Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route

[Warin]

On 06/08/18 16:10, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
One thing that concerns me a little bit with marking evacuation routes 
is what happens if the normal route is changed for "this" emergency? - 
you usually drive North to reach here, but this time, due to unusual 
circumstances, we need you to drive West towards there.


Or am I being /too/ paranoid? :-)


I think it is 'plan a' that some committee comes up with.
Some times they work.
But what happens in a 'real emergency' may not reflect the plan (a, b, c 
or etc)


Best if the people on the ground don't panic and think.
If your already paranoid then you'll have various plans.
I have little choice in my fire evacuation.

Just got in the letter box a planed hazard reduction burn on the 8 August.
Not much notification .. but it is the first one here in decades, so I'm 
more than happy it is happening (I hope).


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

One thing that concerns me a little bit with marking evacuation routes is
what happens if the normal route is changed for "this" emergency? - you
usually drive North to reach here, but this time, due to unusual
circumstances, we need you to drive West towards there.

Or am I being *too* paranoid? :-)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route

[Warin]

On 06/08/18 15:27, Eric H. Christensen wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 6, 2018 12:30 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:


I'd think this should be a relation - not a way.
At the moment the proposals says it is only a way.

And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key?
Say emergency=evacuation_route??? Humm emergency says it is not for relations. 
Arr well.

We went down this path, I think, last summer.  The expectation is that these 
route made up of roads.  I'm not sure why one would include a node in this.  
This is likely going to be part of the emergency project but probably not the 
emergency key which isn't really for routes.


I have not mentioned 'nodes'.
On the proposal page - in edit mode there is:
{{Proposal_Page
|name = Evacuation Route
|user = Sparks
|key = evacuation_route
|value = *
|type = {{IconWay}}

The type should be {{IconRelation}} not {{IconWay}}.
As  it is with {{IconWay}} there will need to be new ways created for the 
evacuation route
rather than use the existing ways that are roads/paths etc as members in a 
relation.

And I would think there need to be rules for the relation, for example;
start at one end and have each member/way in sequence to the finish, the finish 
might be required to be in/near the 'safe place'.
This would save the forwards backwards thing, just like in Public transport v2.




Rendering... yes .. a rendering for emergency use would be good.
Possibly this can be done for small areas rather than the world.
Emergency evacuation centres, routes etc.

I'm not sure I understand this.  I suspect these types of routes are preplanned 
in many different countries.


Yes. But I'm thinking of the rendering. I think that would be done for local 
areas, not the entire world.




Evacuation routes may also be made for other things .. e.g. fire .. so I'd add 
a '/*' at the end to accommodate things we have not though about.

Even if you create a route for a fire, and I'm assuming you're talking about a 
building fire, you'd be showing routes inside of a building which would require 
ways.  I don't think the existing proposal would prevent someone from expanding 
to such things *but* I'm trying to tackle the problem of evacuation routes 
along roads that have been preplanned for emergencies and disasters.


Wrong kind of fire .. though those too might one day be mapped.
But I mean forest fires/wild fires/bushfires depending on what part of the 
world your from.
But I would tag them as 'fire' rather than do all the different ways that 
people refer to them.
I'd still add the '/*' to it. Just in case.


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route

[Eric H. Christensen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 6, 2018 12:30 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd think this should be a relation - not a way.
> At the moment the proposals says it is only a way.
>
> And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key?
> Say emergency=evacuation_route??? Humm emergency says it is not for 
> relations. Arr well.

We went down this path, I think, last summer.  The expectation is that these 
route made up of roads.  I'm not sure why one would include a node in this.  
This is likely going to be part of the emergency project but probably not the 
emergency key which isn't really for routes.

> Rendering... yes .. a rendering for emergency use would be good.
> Possibly this can be done for small areas rather than the world.
> Emergency evacuation centres, routes etc.

I'm not sure I understand this.  I suspect these types of routes are preplanned 
in many different countries.

> Evacuation routes may also be made for other things .. e.g. fire .. so I'd 
> add a '/*' at the end to accommodate things we have not though about.

Even if you create a route for a fire, and I'm assuming you're talking about a 
building fire, you'd be showing routes inside of a building which would require 
ways.  I don't think the existing proposal would prevent someone from expanding 
to such things *but* I'm trying to tackle the problem of evacuation routes 
along roads that have been preplanned for emergencies and disasters.

Eric
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: ProtonMail
Comment: https://protonmail.com
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=XRZZ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route

[Warin]

I'd think this should be a relation - not a way.
At the moment the proposals says it is only a way.

And it might be better to place it directly in the emergency key?
Say emergency=evacuation_route??? Humm emergency says it is not for relations. 
Arr well.

Rendering... yes .. a rendering for emergency use would be good.
Possibly this can be done for small areas rather than the world.
Emergency evacuation centres, routes etc.

Evacuation routes may also be made for other things .. e.g. fire .. so I'd add 
a '/*' at the end to accommodate things we have not though about.


On 06/08/18 12:25, Eric H. Christensen wrote:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Last year I made a feature proposal[0] last year regarding evacuation routes.  
There were a couple of recommended changes to the RFC[1] and while I agreed 
with them I 1) failed to make them and 2) got side tracked on a couple of other 
initiatives.  Now that it's hurricane season, again, here in the Eastern U.S. 
I've come back to this and am hoping to get this completed this time.

I've changed this from being a key to being a route, which makes better sense.  
Does anyone see any other changes that need to be made or can we go ahead with 
a vote?

Thanks,
Eric

[0] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-September/033340.html
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Evacuation_routes



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

Re: [Tagging] Put the name in sidewalks and cycleways

[Andrew Harvey]

> This mirrors the associatedStreet approaches taken by different OSM
communities regarding addresses: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:
addr vs https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet. Most
of the same pros/cons apply, though with sidewalks there is a lot more
information we want to know / map than the name, as it's a birectional
question: given a street segment, we want to know about its sidewalk(s),
and given a sidewalk, we want to know about its street. The downside is
that relations are more complex, and can have maintainability issues, but I
think a well-structured tagging standard would lend itself well to
automated QA and tagging tools.

I like the idea of adding the sidewalk to the associatedStreet relation,
perhaps role=sidewalk?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Evacuation Route

[Eric H. Christensen]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Last year I made a feature proposal[0] last year regarding evacuation routes.  
There were a couple of recommended changes to the RFC[1] and while I agreed 
with them I 1) failed to make them and 2) got side tracked on a couple of other 
initiatives.  Now that it's hurricane season, again, here in the Eastern U.S. 
I've come back to this and am hoping to get this completed this time.

I've changed this from being a key to being a route, which makes better sense.  
Does anyone see any other changes that need to be made or can we go ahead with 
a vote?

Thanks,
Eric

[0] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-September/033340.html
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Evacuation_routes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: ProtonMail
Comment: https://protonmail.com
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=BWIM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: [Tagging] building:flats

[Andrew Harvey]

> "Own front door" to the street, or onto the corridor ie one front door
servicing multiple "units"?

Own front door to your unit, I think.

> Isn't this tag doing the same as rooms: under the hotel tag?

Yes.

Actually https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dapartment
recommends "number_of_apartments=* the number of holiday apartments in the
building" which also is the same thing as building:flats.

Same concept for student accommodation/dormitories
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Student_accommodation_building


On 6 August 2018 at 08:03, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

>
>
>
> On 5 August 2018 at 19:22, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
>
>> Terminology does seem to vary around the world with apartment, flat, unit
>> all being interchangeable, I see the building:flats tag as the number of
>> self-contained residential units (where a unit has it's own front door,
>> kitchen, toilet (room) and bathroom).
>>
>
> "Own front door" to the street, or onto the corridor ie one front door
> servicing multiple "units"?
>
> Isn't this tag doing the same as rooms: under the hotel tag?
>
>
>> I wouldn't recommend building:flats=1 on a house, according to the wiki
>> house is already "A single dwelling unit usually inhabited by one family."
>>
>
> I agree it shouldn't be on "normal" houses, but what about granny flats?
> (which I admit would be almost impossible to map from the street, or an
> aerial view) [Translation in case it's only an Australian term? A granny
> flat is a self-contained flat, sometimes inside the house, sometimes as a
> separate, small, free-standing building in the backyard where "Grandma"
> lives]
>
>
>  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

[Tagging] RFC - landcover clearing

[Warin]

Hi,
I have been looking at the values used with the landuse key to try and 
stop land covers becoming regarded as a legitimate use of the key landuse.



One strange value I came across was 'clearing'. No OSM wiki document.

I resolved this to mean a change in land cover usually from trees to a 
'clear' area.


Most of these look to be from HOT mapping.


Other instances of the value 'clearing' are natural=clearing 
andwood=clearing.


So I am thinking that these would best combined into the one tag 
landcover=clearing


A proposal page is ready for comments - link - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover%3Dclearing


The basics are :

Definition: An area where surrounding larger vegetation, such as trees, 
are not present. This provides more light than the surrounding area. It 
may have lower vegetation growing, or it may be an outcrop of rock.


Rationale:
Defines use of already existing value and suggest better ways of mapping 
these features. It is meant to encourage better mapping and suggest that 
this tag is a last resort.


Key
The key landcover is use as the 'best fit' as it marks the lack of a 
surrounding land cover, so it is directly related to a land cover.
The area could all ready have a land use - part of a forestry area for 
example. The area could have been made by man or nature so neither of 
the keys natural or man_made would suit all situations.


How to map
The section on 'how to map' gives 4 options of how to map a clearing; 
map what is there, map what is surrounding, map both what is there and 
surrounding or map with landcover=clearing.
Asking a mapper not to map this feature is not a good idea, mappers 
should be encouraged to map not discouraged. If a mapper has found this 
tag page then it is best to document better ways to tag the feature with 
this tag being the lest desirable result that maps the information 
rather than not mapping the information.
The listed order is a compromise. The better mapping ones come before 
landcover=clearing to discourage it use. The simplest option first - map 
what is there - as that is the easiest option. If they cannot determine 
what is there then the next option - map the surrounds. Then the 
combination of the first two. Then finally the last option and least 
desirable. Hopefully this causes some though on what they are mapping, 
rather than just using the tag.


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

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Warin]

On 06/08/18 09:01, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it 
historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to 
be a waterways thing ie the high tide mark.


+1

Very sensible IMO.


Yes.
Complication .. a historic king tide combined with a storm event may be 
considered a historic flood level.

But 'normal' high tides should be part of the water way tagging system.



On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:




On 6 August 2018 at 02:48, Robert Szczepanek mailto:rob...@szczepanek.pl>> wrote:

W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze:

Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the
same thing.
Read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
to get the gist.
There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also
the opposite, ordinary low water marks) which are based on
the regular tides in the area.
A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached
in certain, particular events.
I am not sure about terminology in different
jurisdictions, but the concept seems to be clear to me
that there are two different things we want to tag.


I would like it to be so:
- flood marks as flood signs,
- highwater marks as tide signs.
But even in recent scientific papers this division is not so
clear.

Another issue is that from the beginning, on OSM wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic
mark related to floods is described as
historic=highwater_mark

What would be the optimal tagging solution from OSM point of view?

regards
Robert


I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it
historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water
to be a waterways thing ie the high tide mark.

Thanks

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



--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com


___
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] Flood mark or high water mark

[Dave Swarthout]

> I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it
historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to be a
waterways thing ie the high tide mark.

+1

Very sensible IMO.

On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:59 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On 6 August 2018 at 02:48, Robert Szczepanek  wrote:
>
>> W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze:
>>
>>> Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing.
>>> Read
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
>>> to get the gist.
>>> There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite,
>>> ordinary low water marks) which are based on the regular tides in the area.
>>> A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached in certain,
>>> particular events.
>>> I am not sure about terminology in different jurisdictions, but the
>>> concept seems to be clear to me that there are two different things we want
>>> to tag.
>>>
>>
>> I would like it to be so:
>> - flood marks as flood signs,
>> - highwater marks as tide signs.
>> But even in recent scientific papers this division is not so clear.
>>
>> Another issue is that from the beginning, on OSM wiki
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic
>> mark related to floods is described as
>> historic=highwater_mark
>>
>> What would be the optimal tagging solution from OSM point of view?
>>
>> regards
>> Robert
>
>
> I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it
> historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to be a
> waterways thing ie the high tide mark.
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 6 August 2018 at 02:48, Robert Szczepanek  wrote:

> W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze:
>
>> Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing.
>> Read
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
>> to get the gist.
>> There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite,
>> ordinary low water marks) which are based on the regular tides in the area.
>> A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached in certain,
>> particular events.
>> I am not sure about terminology in different jurisdictions, but the
>> concept seems to be clear to me that there are two different things we want
>> to tag.
>>
>
> I would like it to be so:
> - flood marks as flood signs,
> - highwater marks as tide signs.
> But even in recent scientific papers this division is not so clear.
>
> Another issue is that from the beginning, on OSM wiki
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic
> mark related to floods is described as
> historic=highwater_mark
>
> What would be the optimal tagging solution from OSM point of view?
>
> regards
> Robert


I would think a good start would be changing the wiki to make it
historic=flood_level, leaving any reference to high (or low) water to be a
waterways thing ie the high tide mark.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] mobile phone repair only

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 05.08.2018 19:52, Dave F wrote:

I've a shop which only repairs mobile phones.

I've tagged it as
shop=mobile_phone
mobile_phone:repair=yes
sales=no


I'd call that 'troll tagging', tagging a feature and telling in the subtag that it is not what the 
primary tag says [1].


Why not following the pattern of other repair shops, such as
shop=car_repair ?


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trolltag
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop%3Dcar_repair

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

Re: [Tagging] building:flats

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 5 August 2018 at 19:22, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> Terminology does seem to vary around the world with apartment, flat, unit
> all being interchangeable, I see the building:flats tag as the number of
> self-contained residential units (where a unit has it's own front door,
> kitchen, toilet (room) and bathroom).
>

"Own front door" to the street, or onto the corridor ie one front door
servicing multiple "units"?

Isn't this tag doing the same as rooms: under the hotel tag?


> I wouldn't recommend building:flats=1 on a house, according to the wiki
> house is already "A single dwelling unit usually inhabited by one family."
>

I agree it shouldn't be on "normal" houses, but what about granny flats?
(which I admit would be almost impossible to map from the street, or an
aerial view) [Translation in case it's only an Australian term? A granny
flat is a self-contained flat, sometimes inside the house, sometimes as a
separate, small, free-standing building in the backyard where "Grandma"
lives]


 Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] healthcare : nurse <> nursing_home <> nursing

[marc marc]

Le 05. 08. 18 à 20:39, Philip Barnes a écrit :
> On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 19:17 +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>> I would expect that there are countries where nurses dispense basic
>> medical care from a surgery-type of location.
> 
> But a nurse isn't a mappable object, the mappable object is the
> doctors/clinic/hospital where they work.

of course, the majority of nurses work in a doctor, clinic, hospital
or social facility and for those cases, the tag for the main object is fine.

But there are also independent nurses with their own premises.
One can go there for example after a surgical operation for the daily 
follow-up of the scar during one month or for a vaccine or for any other 
task which requires neither a doctor nor an clinic/hospital.
Some also do home care, but may also have a premise for patients
who can move
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] healthcare : nurse <> nursing_home <> nursing

[marc marc]

I'm interested by the premise/local/office/room where a nurse work.
those 2 url doesn't help,
healthcare key on wiki doesn't have the word nurse on it.
social_facility is wrong for this case.

Le 05. 08. 18 à 17:56, Dave F a écrit :
> Could you clarity: Are you interested in the noun - 'a nurse' or verb - 
> 'to nurse'?
> 
> There are many varieties of nurses & many establishments where people 
> are nursed:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility
> 
> DaveF
> 
> On 04/08/2018 22:39, marc marc wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm trying to help a mapper to add the premise where a nurse works
>>
>> According to taginfo, several healthcare=* value look like similar
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=healthcare#values
>> nurse 44
>> nursing_home 39
>> nursing 24
>> Home_Nursing 1
>> wiki seem to only have one of them (and only a few line in french)
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Comment_cartographier_un_(sant%C3%A9) 
>>
>> I also found some some variant
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:social_facility%3Dnursing_home
>> but it's not the case here.
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0
>> health_facility:type=office + office=nurse or health_person:type=nurse
>>
>> I was wondering if these terms were identical ?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Marc
>> ___
>> 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] Put the name in sidewalks and cycleways

[SelfishSeahorse]

Hi Tobias

Yes, sidewalk mapped as ways are problematical for routeing. In order
to not create islands in (residential) areas without marked crossings,
one has to map unmarked crossings. If there are lowered kerbs or if a
sidewalk is just interrupted by a perpendicular street, it seems okay
to map unmarked crossings (see for example [^1]). But in absence of
lowered kerbs and if the sidewalk doesn't continue (for example here
[^2]), mapping an unmarked crossing or connecting the sidewalk with
the road differently just seems arbitrary.

[^1]: 
[^2]: 

However, sidewalks tagged as property on the road don't seem to be
unproblematical too, especially at intersections. For example, look at
this crossroads [^3]: how should a router know that a pedestrian has
to cross Engehaldenstrasse here [^4] when guiding her or him along
Schützenmattstrasse? Or how would you map a crossroads with multiple
carriageways (like here [^5]) with sidewalks only tagged as property
on the roads?

[^3]: 
[^4]: 

Perhaps, a solution would be to map a sidewalk and the road it belongs
to as areas (area:highway=*). That way, the sidewalk and the road were
connected and the connecting line could even be mapped with a kerb
way.

Regards

Markus

On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 at 17:44, Tobias Knerr  wrote:
>
> On 05.08.2018 17:16, yo paseopor wrote:
> > So what is the correct way to map it: with name? or without name?
>
> Adding name tags to separately mapped sidewalks is an attempt to fix
> just one of the symptoms of a deeper problem: The lack of a
> machine-readable link between the sidewalk way and the road it belongs to.
>
> This fundamental shortcoming of the current approach for
> sidewalk-as-a-way mapping also causes several other issues, though,
> which aren't as easily compensated for. There's nothing wrong with
> copying the name per se, but needing to do so is a red flag.
>
> So my recommendation is to stick with sidewalk tags. Alternatively,
> create a relation between each highway way and the one or two sidewalk
> ways belonging to it. (You'll probably balk at that, but something along
> those lines would be needed to actually _solve_ the inherent flaws of
> the sidewalk-as-a-way approach.)
>
> ___
> 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 - Line clamps

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 3:20 PM, François Lacombe 
wrote:

>
> 2018-08-03 15:34 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :
>
>
>>  It is Brtish *layman's* English.  It would be a good idea to check with
>> somebody who works in the industry.  But I suspect
>> he or she will tell you it's an insulator.  In British layman's English,
>> attachment is better than clamp.  I'll see if I can get
>> an answer out of somebody with a youtube channel who works with this
>> stuff (don't hold your breath).
>>
>
> Sounds good, let's wait a bit and see if there are more comments regarding
> this point
>

I had a look at the page now you've revised it.  Since your proposal covers
any kind of line attached to a pole,
even a washing line, then "insulator" isn't appropriate.  And, given the
more general applicability, attachment is a lot
better than line clamp.  However, I just thought to look at a thesaurus:
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/attachment
Of the alternatives, coupling might be better, but only marginally.  Most
of them have specific meanings with regard to
electrical distribution and attachment is the only applicable one I can see
that doesn't also have an electrical meaning
(coupling often indicates that it transmits electrical or mechanical
power).  So my vote is for attachment.

I also noticed you gave me credit on that wiki page.  But it could be read
as indicating that I was responsible for the web
page you link to, rather than that I merely found the page.  To be honest,
I don't think finding a web page merits
credit so I'd be perfectly happy if you removed that mention of me.

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

Re: [Tagging] Put the name in sidewalks and cycleways

[SelfishSeahorse]

Hola

On Sun, 5 Aug 2018 at 18:44, yo paseopor  wrote:
> Why the road is the only item I don't have any doubt to tag it with name= ? 
> Why the road is more important than the sidewalk or the cycleway? What is 
> more important : person, car or bike?

Because a sidewalk is a part of a road (like a separate carriageway),
i think that it should also be tagged with the name of the road.

Saludos

Markus

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

Re: [Tagging] healthcare : nurse <> nursing_home <> nursing

[Philip Barnes]

On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 19:17 +0200, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I would expect that there are countries where nurses dispense basic
> medical care from a surgery-type of location.
> 
They most certainly do, that happens in the UK.

But a nurse isn't a mappable object, the mappable object is the
doctors/clinic/hospital where they work.

Sometimes you will see a nurse when you go to the out of hours surgery,
but that will be based in the local hospital or a clinic.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Tagging] Put the name in sidewalks and cycleways

[Nick Bolten]

Thanks for the examples!

I've run into this issue as well, many times, and it's like I said: the
'name' tag is meant to answer the question 'what is the name of this
thing?', sidewalks themselves usually don't have names, and the street name
isn't the name of the sidewalk.

We've been trying to figure out ways to describe a sidewalk's relationship
to its street in OSM in the Seattle area, and have occasionally used the
'description' tag to add free-form text as a hint for people with vision
impairments, because there aren't any standard tags for associating
separately-tagged sidewalks (which are very useful) with streets. We've
also usually added the cardinal direction from the street, since this isn't
fun or reliable to infer automatically, e.g. "sidewalk on the NW side of
Jackson St".

There are two levels (at least) at which this could approached in terms of
developing a new tagging standard:
- If we only care about the street name from the sidewalk's perspective, we
could develop a standard for just that, e.g.
associated_street/street_name/sidewalk_of, etc.
- If we want to solve the general problem of knowing which sidewalks are
associated with which streets, we have to use a relation (barring any new
fundamental data primitives for associated data, like stable IDs).

This mirrors the associatedStreet approaches taken by different OSM
communities regarding addresses:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:addr vs
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:associatedStreet. Most of the
same pros/cons apply, though with sidewalks there is a lot more information
we want to know / map than the name, as it's a birectional question: given
a street segment, we want to know about its sidewalk(s), and given a
sidewalk, we want to know about its street. The downside is that relations
are more complex, and can have maintainability issues, but I think a
well-structured tagging standard would lend itself well to automated QA and
tagging tools.

Also, if you're interested in discussing / proposing these kinds of new
tags, it might make sense to make a thread just for that, so it stays
organized. Happy to help out if there's anything I can do to get the ball
rolling.

Best,

Nick

On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 9:59 AM Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> We have already a tag for footway/foot-cycle-ways/cycleways that indicates
> that the way is a sidewalk/sidepath:
>
>- footway=sidewalk for footpaths ( 881747  in taginfo)
>- path=sidewalk (1090 in taginfo) or path=sidepath (790 in taginfo)
>for foot-cycle-ways
>- cycleway=sidepath (2450 in taginfo)
>
> What could be added to make it work is something like
> sidewalk_of/sidepath_of=
>
> On 5 August 2018 at 18:42, yo paseopor  wrote:
>
>> Oks I will show you:
>>
>> http://bit.ly/2M2Ff6J > Cycle way with name , you can see the name of
>> the street when you are riding by it.
>> http://bit.ly/2M8VRK6 > sidewalk without name, you can see the order
>> without any indication of name (openroute use then the nearest, I think)
>>
>> The question is with a standard tagging scheme there is a way with these
>> tags:
>>
>> highway=residential
>> name= x name
>> oneway=no
>> sidewalk=both
>> lanes:forward=2
>> lanes:backward=2
>> cycleway=track
>> surface=asphalt
>> maxspeed=50
>> lit=yes
>>
>> In this scheme you will find all the things: the road, the sidewalks, the
>> cycleway, the lit...
>>
>> But If I want to be more specific (accesibility? cycleway propierties?)
>> then I have to divide it in other items and "group it" but Can I repeat
>> some tags? (yes I can, but with name ?  Why I have to group it in this way
>> and not other?
>>
>> for the road:
>>
>> highway=residential
>> lanes:forward=2
>> lanes:backward=2
>> width=8
>> name= x name
>> oneway=no
>> surface=asphalt
>> maxspeed=50
>> lit=yes
>>
>> for the sidewalk:
>>
>> highway=footway
>> footway=sidewalk
>> (name= x name) << yes or not?
>> surface=cobblestone
>> lit=yes
>> width=3
>>
>> for the cycleway:
>>
>> highway=cycleway
>> (name= x name) << yes or not?
>> lanes:forward=1
>> lanes:backward=1
>> oneway=no
>> sidewalk=both
>> cycleway=track
>> surface=asphalt
>> maxspeed=10
>> lit=yes
>> width=2.5
>>
>> Why the road is the only item I don't have any doubt to tag it with name=
>> ? Why the road is more important than the sidewalk or the cycleway? What is
>> more important : person, car or bike?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Salut i voreres
>> yopaseopor
>>
>> ___
>> 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] mobile phone repair only

[Dave F]

Hi

I've a shop which only repairs mobile phones.

I've tagged it as
shop=mobile_phone
mobile_phone:repair=yes
sales=no

Seems a bit contradictory. Is there a more direct tag?

Cheers
DaveF


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

Re: [Tagging] healthcare : nurse <> nursing_home <> nursing

[Volker Schmidt]

I would expect that there are countries where nurses dispense basic medical
care from a surgery-type of location.

On 5 August 2018 at 16:16, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Philip Barnes 
> wrote:
>
>> In my experience a nurse is not a mappable object.
>>
>
> You win the internetz.
>
> --
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> 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] Put the name in sidewalks and cycleways

[Volker Schmidt]

We have already a tag for footway/foot-cycle-ways/cycleways that indicates
that the way is a sidewalk/sidepath:

   - footway=sidewalk for footpaths ( 881747  in taginfo)
   - path=sidewalk (1090 in taginfo) or path=sidepath (790 in taginfo) for
   foot-cycle-ways
   - cycleway=sidepath (2450 in taginfo)

What could be added to make it work is something like
sidewalk_of/sidepath_of=

On 5 August 2018 at 18:42, yo paseopor  wrote:

> Oks I will show you:
>
> http://bit.ly/2M2Ff6J > Cycle way with name , you can see the name of the
> street when you are riding by it.
> http://bit.ly/2M8VRK6 > sidewalk without name, you can see the order
> without any indication of name (openroute use then the nearest, I think)
>
> The question is with a standard tagging scheme there is a way with these
> tags:
>
> highway=residential
> name= x name
> oneway=no
> sidewalk=both
> lanes:forward=2
> lanes:backward=2
> cycleway=track
> surface=asphalt
> maxspeed=50
> lit=yes
>
> In this scheme you will find all the things: the road, the sidewalks, the
> cycleway, the lit...
>
> But If I want to be more specific (accesibility? cycleway propierties?)
> then I have to divide it in other items and "group it" but Can I repeat
> some tags? (yes I can, but with name ?  Why I have to group it in this way
> and not other?
>
> for the road:
>
> highway=residential
> lanes:forward=2
> lanes:backward=2
> width=8
> name= x name
> oneway=no
> surface=asphalt
> maxspeed=50
> lit=yes
>
> for the sidewalk:
>
> highway=footway
> footway=sidewalk
> (name= x name) << yes or not?
> surface=cobblestone
> lit=yes
> width=3
>
> for the cycleway:
>
> highway=cycleway
> (name= x name) << yes or not?
> lanes:forward=1
> lanes:backward=1
> oneway=no
> sidewalk=both
> cycleway=track
> surface=asphalt
> maxspeed=10
> lit=yes
> width=2.5
>
> Why the road is the only item I don't have any doubt to tag it with name=
> ? Why the road is more important than the sidewalk or the cycleway? What is
> more important : person, car or bike?
>
> Thanks
> Salut i voreres
> yopaseopor
>
> ___
> 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] Flood mark or high water mark

[Robert Szczepanek]

W dniu 05.08.2018 o 12:23, Volker Schmidt pisze:

Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing.
Read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
to get the gist.
There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite, 
ordinary low water marks) which are based on the regular tides in the area.
A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached in certain, 
particular events.
I am not sure about terminology in different jurisdictions, but the 
concept seems to be clear to me that there are two different things we 
want to tag.


I would like it to be so:
- flood marks as flood signs,
- highwater marks as tide signs.
But even in recent scientific papers this division is not so clear.

Another issue is that from the beginning, on OSM wiki
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:historic
mark related to floods is described as
historic=highwater_mark

What would be the optimal tagging solution from OSM point of view?

regards
Robert

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

Re: [Tagging] Put the name in sidewalks and cycleways

[yo paseopor]

Oks I will show you:

http://bit.ly/2M2Ff6J > Cycle way with name , you can see the name of the
street when you are riding by it.
http://bit.ly/2M8VRK6 > sidewalk without name, you can see the order
without any indication of name (openroute use then the nearest, I think)

The question is with a standard tagging scheme there is a way with these
tags:

highway=residential
name= x name
oneway=no
sidewalk=both
lanes:forward=2
lanes:backward=2
cycleway=track
surface=asphalt
maxspeed=50
lit=yes

In this scheme you will find all the things: the road, the sidewalks, the
cycleway, the lit...

But If I want to be more specific (accesibility? cycleway propierties?)
then I have to divide it in other items and "group it" but Can I repeat
some tags? (yes I can, but with name ?  Why I have to group it in this way
and not other?

for the road:

highway=residential
lanes:forward=2
lanes:backward=2
width=8
name= x name
oneway=no
surface=asphalt
maxspeed=50
lit=yes

for the sidewalk:

highway=footway
footway=sidewalk
(name= x name) << yes or not?
surface=cobblestone
lit=yes
width=3

for the cycleway:

highway=cycleway
(name= x name) << yes or not?
lanes:forward=1
lanes:backward=1
oneway=no
sidewalk=both
cycleway=track
surface=asphalt
maxspeed=10
lit=yes
width=2.5

Why the road is the only item I don't have any doubt to tag it with name= ?
Why the road is more important than the sidewalk or the cycleway? What is
more important : person, car or bike?

Thanks
Salut i voreres
yopaseopor
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] healthcare : nurse <> nursing_home <> nursing

[Dave F]

Could you clarity: Are you interested in the noun - 'a nurse' or verb - 
'to nurse'?


There are many varieties of nurses & many establishments where people 
are nursed:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:healthcare
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:social_facility

DaveF

On 04/08/2018 22:39, marc marc wrote:

Hello,

I'm trying to help a mapper to add the premise where a nurse works

According to taginfo, several healthcare=* value look like similar
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=healthcare#values
nurse 44
nursing_home 39
nursing 24
Home_Nursing 1
wiki seem to only have one of them (and only a few line in french)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Comment_cartographier_un_(sant%C3%A9)
I also found some some variant
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:social_facility%3Dnursing_home
but it's not the case here.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0
health_facility:type=office + office=nurse or health_person:type=nurse

I was wondering if these terms were identical ?

Regards,
Marc
___
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] Put the name in sidewalks and cycleways

[Nick Bolten]

The most common convention is to tag footways with a name only if it has
its own designated title, like a particularly famous path (and that is
often better on a relation).

I'm not totally sure if I'm understanding your question, but what are some
examples where you're unsure about the tags?


On Sun, Aug 5, 2018, 8:16 AM yo paseopor  wrote:

> Here it is a doubt we have in Spanish Community. Some people are making
> micromapping so we start to map the sidewalks and cycleways not as value
> but as an independent way.
>
> I know when you map a street wen can put most of the items as keys and
> values.But when the items are mapped separately should I put the name in
> the items as sidewalks and cycleways? Now they are with their own tags and
> values. Also it is useful in pedestrian or cyclist routers to specify the
> way it uses for do the track.
>
> So what is the correct way to map it: with name? or without name?
>
> Thanks
> Salut i voreres
> yopaseopor
> ___
> 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] Put the name in sidewalks and cycleways

[Tobias Knerr]

On 05.08.2018 17:16, yo paseopor wrote:
> So what is the correct way to map it: with name? or without name?

Adding name tags to separately mapped sidewalks is an attempt to fix
just one of the symptoms of a deeper problem: The lack of a
machine-readable link between the sidewalk way and the road it belongs to.

This fundamental shortcoming of the current approach for
sidewalk-as-a-way mapping also causes several other issues, though,
which aren't as easily compensated for. There's nothing wrong with
copying the name per se, but needing to do so is a red flag.

So my recommendation is to stick with sidewalk tags. Alternatively,
create a relation between each highway way and the one or two sidewalk
ways belonging to it. (You'll probably balk at that, but something along
those lines would be needed to actually _solve_ the inherent flaws of
the sidewalk-as-a-way approach.)

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

[Tagging] Put the name in sidewalks and cycleways

[yo paseopor]

Here it is a doubt we have in Spanish Community. Some people are making
micromapping so we start to map the sidewalks and cycleways not as value
but as an independent way.

I know when you map a street wen can put most of the items as keys and
values.But when the items are mapped separately should I put the name in
the items as sidewalks and cycleways? Now they are with their own tags and
values. Also it is useful in pedestrian or cyclist routers to specify the
way it uses for do the track.

So what is the correct way to map it: with name? or without name?

Thanks
Salut i voreres
yopaseopor
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Yves]

Spotted thanks to Osmand:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2401935175
Yves 

Le 5 août 2018 12:23:40 GMT+02:00, Volker Schmidt  a écrit :
>Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing.
>Read
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
>to get the gist.
>There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite,
>ordinary low water marks) which are based on the regular tides in the
>area.
>A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached in certain,
>particular events.
>I am not sure about terminology in different jurisdictions, but the
>concept
>seems to be clear to me that there are two different things we want to
>tag.
>
>
>On 5 August 2018 at 11:46, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> > On 3. Aug 2018, at 18:03, Robert Szczepanek 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Indeed not all flood marks are really old/historic. But that
>threshold
>> is probably very fuzzy.
>>
>>
>> I would put it like this: although they are not all old, they are all
>> history related (they show a historic flood level)
>>
>>
>> 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] healthcare : nurse <> nursing_home <> nursing

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, Aug 5, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Philip Barnes  wrote:

> In my experience a nurse is not a mappable object.
>

You win the internetz.

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

Re: [Tagging] healthcare : nurse <> nursing_home <> nursing

[Philip Barnes]

In my experience a nurse is not a mappable object. They will work in
(or out of) different health care facilities.

A nursing home is a specialist care home for residents that have
medical needs and they will have nurses to provide medical care for
those residents.

The district nurse, who will sometime visit people in their homes, will
usually be based at the local doctors surgery/medical centre,
amenity=doctors. When visiting 'the doctors' you may be seen by a nurse
depending on needs.

The other, and obvious, place where there will be nurses is a hospital.
Hospitals will usually have both in-patients and out-patients who visit
the various clinics that operate in the hospital during the daytime.

Phil (trigpoint)

On Sat, 2018-08-04 at 21:39 +, marc marc wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm trying to help a mapper to add the premise where a nurse works
> 
> According to taginfo, several healthcare=* value look like similar
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=healthcare#values
> nurse 44
> nursing_home 39
> nursing 24
> Home_Nursing 1
> wiki seem to only have one of them (and only a few line in french)
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Comment_cartographier_un_(sant
> %C3%A9)
> I also found some some variant
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:social_facility%3Dnursing_hom
> e
> but it's not the case here.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_2.0
> health_facility:type=office + office=nurse or
> health_person:type=nurse
> 
> I was wondering if these terms were identical ?
> 
> Regards,
> Marc
> ___
> 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] Flood mark or high water mark

[Volker Schmidt]

Flood marks and high water marks are not necessarily the same thing.
Read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_water_mark
to get the gist.
There are ordinary high water marks (and I suppose also the opposite,
ordinary low water marks) which are based on the regular tides in the area.
A flood mark would be a marker for the water level reached in certain,
particular events.
I am not sure about terminology in different jurisdictions, but the concept
seems to be clear to me that there are two different things we want to tag.


On 5 August 2018 at 11:46, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 3. Aug 2018, at 18:03, Robert Szczepanek 
> wrote:
> >
> > Indeed not all flood marks are really old/historic. But that threshold
> is probably very fuzzy.
>
>
> I would put it like this: although they are not all old, they are all
> history related (they show a historic flood level)
>
>
> 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] building:flats

[marc marc]

Le 05. 08. 18 à 11:22, Andrew Harvey a écrit :
> I wouldn't recommend building:flats=1 on a house, according to the wiki 
> house is already "A single dwelling unit usually inhabited by one family."

"usually" as you said. somes houses host 2 units.
it's again the issue with missing "default values"
If you don't add it, you never known if it's the default value
or a never-survey tag.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flood mark or high water mark

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3. Aug 2018, at 18:03, Robert Szczepanek  wrote:
> 
> Indeed not all flood marks are really old/historic. But that threshold is 
> probably very fuzzy.


I would put it like this: although they are not all old, they are all history 
related (they show a historic flood level)


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

Re: [Tagging] building:flats

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Aug 2018, at 11:22, Andrew Harvey  wrote:
> 
> Terminology does seem to vary around the world with apartment, flat, unit all 
> being interchangeable,



maybe flat and apartment are interchangeable (could you call a 2-level 
apartment a “flat”?) but unit is definitely more generic and while it contains 
apartment and flat, it can also mean different things (e.g. a detached home / 
chalet).



> 
> I wouldn't recommend building:flats=1 on a house, according to the wiki house 
> is already "A single dwelling unit usually inhabited by one family."


so it would not harm, it would just be redundant (I also would not recommend to 
add it)

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

Re: [Tagging] building:flats

[Andrew Harvey]

Terminology does seem to vary around the world with apartment, flat, unit
all being interchangeable, I see the building:flats tag as the number of
self-contained residential units (where a unit has it's own front door,
kitchen, toilet (room) and bathroom).

I wouldn't recommend building:flats=1 on a house, according to the wiki
house is already "A single dwelling unit usually inhabited by one family."

On 5 August 2018 at 18:43, marc marc  wrote:

> Le 05. 08. 18 à 01:39, Warin a écrit :
> > On 05/08/18 08:59, marc marc wrote:
> >> Le 05. 08. 18 à 00:47, Andrew Harvey a écrit :
> >>> What's the process to change the Status from "In use" to "Approved"?
> >> write a propal, request for comment, call for voting
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process
> >>
> >> it would be interesting to see how much to see the tag was used
> >> exept by the 2 imports having used it
> >> ___
> >
> > And the description?   documented on the wiki as "number of residential
> > units (flats,
> > apartments) in an apartment building, residential building, house,
> > detached house or similar building".
> >
> > Sounds like any kind of building .. that has a number (1?) of
> > residential "units".
> >
> > Could be anything residential - a single family home with that
> > description qualifies.
>
> Sorry I didn't understand what you mean
> of course single family hone qualifie for a (a little useless in this
> case) building:flats=1
> but what's the issue with it ?
> ___
> 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] building:flats

[marc marc]

Le 05. 08. 18 à 01:39, Warin a écrit :
> On 05/08/18 08:59, marc marc wrote:
>> Le 05. 08. 18 à 00:47, Andrew Harvey a écrit :
>>> What's the process to change the Status from "In use" to "Approved"?
>> write a propal, request for comment, call for voting
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process
>>
>> it would be interesting to see how much to see the tag was used
>> exept by the 2 imports having used it
>> ___
> 
> And the description?   documented on the wiki as "number of residential 
> units (flats,
> apartments) in an apartment building, residential building, house,
> detached house or similar building".
> 
> Sounds like any kind of building .. that has a number (1?) of 
> residential "units".
> 
> Could be anything residential - a single family home with that 
> description qualifies.

Sorry I didn't understand what you mean
of course single family hone qualifie for a (a little useless in this 
case) building:flats=1
but what's the issue with it ?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging