[Tagging] tourism=attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

what about making tourism=attraction a flag? Like attraction=yes/no or 
tourist_attraction=yes/no?


Reason is that otherwise you can't flag stuff in the tourism namespace as 
attractions


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

[Dirk]

Hi Maarten,

> I'm seeing some ways tagged with waterway=fairway in the Netherlands. 

I did this to mark fairways on lakes in simple way and to draw a navigable
inland watrways network. These waterways should also have tags like
motorboat=yes or CEMT=* to classify.

Results can be seen on

http://maps.grade.de
and
http://routino.grade.de

> This user also added waterway=lake on unclosed ways.

Must have been a mistake if tagged by me

Have a nice day, Dirk




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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-07-18 11:16 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring :

> On 18/07/2016 10:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> in the more common natural, waterway, man_made etc. namespaces
>>
>
> Indeed we do encourage the usage of mainstream OSM tags for all natural &
> cultural/manmade objects. Where seamark tags are added to these objects, it
> should be only to indicate additional navigational information.



you do it for some features, but not for others. e.g. "landmarks",
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/INT-1_Section_E
e.g.
seamark:type=landmark
seamark:landmark:category=tower

wouldn't this be better represented as man_made=tower, landmark=tower (or
yes)?

similarly, all the contained objects in landmark already have their
corresponding tagging (or should get it):
seamark:type=landmark
seamark:landmark:category=monument
(or seamark:landmark:category=column)
(or seamark:landmark:category=obelisk)
(or seamark:landmark:category=statue) Monument, column, pillar, obelisk,
statue
...



Also in this section, there is a draft which seems that someone wants to
add more information in the future (empty tables), where my suggestion
would be to either add a short sentence why there is no information, or
whether you plan to add more (or encourage people to add it) or to remove
these paragraphs (with currently no information, and where "normal" tags
are there or should be invented, like "public buildings", port
infrastructure, etc.):
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/INT-1_Section_F


And a lot of features from here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Seamarks/INT-1_Section_U
seamark:type=harbour
seamark:harbour:category=marina  (doesn't seem to add anything compared to
leisure=marina)


seamark:type=small_craft_facility
seamark:small_craft_facility:category=restaurant   (or is this for
restaurants that can only be accessed with small water craft and not e.g.
by pedestrians?)

seamark:type=small_craft_facility
seamark:small_craft_facility:category=telephone



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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

[Malcolm Herring]

On 18/07/2016 10:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

in the more common natural, waterway, man_made etc. namespaces


Indeed we do encourage the usage of mainstream OSM tags for all natural 
& cultural/manmade objects. Where seamark tags are added to these 
objects, it should be only to indicate additional navigational information.



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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-07-18 10:26 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring :

> but like many other ill-fitting tag keys, we are stuck with it.



I'm not sure we are stuck with it. Like other ill-fitting tag names we
should try to fix it.
A very small change and replacing "rk" with "p" would already be an
improvement ("seamap:*"), but on a more general note I think that
everything that isn't only occuring in seamap contest should likely get a
"normal" tag (e.g. "rock", bridge, ...) in the more common natural,
waterway, man_made etc. namespaces.

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

[Malcolm Herring]

On 18/07/2016 08:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

why "seamark:*"?


This is historical. At the beginning of nautical navigation mapping, it 
was buoys, beacons, lights, etc that were being mapped. As is usual with 
OSM mapping, feature creep set in to include all objects listed in the 
IHO catalogue. In retrospect, a broader term than "seamark" would have 
been better, but like many other ill-fitting tag keys, we are stuck with it.



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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-07-18 9:44 GMT+02:00 Malcolm Herring :

> Yes: "seamark:type=fairway". Ideally on a polygon, but a linear way will
> do.



I know this has been discussed before, but as the issue persists, I'm
mentioning it again: why "seamark:*"? Are there any plans to transition
from "seamark:*" to different tag names that are more descriptive, for
things that aren't "seamarks"? If I read a tag "seamark:type" I would
expect this to describe a seamark, not a nautical channel.

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

[Malcolm Herring]

On 18/07/2016 07:50, Volker Schmidt wrote:

but they for sure must have same tags for that.


Yes: "seamark:type=fairway". Ideally on a polygon, but a linear way will do.


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fairway?

[Volker Schmidt]

How are nautical channels ("fairways") tagged of OpenSeaMap. I could not
find out at first glance, but they for sure must have same tags for that.


On 17 July 2016 at 19:29, Maarten Deen  wrote:

> I'm seeing some ways tagged with waterway=fairway in the Netherlands. Some
> examples:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/215071961
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/210382535
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/215071958
>
> These examples have all been added in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/15581966, there are more examples
> in the changeset.
>
> Taginfo: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=waterway=fairway
>
> This user also added waterway=lake on unclosed ways.
>
> Both waterway=fairway and waterway=lake are not described in the wiki. I
> do get the idea of waterway=fairway. This user seems to have added this in
> lakes to indicate the navigatable route. Since these lakes are shallow,
> there are predeterminded routes marked by buoys. So it makes sense.
> The waterway=lake I don't get.
>
> What is the thought on this. Is this something to keep or should these
> routes be tagged as waterway=canal? These are not canals, so I do see the
> added value of using a different tag. Is fairway an acceptable one? Fairway
> does seem to be the english term for this feature.
> Should this be up for for vote as a proposed feature of should we just add
> it to the waterway wikipage?
>
> Regards,
> Maarten
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging