Re: [Tagging] Camps
2015-05-05 23:35 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: The core question is: should this be a top level tag: leisure=camp_site leisure=communal_activity_camp leisure=caravan_site Or subtags: leisure=camp_site caravans=dedicated tents=yes communal_activity_camp=no sanitary_dump_station=no Why do you think we should question the established tagging? Isn't this core question already answered? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On 06/05/2015 03:54, David Bannon wrote: Anyway, the issue is, perhaps confusion in some minds about =camp_site and =caravan_site. Most (but not all) camp_sites will also take caravans and RV's. But Tourism=caravan_site is for the caravan ONLY type of place. Here (in the UK) I'd differentiate such places locally as to whether they appear to be mostly for tents or caravans (there tend to be fewer motorhomes - what the Americans call RVs - over here than caravans). Another differentiator might be the organisation that the site is part of. If it's The Caravan Club it's more likely to be mostly for caravans than tents. However there seems to be more overlap between camping and caravanning organisations and sites now than there used to be, so in some cases either tag could apply equally. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camps
On Wed May 6 00:08:17 2015 GMT+0100, David Bannon wrote: On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 09:44 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: It seems to me that the obvious generalisation, which would cover camps organised for profit and by non-profits would be leisure=vacation_camp. I don't think 'vacation' or 'leisure' are good terms at all. A lot of people use the camp grounds we are talking about who are not on vacation, retirees, itinerant workers, travellers. These grounds are 'mostly' open throughout the year in my part of the world. tourism= means people are there because they want to be and I think that excludes refugee and military camps. Scout camps a bit grey It also excludes a lot of hotels :) Maybe the key is that people don't stay there indefinitely ? ... very specific British connotations associated with holiday_camp. Yes, I would consider the british holiday camps would be better called resorts (?). The permanent building being the clue. -1 A resort is usually a town whos primary purpose is tourism. A resort is not operated by a single company, and access is not restricted. In general I would use any derivative of resort : it is a word which has far too many meanings. Did you mean to say avoid the use of there ? So, in summary, why are we discussing abandoning or supplementing tourism=camp_site ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tag -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camps
On Wed May 6 11:49:39 2015 GMT+0100, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: ... very specific British connotations associated with holiday_camp. Yes, I would consider the british holiday camps would be better called resorts (?). The permanent building being the clue. -1 A resort is usually a town whos primary purpose is tourism. A resort is not operated by a single company, and access is not restricted. Sorry, sent that before I was ready. Resort should probably be avoided due to totally different meanings between BE and AE. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On Wed May 6 08:23:34 2015 GMT+0100, SomeoneElse wrote: On 06/05/2015 03:54, David Bannon wrote: Anyway, the issue is, perhaps confusion in some minds about =camp_site and =caravan_site. Most (but not all) camp_sites will also take caravans and RV's. But Tourism=caravan_site is for the caravan ONLY type of place. Here (in the UK) I'd differentiate such places locally as to whether they appear to be mostly for tents or caravans (there tend to be fewer motorhomes - what the Americans call RVs - over here than caravans). Another differentiator might be the organisation that the site is part of. If it's The Caravan Club it's more likely to be mostly for caravans than tents. However there seems to be more overlap between camping and caravanning organisations and sites now than there used to be, so in some cases either tag could apply equally. +1 One of the biggest issues I see is that the mapper has to choose between tourism=caravan_site and tourism=campsite, when the vast majority of commercial sites cater for both. Phil (trigpoint ) -- Sent from my Jolla ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
2015-05-06 12:41 GMT+02:00 p...@trigpoint.me.uk: One of the biggest issues I see is that the mapper has to choose between tourism=caravan_site and tourism=campsite, when the vast majority of commercial sites cater for both. this is a non-issue, simply tag everything as tourism=camp_site and eventually add caravan=yes/no, and use tourism=caravan_site for caravan-only sites. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camps
Lets be quite clear. I am not talking about travellers, itinerant workers etc. That is a different issue. Such places (trailer parks, mobile home parks, travellers sites etc.) are a form of residential landuse. Jerry From: David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net To: Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk; Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2015, 0:08 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Camps On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 09:44 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: It seems to me that the obvious generalisation, which would cover camps organised for profit and by non-profits would be leisure=vacation_camp. I don't think 'vacation' or 'leisure' are good terms at all. A lot of people use the camp grounds we are talking about who are not on vacation, retirees, itinerant workers, travellers. These grounds are 'mostly' open throughout the year in my part of the world. tourism= means people are there because they want to be and I think that excludes refugee and military camps. Scout camps a bit grey Maybe the key is that people don't stay there indefinitely ? ... very specific British connotations associated with holiday_camp. Yes, I would consider the british holiday camps would be better called resorts (?). The permanent building being the clue. In general I would use any derivative of resort : it is a word which has far too many meanings. Did you mean to say avoid the use of there ? So, in summary, why are we discussing abandoning or supplementing tourism=camp_site ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
There are several RV based camps in the mountains of San Diego that are large camps with amenities, stores, fishing pond, and other things. Yes, there is tent camping, but the major focus is the people staying (longer than a day) in their RV and there is absolutely nothing whatsoever around them - they are places where city people can park for a weekend or so. The Morelia almost exactly like a U.S. Forestry park , but private and more vehicle centric. I believe it's a chain thousand trails if I remember correctly - so there is much more to RV camping some places than just an asphalt lot and a pit toilet. Between us all talking here, we span continents, experiences, and have seen different ways camps are organized -the flexibility with the proposed system seems good enough to adapt to them all. Javbw On May 6, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:17 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: 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. The amenity=caravan_site was indeed invented for what amounts to a parking lot for overnight use by RV's. These are just a parking lot, and perhaps toilets/dump station. No lake. No trees. No recreation. Just parking for people exploring a nearby town, or en-route elsewhere. That's different from a liesure=camp_site that happens to allow RV's. ___ 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] Colour coding of wiki description boxes
On 6 May 2015 at 17:41, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: If people choose not to (or are not bothered to) comment, that's an abstention. Indeed, it may reasonably be argued that of they choose not to comment on a proposal to do something, then they are content with the proposal. It'd only be reasonable if those people were contacted. You'll note my use of the word choose. You've neglected to quote the post to which I was replying; it said: pretty hard to tell when not all mappers were questioned or bothered to reply, not ? which includes the scenario where some editors were not bothered to reply. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camps
On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 12:45 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: I am not talking about travellers, itinerant workers etc. That is a different issue. Such places (trailer parks, mobile home parks, travellers sites etc.) are a form of residential landuse. Jerry, I suspect the distinction might be a bit US centric. Here, AU, we have a large number of what we call Caravan Parks. They usually provide mainly for tourists in caravans, motorhomes, tents. They usually have some fixed cabins for hire to people without their own gear. Some provide for 'permanent' residents, ranging from just a caravan that stays there right through to standard sites (or pitches) for owner occupied cabins, maybe with a nice little picket fence and tiny garden ! Now, I don't consider the permanent occupants are camping (nor tourists) but we cannot exclude the Caravan Park itself from our deliberations just because a few sites are used for that purpose. Itinerant people use the Caravan Park in an almost identical way as do tourists, the only difference is they are following the work (often fruit picking etc) instead of the sun. But Jerry, my real question was why are we talking about leisure= when we were talking about tourism= ? There is a large usage of tourism= already there, almost no leisure=. David Jerry __ From: David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net To: Jerry Clough - OSM sk53_...@yahoo.co.uk; Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2015, 0:08 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Camps On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 09:44 +, Jerry Clough - OSM wrote: It seems to me that the obvious generalisation, which would cover camps organised for profit and by non-profits would be leisure=vacation_camp. I don't think 'vacation' or 'leisure' are good terms at all. A lot of people use the camp grounds we are talking about who are not on vacation, retirees, itinerant workers, travellers. These grounds are 'mostly' open throughout the year in my part of the world. tourism= means people are there because they want to be and I think that excludes refugee and military camps. Scout camps a bit grey Maybe the key is that people don't stay there indefinitely ? ... very specific British connotations associated with holiday_camp. Yes, I would consider the british holiday camps would be better called resorts (?). The permanent building being the clue. In general I would use any derivative of resort : it is a word which has far too many meanings. Did you mean to say avoid the use of there ? So, in summary, why are we discussing abandoning or supplementing tourism=camp_site ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camps
On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 11:09 +, p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: A resort is usually a town whos primary purpose is tourism. A resort is not operated by a single company, and access is not restricted. Resort should probably be avoided due to totally different meanings between BE and AE. OK Phil, I was not aware of that difference. So that leaves us wonder what to call those UK Holiday Camps ? Leave it to the UK people I guess. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes
On 06/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 6 May 2015 at 17:41, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: If people choose not to (or are not bothered to) comment, that's an abstention. Indeed, it may reasonably be argued that of they choose not to comment on a proposal to do something, then they are content with the proposal. It'd only be reasonable if those people were contacted. You'll note my use of the word choose. You've neglected to quote the post to which I was replying; it said: pretty hard to tell when not all mappers were questioned or bothered to reply, not ? which includes the scenario where some editors were not bothered to reply. We agree on the not bothered to reply, therefore treat it as abstain scenario. But that original quote also mentioned the not all mappers were questioned scenario, which is much more common. As Matthijs said, contacting mappers individually has a very low response rate. So instead, people use wiki votes and mailing list or forum threads as a measure of the general opinion. That's practical but heavily biased. Please don't think that it's the same thing as contacting mappers (and then being able to assume that they agree if they don't respond). Sorry for labouring the point if only replying to the mappers were contacted scenario was intentional. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes
On 6 May 2015 at 17:41, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: It'd only be reasonable if those people were contacted. Discussions on [tagging] or [talk] or the wiki are *not* a good way to contact mappers for democratic opinion-gathering purposes. OSM doesn't have a policy that interested contributors have to participate on this or that dicussion medium. I've joined [tagging] very late in my OSM life (and can't afford the time to read it all), but I've always been very interested in any change to the data I've contributed. Unfortunately, contacting mappers individually has a very low response rate. For my bookmaker changes, I contacted 20 mappers individually through the OSM messaging system. All of them were frequent mappers (17 of them had more than 1000 changesets). I only received a response from three of them. This was to ask me help with retagging, but I'd guess asking them for their opinion would give a similar low response rate. With less frequent mappers, I'd expect the response rate to be even lower. So asking every single mapper of a certain tag for their opinion is not really an option, I think. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On 6 May 2015 at 20:40, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 06.05.2015 um 19:19 schrieb pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com: I know a few local tourism sites where the tourist brings only themselves and rents a static caravan. How should they be tagged ? if they're static I'd probably tag them like other huts you can rent for vacation. As in 'alpine_hut' ? -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - 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* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Colour coding of wiki description boxes
On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: If people choose not to (or are not bothered to) comment, that's an abstention. Indeed, it may reasonably be argued that of they choose not to comment on a proposal to do something, then they are content with the proposal. It'd only be reasonable if those people were contacted. Discussions on [tagging] or [talk] or the wiki are *not* a good way to contact mappers for democratic opinion-gathering purposes. OSM doesn't have a policy that interested contributors have to participate on this or that dicussion medium. I've joined [tagging] very late in my OSM life (and can't afford the time to read it all), but I've always been very interested in any change to the data I've contributed. It may be a PITA, but it's a fact. The closest thing we have to officially contacting mappers (and filing them under abstain/uninterested if they don't answer) is the private messages on osm.org. But using that for a large number of users is frowned uppon. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
On 6 May 2015 at 11:46, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-05-06 12:41 GMT+02:00 p...@trigpoint.me.uk: One of the biggest issues I see is that the mapper has to choose between tourism=caravan_site and tourism=campsite, when the vast majority of commercial sites cater for both. this is a non-issue, simply tag everything as tourism=camp_site and eventually add caravan=yes/no, and use tourism=caravan_site for caravan-only sites. -1 That's '-ist' - we should aim for something equal such as: Tourism=site caravan=yes tents=yes static=yes RV=yes [=motorhome] swimming_pool=yes [etc. inc. other facility=*] I know a few local tourism sites where the tourist brings only themselves and rents a static caravan. How should they be tagged ? The main tag should not favour type at all but type tags should be added as necessary in whatever combination is appropriate -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - 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* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
Am 06.05.2015 um 19:19 schrieb pmailkeey . pmailk...@googlemail.com: I know a few local tourism sites where the tourist brings only themselves and rents a static caravan. How should they be tagged ? if they're static I'd probably tag them like other huts you can rent for vacation. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Camps
On 6 May 2015 at 10:56, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2015-05-05 23:35 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: The core question is: should this be a top level tag: leisure=camp_site leisure=communal_activity_camp leisure=caravan_site Or subtags: leisure=camp_site caravans=dedicated tents=yes communal_activity_camp=no sanitary_dump_station=no Why do you think we should question the established tagging? Isn't this core question already answered? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcamp_site http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dcaravan_site Where's RV and static ? I'd suggest leisure=site then follow with subtags for caravan, tent, RV, static caravan and then more subtags relating to the facilities available at the site such as swimming_pool, play_area etc. -- Mike. @millomweb https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction - 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* TCs https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument
The problem may relate in part to Germany, where a natural monument is a thing. Also in the USA the tag is ambiguous. historic=memorial perhaps better fits the definition. But even then there are many small memorials and roadside plaques that could reasonably be tagged historic=memorial or historic=monument, but don't seem to match your definition well. It would help if the agency certifying the monument were identified per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/heritage For example: heritige=2 historic=memorial heritage:operator=nhrp ref:nrhp=nhrp=07001063 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument
Dear all, Openstreetmap-carto (the default rendering style on openstreetmap.org) will soon render objects tagged historic=monument with an icon. There is currently a large number of objects incorrectly tagged as historic=monument. The definition of historic=monument according to the wiki: 'A memorial object, especially large (one can go inside, walk on or through it) and made of stone, built to remember, show respect to a person or group of people or to commemorate an event'. Note that this tag should not be used for national heritage buildings (called listed buildings in some countries). The word 'monument' does not have this meaning in English. Instead, historic=yes, the heritage key, or the listed_status key could be used for such buildings: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/heritage It would be good to correct as many incorrectly tagged objects as possible before the tag is rendered. This map can be helpful for that: http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/map.html See https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1532 for the discussion on Github. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?
Some of the parts about OSM seems to be in the spirit of the project, although I would word some of it a bit differently. To the extent possible I think we should focus on the positive and avoid negative statements about other projects, or over generalizations about those projects. For example Your mapping service is a closed system is both negative and a generalization. There may be some other mapping system service that is also open like OSM that the reader is part of. Perhaps just title that box Closed Mapping Systems re: There multiple collaborative mapping services. Each of them is a direct rival to OpenStreetMap in terms of competing for contributors and map editing contributions. OpenStreetMap is better than any other competitor for one simple and very fundamental reason This is not necessarily true. For example, a project may capture data that OSM is not interested in, and therefore it is not a direct rival. Mike On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:59 PM, jgpacker john.pack...@gmail.com wrote: I call people to review the wiki page Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?. link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_OSM_and_not_another_collaborative_mapping_service%3F It was written by a single user as a generic page to compare other collaborative mapping services to OSM. My issue with this page is that it's not generic at all. Am I the only one that thinks this? I didn't want to bother with this until it started being recommended elsewhere in the wiki as official. Cheers, John -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Wiki-Talk-Why-OSM-and-not-another-collaborative-mapping-service-tp5843604.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.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
[Tagging] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?
I call people to review the wiki page Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?. link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Why_OSM_and_not_another_collaborative_mapping_service%3F It was written by a single user as a generic page to compare other collaborative mapping services to OSM. My issue with this page is that it's not generic at all. Am I the only one that thinks this? I didn't want to bother with this until it started being recommended elsewhere in the wiki as official. Cheers, John -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Wiki-Talk-Why-OSM-and-not-another-collaborative-mapping-service-tp5843604.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of pitches within a campsite
I am using K-9, an open-source Android app. On May 5, 2015 6:35:40 PM CDT, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 18:22 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: It has been many years since I last went tent-camping, but my experience of campgrounds in the US national park system was numbered poles marking each campsite, a grassy area for pitching a tent, and a charcoal grill mounted on a steel pole. You weren't allowed to cut brush or to have a fire on the ground, only one in the charcoal grill, as a precaution against wildfires. There was a wooden outhouse (pit toilet) shared by multiple campsites. Similar here in some Australian National Parks but also have more Caravan Park like ones and some National Parks where you can camp where you find a bit of clear ground. We need to cover the lot. P.S. Hey John, your emails arrive with each paragraph one long line requiring scrolling miles to the right to read. What email client do you use ? David ___ 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] [Wiki Talk] Why OSM and not another collaborative mapping service?
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 08:29:48PM -0600, Mike Thompson wrote: To the extent possible I think we should focus on the positive and avoid negative statements about other projects, Why not, if they are true? or over generalizations about those projects. For example Your mapping service is a closed system is both negative and a generalization. There may be some other mapping system service that is also open like OSM that the reader is part of. Perhaps just title that box Closed Mapping Systems Of course there may be, but can you list any other projects aiming to make free maps? on the other hand, wiki could enumerate particular well-known services producing nonfree maps. re: There multiple collaborative mapping services. Each of them is a direct rival to OpenStreetMap in terms of competing for contributors and map editing contributions. OpenStreetMap is better than any other competitor for one simple and very fundamental reason This is not necessarily true. For example, a project may capture data that OSM is not interested in, and therefore it is not a direct rival. Again, it _may_; are there any counterexamples? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: That proposal has no listings for Australia (possibly www. *nationaltrust*.org.au/ ?) and ignores British www.*nationaltrust*. org.uk/ ? I've no idea how the 'level' is decided .. while it gives some examples, it does not look like it has any explanation of how to determine this. It is a proposal ... and needs some work? Certainly more explanation. At the moment I cannot use the heritage tag. I thought level should correspond to the admin level of the institute that lists the object. E.g. when it is done on country level - 2. In Belgium it is done on regional level (Flanders, Brussels, Wallonia) - 4. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument
On 7/05/2015 3:18 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: That proposal has no listings for Australia (possibly www.*nationaltrust*.org.au/ http://org.au/ ?) and ignores British www.*nationaltrust*.org.uk/ http://org.uk/ ? I've no idea how the 'level' is decided .. while it gives some examples, it does not look like it has any explanation of how to determine this. It is a proposal ... and needs some work? Certainly more explanation. At the moment I cannot use the heritage tag. I thought level should correspond to the admin level of the institute that lists the object. E.g. when it is done on country level - 2. In Belgium it is done on regional level (Flanders, Brussels, Wallonia) - 4. regards m If taken that way then the British and Australian National Trusts would level 2. If it is not clear (as in very obvious) to me .. then it probably is not clear to others Stating how the level is determine would be more usefull than the table as the table will never cover all instances. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument
There is confusion between monument and memorial ... suggest follow the definitions under the OSM tag historic .. where monument is large ... as in you can walk inside it, over it. memorial is small .. say a plaque I have re-tagged some of the 'monuments' to 'memorials' where I am familiar with them. They became eveident due to my use of OAMand that renders these tags. If other renders were to do the same then more mappers would be aware of the problem and it would be corrected with local knowledge. So rendering these without any correction will lead to corrections taking place as required with the best knowledge - that of the locals. - Off topic On 7/05/2015 11:18 AM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: It would help if the agency certifying the monument were identified per http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/heritage That proposal has no listings for Australia (possibly www.*nationaltrust*.org.au/ ?) and ignores British www.*nationaltrust*.org.uk/ ? I've no idea how the 'level' is decided .. while it gives some examples, it does not look like it has any explanation of how to determine this. It is a proposal ... and needs some work? Certainly more explanation. At the moment I cannot use the heritage tag. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument
It's under Tagging, it's mentioned twice, once under Main tag, once under Secondary tags On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: On 7/05/2015 3:18 PM, Marc Gemis wrote: On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote: That proposal has no listings for Australia (possibly www. *nationaltrust*.org.au/ ?) and ignores British www.*nationaltrust*. org.uk/ ? I've no idea how the 'level' is decided .. while it gives some examples, it does not look like it has any explanation of how to determine this. It is a proposal ... and needs some work? Certainly more explanation. At the moment I cannot use the heritage tag. I thought level should correspond to the admin level of the institute that lists the object. E.g. when it is done on country level - 2. In Belgium it is done on regional level (Flanders, Brussels, Wallonia) - 4. regards m If taken that way then the British and Australian National Trusts would level 2. If it is not clear (as in very obvious) to me .. then it probably is not clear to others Stating how the level is determine would be more usefull than the table as the table will never cover all instances. ___ 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] Colour coding of wiki description boxes
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:41 AM, moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com wrote: On 05/05/2015, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: Indeed, it may reasonably be argued that of they choose not to comment on a proposal to do something, then they are content with the proposal. It'd only be reasonable if those people were contacted. Discussions on [tagging] or [talk] or the wiki are *not* a good way to contact mappers for democratic opinion-gathering purposes. One approach is to look up the most frequent mappers of the feature of interest. There are several ways to do this, including a new proposed feature in JOSM: That's a list of people who edited amenity=bicycle_repair_stand The full expression of that might be the concept of a community of people who edit things like I edit. If I start editing campgrounds for example, perhaps the editor shows a chat window open to other people editing campgrounds. --- The echo chamber of the tagging list, and the wiki process, does not fully represent the OSM community. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging of historic=monument
sorry I overlooked the same link in Matthijs email. On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote: They is a project+map that shows all those monuments with the request to retag them: http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/ regards m. On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: Dear all, Openstreetmap-carto (the default rendering style on openstreetmap.org) will soon render objects tagged historic=monument with an icon. There is currently a large number of objects incorrectly tagged as historic=monument. The definition of historic=monument according to the wiki: 'A memorial object, especially large (one can go inside, walk on or through it) and made of stone, built to remember, show respect to a person or group of people or to commemorate an event'. Note that this tag should not be used for national heritage buildings (called listed buildings in some countries). The word 'monument' does not have this meaning in English. Instead, historic=yes, the heritage key, or the listed_status key could be used for such buildings: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/heritage It would be good to correct as many incorrectly tagged objects as possible before the tag is rendered. This map can be helpful for that: http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/map.html See https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1532 for the discussion on Github. -- Matthijs ___ 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 historic=monument
They is a project+map that shows all those monuments with the request to retag them: http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/ regards m. On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: Dear all, Openstreetmap-carto (the default rendering style on openstreetmap.org) will soon render objects tagged historic=monument with an icon. There is currently a large number of objects incorrectly tagged as historic=monument. The definition of historic=monument according to the wiki: 'A memorial object, especially large (one can go inside, walk on or through it) and made of stone, built to remember, show respect to a person or group of people or to commemorate an event'. Note that this tag should not be used for national heritage buildings (called listed buildings in some countries). The word 'monument' does not have this meaning in English. Instead, historic=yes, the heritage key, or the listed_status key could be used for such buildings: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/heritage It would be good to correct as many incorrectly tagged objects as possible before the tag is rendered. This map can be helpful for that: http://www.historic.place/themes/monuments/map.html See https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1532 for the discussion on Github. -- Matthijs ___ 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] Colour coding of wiki description boxes
On May 6, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: The full expression of that might be the concept of a community of people who edit things like I edit. If I start editing campgrounds for example, perhaps the editor shows a chat window open to other people editing campgrounds. +1 Not sure how that might be implemented but I really like the idea. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
