[Tagging] oneway:bicycle

[Alexis Reynouard]

Is there an accepted/good way to differ between /"it is a oneway for 
everyone, including bicycles"/ and /"it is a oneway, but it is unknown 
if it is also a oneway for bicycles"/.


From the OSM wiki:

   you can use |oneway:bicycle=*| to identify roads where the |oneway|
   rules for cyclists differ from the general |oneway| restriction

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

Re: [Tagging] iD news: v2.4.0 released

[Bryan Housel]

Oh thanks for the correction, I did copy paste that too quickly..
The tags are: 
`ideditor:walkthrough_started`
`ideditor:walkthrough_progress`
`ideditor:walkthrough_completed`


> On Aug 26, 2017, at 7:53 AM, marc marc  wrote:
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Le 26. 08. 17 à 07:47, Bryan Housel a écrit :
>> `ideditor:walkthrough_started=yes`  (“yes” if the user started the 
>> walkthrough)
>> `ideditor:walkthrough_started=yes`  (“yes” if the user completed all 
>> walkthrough sections)
> 
> both have the same tag name and value :)
> ___
> 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] shop=fashion

[Thilo Haug]

Hi all,

I'm in favor of a namespace solution,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Namespace
e.g.

ski:clothes=yes
surfing:clothes=yes
motorcycle:clothes=yes
any_other_sport:clothes=yes

and so on.

This way you may also tag other shops (not just shop=clothes)
in a way which exactly describes their offers,
in this example possibly a shop=sports.

The same works also for other services they offer,
like
ski:repair=yes
ski:rental=yes
ski:parts=yes

This way there's no need to create a new shop type
or decide whether it's MORE one type of shop (bicycle vs. motorcycle vs.
car or similar)
in case they offer very various things.

Cheers,
Thilo


Am 26.08.2017 um 13:13 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 26. Aug 2017, at 11:15, Simon Poole  > wrote:
>
>> the question turned up if shop=fashion (with 5000 something uses)
>> should not be deprecated (==not offered for new use) due to overlap with
>> shop=boutique (~11'000 uses) and shop=clothes, clothes=fashion (not
>> particularly popular with roughly 200 uses). It just doesn't seem to
>> have a good definition, which is already pointed out on the wiki page
>> (but without a conclusion).
>
>
> I'd see shop=fashion similar with shop=boutique, while shop=clothes is
> not particularly helpful if you're looking to buy clothes (too
> generic). I'd roughly see it like this: boutique expensive, fashion
> cheap(er), department store both, supermarket cheap ;-)
>
> What would I search for if I wanted to buy a suit or a shirt
> (department shops apart which will sell you anything)? Maybe a
> "boutique for men"? To buy gloves I'd try with a  shop=bags? Or
> shop=leather? Or shop=sports? Or an outdoor shop? There are many
> places to buy clothes, cheap, casual, formal, according to the
> material, for work, gender, age, style, one brand/designer or
> multiple, or no (known) designer, discounter, different types of
> clothing (underwear, shirts, etc.
> I'm rather against reduction of top level shop types, there's IMHO a
> clear distinction between fashion shops and boutiques, with maybe some
> edge cases, but still useful overall. Nonetheless I agree that
> shop=clothes does require subtags to be more useful, but the current
> situation in the clothes key is not working:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/clothes#values
> There are many orthogonal, specific properties tagged, e.g. target
> group (women, men, children, babies), for specific occasions/uses
> (sports/wedding/workwear), materials (denim/fur), type
> (underwear/lingerie). Fashion would be yet another new category in
> this cauldron (with 111 uses it isn't really significant).
>
> cheers,
> Martin 
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 

Thilo Haug
Bismarckstr.37
72764 Reutlingen

Mobil: +49 177 3185856
Festnetz : +49 7121 3826414

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

Re: [Tagging] iD news: v2.4.0 released

[marc marc]

Thanks.

Le 26. 08. 17 à 07:47, Bryan Housel a écrit :
> `ideditor:walkthrough_started=yes`  (“yes” if the user started the 
> walkthrough)
> `ideditor:walkthrough_started=yes`  (“yes” if the user completed all 
> walkthrough sections)

both have the same tag name and value :)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] shop=fashion

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 26.08.2017 o 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze:
I'm rather against reduction of top level shop types, there's IMHO a 
clear distinction between fashion shops and boutiques, with maybe some 
edge cases, but still useful overall.


Could you shortly define them to see what's the general difference 
between those 3 tags? I think this is all "edge cases" with no core.


There are many orthogonal, specific properties tagged, e.g. target 
group (women, men, children, babies), for specific occasions/uses 
(sports/wedding/workwear), materials (denim/fur), type 
(underwear/lingerie). Fashion would be yet another new category in 
this cauldron (with 111 uses it isn't really significant).


That could be very useful - also for shoes:*=* (I've been thinking about 
shoes for men/women for a long time):


clothes:for=*
clothes:use=*
clothes:material=*
clothes:type=*
clothes:style=* (casual, elegant, skate...)

aything more?

But what about "fashion"? It would be not as easy to define as 
"second_hand".


--
"Probably it's an eternal problem - too many chiefs, too few Indians" [O. 
Muzalyev]


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

Re: [Tagging] shop=fashion

[Colin Smale]

Boutique is not a synonym for (expensive) fashion shop! A boutique
implies small scale, and can sell things other than clothes such as
jewellery and other accessories. The tagging should preferably be
objective (what things actually are) and not subjective (what you or I
might call a certain shop). A large proportion of the protracted
discussions about tagging are about people saying "well I would call it
an X" or "round here we call them Y" - this could go on for ever (and it
frequently does). Concepts like "department store" and "convenience
store" could be made more objective by considering what makes them so,
such as "large floor area" and "sells a very wide variety of things" or
"open long hours". This is what should be in OSM, in a quantified form,
either directly tagged or implied. Floor area can be calculated from the
building size + floors + retail usage, assortment of goods could be a
list of classes or departments, and opening_hours is a well-known
tagging concept.

//colin 

On 2017-08-26 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> sent from a phone 
> 
> On 26. Aug 2017, at 11:15, Simon Poole  wrote:
> 
>> the question turned up if shop=fashion (with 5000 something uses) 
>> should not be deprecated (==not offered for new use) due to overlap with
>> shop=boutique (~11'000 uses) and shop=clothes, clothes=fashion (not
>> particularly popular with roughly 200 uses). It just doesn't seem to
>> have a good definition, which is already pointed out on the wiki page
>> (but without a conclusion).
> 
> I'd see shop=fashion similar with shop=boutique, while shop=clothes is not 
> particularly helpful if you're looking to buy clothes (too generic). I'd 
> roughly see it like this: boutique expensive, fashion cheap(er), department 
> store both, supermarket cheap ;-) 
> 
> What would I search for if I wanted to buy a suit or a shirt (department 
> shops apart which will sell you anything)? Maybe a "boutique for men"? To buy 
> gloves I'd try with a  shop=bags? Or shop=leather? Or shop=sports? Or an 
> outdoor shop? There are many places to buy clothes, cheap, casual, formal, 
> according to the material, for work, gender, age, style, one brand/designer 
> or multiple, or no (known) designer, discounter, different types of clothing 
> (underwear, shirts, etc. 
> I'm rather against reduction of top level shop types, there's IMHO a clear 
> distinction between fashion shops and boutiques, with maybe some edge cases, 
> but still useful overall. Nonetheless I agree that shop=clothes does require 
> subtags to be more useful, but the current situation in the clothes key is 
> not working: 
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/clothes#values 
> There are many orthogonal, specific properties tagged, e.g. target group 
> (women, men, children, babies), for specific occasions/uses 
> (sports/wedding/workwear), materials (denim/fur), type (underwear/lingerie). 
> Fashion would be yet another new category in this cauldron (with 111 uses it 
> isn't really significant). 
> 
> cheers, 
> Martin  
> ___
> 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] shop=fashion

[Simon Poole]

There is already disambiguation within the shop=clothes object with over
10'000 uses of the clothes tag. and I'm not quite sure were your
stipulation shop=fashion is cheaper than shop=boutique comes from.

Simon


On 26.08.2017 13:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 26. Aug 2017, at 11:15, Simon Poole  > wrote:
>
>> the question turned up if shop=fashion (with 5000 something uses)
>> should not be deprecated (==not offered for new use) due to overlap with
>> shop=boutique (~11'000 uses) and shop=clothes, clothes=fashion (not
>> particularly popular with roughly 200 uses). It just doesn't seem to
>> have a good definition, which is already pointed out on the wiki page
>> (but without a conclusion).
>
>
> I'd see shop=fashion similar with shop=boutique, while shop=clothes is
> not particularly helpful if you're looking to buy clothes (too
> generic). I'd roughly see it like this: boutique expensive, fashion
> cheap(er), department store both, supermarket cheap ;-)
>
> What would I search for if I wanted to buy a suit or a shirt
> (department shops apart which will sell you anything)? Maybe a
> "boutique for men"? To buy gloves I'd try with a  shop=bags? Or
> shop=leather? Or shop=sports? Or an outdoor shop? There are many
> places to buy clothes, cheap, casual, formal, according to the
> material, for work, gender, age, style, one brand/designer or
> multiple, or no (known) designer, discounter, different types of
> clothing (underwear, shirts, etc.
> I'm rather against reduction of top level shop types, there's IMHO a
> clear distinction between fashion shops and boutiques, with maybe some
> edge cases, but still useful overall. Nonetheless I agree that
> shop=clothes does require subtags to be more useful, but the current
> situation in the clothes key is not working:
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/clothes#values
> There are many orthogonal, specific properties tagged, e.g. target
> group (women, men, children, babies), for specific occasions/uses
> (sports/wedding/workwear), materials (denim/fur), type
> (underwear/lingerie). Fashion would be yet another new category in
> this cauldron (with 111 uses it isn't really significant).
>
> cheers,
> Martin 
>
>
> ___
> 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] shop=fashion

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 26. Aug 2017, at 11:15, Simon Poole  wrote:
> 
> the question turned up if shop=fashion (with 5000 something uses) 
> should not be deprecated (==not offered for new use) due to overlap with
> shop=boutique (~11'000 uses) and shop=clothes, clothes=fashion (not
> particularly popular with roughly 200 uses). It just doesn't seem to
> have a good definition, which is already pointed out on the wiki page
> (but without a conclusion).


I'd see shop=fashion similar with shop=boutique, while shop=clothes is not 
particularly helpful if you're looking to buy clothes (too generic). I'd 
roughly see it like this: boutique expensive, fashion cheap(er), department 
store both, supermarket cheap ;-)

What would I search for if I wanted to buy a suit or a shirt (department shops 
apart which will sell you anything)? Maybe a "boutique for men"? To buy gloves 
I'd try with a  shop=bags? Or shop=leather? Or shop=sports? Or an outdoor shop? 
There are many places to buy clothes, cheap, casual, formal, according to the 
material, for work, gender, age, style, one brand/designer or multiple, or no 
(known) designer, discounter, different types of clothing (underwear, shirts, 
etc.
I'm rather against reduction of top level shop types, there's IMHO a clear 
distinction between fashion shops and boutiques, with maybe some edge cases, 
but still useful overall. Nonetheless I agree that shop=clothes does require 
subtags to be more useful, but the current situation in the clothes key is not 
working:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/clothes#values
There are many orthogonal, specific properties tagged, e.g. target group 
(women, men, children, babies), for specific occasions/uses 
(sports/wedding/workwear), materials (denim/fur), type (underwear/lingerie). 
Fashion would be yet another new category in this cauldron (with 111 uses it 
isn't really significant).

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

Re: [Tagging] shop=fashion

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 26.08.2017 o 11:15, Simon Poole pisze:

Working on this issue

https://github.com/simonpoole/beautified-JOSM-preset/issues/27

the question turned up if shop=fashion (with 5000 something uses)
should not be deprecated (==not offered for new use) due to overlap with
shop=boutique (~11'000 uses) and shop=clothes, clothes=fashion (not
particularly popular with roughly 200 uses). It just doesn't seem to
have a good definition, which is already pointed out on the wiki page
(but without a conclusion).


I was trying to make an icon for osm-carto2 years ago:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1706
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1719

It was rejected as we were not sure what boutique or fashion is - both 
are probably just shop=clothes with some unrecognized properties.


--
"Probably it's an eternal problem - too many chiefs, too few Indians" [O. 
Muzalyev]


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

[Tagging] shop=fashion

[Simon Poole]

Working on this issue

https://github.com/simonpoole/beautified-JOSM-preset/issues/27

the question turned up if shop=fashion (with 5000 something uses) 
should not be deprecated (==not offered for new use) due to overlap with
shop=boutique (~11'000 uses) and shop=clothes, clothes=fashion (not
particularly popular with roughly 200 uses). It just doesn't seem to
have a good definition, which is already pointed out on the wiki page
(but without a conclusion).

Any opinions?

Simon


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