Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - tag "motorcycle friendly" for accomodations

[Warin]

On 11-Jan-17 12:08 AM, Thilo wrote:

Hello all,

please check this proposal :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/motorcycle_friendly

Cheers,
Thilo






The proposal is for 'friendly:motorcycle=yes/no/complimentary'.

I have added to its discussion page the following;

1 top of page) Instructions to add signature and date to entries there.

2) Tagging list discussions should be considered with link to 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-March/031423.html


3) Assessment of tag - is it too subjective?

4) Wider Application

The requirement for separate proposals for other activities I don't 
think is relevant.



5) Values
I don't know what the value 'complimentary' means for this tag.


---
My further thoughts ?
=== Hiking ===
A hiker may arrive dirty, wet and tired. They appreciate somewhere to 
sit while they can see their backpack and clothing while eating in a cafe.
They may also appreciate being able to fill their water bottle before 
leaving.
At a lodging they may appreciate a drying room where their tent and 
cloths can be dried.


friendly:hiking=yes

=== Bicycle ===
A bicycle rider may arrive dirty, wet and tired. They appreciate 
somewhere to sit while they can see their bicycle and clothing while 
eating in a cafe.
They may also appreciate being able to fill their water bottle, pump up 
their tyres before leaving.
At a lodging they may appreciate being able to take their bicycle into 
the room.


friendly:bicycle=yes

=== Motorcycle ===
A motorcycle rider may arrive dirty, wet and tired. They appreciate 
somewhere to sit while they can see their motorcycle and clothing while 
eating in a cafe.
At a lodging they may appreciate being able to park their motorcycle 
under cover.


friendly:motorcycle=yes

=== Others? ===
There may be other activities that are catered to, so they can be easily 
added to this tag.
Where possible they should use the same text as used in other OSM 
features e.g. {{key|sport}}


== Values ==

Complimentary? I know of one lodging that give a free beer to anyone 
arriving by motorcycle... would that be the value 'complimentary'?


== Not just lodgings ==
Cafes, pubs, grocery shops and restaurants also can be 'friendly' to 
certain activities. Some guide as to what is considered 'friendly' 
should be given.





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

Re: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings

[Christian Müller]

> Gesendet: Samstag, 04. März 2017 um 21:21 Uhr
> Von: "Tobias Knerr" 
> An: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings
>
> And probably a few more. None of these requires relations.

I'm sure there is a lot of stuff in OSM where you could
trade code against a relation.  But most of the time it
introduces dependencies: on caching, on people that still
understand what they did, etc. pp.  Explicit definition
can, even when they are strictly redundant, stabilize
otherwise fragile data that is prone to various errors.

> > Yet they may ease maintenance
> > work for oneself and other mappers, since they usually convey an overview
> > of all the parts present. But of course it depends on mapping workflow if
> > this is true to a particular mapper.
> 
> While there are mappers who love using relations as part of their 
> workflow, the relatively low usage numbers of the building relation (and 
> other optional relations) strongly suggest that this preference is not 
> shared by the majority of mappers.

You already had made a clear point of your aversion to them in your
last mail, thanks.  But I doubt you can speak for the majority of
mappers or deduct a general behavior in this early stage for a method
of mapping that's still spreading and open for discussion.


Greetings

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

Re: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings

[Tobias Knerr]

On 04.03.2017 18:05, "Christian Müller" wrote:

Thanks for the examples and conclusion given.  This is a strong reason to
demand its usage in wiki docs and IMO we should even suggest their usage
generally, regardless of the construction site's complexity.


Situations complex enough to require type=building relations are 
possible, sure. As Martin observed, though, those are exceptional cases. 
The existence of a small proportion of buildings that call for relations 
does not feel like a good reason to demand relations for every single 3D 
building.


> Even when neither multi-layered nor nested buildings exist, they may aid
> in data validation and plausibility checks.

If I tried to find the most common mapping errors with 3D buildings, I 
would probably look for some of the following situations:


* Building parts that cannot be unambiguously matched with a building 
outline.

* Buildings that aren't fully covered in building parts.
* Floating building parts that don't touch the rest of the building.

And probably a few more. None of these requires relations.


Yet they may ease maintenance
work for oneself and other mappers, since they usually convey an overview
of all the parts present. But of course it depends on mapping workflow if
this is true to a particular mapper.


While there are mappers who love using relations as part of their 
workflow, the relatively low usage numbers of the building relation (and 
other optional relations) strongly suggest that this preference is not 
shared by the majority of mappers.


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

Re: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings

[Christian Müller]

> Gesendet: Samstag, 04. März 2017 um 10:17 Uhr
> Von: "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings
> 
> So no, the building relations to group building:parts are not strictly
> redundant, but the reason they are "needed" are (currently) exceptional
> situations.

Thanks for the examples and conclusion given.  This is a strong reason to
demand its usage in wiki docs and IMO we should even suggest their usage
generally, regardless of the construction site's complexity.

Even when neither multi-layered nor nested buildings exist, they may aid
in data validation and plausibility checks. Yet they may ease maintenance
work for oneself and other mappers, since they usually convey an overview
of all the parts present. But of course it depends on mapping workflow if
this is true to a particular mapper.

Lastly, we should keep in mind that any construction site may change in
time. This may be one of the weaker arguments, but still adds IMO to a
general recommendation of their usage.


Cheers

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

[Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - Voting - tag "motorcycle friendly" for accomodations

[Thilo Haug]

Please check where this mail has been gone, reason :
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-March/031403.html

 Weitergeleitete Nachricht 
Betreff:Feature Proposal - Voting - tag "motorcycle friendly" for
accomodations
Datum:  Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:46:19 +0100
Von:Thilo 
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org



Hello all,

please vote for this proposal :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/motorcycle_friendly#Voting

In the discussion, there was just one proposal to use
motorcycle=designated instead, but I think most are not "designated".

To keep it simple, I'd just use yes/no

Thanks in advance for your support.

Cheers,
Thilo

 Weitergeleitete Nachricht 
Betreff:Feature Proposal - RFC - tag "motorcycle friendly" for
accomodations
Datum:  Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:08:10 +0100
Von:Thilo 
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org



Hello all,

please check this proposal :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/motorcycle_friendly

Cheers,
Thilo

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

[Tagging] Fwd: Feature Proposal - RFC - tag "motorcycle friendly" for accomodations

[Thilo Haug]

 Weitergeleitete Nachricht 
Betreff:Feature Proposal - RFC - tag "motorcycle friendly" for
accomodations
Datum:  Tue, 10 Jan 2017 14:08:10 +0100
Von:Thilo 
An: tagging@openstreetmap.org



Hello all,

please check this proposal :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/motorcycle_friendly

Cheers,
Thilo

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

Re: [Tagging] Invalid voting of proposed feature motorcycle_friendly=*

[Michael Reichert]

Hi,

Am 2017-03-04 um 15:02 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> mapping this kind of information (e.g. michelin star restaurants ) in a 
> structured and systematic way is likely forbidden because it means recreating 
> a (probably) proprietary db 

IMHO this is the only way who the friendliness of a POI towards
motorcyclist, cyclists etc. should be mapped at OSM because it is very
objective (just have a look at the entrance door of the POI if there is
such a label/sign or not).

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



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

Re: [Tagging] Invalid voting of proposed feature motorcycle_friendly=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4 Mar 2017, at 13:50, Yves  wrote:
> 
> With signage I meant a particular signage, such as 'Recommended by the xyz 
> motorcycle club', recognized in some way and defined outside of OSM. 
> This kind of sign is rather frequent, and mapping them moves away from OSM 
> the rating temptation.



mapping this kind of information (e.g. michelin star restaurants ) in a 
structured and systematic way is likely forbidden because it means recreating a 
(probably) proprietary db 


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

Re: [Tagging] Invalid voting of proposed feature motorcycle_friendly=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4 Mar 2017, at 07:24, Yves  wrote:
> 
> If there is a signage, then we should map the signage.


I don't agree that mapping the signage would be particularly helpful, besides 
there's no tag for this kind of signs, these sign objects wouldn't be connected 
to the relevant feature and would have a text in local language. 

I agree that in absence of signage the tagging would be based on personal 
experience, but if there is signage the proposed standardized tagging on the 
object it concerns would seem appropriate and helpful.

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

Re: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3 Mar 2017, at 23:04, Christian Müller  wrote:
> 
> It may be redundant, but it's far from useless.


it may seem redundant, and if you assume construction sites to be unique for a 
certain piece of land you would be right, but there are exceptions. There are 
really buildings on top of other buildings. Here's an example:
http://www.detail.de/inspiration/ein-parasit-fuer-rotterdam-106658.html
Another example where this is relevant are megastructures which offer 
individual (stacked) sites within their structure. A proposal for something 
like this was presented by OMA in 1991 at the masterplan competition for 
potsdamer platz, Berlin. Other examples are underground structures (e.g. train 
stations) with different buildings built on top.
In theory, as these cases exist, you do need to couple building parts 
explicitly every time and cannot rely purely on spatial association. In 
practice, these cases might be so rare that you could decide to ignore them.

So no, the building relations to group building:parts are not strictly 
redundant, but the reason they are "needed" are (currently) exceptional 
situations.

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