer does not show the pitch specific tagging but opening it in an editor should show the details. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Blatant tagging for the renderer: bridges abandoned railways
Now that the arguments on both sides have been repeated a couple of times, I'd like to offer my solution; me and some nearby have been using this for some years already. First, I believe, why the points mentioned are incompatible: There's two ways to look at the keys (not just this key): 1) anything with railway=* is some sort of railway right now; the humanitarian map layer seems to consider the key like that, every way with railway=* is rendered equal. If the track is abandoned, the soil and right to use the land is intact, and new tracks could be laid down relatively easily; not a usable railway, but a big portion of the structure is still there. In this case, a railway=dismantled is internally invalid; it's no longer some sort of railway right now. 2) things tagged with the key railway are somehow intrisically related to the rail tracks; signalling, water points for steam locomotives etc. The same viewpoint is used sometimes even with the key highway: highway=street_lamp is not a highway, but it was considered so essentially related to the highway, that it would have been possible to just fetch all objects with highway=* to have the important parts of the highway environment. Even barrier=gate's were highway=gate in the beginning. If one uses this viewpoint in all their interpretations, the former course of a railway, even if only verifiable from old documents, is somehow related to the current day rail network, i.e. belonging to the key railway=*. Neither of 1 and 2, above, are always correct. I have some insight on bits of old track in urban environments, so I'll use them as examples. Near me, there's a straight opening in the wood, somewhat elevated from the surroundings. There's no visible path on it, and there could be buildings on it in the future. The rails were removed in 2000, and one might find some remains of the auxiliary structures. Clearly, a railway=abandoned on that section. Where that track used to connect with the present day tracks, a road for buses only was built in its place (in the center!); the old railroad bridge even remains standing as a part of the road. The tracks were actually left behind for several years, and it was changed from disused to abandoned just last summer: the embankments, cuttings and the layout still remains. Near the cemetery, a long straight cycleway across some fields etc. turned out to have been built on a former railbed. Only where it crosses a small stream, one might be able to visually identify the past. None of the other cycleways in the area are that straight, and the orientation of the straight seems out of place; the fact that it was a railway is great knowledge. Elsewhere, there's a long curved cutting in the rocky hillside near the former harbour. The curve turns out to be such because a freight rail track used to run there 60+ years ago; for all I know, the curve is likely to stay in place for decades. In the city center, there's a building with an exceptionally high loading dock, because the building used to be harbour warehouse with a freight track for loading and unloading right where the present day sidewalk is. As long as the building is standing (and it's likely to be protected, if it hasn't been protected already), there are visual signs that there used to be a railroad. moltonel 3x Combo wrote: railway=abandoned without glancing at the satellite imagery (no, Also, if an abandoned railway has evolved into something else, then it's not an abandoned railway anymore. If you add a highway=cycleway The solution: Tags are cheap. I have mentioned the idea in the past, that when any feature is removed because it was destroyed, one could first prepend was: to every key, set end_date=*, upload to server, and only then delete the object from the database. That way it would be at least stored somewhere that the object was removed because it no longer exists. Hidden in the full history dump, but it didn't vanish without a trace. Some have used the prefix historic:, but I prefer was: because it's shorter, clearly indicates it no longer is that, and is almost at the end of the alphabetic sort order. Extending this, when there's nothing left of the rail track, change railway=rail (or railway=abandoned/disused) into was:railway=rail (or was:railway=abandoned etc.), set end_date if you know it. Now, it doesn't anymore try to claim it's a some sort of railway right now - it's not tagged railway=* anymore - but it conveys the past, no matter whether the relevant parts of the ways are reused for footways or whatever, or whether the ways run through a void. If the area gets extensive reuse in some other form, and the ways get in the way of editing, the next editor might remove them. If not, they don't then do no harm. Elsewhere near the center, a cycleway was built in a deep trench, right where the tracks used to run; the existence of the trench can be explained with one or two simple tags on the cycleway: *
Re: [Tagging] Toll enforcement devices
Am 14.03.2015 um 21:59 schrieb Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org: remove the barrier=toll_booth from those German Toll Collect devices that neither collect the toll nor trigger the collection, but only monitor compliance, as any speed or red light camera. +1 Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On 14/03/2015 10:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am 14.03.2015 um 05:41 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com: and mapping them for other Trekkers would be useful only if they are not confused at all with all of the other, more substatial or easily accessed spots in a camp or along a road. +1, I believe the tag for informal camping spots should not just be a sub key added to the same tag as for a commercial or otherwise official camp site, it should be a different main tag That may help. But it goes against a top down system/structure. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.
Combination of 2 and 3. It must be possible to distinguish between vehicles. As I wrote earlier a stretch of road that is reasonable for a 4WD can be horrible for a motorcycle and vice versa. A scale in words very bad, bad, ... very good or whatever at least helps me to remember what the good end of the scale is. The first time I will have to look in the wiki to get a feeling about the boundaries between the levels, after that I should be able to do without. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 6:44 AM Ineiev ine...@gnu.org wrote: On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 02:00:51PM +1100, David wrote: Been a good discussion on new tags for smoothness=. Time, imho, to ask people to indicate just what they do like. How about a show of hands for one or more of - 1. Numeric tags, perhaps grade1 .. grade8 similar to tracktype. 2. Words that describe the smoothness - glassy -smooth -rough -bumpy - rutted 3. Words that describe the (wheeled) vehicle that might use it - Any_vehicle, city_car_bike, 4x4_mtb, off_road_vehicle, extreme_vehicle, none. 4. Combined: grade1 ... grade8 glassy smooth ... any_vehicle ... extreme_vehicle and grade1;glassy;any_vehicle (or surface_grade=1 roughness=glassy approved_for=any_vehicle). ___ 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] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.
The biggest step ahead is that is now is part of the highway=* preset in JOSM with a description of the levels. I can certainly live with that. Using the tag is the most important, more than refining it. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:38 AM Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote: So - I am against any of proposed changes. +1 ___ 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] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.
Numeric tags, perhaps grade1 .. grade8 similar to tracktype. - exchanges old problem for a new one, at huge cost and with no benefit. glassy -smooth -rough -bumpy - rutted - will have the same problems as current values, plus no clear progression of values (maybe there is for native speakers), also glassy sounds like too smooth, plus conversion cost Any_vehicle, city_car_bike, 4x4_mtb, off_road_vehicle, extreme_vehicle, none. - to quote Jan a stretch of road that is reasonable for a 4WD can be horrible for a motorcycle and vice versa. Though separate tagging for vehicle types is probably a good idea - but it requires no change for values. So - I am against any of proposed changes. 2015-03-14 4:00 GMT+01:00 David dban...@internode.on.net: Been a good discussion on new tags for smoothness=. Time, imho, to ask people to indicate just what they do like. How about a show of hands for one or more of - 1. Numeric tags, perhaps grade1 .. grade8 similar to tracktype. 2. Words that describe the smoothness - glassy -smooth -rough -bumpy - rutted 3. Words that describe the (wheeled) vehicle that might use it - Any_vehicle, city_car_bike, 4x4_mtb, off_road_vehicle, extreme_vehicle, none. Don't fuss over the actual values i have quoted, i am sure we can do better. But you can see the differing emphasis. In every case, assume we can/will have a good description behind each value. Or not ? It might also be worthwhile indicating how strong you feel about your choice. I'd prefer #1, #3 then, if i must, #2. 2 assumes too much about what makes the road difficult. David . Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: Hi! 2015-03-13 2:06 GMT+01:00 David dban...@internode.on.net: No, numeric values are not a good choice - really not. I also don't like the values much, but at least it's clear that good is better than bad. But Martin, its not a good or bad situation, thats the point. Some people seek out extremely challenging roads to traverse. While dead smooth is good while getting there, why bother to go there if its going to be smooth all the way ? That's not what I meant. If someone has no idea about the meaning of the values and just look at the existing tags, one may guess correctly, that good means smoother than bad. But what is smoother? grade1 or grade5? And please do not claim that everyone will look in the wiki what the values actually mean. Please stay realistic ;-) And to answer the next argument: but if people don't know the exact meaning and also don't look in the wiki, we can not be sure that they use the values correctly. Yes. We can also not be sure that they use the values correctly IF the look in the wiki. But the chances that we get more appropriate values is much higher with smoothness=good than with smoothness=grade97, because a good smoothness will have a much wider common understanding than smoothness=31415whatever. Best regards, Martin P.S: I'm aware that we will not reach consensus about this on this mailing list ;-) ___ 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 - Voting - power_supply:schedule
Hi, Am Samstag, den 14.03.2015, 09:34 +0100 schrieb Jan van Bekkum: I saw that one user declined both my proposals (shop=storage and power_supply=intermittent) in the voting stage without any argumentation and without earlier participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Where in the rules is the only persons who have participated previously allowed to vote? [...] CU Jörg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ?=maze
On 12/03/2015 10:04 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com mailto:ricoz@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:57:28AM +1100, Warin wrote: Mapping a maze path would reduce the enjoyment of the maze .. at least for me. Even if it was a single path. spoiler_warning=yes ? I do not think that is necessary: #1 you don't have to loook at the map before going through the maze #2 GPS is not precise enough to lead you through a maze You say that, but I'm guessing you've never been to an American suburban neighborhood full of twisty little cul-de-sacs with no rational urban planning or terrain to justify such obfuscation, each more identical than the last. American mazes can be quite huge, often dozens or even hundreds of square kilometers, and I'm pretty convinced the people who live in them do so because they can't find their way out. Off topic .. for a small while Unfortunately they exist around the world Paul ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boxes + http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/MALVINA/mr094.htm /Little boxes on the hillside,// //Little boxes made of ticky tacky,// //Little boxes on the hillside,// //Little boxes all the same.// //There's a green one and a pink one // //And a blue one and a yellow one,// //And they're all made out of ticky tacky// //And they all look just the same./ // /And the people in the houses// //All went to the university,// //Where they were put in boxes// //And they came out all the same,// //And there's doctors and lawyers,// //And business executives,// //And they're all made out of ticky tacky// //And they all look just the same. / etc/ -- /Back on topic / / In June 2012 attraction=maze had 44 entries leisure=maze had 32 entries now in 2015 attraction=maze has 148 entries leisure=maze has 79 entries I think the continued use of attraction=maze is due to the good wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/maze compared to the poor wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dmaze which, before I edited it, redirect back to attraction=maze !!! - So .. Should I simply make a wiki entry on leisure=maze .. and simply copy it across from attraction=maze .. then make the attraction=maze redirect to the leisure=maze page (possible edit wars!) Or make a new proposal here ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage
I saw that one user declined both my proposals (shop=storage http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage and power_supply=intermittent http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent) in the voting stage without any argumentation and without earlier participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Regards Jan van Bekkum Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: To avoid confusion the wiki page has been renamed to reflect the change of the proposal itself that was made before the proposal was submitted for voting. It now can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dstorage#Tagging . Furthermore I elaborated the reasoning for the proposal as it is a bit more in the paragraph Tagging. Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:13 PM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: There a move page link that leads to Special:MovePage, for renaming pages. ___ 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 - Voting - power_supply:schedule
I saw that one user declined both my proposals (shop=storage http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/parking%3Dcar_storage and power_supply=intermittent http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent) in the voting stage without any argumentation and without earlier participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, *Jan van Bekkum* www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:02 PM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: As the period for comments has passed and no new comments have come in during the last week I would like to move the proposal to the voting stage. The entire proposal can be found here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent, the voting section is here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/power_supply%3Dintermittent#Voting . Regards, Jan van Bekkum ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Smoothness possible values, straw poll.
So - I am against any of proposed changes. +1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - power_supply:schedule
Nowhere, but I repeat my question: What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Regards, Jan On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 11:16 AM Jörg Frings-Fürst o...@jff-webhosting.net wrote: Hi, Am Samstag, den 14.03.2015, 09:34 +0100 schrieb Jan van Bekkum: I saw that one user declined both my proposals (shop=storage and power_supply=intermittent) in the voting stage without any argumentation and without earlier participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Where in the rules is the only persons who have participated previously allowed to vote? [...] CU Jörg ___ 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 - Voting - Reception Desk
Either use a site relation Then why isn't this in the proposal? __ openstreetmap.org/user/AndiG88 wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:AndiG88 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
On 14.03.2015 12:50, Dan S wrote: When there is very low interest (i.e. very few votes) - which is pretty common - then even one dissenting vote is enough to make us step back and think again, whereas if there are enough votes to make majority approval a meaningful concept (I admit that 15 is a low number for quorum) then we accept that there will always be some disagreement, and so we use majority rather than unanimity. As you are already indicating, 15 is too low a quorum in that case. We cannot considering 8:7 votes an approval when we cosider 8:1 votes an approval. That would mean that more negative votes would turn a rejection to an approval, which is absurd. -- 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
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic signals set
Hello. In the discussion about the proposal about type=traffic_signals_group it was suggested to use the term “set” instead of “group”. So I’ve adapted the wiki page of the proposal and I’ve moved it to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/traffic_signals_set -- Lukas Sommer ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] ?=maze
+1 to make a wiki entry on leisure=maze. Fits with what already exists and the alternative isn't really better. On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 8:58 AM Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/03/2015 10:04 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:57:28AM +1100, Warin wrote: Mapping a maze path would reduce the enjoyment of the maze .. at least for me. Even if it was a single path. spoiler_warning=yes ? I do not think that is necessary: #1 you don't have to loook at the map before going through the maze #2 GPS is not precise enough to lead you through a maze You say that, but I'm guessing you've never been to an American suburban neighborhood full of twisty little cul-de-sacs with no rational urban planning or terrain to justify such obfuscation, each more identical than the last. American mazes can be quite huge, often dozens or even hundreds of square kilometers, and I'm pretty convinced the people who live in them do so because they can't find their way out. Off topic .. for a small while Unfortunately they exist around the world Paul ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boxes + http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/MALVINA/mr094.htm *Little boxes on the hillside,* * Little boxes made of ticky tacky,* * Little boxes on the hillside,* * Little boxes all the same.* * There's a green one and a pink one * * And a blue one and a yellow one,* * And they're all made out of ticky tacky* * And they all look just the same.* *And the people in the houses* * All went to the university,* * Where they were put in boxes* * And they came out all the same,* * And there's doctors and lawyers,* * And business executives,* * And they're all made out of ticky tacky* * And they all look just the same. * etc * -- *Back on topic In June 2012 attraction=maze had 44 entries leisure=maze had 32 entries now in 2015 attraction=maze has 148 entries leisure=maze has 79 entries I think the continued use of attraction=maze is due to the good wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/maze compared to the poor wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dmaze which, before I edited it, redirect back to attraction=maze !!! - So .. Should I simply make a wiki entry on leisure=maze .. and simply copy it across from attraction=maze .. then make the attraction=maze redirect to the leisure=maze page (possible edit wars!) Or make a new proposal here ? ___ 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] Toll enforcement devices
Warin wrote on 2015-03-14 03:16: On 14/03/2015 11:31 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: Thus my next stop was https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement but, interestingly, it does not know yet about toll at all, yet. No .. enforcement from the wiki is permanently installed devices that measure and document traffic violations a toll is not a traffic violation. Thus 'enforcement' is for traffic iolations - like speeding, red light running, tailgating .. basically breaking a law. Travelling on a toll road is not breaking a law unless you fail to pay - and then you would not be booked under a traffic law, well not here. thanks for discussing this, but for the way the German system works, these bridges are exactly doing this - they look for trucks that have _not_ paid the toll. Toll is paid at terminals, often in fuel stations, or by contract, and road usage is reported from a GPS based On Board Unit. Thus the camera bridges look for trucks that _do_ break the law by not having used one of the methods for paying. The English wikipedia page is a bit sparse, the German is more detailed, and says that these camera bridges are even not allowed to monitor continuously for data protection reasons, but only here and there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Collect http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Collect I know that there are other countries where toll is collected the moment you pass under such camera bridges, thus for those cases barrier=toll_booth seems to be correct. A toll booth is a physical object .. most automatic toll collection things have no resemblance to an old toll booth. Agreed, thus the 'barrier' key should only be used if it is a barrier that stops you. If it is a 'free-flow' method only, a different description should be found. Probably a highway node, highway=toll_collection ? barrier=toll_booth also seems to be abused for tagging paying stations for parking fees, this seems inappropriate as well? Seems to be vending=parking_tickets. Yes .. but some toll booths may still exist for parking too. Locally here toll booths exist and are used by the 'National Parks' to collect entrance fees ... usually only on peak days (holidays, some weekends). Well these are parking fees and entrance fees, not toll. Thus toll_booth seems incorrect, though for the National Park you might be right if it is primarily for driving into the park vs hiking into it. Perhaps a new relation:toll to address the issue... that could have different payment methods, cover a single point (or a line across a highway) or a point to point charge system. Probably very complicated with little added value. Tagging the road with toll:hgv=yes is sufficient from my perspective. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
Hi, No, I think it means what it says. Or at least, I think we have treated it that way for a long while. When there is very low interest (i.e. very few votes) - which is pretty common - then even one dissenting vote is enough to make us step back and think again, whereas if there are enough votes to make majority approval a meaningful concept (I admit that 15 is a low number for quorum) then we accept that there will always be some disagreement, and so we use majority rather than unanimity. This is how I interpret it. I'm not saying it's the best rule of thumb out there. I'd say there's no point changing it in small ways - no-one likes the tag voting system, and overhaul would be better than slight tweaks. Anyway, it is only a rule of thumb! Best Dan 2015-03-14 11:24 GMT+00:00 Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com: The guideline to determine if a proposal is accepted is A rule of thumb for enough support is 8 unanimous approval votes or 15 total votes with a majority approval, but other factors may also be considered (such as whether a feature is already in use). This sounds a bit strange to me: a proposal with 8 approval votes and 1 decline would be rejected, while one with 8 approval votes and 7 declines would be accepted. I suppose that this is what was intended: enough support is 8 approval votes on a total of 14 votes or less and a majority approval otherwise. Regards, Jan ___ 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] Toll enforcement devices
If the cameras are only used for toll enforcement, then that sounds good. Highway=speed camera exists, and is for nodes. It should also be for lines, as there are usually many perched on an overhead support over the road, and micromapping might wish to draw them across the road. Seems this is a good thing to add to highway=* Sent from my iPhone On Mar 14, 2015, at 8:11 PM, Tom Pfeifer t.pfei...@computer.org wrote: Warin wrote on 2015-03-14 03:16: On 14/03/2015 11:31 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: Thus my next stop was https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement but, interestingly, it does not know yet about toll at all, yet. No .. enforcement from the wiki is permanently installed devices that measure and document traffic violations a toll is not a traffic violation. Thus 'enforcement' is for traffic iolations - like speeding, red light running, tailgating .. basically breaking a law. Travelling on a toll road is not breaking a law unless you fail to pay - and then you would not be booked under a traffic law, well not here. thanks for discussing this, but for the way the German system works, these bridges are exactly doing this - they look for trucks that have _not_ paid the toll. Toll is paid at terminals, often in fuel stations, or by contract, and road usage is reported from a GPS based On Board Unit. Thus the camera bridges look for trucks that _do_ break the law by not having used one of the methods for paying. The English wikipedia page is a bit sparse, the German is more detailed, and says that these camera bridges are even not allowed to monitor continuously for data protection reasons, but only here and there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Collect http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_Collect I know that there are other countries where toll is collected the moment you pass under such camera bridges, thus for those cases barrier=toll_booth seems to be correct. A toll booth is a physical object .. most automatic toll collection things have no resemblance to an old toll booth. Agreed, thus the 'barrier' key should only be used if it is a barrier that stops you. If it is a 'free-flow' method only, a different description should be found. Probably a highway node, highway=toll_collection ? barrier=toll_booth also seems to be abused for tagging paying stations for parking fees, this seems inappropriate as well? Seems to be vending=parking_tickets. Yes .. but some toll booths may still exist for parking too. Locally here toll booths exist and are used by the 'National Parks' to collect entrance fees ... usually only on peak days (holidays, some weekends). Well these are parking fees and entrance fees, not toll. Thus toll_booth seems incorrect, though for the National Park you might be right if it is primarily for driving into the park vs hiking into it. Perhaps a new relation:toll to address the issue... that could have different payment methods, cover a single point (or a line across a highway) or a point to point charge system. Probably very complicated with little added value. Tagging the road with toll:hgv=yes is sufficient from my perspective. tom ___ 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] Accepted or rejected?
The guideline to determine if a proposal is accepted is A rule of thumb for enough support is *8 unanimous approval votes* or *15 total votes with a majority approval*, but other factors may also be considered (such as whether a feature is already in use). This sounds a bit strange to me: a proposal with 8 approval votes and 1 decline would be rejected, while one with 8 approval votes and 7 declines would be accepted. I suppose that this is what was intended: enough support is 8 approval votes on a total of 14 votes or less and a majority approval otherwise. Regards, Jan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
Am 14.03.2015 um 05:41 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com: and mapping them for other Trekkers would be useful only if they are not confused at all with all of the other, more substatial or easily accessed spots in a camp or along a road. +1, I believe the tag for informal camping spots should not just be a sub key added to the same tag as for a commercial or otherwise official camp site, it should be a different main tag cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - shop=storage
I disagree, it's perfectly possible to make a decision on a vote by reading other people’s comments/concerns and if not properly address then vote against. Likewise, you can vote for a proposal even without being party to the discussion. Jonathan --- http://bigfatfrog67.me From: Jan van Bekkum Sent: Saturday, 14 March 2015 07:08 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools I saw that one user declined both my proposals (shop=storage and power_supply=intermittent) in the voting stage without any argumentation and without earlier participation in the discussion. What purpose does this serve except frustrating the proposal process? Please speak up! Regards Jan van Bekkum Met vriendelijke groet/with kind regards, Jan van Bekkum www.DeEinderVoorbij.nl On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:56 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: To avoid confusion the wiki page has been renamed to reflect the change of the proposal itself that was made before the proposal was submitted for voting. It now can be found here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shop%3Dstorage#Tagging. Furthermore I elaborated the reasoning for the proposal as it is a bit more in the paragraph Tagging. Regards, Jan van Bekkum On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:13 PM Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: There a move page link that leads to Special:MovePage, for renaming pages. ___ 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 - Voting - shop=storage
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:53 AM, jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me wrote: I disagree, it's perfectly possible to make a decision on a vote by reading other people’s comments/concerns and if not properly address then vote against. Likewise, you can vote for a proposal even without being party to the discussion. +1 -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
On 14.03.2015 12:24, Jan van Bekkum wrote: The guideline to determine if a proposal is accepted is A rule of thumb for enough support is /8 unanimous approval votes/ or /15 total votes with a majority approval/, but other factors may also be considered (such as whether a feature is already in use). This sounds a bit strange to me: a proposal with 8 approval votes and 1 decline would be rejected, while one with 8 approval votes and 7 declines would be accepted. I suppose that this is what was intended: enough support is 8 approval votes on a total of 14 votes or less and a majority approval otherwise. Yes, this should be reworded as you suggest. The current wording caused confusion multiple times. However, we should keep the mention of other factors ... such as whether a feature is already in use, especially when it comes to deprecation of existing tags. I think that this should be even more clearly pointed out. A majority of 8:7 votes cannot be sufficient for a deprecation of a tag used by thousands of mappers. -- 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] Accepted or rejected?
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Jan van Bekkum jan.vanbek...@gmail.com wrote: This sounds a bit strange to me: a proposal with 8 approval votes and 1 decline would be rejected, while one with 8 approval votes and 7 declines would be accepted. Anything with that level of opposition (7 declines) is probably a flawed proposal. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Accepted or rejected?
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: As you are already indicating, 15 is too low a quorum in that case. We cannot considering 8:7 votes an approval when we cosider 8:1 votes an approval. That would mean that more negative votes would turn a rejection to an approval, which is absurd. Exactly that happened. There was a proposal with 7 votes, some positive some negative. 3 more people voted no, flipping it to approval. If the purpose of the wiki procedure is to find consensus, a bare 50% majority indicates a near complete failure. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Toll enforcement devices
On Mar 13, 2015 9:18 PM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 14/03/2015 11:31 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: OsmAnd was telling me that I was passing a toll_booth on a German motorway, however it was just one of the camera bridges operated by TollCollect, and applicable only for toll:hgv=yes. However toll is not collected when passing this point, it is collected for using a certain road segment. Checking the wiki I found the tagging for toll technology quite underdeveloped, or do I miss something? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag%3Abarrier%3Dtoll_booth limits the use for A place where a road usage toll or fee is collected, which is semantically fine and therefore does not apply to those bridges, which would be enforcement devices rather collection stations. You pay at terminals elsewhere. Thus my next stop was https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:enforcement but, interestingly, it does not know yet about toll at all, yet. No .. enforcement from the wiki is permanently installed devices that measure and document traffic violations a toll is not a traffic violation. Thus 'enforcement' is for traffic iolations - like speeding, red light running, tailgating .. basically breaking a law. Travelling on a toll road is not breaking a law unless you fail to pay - and then you would not be booked under a traffic law, well not here. Regional semantics. Colorado won't let you renew your registration after toll violations, Oklahoma makes you pay the toll and asseses steep fines, plus 3 points on your license for skipping toll: If you drive to Joplin from OKC with a clean license and take the Turner, Creek and Rogers turnpikes and don't pay toll, you won't have a driver's license before you even reach the state line, and it'll take a few months for enough points to expire to get it back! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: There is no mention of one very common type of camp_site, the campground inside a National Park. It is a definitely a designated site but it is also noncommercial, in the sense that it is not run for profit as a business would be. The national park would have one area, the campground would be an area in the national park, camp sites would be nodes (possibly areas) inside the campground. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Different definition of role forward/backward
Hey For years the definitions about role forward/backward are completely different on the wiki page about route=road [1] versus the page about route relations (type=route) [2]. While all other route=* seem to follow the updated role definition that the role depends on whether the route follows the directions of the way (forward) or not (backward), the route=road still uses forward/backward for the route direction only not regarding the direction of the way. Does the wiki reflect the usage ? These two different definitions makes the whole concept even more complicated for users and software. Can we change/adjust route=road to follow the same definition as all other routes ? Cheers fly [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=road [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Andreas Goss andi...@t-online.de wrote: Either use a site relation Then why isn't this in the proposal? I think the negative votes followed from a poorly formatted and confusing proposal. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
