Re: [Tagging] Confectionery shops

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 15.02.2016 um 01:39 schrieb Matthijs Melissen :
> 
> Should we preserve the shop=chocolate and shop=pastry tags, or should
> we make them subtags of shop=confectionery (or shop=bakery)?


having both, bakery and confectionery, seems to indicate that there is also 
room for chocolate and pastry ;-)

I would keep those tags, there seems some need for these tags because they are 
used despite not being in the presets nor being rendered.

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

Re: [Tagging] Galleries versus art shops

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 15.02.2016 um 00:55 schrieb Matthijs Melissen :
> 
> Currently, basically nobody uses tourism=gallery to tag art museums
> (even though the wiki specifies so), so I don't think there is a need
> to change the tag to something like tourism=contemporary_art_gallery.



you know this because you have verified the 1531 instances of this tag?

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

Re: [Tagging] Confectionery shops

[Warin]

On 15/02/2016 11:39 AM, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

Dear all,

Currently, we have the following confectionery related tags:

* shop=confectionery (12045 instances)
* shop=chocolate (730 instances)
* shop=pastry (708 instances)

How should we tag a shop selling cakes? A shops selling croissants and
cinnamon rolls?


shop=bakery

sells=cake;croissant;cinnamon_roll etc


A shop focussed on chocolate, but also selling other
types of confectionery marketed towards adults?


shop=chocolate

sells:manufacture=lindt;darell_lea

sells=dark_chocolate;chocolate_liqueurs/--- Just one idea. /

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting (reminder) - Jewellery shop

[Warin]

If us_en is allowed once .. it may well become the dominate entry. Then OSM 
will have a few remaining tag using uk-en and these will then be subject to 
change to us-en.

Fight it here, overcome it and it can be overcome again.
I have nothing against other languages being used .. provided they are specific 
to that culture. Jewellery is fairly universal and should use uk-en.


On 15/02/2016 11:56 AM, Hakuch wrote:

oh my god, I didn't recognize that this was a real proposal process and
a voting already has started.

I also love to care for more consistency in the data, but this will
result in the straight opposite of consistency. With 20.000 against 200,
  and "Editors and data consumers only support the American variant"
(quoted from your proposal) we already HAVE consistency, you are going
to destroy this just because of a language issue. You will create
unneccessary confusion and work, that could be invested in much better
projects for consistency.

I cant understand, that you want to damage a such well-supported tagging
scheme just for consistency on a very needelssly level.

On 15.02.2016 00:43, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

Hi all,

Voting for the proposal to replace shop=jewelry by shop=jewellery is still open.

The proposal can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Jewellery_shop

I would like to thank all voters in advance for their contribution.

-- 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


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

Re: [Tagging] Galleries versus art shops

[Warin]

On 15/02/2016 11:35 AM, Matthijs Melissen wrote:

On 15 February 2016 at 01:29, Max  wrote:

I see two reasons why it would make sense:

1. the word gallery alone seems to cause so much confusion because of
its ambiguity.
2. if we depreciate tourism=gallery and introduce
amenity=contemporary_art_gallery it would make it clear which tag is
old and should be carefully reevaluated or is a new one following the
new scheme.

What do others think of this point?


 To me a 'gallery' is a place that displays art .. not sells it. So

tourism=museum

museum=art

would be better.



I think the second issue is a bigger problem for shop=art, as this tag
is currently mainly used for galleries, and only sporadically for art
shops. Should we also invent a new tag?


I would think:

shop=art

sells=paintings;sculptures;oil_paint;brushes etc..

(sells can be used with any shop tag... yes, it is a new tag.)





-- Mattijs

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



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting (reminder) - Jewellery shop

[Hakuch]

oh my god, I didn't recognize that this was a real proposal process and
a voting already has started.

I also love to care for more consistency in the data, but this will
result in the straight opposite of consistency. With 20.000 against 200,
 and "Editors and data consumers only support the American variant"
(quoted from your proposal) we already HAVE consistency, you are going
to destroy this just because of a language issue. You will create
unneccessary confusion and work, that could be invested in much better
projects for consistency.

I cant understand, that you want to damage a such well-supported tagging
scheme just for consistency on a very needelssly level.

On 15.02.2016 00:43, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Voting for the proposal to replace shop=jewelry by shop=jewellery is still 
> open.
> 
> The proposal can be found here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Jewellery_shop
> 
> I would like to thank all voters in advance for their contribution.
> 
> -- Matthijs
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 


0x3CBE432B.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Confectionery shops

[Matthijs Melissen]

Dear all,

Currently, we have the following confectionery related tags:

* shop=confectionery (12045 instances)
* shop=chocolate (730 instances)
* shop=pastry (708 instances)

How should we tag a shop selling cakes? A shops selling croissants and
cinnamon rolls? A shop focussed on chocolate, but also selling other
types of confectionery marketed towards adults?

Should we preserve the shop=chocolate and shop=pastry tags, or should
we make them subtags of shop=confectionery (or shop=bakery)?

Thank you in advance for your input!

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Galleries versus art shops

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 15 February 2016 at 01:29, Max  wrote:
> I see two reasons why it would make sense:
>
> 1. the word gallery alone seems to cause so much confusion because of
> its ambiguity.
> 2. if we depreciate tourism=gallery and introduce
> amenity=contemporary_art_gallery it would make it clear which tag is
> old and should be carefully reevaluated or is a new one following the
> new scheme.

What do others think of this point?

I think the second issue is a bigger problem for shop=art, as this tag
is currently mainly used for galleries, and only sporadically for art
shops. Should we also invent a new tag?

-- Mattijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Galleries versus art shops

[Max]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 2016년 02월 15일 00:55, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> On 9 February 2016 at 02:39, Martin Koppenhoefer
>  wrote:
>> 
>> 2016-02-09 0:20 GMT+01:00 Matthijs Melissen
>> :
>>> 
>>> What do you think, would it make sense to try to keep both
>>> shop=art and tourism=gallery?
> 
>> I'm for keeping both, but would prefer a less ambiguous tag for
>> the latter, e.g. amenity=contemporary_art_gallery
> 
> Currently, basically nobody uses tourism=gallery to tag art
> museums (even though the wiki specifies so), so I don't think there
> is a need to change the tag to something like
> tourism=contemporary_art_gallery.

I see two reasons why it would make sense:

1. the word gallery alone seems to cause so much confusion because of
its ambiguity.
2. if we depreciate tourism=gallery and introduce
amenity=contemporary_art_gallery it would make it clear which tag is
old and should be carefully reevaluated or is a new one following the
new scheme.

m.


ps: I don't like the tourism key for museum or gallery.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlbBG/EACgkQ3EB7kzgMM6I8GwCfZmjiSB4KdR3LjsCKFbeGxT/M
Lz0AnRcJDd3VKzE8Gim78HbgcOQCXaRy
=e8y+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: [Tagging] Galleries versus art shops

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 9 February 2016 at 02:39, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
> 2016-02-09 0:20 GMT+01:00 Matthijs Melissen :
>>
>> What do you think, would it make sense to try to keep both shop=art
>> and tourism=gallery?

> I'm for keeping both, but would prefer a less ambiguous tag for the latter,
> e.g. amenity=contemporary_art_gallery

Currently, basically nobody uses tourism=gallery to tag art museums
(even though the wiki specifies so), so I don't think there is a need
to change the tag to something like tourism=contemporary_art_gallery.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Galleries versus art shops

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 9 February 2016 at 00:20, Matthijs Melissen  wrote:
> What do you think, would it make sense to try to keep both shop=art
> and tourism=gallery? Or should we discourage either of these options
> in favour of the other? Or should we come up with new tags?

Most people seem to be in favour for keeping both tags, so I'm going
to write a proposal that preserves both tags.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting (reminder) - Jewellery shop

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

Voting for the proposal to replace shop=jewelry by shop=jewellery is still open.

The proposal can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Jewellery_shop

I would like to thank all voters in advance for their contribution.

-- Matthijs

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

Hi all,

Voting for the proposal for office=government is now open. The
proposal also proposes to mark the alternatives
amenity=public_building and office=administrative as 'discouraged'.

The proposal can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Government_offices

Thank you in advance for voting.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Government offices

[Matthijs Melissen]

On 9 February 2016 at 04:57, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> @Matthijs,
>
> I like what you've done so far. I think using office=government and then 
> following that additional tags to more closely define what sort of 
> administration is done by that office is a good way to proceed.
>
> I would suggest a minor change to the definition you have above by including 
> a reference to facilities. These might include water and irrigation projects, 
> government controlled utilities and the like.
>
> The tag office=government is used to tag offices of a
> (supra)national, regional or local government agency or department. In
> these offices, staff work directly for government and carry out
> tasks to administer facilities, operate registries and licensing bureaus, 
> regulate lands and/or people, etc."
>
> Something like that maybe?


Thanks, I have incorporated this definition in the proposal.

-- Matthijs

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

Re: [Tagging] path=hiking in use

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Feb 14, 2016, at 5:03 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> footway=hiking

Footway=trail, as it can be used for many activites, including hiking. 

I would love to have a separate main key value for a trail, just like track. 

We differentiate between a gravel driveway and a gravel track. 

If I go to a zoo or a park, they often times have well graded compact gravel / 
DG/ dirt footways. If I had my friend in a wheelchair or my mother with bad 
toes from chemotherapy, they can easily shuffle or roll along the route because 
it is at heart a footway with surface=gravel. 

If I have a loose gravel kind of path along a riverbank, with some rocks and 
erosion, I can easily hike (in sneakers!), mountain bike, or visit a ranger's 
cabin in a remote area. I'm not going to assume I can push a stroller along, 
take a 10 year old on their bike, nor bring along a kid in a wagon. 

These are all assumptions people make when seeing sidewalks and "Paths" in a 
park or city on a map. A  trail - a way with inherent difficulty to travel 
because of condition, slope, and maintenance is different from those footpaths. 
The sac scale lets me set the degree of difficulty of the trail - but it does 
not let me actually differentiate between a sidewalk and a trail at a high 
level. 

Just like we treat highway=residential / service / track differently and THEN 
we apply a track grade. 

If I had a key or subkey value, it would be footway=trail or path=trail (as 
many many activities are allowed or prohibited on a trail), but path=hiking 
exists and is somewhat "inuse". 

Something - anything - to separate a trail from a path that is related in some 
way to its highway=* value would be awesome. 

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

Re: [Tagging] path=hiking in use

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Feb 14, 2016, at 4:55 PM, Andrew Errington  wrote:
> 
> It's a path

All non-motorways are roads for cars.

Just add the width and surface and let's depreciate all the other values. 
primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential/service/track and have only 
highway=road. 

All that they are used for are implied  and can be magically determined in 
those generic tags. No keys or sublets needed.  We can color all the roads 
white and let everyone figure it out for themselves weather it is appropriate 
for their vehicle, their route, and if they need to bring a chainsaw to cut 
fallen logs across their path. None of that needs to be represented in a main 
tag nor sub-tag. 

However the subtle difference between a footway and a sidewalk? Totally 
reasonable to have a subkey to define it. 

>< 

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

Re: [Tagging] path=hiking in use

[John Willis]

I Hit send by accident. 

Javbw

> On Feb 14, 2016, at 10:01 PM, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> 
> None of those tags convey the difference implied primary/tertiary/...track. 
> 
> The track grade scale and the sac scale both 

...convey the degree or grade of the way, 

However track has its own key value outside of service or residential, and 
trail/hiking does not, as all "generic non-car ways" are lumped into path. 

Just like tracks are easily distinguishable from driveways - sidewalks and 
trails through the mountains are as well, and some method should exist to show 
their trail/hiking/something nature. 

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

Re: [Tagging] path=hiking in use

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Feb 14, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> surface and width tags, as well as sac_scale

None of those tags convey the difference implied primary/tertiary/...track. 

The track grade scale and the sac scale both


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

Re: [Tagging] path=hiking in use

[Warin]

Sorry ... longer version

highway=footway
footway=hiking

On 14/02/2016 7:47 PM, Andrew Errington wrote:


I disagree.  If we use something specific like footway=hiking then 
that implies the path is only for hiking.


It's a path.  Its purpose is for whatever you want to do.  
highway=path perfectly encapsulates the idea "there is a path here".




 highway=footway also encapsulates the idea "there is a path here".


'hiking' could be used as a tag on a route, which is a set of pieces 
of path or road (or steps) which form a hiking trail.




'hiking' can be used to indicate the main use of the way.

Here in Korea, a lot of the paths are also access for fire wardens and 
forestry workers, and on the lower slopes they are used to reach grave 
sites for ceremonies and maintenance.


Just as a 'oneway' can be used in the wrong direction by emergency 
services. Some things are not tagged, they are what a reasonable person 
would expect to be 'default' values.


They /can/ be used for hiking, but that is not an exclusive use.

The forestry workers, fire wardens, etc would be 'hiking' ... unless it 
is wide enough for a vehicle .. in which case highway=track would be a 
better tag.


A leisure=swimming_pool does not say that the swimming pool is exclusive 
for swimming... nor exclusive for leisure.

ASSUME ... definition = making and ass out of you and me?


Andrew

On 14 Feb 2016 17:29, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 14/02/2016 6:38 PM, John Willis wrote:


Javbw

On Feb 14, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Andrew Errington
mailto:erringt...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Changing the tags because you don't like the rendering is
not the right approach.  It would be better to lobby for a
change of rendering, or use a different renderer.

Since everything from a sidewalk, a concrete path, a well worn
dirt path through the grass around a park, a rough trail
through the desert, and a trail up the side of Mt Fuji all
have the same vague, meaningless highway=path tag - there is
no differentiation possible, so there is no rendering
differentiation possible. In any renderer.


OSMAnd is capable of rendering the surface tag! So set your
'hiking path' to unpaved (or dirt/sand etc) ... and it can be
rendered.

highway=path has always been someone's bandaid.
I would rebel against path and use footway=hiking!  I would be for
the removal of highway=path.


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

Re: [Tagging] path=hiking in use

[Andrew Errington]

I disagree.  If we use something specific like footway=hiking then that
implies the path is only for hiking.

It's a path.  Its purpose is for whatever you want to do.  highway=path
perfectly encapsulates the idea "there is a path here".

'hiking' could be used as a tag on a route, which is a set of pieces of
path or road (or steps) which form a hiking trail.

Here in Korea, a lot of the paths are also access for fire wardens and
forestry workers, and on the lower slopes they are used to reach grave
sites for ceremonies and maintenance.

They /can/ be used for hiking, but that is not an exclusive use.

Andrew
On 14 Feb 2016 17:29, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14/02/2016 6:38 PM, John Willis wrote:
>
>>
>> Javbw
>>
>> On Feb 14, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Andrew Errington 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Changing the tags because you don't like the rendering is not the right
>>> approach.  It would be better to lobby for a change of rendering, or use a
>>> different renderer.
>>>
>> Since everything from a sidewalk, a concrete path, a well worn dirt path
>> through the grass around a park, a rough trail through the desert, and a
>> trail up the side of Mt Fuji all have the same vague, meaningless
>> highway=path tag - there is no differentiation possible, so there is no
>> rendering differentiation possible. In any renderer.
>>
>
> OSMAnd is capable of rendering the surface tag! So set your 'hiking path'
> to unpaved (or dirt/sand etc) ... and it can be rendered.
>
> highway=path has always been someone's bandaid.
> I would rebel against path and use footway=hiking!  I would be for the
> removal of highway=path.
>
>
> ___
> 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] path=hiking in use

[Warin]

On 14/02/2016 6:38 PM, John Willis wrote:


Javbw


On Feb 14, 2016, at 2:09 PM, Andrew Errington  wrote:

Changing the tags because you don't like the rendering is not the right 
approach.  It would be better to lobby for a change of rendering, or use a 
different renderer.

Since everything from a sidewalk, a concrete path, a well worn dirt path 
through the grass around a park, a rough trail through the desert, and a trail 
up the side of Mt Fuji all have the same vague, meaningless highway=path tag - 
there is no differentiation possible, so there is no rendering differentiation 
possible. In any renderer.


OSMAnd is capable of rendering the surface tag! So set your 'hiking path' to 
unpaved (or dirt/sand etc) ... and it can be rendered.

highway=path has always been someone's bandaid.
I would rebel against path and use footway=hiking!  I would be for the removal 
of highway=path.


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