Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[johnw]

> On May 15, 2015, at 8:02 PM, pmailkeey .  wrote:
> 
> area IS landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean ) so we get 
> landuse=building even. 
> 




Uhhh.  What?  This is a clear about-face on the landuse tag then. Everywhere is 
clearly not a landuse. Most of the earth is not altered nor designated nor 
segregated for a specific use.

I can define an “area” of the world. But if there are no purposeful alterations 
for a task, designations of purpose, nor manmade buildings and amenities 
contained within….  then it is not a landuse. There is no landuse=glacier for a 
reason. 
Most of the ocean is “unused” by people. - they have not changed it to have a 
specific purpose, nor altered the water to do a specific job - and it’s pretty 
hard to have a landuse on an ocean (maybe oceanuse=fish_farm?)  That would be a 
great "oceanuse" tag- there are plenty of floating, manmade, use-specific, 
designated-to-be fish farms around the world. 

They take up what… .01% of the ocean? the rest of the ocean has no man-altered, 
segregated, designated use (besides political ones) - but those are not “on the 
ground” in reality  (like a fish farm or a oyster farm).

I have no idea where you get the notion that area=landuse.   land… *used* for a 
task. being a woods or a mountain or a lake is not the “job” or “designated 
purpose” of the area. It just is. hence the natural= tag. 

However, the land around a school building, usually fenced in, containing the 
facility and amenities that belong to the facility and designated as such 
(pitch, walkways, parking, etc) is clearly part of the school - but not a 
school building. The grounds and the building together make that “school."

That land…. designated to be used by people… as a school… And which currently 
is altered from it’s natural state … to be a school ground… and has an area 
easily defined… as a school… should be “landuse=school” 

The drinking fountain, toilets, parking, gym, and other location level 
amenities are amenities of the school - and should continue to be tagged as 
amenities IMO -

or should we have a tny little 30x30cm squares marked as landuse=drinking 
water? Landuse=shoe_rack? Landuse=fire_extingusher?  It’s just as asinine as 
landuse=glacier.


Which leads us to this statement:


> So that raises the question as to whether 'landuse' adds any info value in 
> tags to the object being mapped. 'Building' clearly does.

?? 

when you map out only the buildings, you get a bunch of lego bricks spilled 
across the map. 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.38663/139.07087 


Even without naming, and using only a single landuse across multiple areas, 
gives a much clearer idea of what is there. 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=18/36.43627/139.04950 



Landuse ties them together int he way we already spatially identify them - this 
is a “school” this is an “apartment complex”… This is a “university” - 

The building+landuse for individual facilities gives you so much more together 
than just one by itself. 

The land and non-building amenities contained within the landuse are as 
important as the building. 

And… the name=* belongs to the landuse for all larger facilities. A big school 
(or mall or business complex) with many named buildings, pools, parking, 
seating, pitches, walkways, and wahatnot…

is currently amenity=school + name=FooBar School. (I feel it should be 
landuse=school). same as landuse=retail name=FooBar OutDoor Mall. Or 
landuse=industrial  name=FooBar Works.

No single building is actually named the name of the facility - and often is 
named something else! - so the name=* for the facility doesn’t belong to it. 

Even tiny schools. My school has two buildings. Both have the same number of 
students.  Which is named for the school?  Neither. 

The ground has the name - out on the wall. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=19/36.40723/139.33257

The name goes on the landuse, which includes the school’s parking, bike racks, 
hedges, walkways, water tanks, tress, and stairways. 

The wall around our perimeter is an an easily mapped and easily defined area 
boundary. Everything inside is landuse=school - as all of those amenities not 
only belong to the school, but support the operation of the school. 

Are the parking lots around a stadium not part of the stadium? Are the lawns, 
walkways, quads, and roadways not part of a business complex? What about a 
hospital with multiple buildings? 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.43591/139.25348 
 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.40791/139.06405 
 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/note/285449#map=17/36.37886/139.08038 

Re: [Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer

[André Pirard]

On 2015-05-16 01:40, Frederik Ramm wrote :
> Hi,
>
> On 05/16/2015 12:03 AM, pmailkeey . wrote:
>> I don't know whether this has been discussed or even mooted before...
> Often.
>
>> Tagging for the renderer is natural. Mappers, especially newbies will be
>> disappointed their pet new feature they've just added to the db does not
>> appear on the map.
> Thing is, there is no "THE" map. There's tons of maps in various colour
> schemes and designs, as well as tons of non-map uses of our data, and
> this is one of the super strenghts of OSM - we record that there's a
> motorway, and the map maker can define how they want the motorway drawn.
Yes, there is "THE" ("main") map at OSM.org but indeed I don't remember
having ever read what it is for.
Tentatively it's a tourism, traveler's  etc. /*general*/ map like those
one finds in bookshops on paper, but ecologic.
But lately, under "Is what we're doing useful?", I reported a reply from
Tom Hughes

seeming to say that THE map is not for the general public and refusing
to set a help page for it (plus saying that the documentation we make
amounts to being crap).  So, every tagger is invited to make and publish
his own rendering and to pay Google so that it were advertised better
than the others.
> Your suggestion would kill that flexibility, and everyone would have to
> adhere to that one colour scheme set up by the mapper or editor. It
> would totally run against everything we hold dear.
I understand that what pmailkee suggests is basically similar to what I
once suggested: lessen tagging for the renderer by finding means to make
rendering simpler to implement so that every specific tiny feature is
not a hassle to render and that the tagger finds "legal" ways to tag
with rendering (making visible) the features *he* holds dear. The
proposed solutions may well not be the best ones but...
Just like what you write here, all the answers were "NOT".  Even
stupidly laughing at what I wrote.
There was *not a single* attempt to suggest alternative solutions to the
problem.
Consequently, the consensus was "we prefer tagging for the renderer".

An alternative is for example using something like a rendered
"landuse=tourism" for features more specifically defined with Logical
Structured tagging attributes like tourism:leisure=maze,
tourism:leisure=miniature_golf, tourism=camp_site, etc., any feature
that fits on an area with a name for touristic purpose. Other purposes
alike.
That tag would fill an otherwise empty area with any plain color the
render chooses and write a name on it unless some more specific
rendering exists.  And the tagger would be glad that not only the
feature found by search are made visible (and back to invisible when the
search pane is closed).
I called that "generic rendering" and even that was refused (the
examples above are generalized existing tags).
So, the general consensus answer is clearly "please do tag for the
renderer".

Cheers

André.


> What you are talking about is essentially "MS Paint with multi-user
> capability". That's certainly an interesting project in itself but not
> something that we should remotely consider in OSM.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer

[Warin]

On 16/05/2015 10:39 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
Regardless of people's views on this, the reality is that one of the 
main reasons people get involved with OSM is because they want to see 
the things they tag show up on a map somewhere at some time.


Tagging for the renderer isn't going to go away anytime soon because 
IMO almost everyone wants to see "their stuff" on a map.


Absolutely.




On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:58 PM, pmailkeey . > wrote:




On 16 May 2015 at 00:40, Frederik Ramm mailto:frede...@remote.org>> wrote:

Hi,

On 05/16/2015 12:03 AM, pmailkeey . wrote:


> Tagging for the renderer is natural. Mappers, especially
newbies will be
> disappointed their pet new feature they've just added to the
db does not
> appear on the map.


Not at all. I'm suggesting additional tags for basic graphic
properties - and for http://www.openstreetmap.org to make use of
these ADDITIONAL basic tags. All other maps and rendering would be
totally unaffected.


What you are talking about is essentially "MS Paint with
multi-user
capability". That's certainly an interesting project in itself
but not
something that we should remotely consider in OSM.


Why shouldn't a user who adds a new feature to the db be allowed
to 'suggest' how it appears on 'THE' map ? Once the feature is
designed to be 'properly' rendered, the basic graphic tags can be
removed.
I'm suggesting that these additional basic tags are used on a
temporary basis but would not oppose their permanent use if others
agreed.




If you 'add a new feature to the db' then you should describe it on a 
wiki page .. on that page you can suggest the rendering .. some of the 
wiki pages have it ...


e.g. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Dwater_tap#Rendering

This does not mean it will be rendered. Nor does it mean it will be 
rendered in the way suggested. In fact many people using  the tag 
man_made=water_tap use the additional key amenity=drinking_water ... and 
it is the drinking_water that gets rendered.


So if you want something rendered straight away .. pick an existing tag 
that is already rendered. If you want to add a new tag .. then do so, 
document it on the wiki ... and hope that lots of people use it and lots 
of them get onto the db .. then finally the renders might recognise it 
and it appears on the map. That is the way it works now .. unless you 
start rendering your own maps.


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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer

[Dave Swarthout]

Regardless of people's views on this, the reality is that one of the main
reasons people get involved with OSM is because they want to see the things
they tag show up on a map somewhere at some time. In my case I wanted to
see the roads and features in my areas of interest (Alaska, Thailand) show
up on my Garmin GPS. Now that I'm compiling my own maps from OSM data I can
choose to render the things I like in my own way.

But the point i'm trying to make is that because I have created my own
custom icons for things I like, for example milestones, radio and
observation towers, motorcycle shops, to name just a few, I find myself
tagging them more often than before. I do it because I enjoy seeing them on
my GPS. I can therefore adhere to OSM guidelines and tag things properly
but because I am the renderer in question, I can also legitimately "tag for
the renderer".

Tagging for the renderer isn't going to go away anytime soon because IMO
almost everyone wants to see "their stuff" on a map.



On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:58 PM, pmailkeey . 
wrote:

>
>
> On 16 May 2015 at 00:40, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 05/16/2015 12:03 AM, pmailkeey . wrote:
>> > I don't know whether this has been discussed or even mooted before...
>>
>> Often.
>>
>> > Tagging for the renderer is natural. Mappers, especially newbies will be
>> > disappointed their pet new feature they've just added to the db does not
>> > appear on the map.
>>
>> Thing is, there is no "THE" map.
>
>
>
> THE map is here: http://www.openstreetmap.org - supposedly.
>
> However, everyone should look here:
> http://openstreetmap.us/iD/master/#background=Bing&map=2.00/-1.8/53.8
>
> as this is a more complete map.
>
>
>
>
>
>> There's tons of maps in various colour
>> schemes and designs, as well as tons of non-map uses of our data, and
>> this is one of the super strenghts of OSM - we record that there's a
>> motorway, and the map maker can define how they want the motorway drawn.
>>
>> Your suggestion would kill that flexibility, and everyone would have to
>> adhere to that one colour scheme set up by the mapper or editor. It
>> would totally run against everything we hold dear.
>>
>
> Not at all. I'm suggesting additional tags for basic graphic properties -
> and for  http://www.openstreetmap.org to make use of these ADDITIONAL
> basic tags. All other maps and rendering would be totally unaffected.
>
>>
>> What you are talking about is essentially "MS Paint with multi-user
>> capability". That's certainly an interesting project in itself but not
>> something that we should remotely consider in OSM.
>>
>>
> Why shouldn't a user who adds a new feature to the db be allowed to
> 'suggest' how it appears on 'THE' map ? Once the feature is designed to be
> 'properly' rendered, the basic graphic tags can be removed.
> I'm suggesting that these additional basic tags are used on a temporary
> basis but would not oppose their permanent use if others agreed.
>
> --
> 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
>
>


-- 
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

Re: [Tagging] On appointment restaurant

[André Pirard]

On 2015-05-15 10:09, Robin `ypid` Schneider wrote :
> On 14.05.2015 23:17, André Pirard wrote:
>> On 2015-05-13 16:49, Robin `ypid` Schneider wrote :
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> This can already be done, no problem. It is even described on the key page 
>>> [1].
>>> Just search for "on appointment".
>> Typical of that page, you discover "on appointment" by chance in an
>> example dealing with fallback.
>> I have read that page throughout 36 times, that's what one must do for
>> each question.
>> And you make me discover a very fundamental rule I didn't notice after
>> 36 readings: that the tokens can be literal strings. And I wonder how
>> software supposed to tell whether it's open can understand strings.
>> Thanks.
> Software is not supposed to evaluate comments in opening_hours (although there
> has been an discussion about this [2]). I just added an explanation for the 
> use
> of comments [3]. I hope this helps.
The amazing is that I was told that opening_hours supports (just search)
"on appointment" and that after coding it I learn that what I have added
is a comment. And that the "fallback" '|| "on appointment" ' would in
fact be '||'.
> About the complexity:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/23332#comment27468
> You are welcome to write good documentation/tutorials for normal mappers.
It's far from the first time that I read "if you don't understand, write
the documentation".
On the other hand, I did write a simplified syntax
 of
what I think I understand and which was applauded by the "normal
mappers" but someone had removed it and almost insulted me for doing that.
> The thing which really helped me to understand opening_hours in OSM was the
> syntax specification [4]. I would recommend everyone to try to wrap your head
> around it.
>
> [2]:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:opening_hours#women.2Fmen-only_days
> [3]:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours/specification#explain:comment
> [4]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours/specification
Thanks for any improvement.
I suggest (generally) that documentation said something like "anything
in quotes is a comment that can be considered as removed from the tag"
and only then gave examples.
This is because explaining syntax almost only with comments like the
opening_hours  page does may have the reader believe that comments mean:
the text in quotes may be displayed on the user screen if the preceding
part of the rule is true or something like that.

Cheers

André.



>
>
>>> Garbage detector software:
>> It's not the tagging errors that the QA tools usually detect.
>> I discovered 2 streets whose non missing buildings outlines were mapped
>> "à la Picasso".
>> Very nice from a 5 m distance in an exhibition hall, but hair-raising as
>> you watch close up.
>> I was wondering if there's more Picasso around and where.
>> I think I'll try searches by author's name.
>> Is award-winning rush-tagging OSM-like ?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> André.
>>
>>
>>> * http://openingh.openstreetmap.de/?setLng=en
>>> * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quality_Assurance_Tools_script
>>>
>>> Checkout: http://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/
>>>
>>> [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours
>
>
> ___
> 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 FOR the renderer

[pmailkeey .]

On 16 May 2015 at 00:40, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 05/16/2015 12:03 AM, pmailkeey . wrote:
> > I don't know whether this has been discussed or even mooted before...
>
> Often.
>
> > Tagging for the renderer is natural. Mappers, especially newbies will be
> > disappointed their pet new feature they've just added to the db does not
> > appear on the map.
>
> Thing is, there is no "THE" map.



THE map is here: http://www.openstreetmap.org - supposedly.

However, everyone should look here:
http://openstreetmap.us/iD/master/#background=Bing&map=2.00/-1.8/53.8

as this is a more complete map.





> There's tons of maps in various colour
> schemes and designs, as well as tons of non-map uses of our data, and
> this is one of the super strenghts of OSM - we record that there's a
> motorway, and the map maker can define how they want the motorway drawn.
>
> Your suggestion would kill that flexibility, and everyone would have to
> adhere to that one colour scheme set up by the mapper or editor. It
> would totally run against everything we hold dear.
>

Not at all. I'm suggesting additional tags for basic graphic properties -
and for  http://www.openstreetmap.org to make use of these ADDITIONAL basic
tags. All other maps and rendering would be totally unaffected.

>
> What you are talking about is essentially "MS Paint with multi-user
> capability". That's certainly an interesting project in itself but not
> something that we should remotely consider in OSM.
>
>
Why shouldn't a user who adds a new feature to the db be allowed to
'suggest' how it appears on 'THE' map ? Once the feature is designed to be
'properly' rendered, the basic graphic tags can be removed.
I'm suggesting that these additional basic tags are used on a temporary
basis but would not oppose their permanent use if others agreed.

-- 
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] Maxspeed

[pmailkeey .]

On 15 May 2015 at 22:30, Colin Smale  wrote:

>  That would depend on so many factors, including wheelbase, overhang,
> width, driving skill, weight distribution on individual wheels, even
> speed.. Google for "swept path analysis"
>
> //colin
>
>
> On 2015-05-15 23:13, John F. Eldredge wrote:
>
> I have seen some tight intersections, with buildings directly adjoining
> the roadway at all four corners, where a "maxlength" tag would also be
> useful. A passenger car or a delivery truck would be able to turn the
> corner, but a tractor-trailer rig (heavy goods vehicle) or bus would get
> wedged in place.
>
>
> On May 13, 2015 6:15:22 AM CDT, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>>
>>  On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Colin Smale 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  Don't agree with this... there have been discussions in the past about
>>> whether the "width" of a "way" includes the pavements etc... Where a road
>>> goes under a bridge, where do you measure the "height" of the road? The
>>> highest point (not good enough for vehicles) or the "lowest highest point"
>>> or "in the middle of the road"? I would expect maxheight:physical to apply
>>> to a "normal vehicle", of maybe 2.5m width.
>>>
>> There are cases where maxheight:physical and maxwidth:physical may be
>> different from the legal definitions and significantly affect the
>> viability.  A standout problem regularly occurs in Oregon where you can
>> have human powered vehicles up to about 3 feet wide legally, but many
>> cycleways, particularly older ones built before the 1990s, have barriers
>> that make all but the 10-speeds with drop bars impractical as negotiating
>> the barriers that keep motorists out also prevent longer or wider bicycles
>> from fitting.  Similar issues exist on Oklahoma turnpikes, which commonly
>> allow vehicles up to 11'6" wide, but the typical cash toll booth is only
>> capable of fitting a 9'5" wide vehicle.  Go figure.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>

So much easier to simply read what restriction is on the road sign !


-- 
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] Tagging FOR the renderer

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 05/16/2015 12:03 AM, pmailkeey . wrote:
> I don't know whether this has been discussed or even mooted before...

Often.

> Tagging for the renderer is natural. Mappers, especially newbies will be
> disappointed their pet new feature they've just added to the db does not
> appear on the map.

Thing is, there is no "THE" map. There's tons of maps in various colour
schemes and designs, as well as tons of non-map uses of our data, and
this is one of the super strenghts of OSM - we record that there's a
motorway, and the map maker can define how they want the motorway drawn.

Your suggestion would kill that flexibility, and everyone would have to
adhere to that one colour scheme set up by the mapper or editor. It
would totally run against everything we hold dear.

What you are talking about is essentially "MS Paint with multi-user
capability". That's certainly an interesting project in itself but not
something that we should remotely consider in OSM.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

[Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer

[pmailkeey .]

I don't know whether this has been discussed or even mooted before...

Tagging for the renderer is natural. Mappers, especially newbies will be
disappointed their pet new feature they've just added to the db does not
appear on the map. This situation is no use to anyone but has been allowed
to continue and 'enforced' with wiki et al going against the notion of
tagging for the renderer. The problem was likely there in the beginning and
is still there now - several years later - unresolved. In fact, the way OSM
is put together, it's completely unresolvable - as people are free to tag
how they like and the map shows only what the renderers choose to show. I
have considered that what we see in the editors is the real map and true
OSM isn't. If the editors had a 'read-only' mode, they'd be far more use
than OSM proper and mappers would be happier to see their work on the 'map'.

I therefore want to air the view that 'mapping for the renderer' is no
longer 'wrong' by actually adding a good set of basic tags for areas, lines
and points ("simple English" as opposed to technical English of 'nodes' and
'ways') so that when a mapper invents something new, they can add tags for
colour, opacity, line colour, line width, line opacity - for areas and
similar attributes for lines and points (colour, opacity, size etc.) and
obviously tags for name and description etc. What do people think to this ?

-- 
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] Maxspeed

[Colin Smale]

 

That would depend on so many factors, including wheelbase, overhang,
width, driving skill, weight distribution on individual wheels, even
speed.. Google for "swept path analysis" 

//colin 

On 2015-05-15 23:13, John F. Eldredge wrote: 

> I have seen some tight intersections, with buildings directly adjoining the 
> roadway at all four corners, where a "maxlength" tag would also be useful. A 
> passenger car or a delivery truck would be able to turn the corner, but a 
> tractor-trailer rig (heavy goods vehicle) or bus would get wedged in place.
> 
> On May 13, 2015 6:15:22 AM CDT, Paul Johnson  wrote: 
> 
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> Don't agree with this... there have been discussions in the past about 
> whether the "width" of a "way" includes the pavements etc... Where a road 
> goes under a bridge, where do you measure the "height" of the road? The 
> highest point (not good enough for vehicles) or the "lowest highest point" or 
> "in the middle of the road"? I would expect maxheight:physical to apply to a 
> "normal vehicle", of maybe 2.5m width. 
> There are cases where maxheight:physical and maxwidth:physical may be 
> different from the legal definitions and significantly affect the viability. 
> A standout problem regularly occurs in Oregon where you can have human 
> powered vehicles up to about 3 feet wide legally, but many cycleways, 
> particularly older ones built before the 1990s, have barriers that make all 
> but the 10-speeds with drop bars impractical as negotiating the barriers that 
> keep motorists out also prevent longer or wider bicycles from fitting. 
> Similar issues exist on Oklahoma turnpikes, which commonly allow vehicles up 
> to 11'6" wide, but the typical cash toll booth is only capable of fitting a 
> 9'5" wide vehicle. Go figure. 
> 
> -
> 
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1]

 -- 
 John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com (615) 299-6451
 "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate
cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King,
Jr.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1]

 

Links:
--
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Maxspeed

[John F. Eldredge]

I have seen some tight intersections, with buildings directly adjoining the 
roadway at all four corners, where a "maxlength" tag would also be useful. A 
passenger car or a delivery truck would be able to turn the corner, but a 
tractor-trailer rig (heavy goods vehicle) or bus would get wedged in place.


On May 13, 2015 6:15:22 AM CDT, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Colin Smale 
> wrote:
> 
> >  Don't agree with this... there have been discussions in the past
> about
> > whether the "width" of a "way" includes the pavements etc... Where a
> road
> > goes under a bridge, where do you measure the "height" of the road?
> The
> > highest point (not good enough for vehicles) or the "lowest highest
> point"
> > or "in the middle of the road"? I would expect maxheight:physical to
> apply
> > to a "normal vehicle", of maybe 2.5m width.
> >
> There are cases where maxheight:physical and maxwidth:physical may be
> different from the legal definitions and significantly affect the
> viability.  A standout problem regularly occurs in Oregon where you
> can
> have human powered vehicles up to about 3 feet wide legally, but many
> cycleways, particularly older ones built before the 1990s, have
> barriers
> that make all but the 10-speeds with drop bars impractical as
> negotiating
> the barriers that keep motorists out also prevent longer or wider
> bicycles
> from fitting.  Similar issues exist on Oklahoma turnpikes, which
> commonly
> allow vehicles up to 11'6" wide, but the typical cash toll booth is
> only
> capable of fitting a 9'5" wide vehicle.  Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com (615) 299-6451
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive 
out hate; only love can do that." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Sector, section, and cemetery

[pmailkeey .]

On 15 May 2015 at 19:26, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:

> On Fri, 15 May 2015 17:32:39 +0100
> "pmailkeey ."  wrote:
>
> > How about mapping a cemetery with connected smaller cemeteries ?
> > That's what I've done to distinguish different areas and names.
>
> Single cemetery should be mapped as one cemetery not, a bunch of
> separate ones.
>

Why ?

I don't do it with car parks. There's often a section for disabled,
parent/toddler, staff - and general use. Each gets marked for its own
purpose even if they abut.

-- 
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] Sector, section, and cemetery

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 17:32:39 +0100
"pmailkeey ."  wrote:

> How about mapping a cemetery with connected smaller cemeteries ?
> That's what I've done to distinguish different areas and names.

Single cemetery should be mapped as one cemetery not, a bunch of
separate ones.

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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-05-15 19:22 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć :

> I think it was a clever move, sparing us additional typing and storage,
> but still in reality area is a basic concept with some exceptions, rather
> than special property of GIS objects.



yes, it is planned to have a real area datatype, sooner or later.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/The_Future_of_Areas

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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 15.05.2015 18:33, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):


the area tag is sort of a special tag, it is used as a geometry flag
to say whether a closed way is linear or a polygon.


That is how we are used to think about it, but it's just a convention.

If you flip the point of view, you can say area is one of a most basic 
GIS objects and it means we have a filled polygon with some additional 
properties and functions probably (like name, school or highway), and 
one very special exception (value "no" is rare - 1,67%) telling it's a 
closed line (probably also with some properties).


It is strange, I agree, but still useful, coherent and no worse than 
building=no (0,01%, so also marginal, but useful and coherent too).


For many types of objects area=* is so basic, that we don't even use it 
explicitly unless we need to tell something is different this time. And 
it's also highly conventional, because no highway is a line in reality, 
it's always an area, but it just happened we started OSM with routing in 
mind (big and middle scale) rather than micromapping (micro scale) and 
to make things easier we assumed that closing the highway line by 
default means "area=no".


I think it was a clever move, sparing us additional typing and storage, 
but still in reality area is a basic concept with some exceptions, 
rather than special property of GIS objects.


--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down" [A. Cohen]


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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-05-15 17:23 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć :

> I see the area=* namespace as the most interesting and realistic
> candidate, because it's really basic word/object, and while it may look
> like a highly conflicting one (almost 700k uses already! -
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/area), in reality it's underused,
> because 99,39% of values are just yes/no
>


the area tag is sort of a special tag, it is used as a geometry flag to say
whether a closed way is linear or a polygon.

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

Re: [Tagging] Sector, section, and cemetery

[pmailkeey .]

On 15 May 2015 at 14:38, Kotya Karapetyan  wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> I was mapping cemeteries recently, and I stumbled over a couple of
> confusing points. I would like to know your opinion.
>
> 1) There is landuse=cemetery and amenity-grave_yard. Could someone explain
> the difference please? Is it that graveyard is always at a place of worship
> territory? I find it quite confusing: most big cemeteries in Moscow have
> started as such graveyards, but are now much more known than those old
> churches or monasteries (which may even be non-functional by now). Also, at
> every cemetery, there is a place of worship. But its only purpose is often
> to hold a burial service at that cemetery.
>
> 2) For large cemeteries, mapping of sections/sectors is essential for the
> map to be of any use. There is a proposal for this
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Cemetery_sector,
> but it seems to be abandoned. I would restart it, but I have a doubt: do we
> want a specific cemetery-related tag only? I would rather introduce
> something like a "section" that could be used elsewhere too (e.g. for a
> large parking, beach, etc.) The fact that it's a cemetery section can be
> derived from geometry.
>
> 3) A good alternative could be a subtag:
> cemetery:section=xxx,
> where I would make xxx the name of the section (aka ref and name).
>
> 4) Ref seems to be a good tagging for the cemetery section number, but it
> doesn't show up on the map, unlike the "name" (e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/345082198). Is ref still a preferred
> tag?
>
> 5) Is it more correct to use "section" or "sector" for cemeteries? The
> proposal is for "sector" but I think it should actually be "section".
>
> Cheers,
> Kotya
>

There's also 'churchyard' but that doesn't appear to get rendered !

How about mapping a cemetery with connected smaller cemeteries ? That's
what I've done to distinguish different areas and names.

-- 
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] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-05-15 17:23 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć :

> I don't think it's simply "if we don't have it, we don't need it, because
> if we need it, we would have it already". =} You probably underestimate the
> power of inertia and "good enough" system.




yes, I agree. What I meant was: to tag an university the current tag is
easy: use one tag amenity=university and you're done and seeing it you can
be sure that the tag describes an university or is misplaced. No need to
specify: research_institution=yes, educational_institution=yes,
educational_level=4+5 etc.,
Now if you want to map something that isn't actually an university or a
college then you'll have to invent something new for this. duck tagging. A
goose is not a duck ;-) Back to your "higher schools in Poland", I guess
they are not universities, unless they also do research, while for college
I am not sure.

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

Re: [Tagging] Sector, section, and cemetery

[Stefano]

2015-05-15 15:38 GMT+02:00 Kotya Karapetyan :

> Hi everybody,
>
> I was mapping cemeteries recently, and I stumbled over a couple of
> confusing points. I would like to know your opinion.
>
> 1) There is landuse=cemetery and amenity-grave_yard. Could someone explain
> the difference please? Is it that graveyard is always at a place of worship
> territory? I find it quite confusing: most big cemeteries in Moscow have
> started as such graveyards, but are now much more known than those old
> churches or monasteries (which may even be non-functional by now). Also, at
> every cemetery, there is a place of worship. But its only purpose is often
> to hold a burial service at that cemetery.
>
> 2) For large cemeteries, mapping of sections/sectors is essential for the
> map to be of any use. There is a proposal for this
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Cemetery_sector,
> but it seems to be abandoned. I would restart it, but I have a doubt: do we
> want a specific cemetery-related tag only? I would rather introduce
> something like a "section" that could be used elsewhere too (e.g. for a
> large parking, beach, etc.) The fact that it's a cemetery section can be
> derived from geometry.
>

The person who proposed it did also a mass retagging where sector were
already defined


>
> 3) A good alternative could be a subtag:
> cemetery:section=xxx,
> where I would make xxx the name of the section (aka ref and name).
>
> 4) Ref seems to be a good tagging for the cemetery section number, but it
> doesn't show up on the map, unlike the "name" (e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/345082198). Is ref still a preferred
> tag?
>
> 5) Is it more correct to use "section" or "sector" for cemeteries? The
> proposal is for "sector" but I think it should actually be "section".
>

You could evaluate the tagging already in use in different cemeteries
around the world and see which tags are used for similar objects, then
proposing some system to unify the situation.
Well mapped cemeteries you can find in Poland, Pere Lachaise in Paris,
Staglieno in Genoa, and so on.

>
> Cheers,
> Kotya
>
>
Regards.
Stefano


> ___
> 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] Sector, section, and cemetery

[althio]

Kotya Karapetyan  wrote:
> 2) For large cemeteries, mapping of sections/sectors is essential for the
> map to be of any use. There is a proposal for this
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Cemetery_sector, but
> it seems to be abandoned. I would restart it, but I have a doubt: do we want
> a specific cemetery-related tag only? I would rather introduce something
> like a "section" that could be used elsewhere too (e.g. for a large parking,
> beach, etc.) The fact that it's a cemetery section can be derived from
> geometry.

There is a proposal for this
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Section
but it seems to be abandoned. (bis)

> 3) A good alternative could be a subtag:
> cemetery:section=xxx,
> where I would make xxx the name of the section (aka ref and name).

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

Re: [Tagging] Water featuers

[Janko Mihelić]

 pet, 15. svi 2015. 13:15 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> je napisao:

On 15/05/2015 4:55 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> A lot of those end up as natural=water.  I suppose man_made=yes could
> be added.
>

The 'Pool of Reflection' Sydney is simply tagged
natural=water
name=Pool of Reflection

Way: 182625202

That is an ornamental memorial pool. Flat.


 Ups, i changed the title. Anyway:

Wiki suggests natural=water + water=reflecting_pool:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water#Possible_values

Maybe water=cascade could be the right fit.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Administration building tag

[Kotya Karapetyan]

Great, office=administrative will do. Thanks!

Cheers,
Kotya

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
>
>
>
> > Am 15.05.2015 um 16:49 schrieb Kotya Karapetyan :
> >
> > Is there a tag for an administration building of a large campus/site?
> Specifically, I would like to tag the administration location of a cemetery.
>
>
> maybe "office" fits for you?
>
> cheers
> Martin
> ___
> 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] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 15.05.2015 15:11, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):


either one of the available tags fit for your purpose or you will have
to invent a new tag, that's how OSM works. The situation would be


Sure, I know! =}

However when you have only few fixed categories, it's much harder to 
invent a proper one - coherent with the rest (also language-wise) and 
not overlapping with other definitions. That can be less of a problem if 
you have just a dozen of tags, but when there is more of them, lack of a 
clear system will hit you more and more.



different for you if we had a common tag for any kind of higher
education, but it seems that other mappers have thought this approach
would be less useful for them (or we would already have this tag).


I don't think it's simply "if we don't have it, we don't need it, 
because if we need it, we would have it already". =} You probably 
underestimate the power of inertia and "good enough" system. In theory 
we encourage "any tags you like" approach, while in practice we tend to 
treat Wiki as the highest truth to deal with scattered cases and we 
render only a small subset even of already "approved" tags.


Most casual users are afraid and don't know the system, so they will 
just choose existing tags no matter what, and if there are no clear 
guidelines/categories to create new tags AND they need to put a lot of 
work (like writing the proposal, subscribing to the list, discussing, 
then voting) AND there is no chance to see it work in the short time, 
they will abstain or tag for existing tags or renderer.


There should be easier way of "creating" (defining and populating in our 
ecosystem) new tag schemes within more useful category tree. It's more 
reachable goal than trying to change casual users - exactly because they 
are not involved too deep and most of them never will.



IMHO in general we have to deal with what is there, yes, we can try to
make some changes to make the system more consistent or complete, but
if you come and want to change everything there will naturally be some
reluctance. This is ever more true with established usage of a tag. If


Of course. But I think we well need to change it anyway and it's better 
now than when we grow much more and the problem will get even bigger.


However real crisis may be exactly the point where any big change is 
really possible - I can only make the community aware of it and start 
discussion early enough to not make it too big.



you still want to try, please use a namespace/ keys that are not yet
in use, so to avoid conflicts with other mappers and to allow for
parallel tagging during "transition" (also look at the tags path and
public_transport which are examples for previous attempts to redesign
parts of the tagging scheme)


I see the area=* namespace as the most interesting and realistic 
candidate, because it's really basic word/object, and while it may look 
like a highly conflicting one (almost 700k uses already! - 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/area), in reality it's underused, 
because 99,39% of values are just yes/no and there's no need to touch 
them. Other popular namespaces area:highway=* and area:size:ha=* are 
just a different notation (area=highway + highway=*, the second one is 
harder to translate, but not that important) and as I said: which 
notation will prevail is a secondary problem.


So all the needed elements are there. What we need is just a mental 
shift first (area=* may be a primary tag, not just an optional feature 
of some objects), then documenting it, tagging and changes in tools 
later. For me the biggest question is: are we ready for this and only 
inertia is at play or maybe there are some valid objections or issues we 
should think about before the change?



cheers


+1 =}

--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down" [A. Cohen]


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

Re: [Tagging] Administration building tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 15.05.2015 um 16:49 schrieb Kotya Karapetyan :
> 
> Is there a tag for an administration building of a large campus/site? 
> Specifically, I would like to tag the administration location of a cemetery.


maybe "office" fits for you?

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

[Tagging] Administration building tag

[Kotya Karapetyan]

Hi again,

Is there a tag for an administration building of a large campus/site?
Specifically, I would like to tag the administration location of a
cemetery. There is an abandoned proposal (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Administration) but
its examples imply something very different.

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

Re: [Tagging] Water featuer

[Janko Mihelić]

 pet, 15. svi 2015. 13:15 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> je napisao:

On 15/05/2015 4:55 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> A lot of those end up as natural=water.  I suppose man_made=yes could
> be added.
>

The 'Pool of Reflection' Sydney is simply tagged
natural=water
name=Pool of Reflection

Way: 182625202

That is an ornamental memorial pool. Flat.



 Wiki suggests natural=water + water=reflecting_pool:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:water#Possible_values

Maybe water=cascade could be the right fit.

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

Re: [Tagging] Sector, section, and cemetery

[Kotya Karapetyan]

>
> > 4) Ref seems to be a good tagging for the cemetery section number,
> > but it doesn't show up on the map, unlike the "name" (e.g.
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/345082198). Is ref still a
> > preferred tag?
>
> "it does not render" as sole argument is not a good argument. Mappers
> should not care too much during mapping whatever tags are rendered (in
> extreme it leads to
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer ).
>

Awesome! :) I didn't know of this article.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Sector, section, and cemetery

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Fri, 15 May 2015 15:38:53 +0200
Kotya Karapetyan  wrote:

> 4) Ref seems to be a good tagging for the cemetery section number,
> but it doesn't show up on the map, unlike the "name" (e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/345082198). Is ref still a
> preferred tag?

"it does not render" as sole argument is not a good argument. Mappers
should not care too much during mapping whatever tags are rendered (in
extreme it leads to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer ).

Note also that in that case changing ref to name would not result in
appearance of label in that map style.  

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

[Tagging] Sector, section, and cemetery

[Kotya Karapetyan]

Hi everybody,

I was mapping cemeteries recently, and I stumbled over a couple of
confusing points. I would like to know your opinion.

1) There is landuse=cemetery and amenity-grave_yard. Could someone explain
the difference please? Is it that graveyard is always at a place of worship
territory? I find it quite confusing: most big cemeteries in Moscow have
started as such graveyards, but are now much more known than those old
churches or monasteries (which may even be non-functional by now). Also, at
every cemetery, there is a place of worship. But its only purpose is often
to hold a burial service at that cemetery.

2) For large cemeteries, mapping of sections/sectors is essential for the
map to be of any use. There is a proposal for this
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Cemetery_sector, but
it seems to be abandoned. I would restart it, but I have a doubt: do we
want a specific cemetery-related tag only? I would rather introduce
something like a "section" that could be used elsewhere too (e.g. for a
large parking, beach, etc.) The fact that it's a cemetery section can be
derived from geometry.

3) A good alternative could be a subtag:
cemetery:section=xxx,
where I would make xxx the name of the section (aka ref and name).

4) Ref seems to be a good tagging for the cemetery section number, but it
doesn't show up on the map, unlike the "name" (e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/345082198). Is ref still a preferred tag?

5) Is it more correct to use "section" or "sector" for cemeteries? The
proposal is for "sector" but I think it should actually be "section".

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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 15.05.2015 um 14:52 schrieb Daniel Koć :
> 
> Speaking of language/cultural differences: even I don't know how to tag 
> "higher schools" in Poland - as universities or colleges maybe - because 
> "further/continuing education" idea is simply not used here, but we have no 
> common "university, college etc" tag.



either one of the available tags fit for your purpose or you will have to 
invent a new tag, that's how OSM works. The situation would be different for 
you if we had a common tag for any kind of higher education, but it seems that 
other mappers have thought this approach would be less useful for them (or we 
would already have this tag). 

IMHO in general we have to deal with what is there, yes, we can try to make 
some changes to make the system more consistent or complete, but if you come 
and want to change everything there will naturally be some reluctance. This is 
ever more true with established usage of a tag. If you still want to try, 
please use a namespace/ keys that are not yet in use, so to avoid conflicts 
with other mappers and to allow for parallel tagging during "transition" (also 
look at the tags path and public_transport which are examples for previous 
attempts to redesign parts of the tagging scheme)

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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 15.05.2015 13:02, pmailkeey . napisał(a):

My concern is that OSM is/should be open to all. For it to succeed at
that, it needs to be easily understood by all - but even I would


+1 - I couldn't agree more!

10+ years of just adding more types of objects makes a lot of unneeded 
cruft, because we try to fit everything in the initial scheme of things 
(which is too narrow and rigid now). If it's just adding more details, 
we succeeded (in general), but when the problem is finding the right 
categorization, we tend to fail.


And note, that it's hard for us, advanced mappers! But I guess this 
project has a long tail - that means advanced users are just a tiny 
(even if important) part of community. So most of the work is done by 
casual mappers. They have iD as a tool and that's great, but if 
something is more complicated than just adding very typical objects, 
they probably got lost with Wiki subtleties, overlapping definitions and 
language/cultural differences.


We need as low common denominators as possible to be useful for those 
casual users. Otherwise we will loose the opportunities (available data 
not entered, users distracted) or we will gain random errors (data 
entered anyway just to fit in our scheme or - even worse - for 
rendering).


It is never "too late" to change the project until the last user is gone 
or the project have stalled (it's quite the reverse in OSM today =} ). 
It can be hard, but for me general tagging schemes cleaning/simplifying 
has great advantages for casual (easy tagging the ground truth) and 
advanced users as well (lightweight, more flexible categories, tag 
schemes become manageable again, Wiki is not overloaded with 
inconclusive voting cases, because the rules are more flexible and 
clear).



struggle to define 'amenity' - it's not a familiar word to most people
and it's a problem osm-wide with nomenclature like 'node' for point
and 'way' for line - which I have 98% doubts about it even being
correct.


Speaking of language/cultural differences: even I don't know how to tag 
"higher schools" in Poland - as universities or colleges maybe - because 
"further/continuing education" idea is simply not used here, but we have 
no common "university, college etc" tag.



My conclusion is that landuse = area and area = landuse. Area is
simpler to understand - I can "Draw an area" - if such a category is
really necessary - after all, the fact an area is drawn confirms it's
an area without the need to tag it as such (landuse/area).


Landuse is probably always the area (we just may not know the borders 
and make it a node for a closer examination later), but not all areas 
are landuse. =} It can be landcover as well - you don't know what's the 
use, but you can see what is on the ground (for example grass in the 
park: you know what is the use of park, but grass here has no clear 
meaning). Also some people argue that landuse=water makes no sense and I 
think they are right. =}


I think "area" tag is the most useful and generic term for all these 
objects and should be used this way. The practical implementation is not 
set in stone, it can be for example:


1. area=landuse+landuse=park
2. area:landuse=park
3. area=water+water=pond
4. area=pond
5. pond=yes

I strongly prefer shorter ones, with no encapsulated categories (since 
we may want to change it later if needed - see the categories on 
Wikipedia), but anything is better than current state of confusion.


--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down" [A. Cohen]


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

Re: [Tagging] Water featuers

[pmailkeey .]

'Pond' seems to fit the bill: OED: "A small body of still water of
artificial formation, made either by excavating a hollow in the ground or
by embanking and damming up a watercourse in a natural hollow."

On 15 May 2015 at 12:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 15/05/2015 4:55 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
>
>> A lot of those end up as natural=water.  I suppose man_made=yes could be
>> added.
>>
>>
> The 'Pool of Reflection' Sydney is simply tagged
> natural=water
> name=Pool of Reflection
>
> Way: 182625202
>
> That is an ornamental memorial pool. Flat.
>
> I've added a just cascade ..
> natural=water
> name=Fig Grove
>
> It would be rendered .. but nothing special to mark it as a cascade.
>  Rivers and streams get directional arrows .. but then cascades may be
> confused with them.
> May be an arrow with a flattened point would do.. but you'll need some tag
> for it and a wiki page.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

> Am 15.05.2015 um 12:17 schrieb p...@trigpoint.me.uk:
> 
> It is way more than a shop, probably the best example of an amenity there is.


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

Re: [Tagging] Water featuers

[Warin]

On 15/05/2015 4:55 PM, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
A lot of those end up as natural=water.  I suppose man_made=yes could 
be added.




The 'Pool of Reflection' Sydney is simply tagged
natural=water
name=Pool of Reflection

Way: 182625202

That is an ornamental memorial pool. Flat.

I've added a just cascade ..
natural=water
name=Fig Grove

It would be rendered .. but nothing special to mark it as a cascade.
 Rivers and streams get directional arrows .. but then cascades may be 
confused with them.
May be an arrow with a flattened point would do.. but you'll need some 
tag for it and a wiki page.








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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[pmailkeey .]

My concern is that OSM is/should be open to all. For it to succeed at that,
it needs to be easily understood by all - but even I would struggle to
define 'amenity' - it's not a familiar word to most people and it's a
problem osm-wide with nomenclature like 'node' for point and 'way' for line
- which I have 98% doubts about it even being correct.

On 15 May 2015 at 10:48, John Willis  wrote:

> Amenity=school should be landuse=school, for example.
>
>
>
That shows another fine example of a misunderstanding of the hub of the
problem. Other than vertical areas, on the Earth and map, any area IS
landuse - it has to be (landuse=ocean ) so we get landuse=building
even. So that raises the question as to whether 'landuse' adds any info
value in tags to the object being mapped. 'Building' clearly does.

Consider asking someone to:

"Draw a building"
"Draw an amenity"
"Draw a landuse"

Only the first example would produce satisfactory results (probably ending
up as a house rather than an office block or a hospital).

My conclusion is that landuse = area and area = landuse. Area is simpler to
understand - I can "Draw an area" - if such a category is really necessary
- after all, the fact an area is drawn confirms it's an area without the
need to tag it as such (landuse/area).

-- 
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] amenity vs. shop *=ice_cream

[John Willis]

+1

Unless it is an amenity of a larger place,
Like a Willy Wonka ice cream pool where you can just scoop ice cream out of 
with your hand - that's an amenity. 

A shop sells things. Like ice cream.

I already described a shop that sells ice cream takeaway only (and not soft 
serve or scooped) - so I'm sure there are other chains like the one I know.  

Javbw. 

> On May 15, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> That is a very simple 'rule' .. if it sells a product .. it is a shop

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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[phil]

On Fri May 15 10:41:00 2015 GMT+0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2015-05-15 1:27 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> 
> > to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff and is a building.

True, but a pub is much more than a business . It is as much a community centre 
as a business,  the customers are an essential part of the formula. 

It is one of the P's that make a village a viable community,  Post Office, 
Primary School and Pub.  

Pubs rely upon customer commitment and participation for darts, dominoes teams, 
to collect glasses,  take a turn behind the bar.when its busy, to greet and 
pass time with strangers who come in.

It is way more than a shop, probably the best example of an amenity there is.

Phil (trigpoint )
-- 
Sent from my Jolla
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[jonathan]

+1






Jonathan

---
http://bigfatfrog67.me





From: Martin Koppenhoefer
Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎15‎ ‎May‎ ‎2015 ‎10‎:‎41
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools








2015-05-15 1:27 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff and is a building. 


to me a pub is a business, sells food and drinks and is typically in a building 
(there might be also pubs in tents or on ships, etc.)


I feel its pointless to question the sense of the amenity namespace / key. It's 
too late. Of course we could use another structure for these tags and get rid 
of some problems and get some different problems, but a transition seems too 
revolutionary, too much effort for likely not enough gain...





Cheers,


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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Simone Saviolo]

2015-05-15 1:27 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 14/05/2015 11:55 PM, pmailkeey . wrote:
>
>> amenity=pub is really just pub(=yes) etc.
>>
>
> That is a better example .. to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff
> and is a building. As are restaurants, petrol stations etc.
>

No they're not. They are activities (usually) operated inside a building.
What about large buildings with a pub and some shops on their ground floor?
None of those shops nor the pub is a building.

I agree with pub=yes, however. This would help a lot with the eternal
question "is this a pub, a cafe or a restaurant?" No problem, it's all of
them: pub=yes, cafe=yes, restaurant=yes. Does it have rooms too? hotel=yes.

Regards,

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity vs. shop *=ice_cream

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-05-15 1:11 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> If it is a place that sells something then it should be a "shop".
>
> It does not matter what the product is .. ice cream for consumption now or
> to take home, coffee to consume now or to take home etc .. it is a shop.
> All shops are "amenities" in some way.
>


like an insurance shop, a fuel shop, a security shop or a consultancy shop?
Or more like a pizza shop?

I think that would be too inclusive as a description.

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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[John Willis]

The real question is:

At what scale is the "Amenity" an amenity of something?

This variable answer is the source of he confusion. 

At the beginning, it was the amenity of the town. Amenity=school and 
amenity=hospital is a great example. 

But tagging complexity quickly grew in some objects (and not others), so town 
amenities still exist, but newer schemes to tag other town level objects (like 
shops) are under different tags. This creates confusion. Those amenities got a 
top level tag to refine them, but they don't control the object's definition 
(ie school=university) 

Then newer amenity tags described location level information (like a building's 
amenities).  But again, other tagging schemes were made for more complex items 
at that level, so some are in amenity and some aren't. 

Now we're tagging sub-location level tags - sidewalks and trees and covers and 
clocks and doors - and the amenity tag again has a few amenities (I think) at 
this level as well, and other tag schemes that have more specified data (like 
clock=*), but are still tied to amenity.  

The trick is to murder the town level amenity tags, letting the amenity tag to 
focus (at least) location level amenities, if not smaller.

Amenity=school should be landuse=school, for example. 

This refocus would help people understand that we are talking about location 
level amenities (at least), not town level ones (as there is no amenity=shop) 

This should help change the feeling that  everything should be an amenity tag 
with a subtag to sort out its details. 

Amenity= was probably a great solution at first, but it's too scattershot now. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Removal of "amenity" from OSM tagging

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-05-15 1:27 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> to me a pub is a shop/building .. sells stuff and is a building.



to me a pub is a business, sells food and drinks and is typically in a
building (there might be also pubs in tents or on ships, etc.)

I feel its pointless to question the sense of the amenity namespace / key.
It's too late. Of course we could use another structure for these tags and
get rid of some problems and get some different problems, but a transition
seems too revolutionary, too much effort for likely not enough gain...

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

Re: [Tagging] Water featuers

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-05-15 8:48 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett :

> How should we tag man=made, ornamental water features, which are not
> fountains? For example, a cascade?
>




fountains also require a natural=water for the effective water areas. See
here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/705

A cascade could be waterway=cascade? Or is it a waterfall?

For areas you can maybe find something here (reflection_pool?) or invent
something new along these classes:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details

I've recently mapped this as (one) fountain, although there isn't any water
sputtering more than 10 cm (I'd call this a cascade), maybe also your
"ornamental water features" can be considered fountains? Do you have a
picture?
[image: Inline-Bild 1]

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

Re: [Tagging] On appointment restaurant

[Robin `ypid` Schneider]

On 14.05.2015 23:17, André Pirard wrote:
> On 2015-05-13 16:49, Robin `ypid` Schneider wrote :
>> Hi
>>
>> This can already be done, no problem. It is even described on the key page 
>> [1].
>> Just search for "on appointment".
> Typical of that page, you discover "on appointment" by chance in an
> example dealing with fallback.
> I have read that page throughout 36 times, that's what one must do for
> each question.
> And you make me discover a very fundamental rule I didn't notice after
> 36 readings: that the tokens can be literal strings. And I wonder how
> software supposed to tell whether it's open can understand strings.
> Thanks.

Software is not supposed to evaluate comments in opening_hours (although there
has been an discussion about this [2]). I just added an explanation for the use
of comments [3]. I hope this helps.

About the complexity:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/23332#comment27468
You are welcome to write good documentation/tutorials for normal mappers.

The thing which really helped me to understand opening_hours in OSM was the
syntax specification [4]. I would recommend everyone to try to wrap your head
around it.

[2]:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:opening_hours#women.2Fmen-only_days
[3]:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours/specification#explain:comment
[4]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours/specification


>> Garbage detector software:
> It's not the tagging errors that the QA tools usually detect.
> I discovered 2 streets whose non missing buildings outlines were mapped
> "à la Picasso".
> Very nice from a 5 m distance in an exhibition hall, but hair-raising as
> you watch close up.
> I was wondering if there's more Picasso around and where.
> I think I'll try searches by author's name.
> Is award-winning rush-tagging OSM-like ?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> André.
> 
> 
>> * http://openingh.openstreetmap.de/?setLng=en
>> * https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Quality_Assurance_Tools_script
>>
>> Checkout: http://openingh.openstreetmap.de/evaluation_tool/
>>
>> [1]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:opening_hours

-- 
Live long and prosper
Robin Schneider



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

Re: [Tagging] "Pet Relief Areas"

[John Willis]

Since so may people in Japan travel with small dogs, most parking areas and 
many service areas have "pet areas" (I think they are called), where you can 
let your dog out of the car and walk them or let them deficate. This is not an 
enclosed space - there are no fences or facilities. 

They are there specifically to let your pet "relieve" themselves. 

I believe the fenced-in no-leash areas are called dog runs.

Could these airport areas for pets be be the same thing as my PA/SA areas?

Javbw. 



> On May 15, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Bryce Nesbitt  wrote:
> 
> These stations are in facilities such as airports,
> and they are open to whatever animal needs them:
> pets, service dogs, and unruly children as appropriate.
> Many of them are indoors.
> 
> Since they are likely to include access to dog waste bags, they could be a 
> subtag under vending.  Ugh.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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