Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

[Warin]

Are they under the military or under the civilian government?

How does OSM separate out other government/military departments? Use the 
same method for these.

Why does an 'Intelligence facility' require different tagging?

On 11/04/18 13:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On 11 April 2018 at 09:05, Paul Allen > wrote:


On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Have a look here for one of the most prominent examples:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186025617

names in 7 languages, but landuse=government is the only tag
that describes the feature, really?


The people working there are office workers.
office=intelligence_agency?


Think the same thing would apply to all of them - after all, how many 
actual intelligence agents does "MI6" really have? :-)


But I also agree with what Martin said - had a look at MI6 earlier 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.48720/-0.12381, & it's tagged 
as both landuse=military & also "Govt Office", with the name Secret 
Intelligence Service! Surely we could do better than that? :-)


Thanks

Graeme


___
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] RFC: intelligence facility

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 11 April 2018 at 09:05, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Have a look here for one of the most prominent examples:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186025617
>> names in 7 languages, but landuse=government is the only tag that
>> describes the feature, really?
>>
>
> The people working there are office workers.  office=intelligence_agency?
>

Think the same thing would apply to all of them - after all, how many
actual intelligence agents does "MI6" really have? :-)

But I also agree with what Martin said - had a look at MI6 earlier
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.48720/-0.12381, & it's tagged as
both landuse=military & also "Govt Office", with the name Secret
Intelligence Service! Surely we could do better than that? :-)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Have a look here for one of the most prominent examples:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186025617
> names in 7 languages, but landuse=government is the only tag that
> describes the feature, really?
>

The people working there are office workers.  office=intelligence_agency?

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> I suppose you could mark the publicly-known buildings, such as the MI6
> Ziggurat in London, or the CIA at Langley etc, but pretty hard to use
> anywhere else?
>

The ones I can think of in the UK with locations in the public domain are
GCHQ, MI5, MI6 and part of RAF Fylingdales.

I'm not convinced there's any point marking embassies as such.  They all
have at least one intelligence officer (even
if he/she wears other hats too) that tagging the building as an embassy is
sufficient.  Tagging an embassy as also
being an intelligence facility seems redundant.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I admit there is a less serious component in this proposal, in that every
embassy, potentially, eventually, has to do with intelligence, and
obviously, secret installations are not known, unless you know about them,
usually for professional reasons, in which case you would put yourself
under serious risk, unless you are disclosing information about the
"others" (and as long as you don't know for sure that they know that you
know, you will not tell anybody anyway).

But there is also a completely serious part: many installations are known.
You can read about them in the newspaper. There are already many of these
sites mapped in OSM, although they do not use specific or uniform tagging.
I am primarily aiming at mapping these known sites.

Have a look here for one of the most prominent examples:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186025617
names in 7 languages, but landuse=government is the only tag that describes
the feature, really?

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

Re: [Tagging] Railways along streets

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 17:30 Albert Pundt  wrote:

> What's the best way to map a railway along a street, and how are the
> street intersections to be mapped? For example, this street
>  in Lewistown, PA has a freight line
> running along the middle. Should it be mapped as two overlapping ways, as
> that example is currently, or should they be drawn as one way with all the
> highway and railway tags on it?
>

The highway centerline at the mean location of the middle of the road, per
usual, and the tracks mapped between the rails per usual.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 11 April 2018 at 08:08, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> The ordinary ones are hard enough to verify.
>
>
I suppose you could mark the publicly-known buildings, such as the MI6
Ziggurat in London, or the CIA at Langley etc, but pretty hard to use
anywhere else?

Thanks

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

[Tagging] Railways along streets

[Albert Pundt]

What's the best way to map a railway along a street, and how are the street
intersections to be mapped? For example, this street
 in Lewistown, PA has a freight line
running along the middle. Should it be mapped as two overlapping ways, as
that example is currently, or should they be drawn as one way with all the
highway and railway tags on it?

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:54 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> How could they be verified?
>
> The ordinary ones are hard enough to verify.  The ones tagged
intelligence_facility=secret are even harder.

I'm not convinced this is a sensible idea.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC: intelligence facility

[Warin]

On 11/04/18 00:55, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I have worked on my proposal for tagging intelligence facilities and 
am asking for your comments.


They 'don't exist'.  No 'embassy' will admit to them.

Grigory Logvinov  Russian Diplomat in Australia responding to questions 
about expulsions of 'Russian spies' said recently;


"They are absolutely legal, career diplomats... without any grounds 
called spies," Mr Logvinov told reporters in a sprawling press 
conference at the Russian embassy.


When asked how many Russian spies were left in Australia, Mr Logvinov 
replied: "Zero minus zero is still zero."


https://www.sbs.com.au/news/no-russian-spies-in-australia-says-ambassador-grigory-logvinov


How could they be verified?




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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - hail and ride

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Michael,

Am 10.04.2018 um 17:45 schrieb Michael Tsang:
> The proposed feature "hail and ride" is open for voting:

Could you please provide a link to the wiki page?

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - hail and ride

[Michael Tsang]

Dear all,

The proposed feature "hail and ride" is open for voting:

Quoted from Wikipedia:
Hail and ride is boarding or alighting a mode of public transport by 
signalling the driver or conductor that one wishes to board or alight, rather 
than the more conventional system of using a designated stop.
For the way segment to be tagged hail_and_ride, the passenger must be able to 
hail and ride anywhere along the segment, or alighting anywhere on the segment 
by telling the driver, not limited to places where signs exist. This role is 
not for services which only allows passengers to board/alight at designated 
places where the vehicle does not stop if no request is made.

Regards,
Michael Tsang
-- 
Sent from KMail

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] isced:level

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-04-10 16:44 GMT+02:00 Fredrik :

> The proposal (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ISCED)
> for isced:level was marked as abandoned after 6 years of no real
> conclusion, but they key is used ~120,000 times so I created the page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:isced:level and copied over the
> central information from the proposal page.
>
> Any additions, suggestions or objections?




I've changed the status to DeFacto, because of the usage.

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

Re: [Tagging] isced:level

[José G Moya Y .]

Well, I see some edits in the past year adding info for Australia and New
Zealand. In a mail discussion this summer (I'm in a mobile so I can't
search mail while  writing) I think someone talked abou ISCED, but I'm not
sure. I used it to tag the school where I work, also.

I think ISCED is a nice standard, but, as it is not used by common people,
it is not very useful. If you are moving from a town to other, It is more
likely for you to look for schools in the official school department
webpages.

El mar., 10 de abril de 2018 16:46, Fredrik  escribió:

> The proposal
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ISCED) for
> isced:level was marked as abandoned after 6 years of no real conclusion,
> but they key is used ~120,000 times so I created the page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:isced:level and copied over the
> central information from the proposal page.
>
> Any additions, suggestions or objections?
>
> --
>
> FredrikLindseth
>
>
> ___
> 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] RFC: intelligence facility

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I have worked on my proposal for tagging intelligence facilities and am
asking for your comments.

The key was changed from amenity to man_made because this allows for adding
the tag to amenity=embassy sites. On the other hand, this move makes it
incompatible with other man_made objects like antennas etc. (it would be a
problem only in case it is a single isolated object without any area
around), so I have added also a property: intelligence_facility=yes.

Just in case you are wondering, you don't have to wait for voting, you can
use the tags right now.

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

[Tagging] isced:level

[Fredrik]

The proposal 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ISCED) for 
isced:level was marked as abandoned after 6 years of no real conclusion, 
but they key is used ~120,000 times so I created the page  
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:isced:level and copied over the 
central information from the proposal page.


Any additions, suggestions or objections?

--

FredrikLindseth


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

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Apr 2018, at 07:37, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> Not all "flowerbeds" that are tourist attractions are  human made.


they are. A flowerbed is about something human made. What you have been posting 
is a forest. Maybe the term flower field could apply (don’t know), but 
flowerbed doesn’t.

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

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Apr 2018, at 02:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> =-O Is it really a 'landuse'? Or better as a 'landcover'?



IMHO it is neither. I would see those flowerbeds that are part of a road or 
square as landuse=highway. Those in a park are part of the park landuse 
(implied by leisure=park), those in private gardens are residential landuse. 
Those in flower shows are part of the show landuse.
For a single flowerbed I would use something like man_made=flowerbed
If you want to tag the flowers you could add a landcover object for the flowers 
(but this wouldn’t be the same as the flowerbed object), or probably better, 
invent a property for the flowerbed object which gives information about the 
flowers in it.

A huge exhibition area with flowers would IMHO not be well represented by the 
word flowerbed (and it would likely consist of several flower areas)

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 18:43:03 +1000
 wrote:

> I would be willing to argue that there is a place for both keys
> actually.

This is poor idea as standard case (public carpet hanger) requires
adding two very similar tags.

Standard solution (adding access=private for private ones) seems to be
much better.

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

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

[Wiklund Johan]

I have no strong feelings one way or the other. My "proposal" was merely to 
make a distinct difference between a dedicated area of public transport 
(landuse) compared to a dedicated point/position along a road (and thererfore 
proabably inside another landuse, like residential). I'm not saying it’s a good 
proposal, but if someone can extract something useful from my thought - that’s 
enough for me. :D

I have no further input to this topic unless there are questions.

-Original Message-
From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] 
Sent: tirsdag 10. april 2018 11.31
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station



sent from a phone

> On 10. Apr 2018, at 10:03, Wiklund Johan  wrote:
> 
> I’m going to be bold and say remove amenity=bus_station and replace it with 
> landuse=public_transport + public_transport=bus_station (and subsequently 
> public_transport=train and so on).


in the public transport tag tradition you could even argue for 
public_transport=station so that it requires additionally bus=yes in order to 
make sense ;-)

I don’t see a point in moving things around between different tags, especially 
if the new way doesn’t add information and is less concise.

I agree there might be facilities where it isn’t clear whether they are bus 
stations or a big bus stop, but this doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference in 
general (the fact natural language uses different words is a strong indication 
that there is indeed a difference). Your tagging proposal doesn’t help more to 
resolve the edge cases than does the current tagging.

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] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Apr 2018, at 10:03, Wiklund Johan  wrote:
> 
> I’m going to be bold and say remove amenity=bus_station and replace it with 
> landuse=public_transport + public_transport=bus_station (and subsequently 
> public_transport=train and so on).


in the public transport tag tradition you could even argue for 
public_transport=station so that it requires additionally bus=yes in order to 
make sense ;-)

I don’t see a point in moving things around between different tags, especially 
if the new way doesn’t add information and is less concise.

I agree there might be facilities where it isn’t clear whether they are bus 
stations or a big bus stop, but this doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference in 
general (the fact natural language uses different words is a strong indication 
that there is indeed a difference). Your tagging proposal doesn’t help more to 
resolve the edge cases than does the current tagging.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger

[osm.tagging]

I would be willing to argue that there is a place for both keys actually.

The man_made one to describe the physical thing.
The amenity one to describe that this is a publicly accessible amenity..

The amenity key implies the man_made key, but not the other way around.

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 April 2018 18:05
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 10. Apr 2018, at 09:49, Tom Pfeifer 
> wrote:
> >
> > avoids the crowded amenity key.
> 
> 
> 
> To me, both, man_made and amenity, would be ok, but I don’t
> understand the argument of the “crowded” amenity key. Is there a
> limit of values for a key? What are the potential problems of a
> “crowded” key?
> I could understand that amenity is about amenities for everyone,
> while a place to beat carpets often might be semi-private (shared
> by the people of a condominium, etc), which could be an argument
> for man_made.
> 
> 
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Especially as man_made also has huge amount of various values, with varied
use.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, 10:18 Martin Koppenhoefer, 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 10. Apr 2018, at 09:49, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> >
> > avoids the crowded amenity key.
>
>
>
> To me, both, man_made and amenity, would be ok, but I don’t understand the
> argument of the “crowded” amenity key. Is there a limit of values for a
> key? What are the potential problems of a “crowded” key?
> I could understand that amenity is about amenities for everyone, while a
> place to beat carpets often might be semi-private (shared by the people of
> a condominium, etc), which could be an argument for man_made.
>
>
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Apr 2018, at 09:49, Tom Pfeifer  wrote:
> 
> avoids the crowded amenity key.



To me, both, man_made and amenity, would be ok, but I don’t understand the 
argument of the “crowded” amenity key. Is there a limit of values for a key? 
What are the potential problems of a “crowded” key?
I could understand that amenity is about amenities for everyone, while a place 
to beat carpets often might be semi-private (shared by the people of a 
condominium, etc), which could be an argument for man_made.


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

Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station

[Wiklund Johan]

Yes Martin, same thing – but these are the big obvious ones. These are easy to 
say “that’s a bus station”, but what I’m trying to get at is that when you 
scale them down in size there is no clear line to be drawn when a bus station 
turns into a regular bus stop. When should the big icon become a small icon?

For example Lysaker: 
http://www.banenor.no/contentassets/3902666056fd47deb0e404589dda391f/oversikt-lysaker-520.jpg.
 The two split roads are each lined with multiple bus stops. It’s a major bus 
stop where almost all traffic to and from Oslo will stop, It has 7 waiting 
positions labeled A-G. It’s also combined with an important train station. Its 
half way between a street stop and a bus terminal. This is similar to what 
Johnparis mentions 
(http://artheme.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/8-L15Est-FortAubervilliers-2.jpg).

In the next mail you say “I would expect an area” and that’s what I’m thinking 
too in terms of defining a difference between an on-street-stop and a separate 
dedicated bus area – the size and importance is a different thing and I feel we 
are trying to jam multiple concepts into one un-unifiable terminology.

I’m going to be bold and say remove amenity=bus_station and replace it with 
landuse=public_transport + public_transport=bus_station (and subsequently 
public_transport=train and so on). “Regular” bus stops “in the wild” would then 
just be relations with public=transport=platform as the only area-object.

I’ll have to mention that I am by no means an expert on the OSM public 
transport scheme (any of them), mostly because pt is my daytime job and I can’t 
be bothered doing it in my free time as well ☺.


From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
Sent: mandag 9. april 2018 18.06
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Unclear meaning of amenity=bus_station



2018-04-09 15:24 GMT+02:00 Wiklund Johan 
mailto:johan.wikl...@entur.org>>:
I think there is no realistic distinction to be made between a bus station and 
a "regular" bus stop. Mainly because each bus stop is different from the next. 
One could argue that any bus stop where more than one waiting area is a bus 
station, or if it has some kind of amenity tied to it like a waiting room or 
toilets. But any stop can have an amenity, and the most rural and amenity-free 
stop can support several buses and have multiple waiting areas.


just to make sure we are talking about the same things, these are some images 
of bus stations:
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-zob-central-bus-station-person-real-people-bus-coach-street-scene-78608111.html
https://www.lanuovariviera.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/pullman.jpg
https://cheaptravelforwomen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/cheaptravelforwomeneurolinesparis.jpg

Or also like this:
https://www.alamy.de/fotos-bilder/bus-moroccan.html

Is this the same you are writing about?

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger

[Tom Pfeifer]

Again I agree with Warin, man_made suits better since it is more specific and avoids the crowded 
amenity key.


On 10.04.2018 09:03, Warin wrote:

Don't be too hasty.

There may be others who disagree.


On 10/04/18 15:52, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

I see no meaningful difference between amenity=carpet_hanger and
man_made=carpet_hanger so I changed proposal to man_made=carpet_hanger

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:57:55 +1000
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


man_made would be a more specific key and avoids excluding ones that
are not for the community, e.g. a commercial enterprise.

man_made "for identifying man-made/(artificial)/  structures added to
the landscape" amenity "an assortment of community facilities"

On 10/04/18 14:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

carpet hanger (also carpet stand or carpet rack) is a construction
to hang carpets for cleaning with the help of carpet beaters.

Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_hanger

Currently there is no documented tagging scheme for this feature. At
this moment amenity=beater is typically used, but it seems poor tag
name, not matching English name for this feature.

the proposal page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/carpet_hanger



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

Re: [Tagging] Still RFC — Drop stop positions and platforms

[Yves]

One should keep in mind some mappers don't care mapping public_transport in all 
its subtleties, however they can simply want to map a
__
|  | 
platform by the side of a road when they spot one, and
|
|
bus_stop also. 
Yves 

Le 9 avril 2018 23:59:21 GMT+02:00, Michael Reichert  a 
écrit :
>Hi,
>
>Am 31.03.2018 um 17:00 schrieb Johnparis:
>> This implies the following changes to v2:
>> 
>> 1) every platform node should have mandatory {mode}=yes tag(s)
>
>I also think that public_transport=platform without *=yes tags is some
>kind of incomplete.
>
>> 2) stop_positions should be optional on the map and should not be
>included
>> in the route relations
>
>Stop positions should be optional but there are some cases where they
>are useful. If they are mapped, they should be added to the route
>relation. If we don't add them to the route relations, we can skip them
>at all.
>
>> I'm inclined to agree with the wiki that the v1 tags on nodes should
>remain
>> (including the two million highway=bus_stop tags).
>> 
>> I don't really see a big advantage in changing the value of the v2
>tag from
>> public_transport=platform to something like
>public_transport=wait_area (and
>> there are about one million public_transport=platform tags at the
>moment).
>
>+1
>
>If you try to invent new tags just to replace old tags and the old tags
>are used very often, a proposal is doomed to fail.
>
>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)

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Carpet hanger

[Warin]

Don't be too hasty.

There may be others who disagree.


On 10/04/18 15:52, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

I see no meaningful difference between amenity=carpet_hanger and
man_made=carpet_hanger so I changed proposal to man_made=carpet_hanger

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:57:55 +1000
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


man_made would be a more specific key and avoids excluding ones that
are not for the community, e.g. a commercial enterprise.

man_made "for identifying man-made/(artificial)/  structures added to
the landscape" amenity "an assortment of community facilities"

On 10/04/18 14:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

carpet hanger (also carpet stand or carpet rack) is a construction
to hang carpets for cleaning with the help of carpet beaters.

Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_hanger

Currently there is no documented tagging scheme for this feature. At
this moment amenity=beater is typically used, but it seems poor tag
name, not matching English name for this feature.

the proposal page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/carpet_hanger

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







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