Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
But there's no (easy) way to define an address connected to an unnamed road. Way numbers are not supported for addr:street, afik. most residential roads are totally unnamed in Japan. Most larger roads have a number (and a name). motorways (outside Tokyo) have only names. What we would call street address numbers they call lot numbers, done in an odd grid arrangement from larger neighborhood blocks, which is very similar to campground numbering - Occasionally site #1 is next to site #23, but when viewed on a map the pattern of the numbering makes logical sense. So following the same labeling system as apartment numbers, building refs on a single campus, or other non-street related ref systems should work for campsites. 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] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:50 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: That scheme seems to rely on house number model. Sure looks good. But does it, by implication, indicate there is a (eg) a house number 12 on the unnamed service road ? I'm not into mapping house numbers so don't know if thats important or not. If you entered Pinnacles Campground Site 12 into your OSM powered GPS, would you not be happy if it took you all the way to Site 12? In practice that would also require: addr:housenumber=12 addr:street=[unnamed service road] But there's no (easy) way to define an address connected to an unnamed road. Way numbers are not supported for addr:street, afik. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trailhead
On 16.04.2015 06:25, Dave Swarthout wrote: But I'd be willing to bet that most trails are not part of a network of other trails or a route but are stand-alone. The trails I once hiked in the Adirondack Mountains in New York State all have names and trailheads but, with a couple of exceptions, are not part of any route. I think the mixed approach is best. If a given trail is part of a larger system of trails, or the area where it begins has related amenities, then the relation idea makes sense. Otherwise, keeping it simple with a named trailhead node where the transition from highway to footway takes place will suffice. Without a relation, how can applications determine which trail the trailhead belongs to? Is it all about rendering the trailhead icon? -- 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] inuse, defacto
On 17/04/2015 14:38, moltonel 3x Combo wrote: A more useful metric is how many different contributors used the tag. Is anyone aware of any analysis of who (or how many users) first used particular tags, or who (or how many users) accepted a tag by making a subsequent change to an object? I've not done any (other than per-tag one-offs) but I'm sure someone somewhere must have done something... Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On April 17, 2015 3:40:41 AM PDT, Craig Wallace craig...@fastmail.fm wrote: On 2015-04-17 07:39, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: If you entered Pinnacles Campground Site 12 into your OSM powered GPS, would you not be happy if it took you all the way to Site 12? Yes, but I don't think addr:housenumber is the way to go. In practice that would also require: addr:housenumber=12 addr:street=[unnamed service road] They are not really housenumbers. The campsite as a whole might have an address with housenumber, street etc, but each pitch doesn't. +1 Better to use addr:unit for the number/name/reference of each pitch. As its says on the wiki, addr:unit is for The number, letter, or name of a single unit or flat that exists within a larger complex. I think that addr:unit was discussed for this use a couple of years ago. I don't remember the details and the limited bandwidth and tools at my disposal at the moment are keeping me from doing a search. My first reaction is that addr:unit is part of the address name space and it seems that if the rest of the name space tags are not used in this context maybe it shouldn't be either. Cheers, Tod -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] inuse, defacto
It will be hard to come up with a number to distinguish between the two. As others have pointed out on this mailing list before, the actual number of items that can be tagged with a certain tag matters. So in case there are only 600 items in the whole world of that thing, it is de-facto. If there are e.g. 1.000.000 such things, it's more inuse than de-facto regards m On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at wrote: As you all know, Template:Proposal_Page (used in proposals) has another set of statuses than Template:ValueDescription (used in feature pages). The latter defines: inuse: the feature is in use defacto: the tag is in widespread use, but no formal proposal process has taken place Now that's quite a fuzzy definition. Xxzme already asked for clarification at Template_talk:ValueDescription, but nobody cared to anwer. Please can we define some objective criteria for inuse and defacto? I recently came across a never proposed tag with some 600 uses marked de-facto. If that's the way to bypass the proposal process, I will never care about proposals any more. I will set all the tags I invented to inuse as soon as I used them once, and to defacto as soon as I used them twice, because 2 uses are widespread compared to 1. -- 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 mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On 2015-04-17 07:39, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: If you entered Pinnacles Campground Site 12 into your OSM powered GPS, would you not be happy if it took you all the way to Site 12? In practice that would also require: addr:housenumber=12 addr:street=[unnamed service road] They are not really housenumbers. The campsite as a whole might have an address with housenumber, street etc, but each pitch doesn't. Better to use addr:unit for the number/name/reference of each pitch. As its says on the wiki, addr:unit is for The number, letter, or name of a single unit or flat that exists within a larger complex. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Please also see at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extend_camp_site#Tagging_of_individual_pitches Sorry that I can't comment on the area originally linked to but I am currently in the mountains with only a mobile phone and a lousy connection so I am having difficulty seeing the tagging there. Cheers, Tod On April 16, 2015 10:51:22 AM PDT, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: I'm opening discussion on how to best tag individual pitch numbers within a campsite. There are a variety of schemes in use from tourism=caravan_site on each node to campsite=pitch,ref=XXX. This scheme seems to work fairly well: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37815651#map=18/36.49277/-121.14681 But differs from the wiki. (note good rendering, but missing the dump station, and the ranger station (also reception, park HQ, and grocery). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Defacto: man_made=storage_tank
On 15.04.2015 11:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: People put building=* on any structure +1, and I am fine with it, just wanted to comment on not all tanks are buildings and point out that in OSM all structures are buildings. Bridges? Masts? Fences? Rails? Flagpoles? Power lines? Maybe everything that looks like a building, smells like a building and behaves like a building, but not all structures. -- 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] Defacto: man_made=storage_tank
Am 17.04.2015 um 17:40 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: Bridges? Masts? Fences? Rails? Flagpoles? Power lines? Maybe everything that looks like a building, smells like a building and behaves like a building, but not all structures. bridges yes, the others not, see here for a long list of non-building structures and how many of them are tagged as buildings in osm: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-building_structure cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
FWIW, on a mountain where I volunteer I mapped the campgrounds with the tagging shown on the proposed extensions page which uses ref=* instead of addr:street or addr:unit. I have also generated paper maps off that OSM data. Local fire people saw one and were impressed and asked for a copy. Ended up generating a special map for them. They now can easily respond to any specific campsite. None of the campgrounds have a street address. In fact, many other places in that area are referred to by where they are in relation to the campgrounds. Point being showing campsites or routing is a rendering issue not tagging. I know of at least one backcountry campground several miles from any road that has numbered individual pitches. Seems like addr:house number or addr:unit is inappropriate in that context. Cheers, Tod On April 17, 2015 8:36:03 PM PDT, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Apr 17, 2015 1:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:50 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: That scheme seems to rely on house number model. Sure looks good. But does it, by implication, indicate there is a (eg) a house number 12 on the unnamed service road ? I'm not into mapping house numbers so don't know if thats important or not. If you entered Pinnacles Campground Site 12 into your OSM powered GPS, would you not be happy if it took you all the way to Site 12? Yes, I love where your head is at. In practice that would also require: addr:housenumber=12 addr:street=[unnamed service road] This is broken and should use a different tag. addr:unit=12 would be better. Case in point, my address (in a caravan site, I know, breaking no stereotypes about midwest life here...) already has addr:housenumber=801, and could have addr:unit=252 if I got around to it (hard to accurately survey in my trailer park). Based on my home life and previous experience as a field service engineer and postal service contractor, the US concept of addresses for a campground, trailer park, apartment complex, condominium, and office building are identical (with the exception of a few edge cases where vanity addressing or multiple house numbers for the same building or complex are in play). But there's no (easy) way to define an address connected to an unnamed road. Way numbers are not supported for addr:street, afik. I guarantee you that the fire department has some way to sort it out, and it's probably the campground's street address. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] proposal - camp_site=
Folks, to revisit a topic that had lots of discussion last month ! I have updated the proposal page for camp_site=[basic; standard; serviced; delux]. I now avoid the question of how to tag multiple instances of (eg) amenity on the one node, area. People seem to have strong but conflicting views and frankly, the proposal does not depend on any particular style. Please have a look and make (constructive if possible please) comments ! https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site If we don't spot too many problems, I'd suggest voting in a week or so. (you may well ask why I left it on the table so long, well, I have been away, camping, for the last three weeks, I'd call that research !) David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory
On Apr 14, 2015 2:10 AM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote: How would you tag: Here are my reformulated answers. Note that the answers do not apply to all countries, and most certainly not to the US, where to my knowledge there are no distinctions between bicycle and pedestrian use of sidewalks and cycleways. More specifically, I believe my replies are correct in Germany and Italy FYI: Bicycles are considered vehicles in every state except Kansas, though functionally, bicycles are usually treated as vehicles as well in Kansas. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
