Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind + using PICC & JOSM

On 2018-01-12 14:52, Jo wrote: > You are right in that we shouldn't base any of our mapping on what is > visible on Google Streetview. Which is why I was suggesting that > somebody go check it out locally. I've been looking at Belgian aerial > imagery we are allowed to use, taken over several

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 10:44:10 +1100 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > As a person who added some of these amenity=drinking_water in the > past I feel that changing the ones I have added a better tag of, say, > man_made=drinking_fountain is justified ... that is what is > specifically there. >

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

Is there a consensus here? > The tag amenity=drinking_water is non specific, it could be a spring, a stream, a pool. I view it as similar to highway=road Well said, amenity=drinking_water "a place to get drinking water" really just means drinking_water=yes and access=yes. Both a common tap and a

[Tagging] Water source types

In many man_made=drinking_fountain there is a smoll button or a small piece of metal that opens the stream of water. Tap opened with a button, small piece of metal or even motion detector. In other points consent man_made=drinking_fountain it is only for drinking, small amounts of water. "I

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

On 13-Jan-18 08:04 AM, Cez jod wrote: "The man_made=tap,drinking_fountain, well stand by themselves. They do not need amenity=drinking_water, and suggesting that amenity=drinking_water should be included with them is wrong. Rendering of these man_made tags is a separate issue and should not

[Tagging] Water source types

I understand that tag amenity=drinking_water is a problem because it complicates basic tagging water sources. I understand that the amenity=water_point is repair method has appeared. Why not try to fix basic tagging. Current tagging goes into atomization, fragmentation. Maybe in 10 years we will

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

On 13-Jan-18 10:42 AM, Cez jod wrote: "I don't know if this is a language issue or some peculiarity of > labelling in your country" In some parts of the world the best quality water available is not safe for drinking, yet that is all that is available so people drink it rather than die from

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

On 13-Jan-18 09:20 AM, Cez jod wrote: "Note that "potable" doesn't mean drinking water, it means any liquid that can be (reasonably) safely ingested, such as orange juice or beer." That's right, but here we are talk about water, not all other substances that contain it. Small beer has not

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

On 13-Jan-18 08:58 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 12. Jan 2018, at 22:30, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: And that https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain is used only 36 times worldwide? The frequency of use is,in part,

[Tagging] Water source types

"I don't know if this is a language issue or some peculiarity of labelling in your country" I understand that you suggest a change amenity=drinking_water to amenity=water_point I am very much in charge. In OSM, we map usage the first tag in your country(not only yours) was amenity=drinking_water

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:55 PM, Cez jod wrote: Everyone is focused on amenity=drinking water. I have a question for the > source tag amenity=water_point, waterway=water_point (waterway=fuel maybe > also should be?) Is all confusion about amenity=drinking_water and >

[Tagging] Water source types

Everyone is focused on amenity=drinking water. I have a question for the source tag amenity=water_point, waterway=water_point (waterway=fuel maybe also should be?) Is all confusion about amenity=drinking_water and amenity=water_point related to the grammar of english language? Regards Slavo

[Tagging] Water source types

"Note that "potable" doesn't mean drinking water, it means any liquid that can be (reasonably) safely ingested, such as orange juice or beer." That's right, but here we are talk about water, not all other substances that contain it. Small beer has not killed anyone yet(it is harmful after several

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

sent from a phone > On 12. Jan 2018, at 22:30, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > And that > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made%3Ddrinking_fountain is > used only 36 times worldwide? > > Removing amenity=drinking_water and replacing it with > man_made=water_tap

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:26 PM, Cez jod wrote: I think it would be worth adding a tag if the water is really harmful hazard=poison (in the sense of water contaminated permanently, for example: salt, heavy metals, radiation, chemicals) I don't know if this is a language issue

[Tagging] (no subject)

"man made=drinking_fountain must have information if human can use this water intake for health and legal reasons." Upss. I mean amenity=fountain not man made=drinking_fountain Regards Slavo ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 06:46:55 +1100 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > The tag amenity=drinking_water is non specific, it could be a spring, > a stream, a pool. I view it as similar to highway=road. > > The man_made=tap,drinking_fountain, well stand by themselves. Are you aware that there

[Tagging] Water source types

"Amenity= drinking_water is non specific. It does not tell me if I can drink directly from it (I can from a man_made=drinking_fountain), fill a water bottle without trouble (I can from a man_made=tag, drinking_water=yes), fill a caravan water tank (I and from a amenity=water_point) .. etc etc.

[Tagging] Water source types

"The man_made=tap,drinking_fountain, well stand by themselves. They do not need amenity=drinking_water, and suggesting that amenity=drinking_water should be included with them is wrong. Rendering of these man_made tags is a separate issue and should not determine the tags used." You've been

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

On 13-Jan-18 05:07 AM, Cez jod wrote: Hi! "amenity=drinking_water works for me" it's ok for me too amenity=drinking_water it is a very good, universal, proven and needed tag. I wondered if it was possible to determine the quality of the water more accurately. It looks like with

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 19:56:39 +0100 "OSMDoudou" <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote: > landuse=retail landuse=retail should include also shop buildings (it include all area used for retail, not areas used for retail purposes that were not tagged using other tags)

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

On 12-Jan-18 08:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 11. Jan 2018, at 22:14, Selfish Seahorse wrote: In order to avoid repeating ourselves again in a year: should I add a note to the wiki page of `amenity=drinking_water` that this tag is

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

I sometimes use surface=* as a stand-alone tag for areas with an unclear or uninteresting purpose. Doing so captures the physical reality on the ground pretty well in my opinion. From this point of view, the area in question is already tagged correctly. Maybe we can find out what it's being used

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

Don't worry about local knowledge, I'm local mapper and will survey the place. I found a dozen of similar or slightly different cases in the area, and the problem is not about verify things, but about *what* to verify. The goal of using street view images is not to map based on that, but to

[Tagging] Water source types

Otherwise. If the amenity=dringing_water tag is not suitable (the end user can not see the code), it may be worth considering a global change to amenity=water_point. If amenity=water_point is not suitable should be deprecated. For me it does not matter if there is amenity=drinking_water or

[Tagging] Water source types

It should be Someone can explain the reason for imports amenity=water_point https://postimg.org/image/48ok5saed/ for example an increase in the amount of the tag amenity=drinking_water https://postimg.org/image/f3607hgl1/ you can see big differences http://taghistory.raifer.tech/. Regards Slavo

[Tagging] Water source types

Hi! "amenity=drinking_water works for me" it's ok for me too amenity=drinking_water it is a very good, universal, proven and needed tag. I wondered if it was possible to determine the quality of the water more accurately. It looks like with drinking_water=yes/no/boil/ ... is an indispensable tag,

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

On 12/01/2018 14:06, marc marc wrote: from aerial imagery and existing tag : landcover=gravel :) Which to be clear is a pretty rare tag - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landcover=gravel - 431 uses worldwide. Best Regards, Andy ___

Re: [Tagging] Water source types

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 22:14:31 +0100 Selfish Seahorse wrote: > should I add a > note to the wiki page of `amenity=drinking_water` that this tag is > discouraged? What tag you want to describe as discouraged? drinkable? drinking_water?

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

from aerial imagery and existing tag : landcover=gravel :) Le 12. 01. 18 à 14:52, Jo a écrit : > You are right in that we shouldn't base any of our mapping on what is > visible on Google Streetview. Which is why I was suggesting that > somebody go check it out locally. I've been looking at

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:05:09 +0100 "OSMDoudou" <19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> wrote: > How would you tag it ? I also sometimes look through suspicious objects - and in cases like this I sometimes - open notes so local mappers are able to respond (now or in a future) - ask in a

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

You are right in that we shouldn't base any of our mapping on what is visible on Google Streetview. Which is why I was suggesting that somebody go check it out locally. I've been looking at Belgian aerial imagery we are allowed to use, taken over several years. But nothing useful can be seen on

Re: [Tagging] area=yes on object without kind

Please notice that, for doing something similar to what you do here (reading a lot of maps and aerial imaginery, being only one of them [3] google maps) I was forced to erase my edition and do it again. Just to warn you. El 12/1/2018 8:30, "Jo" escribió: > It definitely