Re: [Tagging] OSM+Wikidata intro video

[Andy Mabbett]

On 15 June 2017 at 21:02, Yuri Astrakhan  wrote:

> This service is still looking for a proper home. If you have an extra 700GB
> of space on a server, please PM.

Perhaps the WMF toolserver?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sidepath 2.0

[Dave F]

Well, as routing is primarily defined by destination, if you have two 
cycle routes heading in the same direction to choose from, I'm very 
jealous, In the real world how often do you believe that occurs?


What distance from a road would you consider a path have to be before it 
transforms from the one to the other of your examples?


DaveF

On 15/06/2017 19:32, Malte Heynen wrote:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sidepath_2.0

Dear all,

I hope this link is enough – I do not know if I have to include 
anything else into the email.


Thank you in advance for reading and discussing.

Malte from Berlin



___
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] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Jun 2017, at 06:29, Vao Matua  wrote:
> 
> A landuse= tag of Dispersed_Residential or Residential_Agriculture would be 
> helpful and more useful than place=locality or place=isolated_dwelling


you can tag actual landuse (residential or agricultural, etc.), and will 
automatically see whether these are coherent or isolated. 
Isolated dwelling is for a single dwelling, the intent behind this new tag is 
to have a way for tagging a group of several (dispersed) buildings that somehow 
belong together (have a common name for the whole)


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

Re: [Tagging] OSM+Wikidata intro video

[Simon Poole]

Am 15.06.2017 um 22:02 schrieb Yuri Astrakhan:
> Sorry for the delay - I have updated the license on the license page
> to point to ODbL and OSM -- http://88.99.164.208/wikidata/copyright.html
>
> This service is still looking for a proper home. If you have an extra
> 700GB of space on a server, please PM.
>
Wrong place to ask ... better dev or talk (or both).


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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Jun 2017, at 13:35, mbranco2  wrote:
> 
> These toponyms are not strictly related to the (few) dispersed houses, but 
> also to the surrounding woods, meadows, fields, etc


if the toponyms are not related to a settlement or part of it, locality is fine 
as value for place. Still I'm sure there are these kind of dispersed 
settlements consisting of several houses with a common settlement name that 
would not be nicely classified as hamlets, so a new place value would make 
sense (IMHO).

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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Jun 2017, at 00:11, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> What is your definition of it? 


a settlement consisting of dispersed houses, i.e. lots of space between them 
(more then just the garden), e.g. fields. Absence of a core/nucleus/centre.

Wikipedia has an article about them: 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersed_settlement

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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Jun 2017, at 14:38, Robert Koch  wrote:
> 
> Open: How do we reflect the unit? Millimetres won't work for the US.
> Possibilities:
>fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5";2.5";4.5"
>  OR:
>fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5;2.5;4.5
>fire_hydrant:couplings_unit=inch


I prefer the first variant, value and unit in the same tag. Having one value in 
two tags (number and unit) will only lead to potential problems (tags updated 
half). 


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

Re: [Tagging] OSM+Wikidata intro video

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Sorry for the delay - I have updated the license on the license page to
point to ODbL and OSM -- http://88.99.164.208/wikidata/copyright.html

This service is still looking for a proper home. If you have an extra 700GB
of space on a server, please PM.

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Yuri Astrakhan 
wrote:

> Eugene, yes, it must be ODbL (ODbL + CC0 = ODbL), I just need to figure
> out how to modify the Wikidata's own SPARQL editor interface to specify the
> proper license. Thing is, I am still looking for a good home for this
> service with a proper URL, because this machine is an experimentation
> server.
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:47 PM Eugene Alvin Villar 
> wrote:
>
>> Please clarify the license of this combined database and any data
>> returned from a SPARQL query. I assume any data returned is under ODbL
>> since it contains data derived from the OSM database. But this is not
>> indicated anywhere in the Query Service and is not included as metadata in
>> the returned dataset.
>>
>> If this is not corrected, this Query Service will unfortunately be listed
>> under the following page:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Yuri Astrakhan 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The RDF/SPARQL database that has both OpenStreetMap and Wikidata data in
>>> the same table is alive and well, and getting considerable usage. To make
>>> it better understood by even wider community, I made an intro video with
>>> some examples.  This database mostly benefits the object tag validation and
>>> research at this moment, as its geometry support is still in the works.
>>>
>>> The wiki page has also seen a lot of cleanup, explaining how quality
>>> control can be done. I hope that other tools such as JOSM and especially
>>> MapRoulette will be able to use it directly. Also, please contribute your
>>> SPARQL queries to the wiki page.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDiKzbuIhts
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata_RDF_database
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sidepath 2.0

[Malte Heynen]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sidepath_2.0

 

Dear all, 

 

 

I hope this link is enough - I do not know if I have to include anything
else into the email.

 

Thank you in advance for reading and discussing. 

 

Malte from Berlin 

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

Re: [Tagging] metal-bladed windmills for water pumps

[Mark Bradley]

> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:21:12 +0900
> From: John Willis 
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>   
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] metal bladed windmills for water pumps
> Message-ID: <1f5c3e86-2b0e-4345-9378-dd3fdacf1...@mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> 
> 
> Javbw
> 
> > On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:13 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > If you followed the history link I gave above you get They can be traced 
> > back to the
> year 644 in Persia. Bit before the industrial revolution.
> 
> The idea of using a wind driven shaft with a cam and a rod and a leather 
> sealing
> element in a bored well for getting water out of the ground is really old. 
> But those
> "windmills", I will assume, look like traditional windmills because of the 
> structure
> needed to hold all the big heavy Main (wooden/bamboo) fan shafts and a driving
> shaft, cam, etc needed would have to have a small building of some kind - the 
> stresses
> needed to pump water and handle wind load for wooden things with no bearings 
> or
> gearboxes is pretty large if it is a permanent structure. Perhaps the really 
> old ones in
> China were temporary, until a typhoon destroyed them. If it is some permanent 
> thing,
> It's gonna be a building. I purposefully defined the traditional windmill as 
> "operating
> some machinery" in the base - a mill, a trip hammer, a cam pump - whatever it
> happens to be - it is a building.
> 
> A windpump: Using a small (mass-produced metal) transmission in a box on a 
> derrick
> which can only move a rod up and down about 6 inches is similar only in that 
> there is
> a fan disc - the building isn't present, the entire mechanism is in an 
> outdoor gearbox,
> and the whole thing spins on the derrick because the gearbox is about the 
> size of a
> suitcase on metal stilts. It can follow the wind because it has a tail (vane) 
> that is the
> size of a car hood.
> 
> The only thing of great significance is the gearbox the size of a suitcase. 
> The rest a
> bits of metal angle-iron and sheet metal.
> 
> A windpump can trace it's heritage back to the mechanism inside that pumped 
> water
> a 1400 years ago - but so can all of those big permanent holland windmills - 
> this is
> more about the structures - big buildings vs a box on a derrick - and a name 
> to
> separate them.
> 
> They are all generally called windmills - my father calls his "windpump" a 
> windmill - in
> the same way a person calls train cars "cars" when they are power cars, or 
> MPU cars,
> or some other name - but it is a easy way for people "in the know" to 
> differentiate
> them.
> 
> Javbw
> 


There are many old windpumps in the Midwestern part of the United States.  
Built in the 1800's and 1900's, most are now broken down and no longer used.  
Some have been restored and are left standing for aesthetic purposes.  (In one 
of the earlier posts in this thread someone referenced a picture of one of 
them, but I have since deleted that post.)  Like Javbw's father, I believe most 
people in the Midwestern US would call them "windmills" and not "windpumps."  I 
would like to point out that many (most?) of them were created for pumping 
natural gas out of the ground, not water.  They were mapped on the USGS 
topographic maps.  You will see them symbolized with a small hollow circle, 
with the label "Gas well."

Mark

 



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

Re: [Tagging] beer_garden

[Dave F]

On 14/06/2017 16:25, Volker Schmidt wrote:
Certainly I would not put beer garden in "leisure" it's clearly a 
food&drinks place, hence amenity.


The pub covers food & drink hence 'amenity=pub'. If that's mapped as a 
polygon, *=beer_garden is a sub-set with the whole boundary.


DaveF

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

[Tagging] Highway turn outs

[Tod Fitch]

In mountainous areas the highways here often have a wider spot signed as a 
“turn out” where slower moving traffic is supposed to pull over to allow 
following vehicles to pass. These are scattered along two lane roads were the 
sight distance is too short to allow passing other wise. For examples, see the 
Bing satellite imagery at [1] and [2]

The only tag I see in the wiki that is close is highway=passing_place [3] but 
that says it is specifically for roads with less than two lanes. Is there an 
alternative tag or should passing place be redefined to allow its use on wider 
roads?

I suppose I could simply tag those locations as a short sections with two lanes 
in one direction, but the same could be said of anyplace tagged with “passing 
place” as described by the wiki.


[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/34.21446/-117.67446
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/34.21590/-117.67347
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpassing_place

Thanks!


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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Richard Welty]

On 6/15/17 10:02 AM, Viking wrote:
> About the wrench, Richard, we could create the subtag  fire_hydrant:wrench. 
> In Italy we have standard pentagonal or square wrench. What would you insert 
> in this tag? Type and size of the wrench? Something like:
> fire_hydrant:wrench=square30
> Or, like couplings, create fire_hydrant:wrench_type and 
> fire_hydrant:wrench_size?
the physical characteristic of the hydrant is the nut/bolt head, not the
wrench.

square, triangular and pentagonal seem to be the three that are out there.
i'm not sure the size is that important, the wrenches in use seem to be
adjustable.

other tagging notes while we're at it:

i have been using a few other tags in the capital district of new york.

i separate out pond because water source is really a different thing
than the type of hydrant; i've seen dry_barrel pillar hydrants used
with a pond water source. and i generally distinguish between the two
major variations of the pillar hydrant.

fire_hydrant:type=dry_barrel
  wet_barrel
  pipe


fire_hydrant:water_source=main
  pond
  stream

if a locality is using the NFPA paint scheme it's possible to discern
the class of hydrant from the color of the caps. in the US an AA hydrant
has been flow tested and shown to have a very high flow rate. A, B & C are
successively weaker hydrants. firemen have been known to ignore C hydrants
and go find better ones to hook up to.

fire_hydrant:class=AA

out of service hydrants are supposed to clearly marked, either with
a tag on the outlets, or by covering them with a bag:

in_service=yes

the colors of the bonnet (top) and caps on the outlets may or may not
convey useful information. depends entirely on the jurisdiction.

colour:bonnet=white
colour:cap=red

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search



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

Re: [Tagging] Time is now: tag ALL traffic signs in OSM

[marc marc]

Hello,

I think that tagging all traffic sign is very usefull.
I hope having one day an app that automates photo-sign-osm process.
Mainly because it is the easy way to detect signaling changes.

The proposal is interesting but the key side should be improved.
It would be useful to be compatible with both trends:
- locate one or more nodes where panel(s) are located. a relation ?
- summarize the location of panel(s) with a word as you describe with 
the side key.

The Traffic_signs_XX preset for josm is usefull.
It just lacks the ability to set more than a location.
For example down+right is common for stop and giveway signs.

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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Robert Koch]

According to this wiki entry:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features/Units

it would be:

fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5";2.5";4.5"

If not given, a default unit could be specified by the wiki entry (based
on official SI units; therefore metric).
Alternatively we could tell people to always use a unit value to avoid
mistakes on this tag.

On 2017-06-15 15:09, Richard Welty wrote:
> On 6/15/17 8:38 AM, Robert Koch wrote:
>> Hello Richard,
>>
>> On 2017-06-15 01:32, Richard Welty wrote:
>>> an american usage note:
>>>
>>> the "standard" hydrant in the US has 2 x 2.5" hose connections
>>> and 1 x 4.5" pumper connection. other sizes have existed in the
>>> past.
>> Which coupling-type do you use? NST
>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hose_coupling#NST)?
> generally NST. the standardization effort in the US started immediately
> after the catastrophic 1904 Baltimore high rise fire. companies coming
> in from outside of the city found out that their equipement couldn't hook
> up.
>> If so one would describe this hydrant as:
>> fire_hydrant:coupling_type=NST
>> fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5;2.5;4.5
>>
>> Open: How do we reflect the unit? Millimetres won't work for the US.
>> Possibilities:
>> fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5";2.5";4.5"
>>   OR:
>> fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5;2.5;4.5
>> fire_hydrant:couplings_unit=inch
> the norm in OSM usually looks like
>
> fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5in;2.5in;4.5in
>
> but maybe spelled out (inch vs in), i'd have to check.
>>> the wrench required for the bolt at the top of a dry hydrant may vary,
>>> pentagonal bolts are most common but others have been used.
>>> this is something that a mapper can observe, and something that
>>> a fireman cares about.
>> There is not yet a tag for this. In Austria a typical wrench looks like
>> this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/251745653405-0-1/s-l1000.jpg
>> The left side is used to open the bolt at the top, while the right side
>> can be used to open the cap of the hose couplings.
> i'd need to do some research. there are a variety of wrench types available,
> you can get an idea from the grainger website:
>
> https://www.grainger.com/category/spanner-and-hydrant-wrenches/fire-protection/safety/ecatalog/N-kyk?okey=hydrant+wrenches&mkey=hydrant+wrenches&refineSearchString=hydrant+wrenches&NLSCM=14&EndecaKeyword=hydrant+wrenches&searchBar=true&searchRedirect=hydrant+wrenches
>
> richard
>


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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[marc marc]

Hello,

fire_hydrant:outlets and fire_hydrant:couplings are not so intuitive.
Without reading the wiki or the mailing, people can fill in with "yes" 
or with outlets number (it is the meaning of fire_hydrant:count ?)
As a not-fireman, I unable to give the exact diameter of outlets.
But I can and I fill the outlets count, not sure it's helpful.
therefore I prefer fire_hydrant:outlets:count + 
fire_hydrant:outlets:diameter
or fire_hydrant:couplings:count + diameter or sizetype.

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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Viking]

Ok Robert, I think that if in Austria firemen use letters for diameters, we 
should allow letters in OSM too.
By the way, do you think that in an hydrant all couplings follow the same 
standard (UNI, or Storz, or...)? I mean in fire_hydrant:coupling_type is a 
single value enough to describe all couplings? I know that in Italy the answer 
is yes, but I don't know it in other countries.
If a single values is enough also for other countries, we can go on with 
fire_hydrant:coupling_type and  fire_hydrant:couplings. Otherwise we should 
indicate the type of each coupling. I mean if hypothetically there was an 
hydrant with one UNI 70 coupling and two Storz C couplings, we should use 
something like:
fire_hydrant:couplings=StorzC;StorzC;UNI70.

In any case we should write on the wiki a list of accepted values for 
fire_hydrant:coupling_type and fire_hydrant:couplings. A good idea would be a 
table with country specific common values.
For example for Italy:
tag: fire_hydrant:coupling_type
standard value: UNI
tag: fire_hydrant:couplings
standard values: 45, 70, 100

About the wrench, Richard, we could create the subtag  fire_hydrant:wrench. In 
Italy we have standard pentagonal or square wrench. What would you insert in 
this tag? Type and size of the wrench? Something like:
fire_hydrant:wrench=square30
Or, like couplings, create fire_hydrant:wrench_type and 
fire_hydrant:wrench_size?

Best regards,
Alberto


---
Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Richard Welty]

On 6/15/17 8:38 AM, Robert Koch wrote:
> Hello Richard,
>
> On 2017-06-15 01:32, Richard Welty wrote:
>> an american usage note:
>>
>> the "standard" hydrant in the US has 2 x 2.5" hose connections
>> and 1 x 4.5" pumper connection. other sizes have existed in the
>> past.
> Which coupling-type do you use? NST
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hose_coupling#NST)?
generally NST. the standardization effort in the US started immediately
after the catastrophic 1904 Baltimore high rise fire. companies coming
in from outside of the city found out that their equipement couldn't hook
up.
> If so one would describe this hydrant as:
> fire_hydrant:coupling_type=NST
> fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5;2.5;4.5
>
> Open: How do we reflect the unit? Millimetres won't work for the US.
> Possibilities:
> fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5";2.5";4.5"
>   OR:
> fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5;2.5;4.5
> fire_hydrant:couplings_unit=inch
the norm in OSM usually looks like

fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5in;2.5in;4.5in

but maybe spelled out (inch vs in), i'd have to check.
>> the wrench required for the bolt at the top of a dry hydrant may vary,
>> pentagonal bolts are most common but others have been used.
>> this is something that a mapper can observe, and something that
>> a fireman cares about.
> There is not yet a tag for this. In Austria a typical wrench looks like
> this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/251745653405-0-1/s-l1000.jpg
> The left side is used to open the bolt at the top, while the right side
> can be used to open the cap of the hose couplings.
i'd need to do some research. there are a variety of wrench types available,
you can get an idea from the grainger website:

https://www.grainger.com/category/spanner-and-hydrant-wrenches/fire-protection/safety/ecatalog/N-kyk?okey=hydrant+wrenches&mkey=hydrant+wrenches&refineSearchString=hydrant+wrenches&NLSCM=14&EndecaKeyword=hydrant+wrenches&searchBar=true&searchRedirect=hydrant+wrenches

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search



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

Re: [Tagging] fire hydrants

[Robert Koch]

Hello Richard,

On 2017-06-15 01:32, Richard Welty wrote:
> an american usage note:
>
> the "standard" hydrant in the US has 2 x 2.5" hose connections
> and 1 x 4.5" pumper connection. other sizes have existed in the
> past.
Which coupling-type do you use? NST
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hose_coupling#NST)?

If so one would describe this hydrant as:
fire_hydrant:coupling_type=NST
fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5;2.5;4.5

Open: How do we reflect the unit? Millimetres won't work for the US.
Possibilities:
fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5";2.5";4.5"
  OR:
fire_hydrant:couplings=2.5;2.5;4.5
fire_hydrant:couplings_unit=inch
> the wrench required for the bolt at the top of a dry hydrant may vary,
> pentagonal bolts are most common but others have been used.
> this is something that a mapper can observe, and something that
> a fireman cares about.
There is not yet a tag for this. In Austria a typical wrench looks like
this: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/251745653405-0-1/s-l1000.jpg
The left side is used to open the bolt at the top, while the right side
can be used to open the cap of the hose couplings.

Best regards,
Robert
>
> On 6/14/17 6:52 PM, Robert Koch wrote:
>> Hello Alberto,
>>
>> I like your remarks and would like to work together to improve things.
>>
>> On 2017-06-14 19:06, Viking wrote:
 in OsmHydrant [1] there is already fire_hydrant:coupling_type with various 
 values from Storz to Barcelona
 (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fire_hydrant:coupling_type). Then 
 there is fire_hydrant:couplings to complement that, describing the > 
 actual connectors: 
 https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/fire_hydrant%3Acouplings

 This implementation might not be the best for various reasons, but we 
 could consolidate its structure/values if needed.

 [1] https://www.osmhydrant.org/en/
>>> It is a bad implementation: first of all because there is no reference on 
>>> hydrants wiki page (and indeed I didn't know it) and consequentely there is 
>>> a wide range of heterogeneous values that are almost useless for automatic 
>>> data search.
>>> By the way, let's try to improve these existing tags.
>>> fire_hydrant:coupling_type indicates the standard (UNI, Storz,...)
>>> fire_hydrant:couplings indicates the number and diameters.
>>> Right?
>> Right!
>>> First question: is it possible that the same hydrant has different coupling 
>>> types, for example Storz and UNI? I know that in Italy, where I work as 
>>> fireman, this is not possible, so a single value in 
>>> fire_hydrant:coupling_type is enough.
>> In Austria I've only seen hydrants with one connector type (mostly Storz). S
>>> Second question: how would you indicate the number of couplings? For 
>>> example an hydrant with two UNI 45 mm couplings and one UNI 70 mm coupling 
>>> would be:
>>> fire_hydrant:coupling_type=UNI
>>>
>>> fire_hydrant:couplings=45;45;70
>>> OR
>>> fire_hydrant:couplings=2 x 45;70
>>> OR...?
>> So far it was really up to the contributor on OsmHydrant but the
>> recommended way in this case have been so far:
>> fire_hydrant:couplings=2x45/1x70
>>
>> Before going on, I've to explain the rationale behind using that scheme
>> first. In Austria we're using character A for 110mm diameter, B for for
>> 75mm and C for either 52 (or 42). In this case it looks easily readable:
>> "1B/2C" or "1A/2B".
>> When it comes to "2x45/1x70" I totally agree that "45;45;70" is much
>> better. Back in time when doing the implementation for OsmHydrant, I
>> didn't know about using the semicolon to split values, but I like it
>> more than the forward slash.
>>
>> Coming back to the Austrian "1A/2B" I would additionally allow using
>> these characters instead of diameter values as well resulting in: "A;B;B"
>>
>> If the proposal is accepted I'd propose migrating all values
>> automatically and changing OsmHydrant. Your scheme with repeating the
>> diameter is much better readable & parse-able by humans & tools.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Robert
>>> I would prefer 45;45;70 because it's more explicit and less prone to errors.
>>> The use of semicolons to separate different values is commonly accepted on 
>>> the wiki.
>>>
>>> Alberto
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[mbranco2]

Martin began this thread after a discussion in the Italian List [1] .
Problem arise because we've official toponyms (they are used in addresses,
in scarcely inhabited areas, where roads have not an official name).
These toponyms are not strictly related to the (few) dispersed houses, but
also to the surrounding woods, meadows, fields, etc
There aren't official borders for these areas, so we'd use just only a
node, not a closed way to identify the zone.

To show an example, in this screenshot [2] you can read several toponyms
related to this area [3] : coloured dots are buildings with related toponym
being in their addresses.

You can find (several times) the same issue in the discussion page for
place=locality [4] : in my opinion, place=locality could resolve this issue
if we change "unpopulated place" with "unpopulated or scarcely inhabited
place".

Ciao,
Marco

[1]
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Cantone-contrada-localita-regione-tp5897927.html
[2] https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B65acVCG5NRQTVZ1MFg0aF9jSDQ
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.5461/7.9607
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:place%3Dlocality

>* On Jun 14, 2017, at 11:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote:
*> >* Looking at the currently available place values, there are still
some gaps to fill. IMHO we should have something for dispersed
settlements / scattered settlements, as locality is for places where
the name doesn't refer to something inhabited.
*> >* Which term is better understood / used in the UK, dispersed
settlements or scattered settlements?
*> >* Other thoughts?
*> >* Cheers,
*>* Martin
*>* ___
*>* Tagging mailing list
*>* Tagging at openstreetmap.org

*>* https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [Tagging] dispersed settlements / scattered settlements

[Warin]

If the land is not used for agriculture but for residences then 
landuse=residential.


Most of the land is used for agriculture? Then landuse=farmland.

Where the land between the buildings is used for both .. I'd map it 
landuse=farmland. And then


where a residence occurs - map the building, building=residential. Most 
of the time mappers may have little time to give to these things though 
and armchair mappers will be stuck with building=yes..


-
When does a wide spread village become dispersed_residential? Sorry but 
the determination from one to the other will need to be made, and that 
may well be country/culture specific.



The 'place' tag does not nominate the landuse, it is really just the 
size, importance and name of an area.



On 15-Jun-17 02:29 PM, Vao Matua wrote:
Here in Ethopia most of the population lives in a rural setting.  
Sometimes dwellings are grouped into villages, but other areas are 
more dispersed. Here is an example of a residential agriculture area

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/6.93275/38.42255

A landuse= tag of Dispersed_Residential or Residential_Agriculture 
would be helpful and more useful than place=locality or 
place=isolated_dwelling


Emmor
OSM= Palolo




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