Re: [Tagging] Tagging for Pipe Line Reserves

Hi Warin, Do you have pictures of such areas plz ? I don't see anything corresponding to 'reserve' All the best Le 8 févr. 2017 08:24, "Warin" <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit : > That tags the pipe line itself. > > The request is to tag the area set aside for a pipe line ... a reserve. > > >

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for Pipe Line Reserves

That tags the pipe line itself. The request is to tag the area set aside for a pipe line ... a reserve. On 08-Feb-17 04:38 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: There is already a tagging structure for pipelines that takes into account whether it's underground or overground. See

Re: [Tagging] Harmonising source tag values.

Hi,One interest to do it may be to reduce the volume of the database by improving compression, improve indexing of the values, simplify queries by reducing the need for a request to handle variations of case in a value, simplify statistics by reducing post-analysis... for me there is an added

Re: [Tagging] Tagging for Pipe Line Reserves

There is already a tagging structure for pipelines that takes into account whether it's underground or overground. See http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8964252 for a section of the Trans Alaska Pipeline. However, the land area above the pipeline, which is restricted for casual access throughout

Re: [Tagging] Harmonising source tag values.

Not really. Although such a move appeals to my sense of orderliness and my background in database design. All these weird variations in tag values drive me a little bit crazy but normalizing them is a lot of work that will soon be undermined by people using new free-form source tags anyhow. By the

Re: [Tagging] Harmonising source tag values.

Is there any reason to use a source tag now that comments are required on commits/edits? On February 7, 2017 5:47:46 PM PST, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, > > >One mapper has taken on themselves to 'harmonise' some local source tag > >values. > > >There are many more that could be

[Tagging] Harmonising source tag values.

Hi, One mapper has taken on themselves to 'harmonise' some local source tag values. There are many more that could be done along the same lines .. the major example would be Bing, bing, BING, bing and bing mm (where is the numerical year and mm is the numerical month).

[Tagging] Tagging for Pipe Line Reserves

Hi, A question came up on the Australian list that would be more appropriate here. "My local area (and I'm sure many others) have lots of pipeline reserves. I'm really not sure how to tag these. They appear to have public access for walking at least. (One local one has a sign

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

sent from a phone > On 7 Feb 2017, at 22:20, Viking wrote: > > Animal_breeding was discussed and voted here [1] > Martin, even you approved that proposal, you are the second voter! Didn't you > remember? :-) I didn't remember, sorry. actually, the proposal is ok, it just

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Viking wrote: > @Mike > 1) Ok, cow is the female only: then bovine would be better? Cattle in > English is a term used for bovines only or for other species too? > "cattle" is the correct term[1]. I was mistaken in my original email, "bovine" is

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Viking wrote: > Animal_breeding was discussed and voted here [1] > Nevertheless, in my opinion, it is not appropriate in this application because the purpose of a feedlot is not to breed the animals, but rather to fatten them for market.

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

Animal_breeding was discussed and voted here [1] Martin, even you approved that proposal, you are the second voter! Didn't you remember? :-) It was also discussed on tagging mailing list here [2] 189 tags are not few for a type of structure that almost nobody maps. Man_made=cowshed doesn't

Re: [Tagging] Notary Office

Also, a lot of businesses serve as notaries, as a side-business. The closest notary public to my house is a company that rents out private mailboxes and sells shipping supplies. I have had several documents notarized there. On 02/07/2017 01:28 PM, Richard Welty wrote: On 2/7/17 2:21 PM,

Re: [Tagging] Notary Office

sent from a phone > On 7 Feb 2017, at 18:56, Richard Welty wrote: > > office=notary just seems wrong to me, they're > rarely standalone in my experience. this tag is about a standalone notary, if you don't have such a feature you don't use it. Notaries working in

Re: [Tagging] Notary Office

On 2/7/17 2:21 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > > On 2017-02-07 18:56, Richard Welty wrote: > >> office=notary just seems wrong to me, they're >> rarely standalone in my experience. >> > Richard, in Europe they are almost always standalone, by definition. > They need to be independent and impartial "by

Re: [Tagging] Notary Office

On 2017-02-07 18:56, Richard Welty wrote: > office=notary just seems wrong to me, they're > rarely standalone in my experience. Richard, in Europe they are almost always standalone, by definition. They need to be independent and impartial "by law". They have a protected role in many transactions

Re: [Tagging] Notary Office

On 2/7/17 12:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > yes, I can understand your frustration because apparently the makers > of JOSM have hijacked the notaries and the numbers of "their" tag are > now growing quite fast, due to the prevalence of JOSM. ;-) > > Please, take a step back and look at both

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Viking wrote: > Hi. > To be consistent with the approved and already used tags > amenity=animal_breeding [1], amenity=animal_shelter [2] and > amenity=animal_boarding [3], what do you think about: > > amenity=animal_breeding >

Re: [Tagging] Notary Office

2017-02-07 18:01 GMT+01:00 Ilya Zverev : > My point is, it is growing faster not because it is good, but because it > is in the JOSM presets. Mappers who chose it didn't think twice about which > tags JOSM places on the objects. yes, I can understand your frustration because

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carport

2017-02-07 15:32 GMT+01:00 markus schnalke : > building=residential and building=house have the same tagging > structure although one is the super class of the other. > yes, they are both describing a building typology, but on different detail level. We have a very flat

Re: [Tagging] Notary Office

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > to me office=notary seems ok as a tag, I'd prefer it over the office=lawyer + > subtag tagging, they are sufficiently distinct, and I see no point in > implying they are a subclass of lawyers which they might be or not. Office is > a tag that is already finegrained

Re: [Tagging] Notary Office

2017-02-07 17:19 GMT+01:00 Ilya Zverev : > * office=lawyer + lawyer=notary: introduced in wiki in 2010, number of > uses gradually rises to ~1000. > * office=notary: introduced by accident in 2014, was scarcely used until > it has found its way into JOSM presets in late 2015.

[Tagging] Notary Office

Hi everyone, Recently I found that JOSM uses different tags for notary offices than I'm used to. Turns out, there are two competing tagging schemas: * office=lawyer + lawyer=notary: introduced in wiki in 2010, number of uses gradually rises to ~1000. * office=notary: introduced by accident in

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

sent from a phone > On 7 Feb 2017, at 15:41, Viking wrote: > > To be consistent with the approved and already used tags > amenity=animal_breeding [1], amenity=animal_shelter [2] and > amenity=animal_boarding [3], what do you think about: > > amenity=animal_breeding >

Re: [Tagging] Beef fattening stations

Hi. To be consistent with the approved and already used tags amenity=animal_breeding [1], amenity=animal_shelter [2] and amenity=animal_boarding [3], what do you think about: amenity=animal_breeding animal_breeding:feedlot=cow OR animal_breeding:concentrated_animal_feeding_operation=cow It

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carport

[2017-02-04 18:56] Joachim > > A carport is distinctive enough from building=garage and building=roof > so that an own tag should be used. [...] > The key building=* is used since a carport is a type > of building=roof. Funny how you first try to set the carport apart from