Re: [Tagging] building=clubhouse

building=clubhouse is fine as value, unless - the club is located in a pub (e.g. darts, pools, biljarts) - the club is located in the former barn of a farm (e.g. old timer (car) club I know). - perhaps building=civic when the club is located in a town hall or so. there are probably other examples

Re: [Tagging] building=clubhouse

On 19/07/18 18:20, Tobias Knerr wrote: On 19.07.2018 05:15, Warin wrote: Would it not be best to combine all theses into building=clubhouse? I'm not opposed to the general idea of having a sport-independent tag for clubhouses, if we can agree on a suitable tag. However, please remember that th

[Tagging] Multiple clubs sharing clubhouse (was Re: building=clubhouse)

For multiple clubs sharing the same building/grounds, I would go for amenity=community_centre community_centre=club_home on the grounds/building and one node per club inside it. Each node with its own club-tag, name, contact info, website, and perhaps opening_hours. It's not that different from

Re: [Tagging] building=clubhouse

Of course a club is free to declare any building as their "clubhome". But (as I see it), it is that building where members meet and can perhaps drink or eat something. In case there are multiple buildings, it is not the one were they store material to maintain the grounds, nor the one in which they

Re: [Tagging] building=clubhouse

On 19 July 2018 at 13:52, Marc Gemis wrote: > for the complete "base" of the club, the club page [1] recommends > > "The base of the club can be tagged amenity=community_centre with the > type community_centre=club_home and possibly the target group > community_centre:for=*; either on the contain

Re: [Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

We section long routes because it is very hard, if not impossible to keep big relations intact. Survey info would be entered on manageable sections. Mvg Peter Elderson > Op 19 jul. 2018 om 23:41 heeft Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende > geschreven: > > There is a national route near

Re: [Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

In Nederland, hiking routes are typically sectioned by the operator, a section is a day. More or less. The survey info would be tagged on the section. The superroute relation representing the total named route might be tagged with the publication date of the latest edition of the everpresent boo

Re: [Tagging] building=clubhouse

sent from a phone > On 19. Jul 2018, at 19:14, Marc Gemis wrote: > > When is something a clubhouse? This is up to the club to decide/declare > What if some functionality is in a separate building, e.g. dressing room or > showers? Is that separate building still a clubhouse or even leisu

Re: [Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

There is a national route near me.. it is some 5,000 km long. Not many walk/ride the entire length. It is not complete in OSM, nor upto date. But there is a route .. broken in places ... I think of it as a guide rather than truth. The survey:date would have to be added to each way of the rela

Re: [Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

On 19 July 2018 20:57:20 BST, Peter Elderson wrote: >Just saw https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Asurvey%3Adate >Since survey:date is a documented tag, I will start using it to record >route survey dates. >Not on ways, but on sizeable hikingdare route relations. A date on a hiking route r

Re: [Tagging] landuse=sand

On 18.07.2018 07:43, Warin wrote: > I have already changed a few. Are there any comments on changing > landuse=sand, before it becomes like landuse=grass etc,? I fully agree with you that landuse=sand should not be used. Existing tags like natural=sand and surface=sand already cover sand-related u

Re: [Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

Just saw https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Asurvey%3Adate Since survey:date is a documented tag, I will start using it to record route survey dates. Not on ways, but on sizeable hiking route relations. See if I can get fellow mappers and walking route operators to join the effort. 2018-07-1

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - ephemeral -STOPPED

Hi 2018-07-19 2:17 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>: > > That does not allow for a combination .. e.g. > > seasonal presence in winter > intermittent presence in spring;summer > > The present practice of adding the tag intermittent to anything tagged > seasonal does not help at all for any

Re: [Tagging] building=clubhouse

What is the difference between this leisure and the one I mentioned earlier (via community_center)? Does this one only go on the building? When is something a clubhouse? What if some functionality is in a separate building, e.g. dressing room or showers? Is that separate building still a clubhou

Re: [Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

Thanks for the warning. Of course it is not the idea to delete anything except when proven wrong. I meant: information from outside sources, such as gpx-trackings, which are older then the last completed survey, should not be entered into OSM. Also remember that I'm talking about route information,

Re: [Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

On 19/07/2018 12:21, Peter Elderson wrote: All of those are survey goals. A proposal like this comes along every few years & never really gets off the ground. "Long hiking & cycling routes" by their nature of being long are rarely traversed completely; people hop on-off of them in short sect

Re: [Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 7:22 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > The goal of the idea is to tag the date of the last reality check. The best > thing I have now is the date of the last edit, which most of the time results > from e.g. a mapper's action (cut or remove) on a way that's part of the route > r

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

2018-07-19 11:16 GMT+02:00 Yves : > You'd be *very* surprised what shapes fish passes can take. > I don't think it's a good idea to use the waterway key to tell that > whatever feature is intended to be a fish pass. > This one, although man made is definitely a river, that was built as 1) a > fish

Re: [Tagging] landuse=basin

I would also add that "water=reservoir" is a sub-tag of "natural=water"; while "landuse=reservoir" is a tag that can go alone by itself. The main thing is that the second scheme is older than the first, and thus still more used. Looking at the proposal to "simplify water tagging" that was approved

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 08:57:28AM +0100, Javier Sánchez Portero wrote: > Hello > > I personally prefer a few main values in the waterway to define the general > cases and subtags for specific cases like this, of the type of usage = > fiss_pass. If I am in front of an infrastructure of this type,

Re: [Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

All of those are survey goals. The result of the survey may be that the route relation in OSM needs to be adapted to reflect the situation in the field. That's what I meant by maintenance of the route relation in OSM. The goal of the idea is to tag the date of the last reality check. The best thin

Re: [Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

On 19/07/2018 07:50, Peter Elderson wrote: I would like some thoughts on the idea of tagging route maintenance. Long hiking & cycling routes need regular maintenance. On the road, of course, which is not our problem, but as a consequence they need re-surveying and adapting the route relations t

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

On 17/07/2018 22:04, François Lacombe wrote: Hi all, A discussion has recently started about waterway=fish_pass here : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:waterway%3Dfish_pass Ignoring the wiki, what non-waterway tags are used for fish_pass in OSM?  https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

2018-07-19 9:30 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > In case of waterway=fish_pass I think that a new waterway is OK as > > - it is drastically different from other defined waterways > - is not a navigable waterway > - is not redefining already mapped objects > I'm very surprised to read you in such w

Re: [Tagging] Route maintenance tagging

Hello, there is already a wiki page on that: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:check_date But that reads as if there are several tags in use and there is no agreement on how to map that yet. Greetings pbnoxious ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@o

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

You'd be *very* surprised what shapes fish passes can take. I don't think it's a good idea to use the waterway key to tell that whatever feature is intended to be a fish pass. This one, although man made is definitely a river, that was built as 1) a fish pass, 2} a whitewater course. https://ww

Re: [Tagging] building=clubhouse

sent from a phone > On 19. Jul 2018, at 10:20, Tobias Knerr wrote: > > However, please remember that the value of building=* does _not_ > indicate what the building is used for. So I don't think it's a good > choice for this purpose. +1 What about leisure=clubhouse? I would expect clubhouse

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

sent from a phone > On 19. Jul 2018, at 10:22, Javier Sánchez Portero > wrote: > > Could a fish pass look like a short and very narrow canal like the images in > this pages? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levada > https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acequia it is not so much about what it lo

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

sent from a phone > On 19. Jul 2018, at 10:15, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If they are not to be considered part of the waterway key then possibly they > can be added to the key man_made. IMHO they should go into waterway, human transportation is not required for waterway, thin

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

Actually I'm not familiar with fish passes. Could any one provide more sample images? And one question: Could a fish pass look like a short and very narrow canal like the images in this pages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levada https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acequia 2018-07-19 9:15 GMT+01:00 War

Re: [Tagging] building=clubhouse

On 19.07.2018 05:15, Warin wrote: > Would it not be best to combine all theses into building=clubhouse? I'm not opposed to the general idea of having a sport-independent tag for clubhouses, if we can agree on a suitable tag. However, please remember that the value of building=* does _not_ indicat

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

The 'fish passes' I am familiar with are all man made, they provide fish a way around weirs, dams and locks. They certainly are not intended for human transportation and should not provide a lot of water flow. They are different from spillways, canals and other man made waterways, they are not a

Re: [Tagging] landuse=basin

On 19/07/18 16:53, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 18. Lipiec 2018 16:02 od e...@eric-poehlsen.de : The present OSM meaning of landuse=basin is "An area of land artificially graded to hold water." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dbasin Thi

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

Hello I personally prefer a few main values in the waterway to define the general cases and subtags for specific cases like this, of the type of usage = fiss_pass. If I am in front of an infrastructure of this type, its physical characteristics will allow me to distinguish if it is a channel, ditc

Re: [Tagging] waterway=fish_pass consistency

In case of waterway=fish_pass I think that a new waterway is OK as - it is drastically different from other defined waterways- is not a navigable waterway - is not redefining already mapped objects 17. Lipiec 2018 23:04 od fl.infosrese...@gmail.com : > Hi all,