Re: [Tagging] Proposed Features - RFC - Penstock waterways

[Andrew Davidson]

At least two problems:

1. waterway is the wrong key. Waterways are for open-channel features. 
There is already a man_made=pipeline for pipe flow. I'm not sure why we 
need a different tag for this.


2. duct is the wrong value. Ducts refers to low pressure pipes carrying 
gases.



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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed Features - RFC - Penstock waterways

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

The proposal has been edited following some useful comments
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hydropower_water_supplies

Edit summary:
Drop waterway=penstock
Introduce waterway=duct for pipe-flow waterways only (opposite from drains
where water flows freely with an open surface and no pressure). It covers
penstocks, siphons and pressurized pipes/tunnels. A duct intake is always
below water level or connected to a pump.
Making waterway=spillway approved
Penstocks are now distinguished from feeding galleries with usage=penstock
vs usage=transmission

A little detail left:
tunnel=yes sounds like a tunnel accessible to human and flooded drains are
usually mapped with tunnel=culvert
A culvert is normally a few meters long. Is it suitable for kilometres long
free flow tunnels ?
I see no human accessible drains when in operation, then tunnel=yes and
waterway=drains should be incompatible.


Thanks in advance for your comments

François


2017-12-02 13:51 GMT+01:00 François Lacombe :

> Hi all,
>
> This proposal is set for RFC
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/
> Hydropower_water_supplies
>
> It introduces waterway=penstock, pipeline=surge_tank and formalize a bit
> the usage of waterway=drain to map hydropower water supplies.
>
> waterway=penstock would be useful to map major water diversions for
> industrial usage in the global water topology.
> It would be added to other man made structures (canals, drains) where
> water flows.
>
> Feel free to propose examples, cases or improvements
>
>
> All the best
>
> François
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] amenity=atm + man_made=surveillance

[nwastra]

On 7 Dec 2017, at 10:07 am, Nelson A. de Oliveira  wrote:

>> But I didn't find any discussion on this here. Do you agree that it is
>> adequate to combine amenity=atm with man_made=surveillance on the same
>> element?

I also think that man_made=surveillance is not a suitable tag for reasons 
already stated.
amenity=atm + camera=yes would seem to me to be sufficient and more suitable.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] amenity=atm + man_made=surveillance

[Nelson A. de Oliveira]

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Fernando Trebien
 wrote:
> But I didn't find any discussion on this here. Do you agree that it is
> adequate to combine amenity=atm with man_made=surveillance on the same
> element?

No...
It could use another tag or namespace for this, but not man_made=surveillance

man_made=surveillance IS a surveillance equipment. It doesn't mean
that it HAS a surveillance equipment.

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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating of leisure=common and leisure=village_green

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 6. Dec 2017, at 17:28, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> 
> Nice pictures, but they belong onto the discussion page, as it is _not_ an 
> 'alternative' use, it is a use _against_ the original definition.


I agree with Tom. I understand you have been using landuse=village_green in 
your area for all kind of spots where something grows, and now claim 
established used. If we do it like this, by the time we’ll loose all specific 
meaning of tags, because there will always be some people using the tags for 
something that renders ok for them and where the tag name sound ok, and after a 
while we could document those alternative meanings (and actually loose meaning 
for the original tag).

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

Re: [Tagging] amenity=atm + man_made=surveillance

[Steve Doerr]

On 06/12/2017 17:29, Fernando Trebien wrote:
Do you agree that it is adequate to combine amenity=atm with 
man_made=surveillance on the same element?


Yes, if the ATM incorporates a surveillance camera.

--
Steve

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] Deprecating of leisure=common and leisure=village_green

[Warin]

On 07-Dec-17 03:28 AM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
On 05.12.2017 20:40, Marc Zoutendijk wrote:> Martin, did you see the 
pictures I have added to the wiki? [1]
Nice pictures, but they belong onto the discussion page, as it is 
_not_ an 'alternative' use, it is a use _against_ the original 
definition.


For me landcover=urban_green (maybe: urban_vegetation) is a perfect 
fit for what we need.


Yes I'd be much in favour for a generic landcover value, it could eben 
be landcover=green which is short and concise, and avoids thinking 
about villages and urbanity.


The colour 'green' says little about what the cover of the ground is. It 
could be green coloured concrete!!!
If 'green' means plants then say plants (I'd prefer 'vegetation' but 
that might be just me).




 From what I understood, we are trying to avoid “village_green” 
because it is only relevant to UK legal situations, making it 
unsuitable for use outside of the UK.


It is suitable, as long as the use is comparable to what a legal 
village green is comparable to the UK situation.


Legal? The land cover should say nothing about the legal situation!!!

Land cover ... What does it mean?

I don't think it has anything to do with the use of the land, the 
legalities of it, the shape of it, just the cover of it.


Please stop trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

If you want to specify a land use then use landuse, if you want to 
specify land cover use landcover.


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

[Tagging] amenity=atm + man_made=surveillance

[Fernando Trebien]

Hello,

The wiki recently received this edit: [1]

But I didn't find any discussion on this here. Do you agree that it is
adequate to combine amenity=atm with man_made=surveillance on the same
element?

The article on man_made [2] says that the tag is intended for structures on
a landscape, which seems to contradict this suggestion.

[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Aamenity%3Datm=revision=1360056=1357943
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:man_made

-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 99962-5409

"Nullius in verba."
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] a tag for "really-really-freestores"

[thomas schwaerzler]

thank you for that hint!

i think i will stick to that idea.


best

t.


On 12/05/2017 11:58 AM, Selfish Seahorse wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>> the obvious proposal would be
>> amenity=freeshop or give-away_shop or sth similar, if you want to avoid the 
>> shop key.
> Good idea! That seems to make more sense than shop=*.
>
>> Maybe I'm wrong (English not my first language), but I thought a fee
>> is a payment for a service or admission, hence not usable for purchase
>> prices of items.
> No, you are right, fee=no doesn't fit here (see also
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fee).
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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