Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] shop=chemist as "Drugstore" for Walgreens, CVS, Rite Aid, etc.

Interesting. I've been tagging most large pharmacies as shop=convenience and amenity=pharmacy since I tend to think of them as convenience stores as much as pharmacies. -jack -- Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology On July 5, 2016 1:08:26 PM EDT, Peter Dobratz

[Tagging] Non formal education

Hello, I'm new in this discussion list, sorry if this subject was already discussed. I believe we don't have approved tags for non formal education institutions, like language schools, music and other art schools, etc. I saw that there are two proposals, one for amenity=music_school and other to

Re: [Tagging] Tag for a scrap yard?

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 08:11:04AM +1000, Warin wrote: > > > > > > rather widely is amenity=recycling + recycling=scrap_metal: > > > > But please follow the stream: > > > > amenity=recycling 164677x > > recycling_type=centre 8200x > > recycling:scrap_metal 9000x The wiki says: "Centres are

Re: [Tagging] shop=chemist as "Drugstore" for Walgreens, CVS, Rite Aid, etc.

2016-07-05 17:45 GMT+02:00 Minh Nguyen : > Currently, this is at odds with the wiki and longstanding practice, which > stipulates that a shop=chemist *may not* fill prescriptions. there's also the "dispensing" flag, of which I have always thought it would mean

[Tagging] shop=chemist as "Drugstore" for Walgreens, CVS, Rite Aid, etc.

Recently, iD was changed so that shop=chemist is labeled as "Drugstore" for American English users (and continues to be labeled "Chemist" for British English users). [1] An American mapping a Walgreens, CVS, or Rite Aid who searches for "drugs" will see the following choices, in order: *

Re: [Tagging] Tag for a scrap yard?

2016-07-05 4:55 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout : > We had a discussion here a few months ago about how best to tag what we > call in American English a junkyard. The result was a tag combination that > works for those yards that take wrecked automobiles and then sell parts >

Re: [Tagging] Tag for a scrap yard?

On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 08:11:04AM +1000, Warin wrote: > On 7/5/2016 7:50 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 08:26:23PM +0100, Dan S wrote: > > >> 2016-07-04 20:20 GMT+01:00 ael : > > > > apparently the start of the thread is on the GB-talk list. Yes.

Re: [Tagging] number of bollards in a line

2016-07-05 13:22 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson : > I wonder if we should define a special key such as bollard_count=12 (used >> 3x) >> or keep it generic as count=12 (used 1000x, 121x in combination with >> barrier)? >> > > Usually if it matters that much, I map the individual

Re: [Tagging] number of bollards in a line

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > When I map a line of bollards as a way (barrier=bollard), it could > be useful to give the number of them. Similar to step_count on > highway=steps. > > I wonder if we should define a special key such as

Re: [Tagging] number of bollards in a line

> I wonder if we should define a special key such as bollard_count=12 (used > 3x) > or keep it generic as count=12 (used 1000x, 121x in combination with > barrier)? As much as I'm in favour of the generic count=*, there could be cases where it is not clear what count=* is referring to. On the

[Tagging] number of bollards in a line

When I map a line of bollards as a way (barrier=bollard), it could be useful to give the number of them. Similar to step_count on highway=steps. I wonder if we should define a special key such as bollard_count=12 (used 3x) or keep it generic as count=12 (used 1000x, 121x in combination with

Re: [Tagging] amenity=retirement_home and social facility

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2016/07/05 12:17: Maybe we have a more profound problem here with the "social facility" tag, and it comes out, > it wasn't the best of all ideas to have "social facility" as a generic category? In the end, > if this covers all kind of different stuff (soup

Re: [Tagging] amenity=retirement_home and social facility

2016-07-05 11:48 GMT+02:00 Tom Pfeifer : > Hm, maybe that is not so visible as a facility, but certainly lots of > fitter > seniors join to share a flat, with an individual room for each of them, > privately organised among them. > indeed, I don't believe this would

Re: [Tagging] amenity=retirement_home and social facility

Greg Troxel wrote on 2016/07/05 01:08: So this comes down to being difficutl world wide. I agree with the notion of the definitions and not getting hung up on the terms. Yes, but as said earlier, there is a continuum of possibilities, in particular if you interleave the US definitions you

Re: [Tagging] amenity=retirement_home and social facility

Greg Troxel wrote on 2016/07/02 01:08: Almost no one moves to a "group home" because of age-related mobility or cognitive issues. Hm, maybe that is not so visible as a facility, but certainly lots of fitter seniors join to share a flat, with an individual room for each of them, privately