Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[Tod Fitch]

> On May 1, 2015, at 10:17 PM, David Bannon  wrote:
> 
> Hmm, lets experiment ...
> 
> Node
> tourism = camp_site
> camp_site = standard
> name = Happy Jacks
> 
> Node
> tourism = camp_site
> camp_pitch = yes
> ref = 42
> addr:unit = 42
> camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes
> 
> Node
> 
> 
> What I don't see here is how to associate the pitches with "Happy
> Jacks". I guess the easy solution is to say only map pitches where they
> will fall into an (tourism=camp_site) area ? Hard solution is a
> relation ?
> 

If you are doing detail mapping of a campground you should replace a 
tourism=camp_site node with a polygon. So you are mapping pitches within that 
campground polygon with either nodes or smaller polygons.

So a node with both tourism=camp_site and camp_pitch=yes would only make sense 
if there were one and only one place to pitch a tent (park a caravan) in the 
campground.

(I wish it was tourism=campground which would leave “site” or “camp_site” 
available for the individual pitches. To my American ears “pitch” is more 
likely a verb than a noun (“pitch a ball on a playing field” or “pitch a tent 
at a camp site” but that ship has sailed).

> I think its sad we cannot put something more useful than "yes" after
> camp_pitch= but I know someone saw a problem with my suggestion of
> camp_pitch=42 ?

That makes sense to me too and I may have suggested it at one time but it does 
get resistance. :)

> 
> Starting to look like this is firming up anyway, good, we need these
> solutions. I notice that user N76 says he did a good part of the
> camp_site=pitch on record and is happy to rename them. We appreciate
> such a helpful attitude ! (Voting on the camp_site= proposal page).
> 

As you may have figured out by now, n76 is my OSM mapping ID. :)

Cheers,
Tod




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[Andrew Errington]

> Hmm, lets experiment ...
>
> Node
> tourism = camp_site
> camp_site = standard
> name = Happy Jacks
>
> Node
> tourism = camp_site
> camp_pitch = yes
> ref = 42
> addr:unit = 42
> camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes
>
> Node
> 
>
> What I don't see here is how to associate the pitches with "Happy
> Jacks". I guess the easy solution is to say only map pitches where they
> will fall into an (tourism=camp_site) area ? Hard solution is a
> relation ?

The easy solution is indeed the right answer.  You draw an area to
represent the campsite.  The area has the name of the campsite and its
address and phone number etc.  Inside the area you put nodes for each
pitch.  Tag the pitch with camp_pitch=yes and the reference number for
the pitch in ref=*.

This is what geographical databases are for.  You can infer that the
pitch is in the campsite because the database has tools that let you
do that.  And when you draw the data, humans can see it too.  No
relations needed.

Best wishes,

Andrew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[David Bannon]

On Fri, 2015-05-01 at 17:43 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:

> ... I guess the page could be renamed to campground pitch 
No need ! Its the camp_site= part that is my problem.

> (I guess I should look into how one properly can rename a wiki page. . .)
Hmm, carefully I suggest.


> I guess there could be a issue on naming. The
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site page as
> I understand it would cover the entire area of the campground while I
> am trying to address the individual pitches within. What do you
> suggest?

Yep, thats my concern. A camp_site (in UK speak, not mine) might be a
larger area or possibly just a node marking, eg, the entrance where
larger area is unknown. The pitches, again nodes or areas may be within
the camp_site area or (yek!) near the camp_site node. 
> 

> I haven’t been in a RV/caravan only type campground 

There are some like that, maybe a concrete or tarmac base so tent pages
a problem, maybe operator/owner just wants self contained campers.

I'd suggest for this purpose we treat them as the same, #define
caravan_site = camp_site. There are other tags to tell the difference.
> 

> Suggestions for this? Perhaps simply camp_pitch=yes to be used in both
> tourism=camp_site and tourism=caravan_site?
> 
Hmm, lets experiment ...

Node
tourism = camp_site
camp_site = standard
name = Happy Jacks

Node
tourism = camp_site
camp_pitch = yes
ref = 42
addr:unit = 42
camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes

Node


What I don't see here is how to associate the pitches with "Happy
Jacks". I guess the easy solution is to say only map pitches where they
will fall into an (tourism=camp_site) area ? Hard solution is a
relation ?

I think its sad we cannot put something more useful than "yes" after
camp_pitch= but I know someone saw a problem with my suggestion of
camp_pitch=42 ?

Starting to look like this is firming up anyway, good, we need these
solutions. I notice that user N76 says he did a good part of the
camp_site=pitch on record and is happy to rename them. We appreciate
such a helpful attitude ! (Voting on the camp_site= proposal page).

David




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[Tod Fitch]

> On May 1, 2015, at 5:05 PM, David Bannon  wrote:
> 
> 
> Tod, nice work but I am concerned about the syntax you have chosen for
> two reasons.
> 
> 1. Given that it was agreed that the larger site is the camp_site and
> there are pitch within the camp_site (UK terminology), then
> camp_site=camp_site_pitch is an oxymoron, as a term it does not make
> sense.
> 

Page is named camp site pitch, to indicate we are not talking about a soccer 
pitch, etc. The proposed tag uses “camp_pitch”. I guess the page could be 
renamed to campground pitch but I would expect that if the tagging is agreed to 
the content would be moved to be in the camp site page of the wiki at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site.

(I guess I should look into how one properly can rename a wiki page. . .)


> 2. There is currently a proposal under voting using camp-site= in a
> different way.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site
> 
> This proposal is entirely consistent with the pitch proposal except for
> the naming issue.  Or are you suggesting camp_site_pitch be added to the
> list of possible values for camp_site=  ?  :-(
> 

I guess there could be a issue on naming. The 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site page as I 
understand it would cover the entire area of the campground while I am trying 
to address the individual pitches within. What do you suggest?

> Now, personally, I did not like using camp_site as meaning the whole
> camp ground but took the advice that we should use UK terms. 
> 
> I would have preferred "camp_ground" and set up camp on a "camp_site".
> Bryce raised the issue of usage of camp_site=pitch, that indicates to me
> that others also think of a camp site as that one caravan structure. But
> we are, apparently, locked into UK terms.
> 
> Tod, think you also need to put the proposed tag into context. It should
> be used only in association with tourism=camp_site or
> tourism=caravan_site ?

I haven’t been in a RV/caravan only type campground but my impression is there 
is a pretty big overlap between the tagging of individual pitches within the 
two. I think it would be nice if the detail mapping of the two were the same or 
at least similar enough that mappers and data consumers could easily deal with 
both.

I’ve suggested camp_site=camp_pitch to indicate the location of the pitch but 
that would imply it is specific to tourism=camp_site and, as you point out, 
confusing with the proposed camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe applied to 
the whole area.

Suggestions for this? Perhaps simply camp_pitch=yes to be used in both 
tourism=camp_site and tourism=caravan_site?

Thank you for your comments!
Tod




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names

[Jerry Clough - OSM]

It really just happened. species, genus and taxon as tags came into existence 
at similar times. It may well be that my use of taxon was inspired by your own 
initiative on Flickr.
Currently the position is very simple:
   
   - species and genus are preferred tags for taxon:species and taxon:genus
   - species and taxon are often, but by no means always, tag synonyms.

There is little harm in duplicating keys for taxon & species, and in practice 
genus is nearly always useful (if valid) with either tag. This is because 
parsing the range of potential values in taxon or species can be a real pain.
The tree import in Vienna shows very well how these tags can work together, 
when a tree is a known cultivar. The tagging uses something like:

genus=Populusspecies=Populus nigrataxon=Populus nigra 
'Italica'taxon:cultivar='Italica'

There were objections to using taxon on the basis that people wouldn't know 
what it meant: my feeling is that if you are confidently identifying trees to 
species then it is likely that you do!
Of course there are lots of rubbish values in both sets of tags (check out 
Bologna), and funny problems exist with names for certain species such as 
London Plane, where the accepted name in the UK may be different from other 
European countries. It may also be useful to have some sort of convention for 
species:iso2cd and genus:iso2cd along the lines of "Pedunculate Oak" for the 
case where the vernacular name corresponds to the taxon, and "oak" where the 
vernacular name is more generic.
Jerry Clough

   From: Andy Mabbett 
 To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"  
 Sent: Monday, 27 April 2015, 16:44
 Subject: [Tagging] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names
   
The wiki page for "Tag:natural=tree:"

  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree

includes:

  taxon=*

and:

  species=*
  genus=*

The latter pair is a subset of the former; and thus redundant.

How should this be resolved?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
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

[Tod Fitch]

I’ve created a proposal page at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/camp_site_pitch that, I 
hope, reflects the more recent discussion on this topic.

Please feel free to comment on it here, on the discussion page associated with 
that wiki entry or even go ahead and edit the proposal.

Cheers,
Tod

> On May 1, 2015, at 11:29 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Tod Fitch  > wrote:
> Most public campgrounds in US Forests, US Parks and, at least in California, 
> state parks don’t have a verifiable street address. And backcountry (hike or 
> walk-in) campsites sometimes have numbered pitches but definitely don’t have 
> a street address. For these I think ref=* would be the best fit.
> 
> If osm-carto renders one, but not the other, that will skew the tagging.
> 
> 
> 
> For USA park camgrounds often there IS a verifiable street address, but it's 
> miles away from the actual campground.
> Even so: if you tell a router you want to go to "Foo Campground", and that's 
> mapped as an area, the router really has all
> the information it needs to process addr:unit.
> 
> I see pitch numbers as a good osm-carto feature, as they occur in areas of 
> the map that are uncluttered or even blank.  As such
> they don't have the downsides of rendering things like bicycle tool stands or 
> dog waste bins, which receive objections based on clutter.
> 
>  
> 
> Keep in mind that some piches are named, just as some apartment complexes or 
> rooms are named.  And a pitch could have both a name an  a ref.
> 
> add:unit=Willow Camp
> camp_site=Willow Camp
> name=Willow Camp
> pitch:name=Willow Camp
> ref=AZ2
> 
> add:unit=2
> ref=2
> camp_site=2
> name=2
> pitch:name=2
> 
> 
>> Or with a more proper namespace:
>> 
>>  camp_site=pitch
>>  pitch:drinking_water=no
>>  pitch:picnic_table=yes
> 
> 
> The more I think about it, the more I like this example “with a more proper 
> namespace”.
> 
> Procedurally, how to go forward? Should this be a new proposal page or an 
> edit of the old subsection of the old camp_site extended features proposal?
> 
> Or
>>  camp_site=camp_pitch
>>  camp_pitch:drinking_water=no
>>  camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes
>>  name=2
>>  addr:unit=2
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[pmailkeey .]

On 1 May 2015 at 19:29, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Tod Fitch  wrote:
>
>>
>> Or with a more proper namespace:
>>
>> * camp_site=pitch*
>> * pitch:drinking_water=no*
>> * pitch:picnic_table=yes*
>>
>>
>> The more I think about it, the more I like this example “with a more
>> proper namespace”.
>>
>> Procedurally, how to go forward? Should this be a new proposal page or an
>> edit of the old subsection of the old camp_site extended features proposal?
>>
>
>
I prefer the above version and would drop 'drinking_' and 'picnic_' as they
don't appear to add anything.



> Or
>
> * camp_site=camp_pitch*
> * camp_pitch:drinking_water=no*
> * camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes*
> * name=2*
> * addr:unit=2*
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Mike.
@millomweb  -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *

*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*

T&Cs 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - opening hours default PH off

[pmailkeey .]

On 1 May 2015 at 19:59, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Robin `ypid` Schneider 
> wrote:
>
>> They should be covered for all US states [2]. It has
>> been noted that the US has multiple holidays. Is that like the bank
>> holidays in
>> the UK? It might be worth to defined them.
>>
>
> Problem is they vary so damn much.
>
>
Same in UK - not the dates but the observance. Supermarkets, food shops and
petrol stations generally are open.



-- 
Mike.
@millomweb  -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *

*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*

T&Cs 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - opening hours default PH off

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Robin `ypid` Schneider 
wrote:

> They should be covered for all US states [2]. It has
> been noted that the US has multiple holidays. Is that like the bank
> holidays in
> the UK? It might be worth to defined them.
>

Problem is they vary so damn much.  Nobody seems to be able to decide
whether Robert E. Lee Day should be celebrated or not, or even what month
it falls on, much less whether it happens on the same day of the week or
the same day of the month each year.  A similar but more visible issue
comes up with Columbus Day: Despite being a federal holiday, it's not
uniformly observed nationwide (and some places (including Seattle) that
previously opted not to observe it have since started observing Native
American Day or Aboriginal Day on the same date instead), a situation that
gets reproduced as well with Martin Luther King, Jr. Day: I didn't even
know it was a day people actually get off for until I left Oregon, it's
about as relevant in that state as it is in rural Russia.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Tod Fitch  wrote:

> Most public campgrounds in US Forests, US Parks and, at least in
> California, state parks don’t have a verifiable street address. And
> backcountry (hike or walk-in) campsites sometimes have numbered pitches but
> definitely don’t have a street address. For these I think ref=* would be
> the best fit.
>

If osm-carto renders one, but not the other, that will skew the tagging.



For USA park camgrounds often there IS a verifiable street address, but
it's miles away from the actual campground.
Even so: if you tell a router you want to go to "Foo Campground", and
that's mapped as an area, the router really has all
the information it needs to process addr:unit.

I see pitch numbers as a good osm-carto feature, as they occur in areas of
the map that are uncluttered or even blank.  As such
they don't have the downsides of rendering things like bicycle tool stands
or dog waste bins, which receive objections based on clutter.



Keep in mind that some piches are named, just as some apartment complexes
or rooms are named.  And a pitch could have both a name an  a ref.

add:unit=Willow Camp
camp_site=Willow Camp
name=Willow Camp
pitch:name=Willow Camp
ref=AZ2

add:unit=2
ref=2
camp_site=2
name=2
pitch:name=2


Or with a more proper namespace:
>
> * camp_site=pitch*
> * pitch:drinking_water=no*
> * pitch:picnic_table=yes*
>
>
> The more I think about it, the more I like this example “with a more
> proper namespace”.
>
> Procedurally, how to go forward? Should this be a new proposal page or an
> edit of the old subsection of the old camp_site extended features proposal?
>

Or

* camp_site=camp_pitch*
* camp_pitch:drinking_water=no*
* camp_pitch:picnic_table=yes*
* name=2*
* addr:unit=2*
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite

[Tod Fitch]

> On Apr 30, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Brad Neuhauser  wrote:
> 
> +1 on addr:unit or ref over addr:housenumber. I think ref makes more sense 
> than addr:unit on remote/isolated pitches (ie hike-in sites, not drive-in).
> 
> In addition, I've seen cases where individual pitches are named instead of 
> numbered. It's not mentioned, but to clarify, I'm assuming that would just 
> use "name” 

Sounds like there is a possibility that osm-carto might start showing some 
information about individual pitches, so maybe we can settle on something.

In the U.S. I see circumstances where addr:unit is the best fit: Mobile home 
parks and commercial campgrounds like KOA and some county and state park 
campgrounds that have a street address and the sites/spaces/pitches within are 
numbered much as apartment units are numbered.

But I also see circumstances where addr:unit, implying there are other valid 
address tags, is a bad fit: Most public campgrounds in US Forests, US Parks 
and, at least in California, state parks don’t have a verifiable street 
address. And backcountry (hike or walk-in) campsites sometimes have numbered 
pitches but definitely don’t have a street address. For these I think ref=* 
would be the best fit.

Perhaps this is a case where no one identification standard makes sense: I 
suggest that pitches be tagged with ref= but that in those cases 
where a valid street address exists for the entire campground, the pitches also 
be tagged with addr:unit=. There would be duplicate information 
but a campground specific renderer could rely on there being a ref= 
while a more general purpose renderer that is also used for apartments and 
other commercial building display and navigation would have 
addr:unit= to work with where it makes sense.


> On Apr 29, 2015, at 5:51 PM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> 
> Which uses newly invited attributes of "water" and "table".  I think it 
> better not to reinvent that wheel, and use instead:
> 
>  camp_site=pitch
>  camp_site:drinking_water=no
>  camp_site:picnic_table=yes
> 
> Or with a more proper namespace:
> 
>  camp_site=pitch
>  pitch:drinking_water=no
>  pitch:picnic_table=yes

The more I think about it, the more I like this example “with a more proper 
namespace”.

Procedurally, how to go forward? Should this be a new proposal page or an edit 
of the old subsection of the old camp_site extended features proposal?

Cheers,
Tod



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag: shop: "hifi"

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 01.05.2015 17:54, pmailkeey . napisał(a):


"electronics" says Tandy / Radio Shack / Maplin to me - with
components, boards and soldering irons and cables/connectors.


For me that would be "electronic_parts" or "electronic_components" these 
days. This was different indeed when I was a child, but today 
"electronics" is a general term for many kind of home, office, 
professional and personal devices (including audio/Hi-Fi devices). The 
technical revolution changed our culture, even language-wise.


So we have a generic term and many other specific terms for the most 
popular classes of electronics, like "mobile phones", "computers" (and 
even "PCs/laptops/tablets" if we want to), "home entertrainment" ("TV 
sets", "Video/DVD/Blu-ray players", then also "Hi-Fi" including 
"tuners", "CD players", "speakers", "heapdhones" and special cables), 
"industrial electronics" etc.


It would be hard to find better wording for such a wide class of 
devices, so instead we can use different names for those specific areas.


--
Piaseczno Miasto Wąskotorowe

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Improving campground rendering

[Tod Fitch]

> On May 1, 2015, at 12:12 AM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> 
> 
> For those of you mapping campgrounds, what  improvements might you want in 
> rendering?
> Keep in mind there's presently no process for voting for main map rendering.
> 
> 
> --
> I think that osm-carto is actually pretty darn close to complete for camp 
> grounds.
> However, to finish up:
> Render motorhome water point and dump station ( 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1507 
> )
> Render pitch numbers
> Show large campgrounds at a zoom level corresponding to their size ( 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1020 
>  ) .
> Separate out the concept of landcover from the concept of a camp site ( 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1485 
>  ).
> Render certain amenities at appropriate zoom levels.  For example a camp 
> ground with flush toilets, fire rings, hiking and swimming nearby:
My personal favorite would be rendering pitch numbers/names/identifiers.

However there is no clear de facto standard in the wild nor am agreement to on 
the tagging list. At least not that I am aware of.

Perhaps the chance that it could be rendered in osm-carto will focus our minds. 
:)




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag: shop: "hifi"

[pmailkeey .]

WOW - this list has the 'reply-to:' correctly set  I'm shocked !

On 1 May 2015 at 14:44, Brad Neuhauser  wrote:

> shop=hifi has almost 6000 uses, so it must fill a need for some people.
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=hifi
>


It fills a need for people that couldn't find anything better. I'm not
looking for a different tag, I'm querying whether it can be renamed to
encompass the wider variety of home AV entertainment systems.

>
>
> If hifi is too specific for you, you could always use shop=electronics.
>
>
"electronics" says Tandy / Radio Shack / Maplin to me - with components,
boards and soldering irons and cables/connectors.


> Also, there is this note on the hifi wiki page regarding hifi vs.
> electronics:
> "The suggested distinction is that a shop=electronics shop is "primarily
> focused on consumer electronics, and may sell hi-fi components, but is not
> focused on them and not a meeting point for audiophiles", However that's
> quite a subtle and subjective distinction, and something which may be
> better represented as a property tag of a shop=electronics"
>

That's not subtle; and I totally agree with it. I think that interpretation
of electronic is more 'electrical' - with complete units and not
self-assembly kits. I suspect really electronicky items will also be
specialised - such as mobile phones.


>
> (side note: looking at a random assortment in the UK, I do see some "hifi"
> that might be mistagged--for example, I'd expect HMV to be tagged as
> shop=music not shop=hifi?)
>

The difference between media and systems. Clearly then 'hifi' is not clear
enough [too many puns in that] - and supports my claim for the need for a
better name.


>
> Cheers, Brad
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:10 AM, pmailkeey . 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Somewhere else in OSM world, 'hifi shops' has been mentioned. I take this
>> to mean in connection with 'musical entertainment systems' such as 'radio',
>> CD players and other audio reproduction electronics. As such, I feel the
>> term 'hifi' is too 'narrow' and inadequate for the range of equipment that
>> can perform this function. I think a good example is Richer Sounds
>>  - looking at their horizontal top menu:
>>
>> Hi-Fi
>> TV & Home Cinema
>> Speakers
>> Streaming, Wireless & Multi-room
>> Systems
>> Portable Audio
>> Headphones
>> Gaming
>> Accessories & Furniture
>> Clearance
>> Installations
>> Tech Blog
>>
>>
>> Hence I wonder if a more appropriate tag for such shops can be found ?
>>
>> --
>> Mike.
>> @millomweb  -
>> For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
>> via *the area's premier website - *
>>
>> *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family,
>> property & pets*
>>
>> T&Cs 
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Mike.
@millomweb  -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *

*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*

T&Cs 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tag: shop: "hifi"

[Brad Neuhauser]

shop=hifi has almost 6000 uses, so it must fill a need for some people.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/shop=hifi

If hifi is too specific for you, you could always use shop=electronics.

Also, there is this note on the hifi wiki page regarding hifi vs.
electronics:
"The suggested distinction is that a shop=electronics shop is "primarily
focused on consumer electronics, and may sell hi-fi components, but is not
focused on them and not a meeting point for audiophiles", However that's
quite a subtle and subjective distinction, and something which may be
better represented as a property tag of a shop=electronics"

(side note: looking at a random assortment in the UK, I do see some "hifi"
that might be mistagged--for example, I'd expect HMV to be tagged as
shop=music not shop=hifi?)

Cheers, Brad

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:10 AM, pmailkeey . 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Somewhere else in OSM world, 'hifi shops' has been mentioned. I take this
> to mean in connection with 'musical entertainment systems' such as 'radio',
> CD players and other audio reproduction electronics. As such, I feel the
> term 'hifi' is too 'narrow' and inadequate for the range of equipment that
> can perform this function. I think a good example is Richer Sounds
>  - looking at their horizontal top menu:
>
> Hi-Fi
> TV & Home Cinema
> Speakers
> Streaming, Wireless & Multi-room
> Systems
> Portable Audio
> Headphones
> Gaming
> Accessories & Furniture
> Clearance
> Installations
> Tech Blog
>
>
> Hence I wonder if a more appropriate tag for such shops can be found ?
>
> --
> Mike.
> @millomweb  -
> For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
> via *the area's premier website - *
>
> *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family,
> property & pets*
>
> T&Cs 
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - opening hours default PH off

[Robin `ypid` Schneider]

Thanks for all the feedback and insides about how other countries handle this.
Because of the problems that this proposal creates I think it is the best to
leave it as it is and cancel the proposal. So you have to be explicit (as
before) when adding opening_hours. I created overpass queries to find oh values
with missing PH definitions (those values are incomplete). [1]

To the US public holidays. They should be covered for all US states [2]. It has
been noted that the US has multiple holidays. Is that like the bank holidays in
the UK? It might be worth to defined them.

On 01.05.2015 14:05, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Am 30.04.2015 um 18:28 schrieb Robin `ypid` Schneider :
>>
>> . I expect that most countries have something like public holidays and
>> that most amenities are closed on those days.
> 
> 
> not only countries, also regions and even cities/municipalities can have 
> their public holidays, but assuming that most amenities will be closed on 
> these days is indeed German centric ;-)
> 
> Furthermore implicit values always bear the risk that the mapper wasn't aware 
> of it, and that you can't see whether the data is incomplete or the default 
> should apply, so it's generally a bad concept for a crowd sourced project 
> like ours 
> 
> cheers 
> Martin

[1]: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=495797#p495797
[2]: https://github.com/ypid/opening_hours.js/issues/69#issuecomment-74103181

-- 
Live long and prosper
Robin Schneider



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Tag: shop: "hifi"

[pmailkeey .]

Hi,

Somewhere else in OSM world, 'hifi shops' has been mentioned. I take this
to mean in connection with 'musical entertainment systems' such as 'radio',
CD players and other audio reproduction electronics. As such, I feel the
term 'hifi' is too 'narrow' and inadequate for the range of equipment that
can perform this function. I think a good example is Richer Sounds
 - looking at their horizontal top menu:

Hi-Fi
TV & Home Cinema
Speakers
Streaming, Wireless & Multi-room
Systems
Portable Audio
Headphones
Gaming
Accessories & Furniture
Clearance
Installations
Tech Blog


Hence I wonder if a more appropriate tag for such shops can be found ?

-- 
Mike.
@millomweb  -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *

*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*

T&Cs 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - opening hours default PH off

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 30.04.2015 um 18:28 schrieb Robin `ypid` Schneider :
> 
> . I expect that most countries have something like public holidays and
> that most amenities are closed on those days.


not only countries, also regions and even cities/municipalities can have their 
public holidays, but assuming that most amenities will be closed on these days 
is indeed German centric ;-)

Furthermore implicit values always bear the risk that the mapper wasn't aware 
of it, and that you can't see whether the data is incomplete or the default 
should apply, so it's generally a bad concept for a crowd sourced project like 
ours 

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - opening hours default PH off

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am 30.04.2015 um 18:04 schrieb p...@trigpoint.me.uk:

>> It really makes more problems than it solves
> +1

+1

cheers 
Martin 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - opening hours default PH off

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Thu, 2015-04-30 at 17:11 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> In the USA, there aren't any public holidays on a national scale on
> which businesses are required to close. I don't know of any such laws
> on a state scale, but I am not familiar with the laws of all 50
> states.

Liquor stores in Texas are not allowed to open on Sundays or Christmas
Day (possibly other holidays as well). Some other states probably still
have this antiquated relic of the immediate post-Prohibition era as
well.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - opening hours default PH off

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 5:11 PM, John F. Eldredge 
wrote:

> In the USA, there aren't any public holidays on a national scale on which
> businesses are required to close.


Businesses aren't the only things with opening hours.  That said, there's a
different and similar problem encountered:  Just about every jurisdiction
has different holidays.  For example, not all Oklahoma Department of
Revenue offices are open statewide if the day lands on a tribal holiday
where it's located, tribal government offices (except the US Bureau of
Indian Affairs) are closed on tribal holidays but not necessarily federal
or state holidays; likewise, the BIA is open on tribal holidays but closed
on federal.  Some states require liquor stores, banks and government
offices to close on election day, others don't.  The list goes on.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Improving campground rendering

[Bryce Nesbitt]

For those of you mapping campgrounds, what  improvements might you want in
*rendering*?
Keep in mind there's presently no process for voting for main map rendering.


--
I think that osm-carto is actually pretty darn close to complete for camp
grounds.
However, to finish up:

   1. Render motorhome water point and dump station (
   https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1507)
   2. Render pitch numbers
   3. Show large campgrounds at a zoom level corresponding to their size (
   https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1020 ) .
   4. Separate out the concept of landcover from the concept of a camp site
   ( https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1485 ).
   5. Render certain amenities at appropriate zoom levels.  For example a
   camp ground with flush toilets, fire rings, hiking and swimming nearby:




​
--
If you'd like to comment on the motorhome rendering, the open proposal is:
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1507
Or just map one, and vote with your keyboard.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging